Life in rural areas of developing countries is prone to many kinds of risk, such as illness or
mortality of household members, crop or other income loss due to natural phenomena (weather,
insect infestations, or fire, for example), and civil conflict. In addition to their contemporaneous
effects, the effects of certain types of shocks may still be felt many years or even decades later.
From a public policy standpoint, it is particularly important to identify shocks that have large
long-run effects. Moreover, the mechanics underlying the persistence of shocks may be of considerable
interest. For example, a health shock may have a long-run effect simply because the
health shock itself persists over time. Alternately, the health shock may not directly affect longrun
outcomes, but it could affect some other outcome—such as educational attainment—that
helps determine long-run well-being.
Brainliest pls! :)
I) The Reconstruction Era and the 1950s and 60s weren't as different as they should be. With different degrees, racism and segregation persisted in XXth century America. African-Americans still couldn't fully exercise their rights as the whites did theirs, and they still suffered violence from white supremacists and authorities.
II) The differences rest in how African-Americans in the 50s and 60s were better mobilized and prepared to defend themselves and fight for their rights. Despite continuous racism, in the 50s and 60s there was more space and sources from which racism could be fought against. There was NAACP, for example, and many public figures famous for fighting racism.
III) From this comparison, we see that one of the Reconstruction's successes was the foundation for legal disputes in favor of African-Americans rights, like the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment that provided the legal basis to fight racism and to expand African-americans rights. As for Reconstruction's failures, it didn't dismantle racist structures in the South and didn't succeed in changing culturally how black people were seen, leaving space for racism in its many forms like lynchings and segregation.
Weather will be the primary reason. Despite its huge size. the real habitable area is probably less than 10% of its geographical size. Even Southern Ontario is deemed by many I know to be "too cold to live". 90% of Ontario and Quebec are simply inhabitable. I also personally think the entire Manitoba and Saskachewan are not suitable for human habitation unless we can create a way to simply hibernate during the 6 month winter (why there are so few people in Montana and North Dakota?) The fact that Montreal are thrive as a vibrant metropolis is already sort of a miracle and we don't see many such large cities with such severe weather. The only other case I can think of is probably Moscow.
Answer:
C. the production, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages
Explanation:
