Answer:
idk man you need to provide examples as image
The organizational structure is dominated by the institutional norms imposed by the state and the professionals. The attempt to achieve rationality in the midst of the restriction of these new governmental structures and professionals, lead to the formation of a homogeneous structure, or institutional isomorphism. Isomorphism forces a group of workers to compete with other equal groups, and in very similar codes. Since companies and organizations always compete, this only generates a struggle between equals, and foments conformism since all groups must be equal and are not free to innovate or to leave that struggle, to look for new markets or ways to be efficient.
For example, if a car company creates a type of car, and other similar companies create cars too, then they will only change the shape, colors, designs or styles of cars; but no one will create a motorcycle or a van, and the market will be filled with cars that do not satisfy all people, because companies will be afraid to innovate or create something different, or to have to adapt to the rules of the State.
Answer:
Eastern Bloc was the name that the NATO and the Western Europe used to call the Eastern European nations that was occupied and subsequently fell under the Soviet Union's hegemony.
However, the term Eastern Bloc was used to collectively call any Communist nation afterwards. But when the term Eastern bloc is used, it mainly meant the Eastern European nations.
Since you have not given any options, following are the Eastern European nations that were under the communist influence after the world war 2.
East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Albania
The Eastern bloc slowly disintegrated with fall of the communism in Easter Europe and eventually came to an end when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Explanation:
Following are some of the other communist countries from that era in other continents.
Mongolian People's Republic, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the People's Republic of Kampuchea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China
Republic of Cuba
The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)<span> required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be </span>informed<span> of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights. </span>
<span>The Exclusionary Rule prohibits evidence or testimony obtained illegally or in violation of the constitution from being used against the defendant in court. </span>
<span>The </span>Miranda<span> ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for </span>Berghuis v. Thompkins,<span> 08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must </span>invoke<span> his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than </span>waive<span>it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation). </span>
