Answer:
War Production Board: A government agency established on January 16, 1942. Its purpose was to regulate the production and distribution of materials during World War II in the United States, and to convert peacetime industries to meet the demands of war.
Explanation:
hope this helps! :)
Gondwana was an ancient supercontinent that broke up about 180 million years ago. The continent eventually split into landmasses we recognize today: Africa, South America, Australia, Antarctica, the Indian subcontinent and the Arabian Peninsula.
Answer: D. A Increase in nationalism in the US
Explanation: "The most notable result of the War of 1812 was an upsurge in American nationalism. At the war’s conclusion a French diplomat commented that “the war has given the Americans what they so essentially lacked, a national character.” The three-year conflict also resulted in increased funding of the peacetime military, better coastal defenses, a more secure western frontier, and a final confirmation of the Revolution’s outcome. The power of the Indian nations of the Old Northwest and Old Southwest was decisively broken, opening the way for white settlement across a broad front. Never again would European powers have significant influence with American tribes. The war also produced a new national symbol, The Star-Spangled Banner, which Congress made our national anthem in 1931. Most importantly, America’s independence and status in the world were reaffirmed, never again to be seriously challenged. ."
-nps.gov
Explanation:
As governance indicators have proliferated in recent years, so has their use and the controversy that surrounds them. As more and more voices are pointing out, existing indicators – many of them developed and launched in the 1990s – have a number of flaws. This is particularly disquieting at a time when governance is at the very top of the development agenda.
Many questions of crucial importance to the development community – such as issues around the relationship between governance and (inclusive) growth, or about the effectiveness of aid in different contexts – are impossible to answer with confidence as long as we do not have good enough indicators, and hence data, on governance.
The litany of problems concerning existing governance indicators has been growing:
Indicators produced by certain NGOs (e.g. the Heritage Foundation), but also by commercial risk rating agencies (such as the PRS Group), are biased towards particular types of policies, and consequently, the assessment of governance becomes mingled with the assessment of policy choices;
Many indicators rely on surveys of business people (e.g. the World Economic Forum's Executive Opinion Survey). While they have important insights into governance challenges given their interaction with government bureaucracies, the views of other stakeholders are also important and remain underrepresented, as are concerns about governance of less relevance to the business community (e.g. civil and human rights);
The other main methodology used are indicators produced by individuals or small groups of external experts – for example, the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), Bertelsmann’s Transformation Index, and the French Development Agency’s Institutional Profiles. This entails the risk that different experts ‘feed’ on each other’s ratings; and the depth to which external raters are able to explore the dimensions they are rating can vary.
