EU: Open market for improved output

The elimination of trade barriers brought more open trade between European countries. The countries converged into a sort of common economy, as if they were the states of a single country (Rittenberg and Tregarthen, n.d.). Regarding this system, one exciting thing we can think of is that now a German citizen should be able to pay his food bill at an Italian restaurant in Spain with a Euro banknote printed in France. So, it can be said that the establishment of the Euro-zone promoted open exchange of goods and services throughout the region.

The removal of barriers developed the concept of a Single Market, a market in which both people and businesses could liberally propagate across territories in Europe. If we consider the facts, the market has grown from 345 million to 500 million consumers, and trade has grown from €800 billion to a massive €2,800 billion (European Union, 2012). The adoption of Euro by many countries removed the transaction costs for currency exchange, and removed currency risks, all of which boosted the trades. One vital figure we can see is that, as a result of a free market, Euro-zone was able to generate an additional estimated €330 billion GDP in 2010 (European Union, 2012). Thus, we can easily say that elimination of barriers automatically improved productivity within EU.

Likewise, the stronger economies were able to invest their capital on undiscovered alternatives present in weaker economies, and the weaker economies got access to the market with richer consumers. This created exactly the right environment for both rich and comparatively poor nations to flourish their trade capabilities. Therefore, EU’s output improved significantly when the restrictions were lifted.

References:

Rittenberg L., Tregarthen T. (n.d.), Confronting Scarcity: Choices in Production, Principles of Economics.

European Union (2012), 20 Years of the European Single market: Together for new growth Main achievements, Accessed: April 14, 2013, Retrieved from: http://www.digitalplan.gov.gr/resource-api/dipla/contentObject/Single-Market-Achievements-web_en/content

Urbanization: causes, positives and negatives

          Urbanization occurs when people from rural areas move into urban centers for a number of reasons. This is promoted by both Push factors and Pull factors (Hammond, 2010). There can be some reasons for which a person would want to leave the countryside, while for some the attractions of the city life might more compelling. Hence, Wikipedia defines it as, “Urbanization is the physical growth of urban areas as a result of rural migration and even suburban concentration into cities, particularly the very largest ones” (Wikipedia, 2013). So, urbanization, in general, is a process of shifting of population from rural to urban areas.

          Moving on to the reasons behind urbanization, the first reason would be the search for better economic opportunities. People move into urban areas to find a job or for other economic opportunities like business which are not that rewarding in rural areas. Much of the economy or capital is supposed to be concentrated in cities where people can easily find a better way to uplift their economic status. In the same way, people move to urban areas for better access to important services. People in rural areas might not have every resource in their proximity. For example, if an accident occurs, there might not be enough medical facility for the victim in case it is a serious one. The person could easily die without necessary medical aid. Similarly, the basic everyday necessities like drinking water supply might not be available in rural areas. Similarly, people migrate to cities to get rid of hard life in the countryside. Living in countryside generally requires cultivating the required resources ourselves. Most activities we do are just for subsistence, and any unexpected calamity like flood and others can seriously affect our lives. On the other hand, urban life gives the opportunity to go beyond just subsistence by eradicating the need to be self-reliant for every job.

          Considering the positives and negatives of urban growth, urbanization is good because it promotes mutual understanding. People from all sorts of economic, cultural and religious backgrounds live together in cities in an interdependent way. We interact with more people and become more socially adjustable. It develops a sense of unity among diversity, and hence helps us to understand each other better. Another positive aspect would be that it makes efficient use of resources. Imagine 100 houses spread over 100 acres of land in a small village, and an apartment building with 100 households in just 10 acres of land in a city. There is an efficient use of the available resources in the cities, in this case, leaving behind the extra 90 acres of land for other purposes.

          However, urbanization is negative because of high cost of living. Although the living standard is high, it is lot more expensive to live in a city. If you do not make a decent earning, your life can be as hard as a rural life. Such problems can be seen in many cities in developing countries where people live in very poor conditions in slums. Living in rural area is much better than living in such condition. In the same way, urbanization is bad because it causes pollution. People have to endure a lot of noise and air pollution in cities. Such pollution can have very bad effects on health ranging from respiratory diseases to higher stress levels to sleeplessness. Urban life is also related with ailments  like obesity as well as fatal health problems like heart diseases.
          So, urbanization is propelled by many factors which ultimately can have both positive and negative effects. It is basically up to the people to decide where to live. One offers opportunities while other a peaceful life. Until and unless we are satisfied with our living it is not a big problem to live together with millions or mere thousands.

References:

Wikipedia (2013), Urbanization, Accessed: March 19, 2013, Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization

Hammond, Dr. R.J. (2010), Urbanization, Introduction to Sociology (Smashwords Edition), pp. 194-202

Unknown (2010, July 1), Urbanization Its Causes, Effects and Benefits, Accessed: March 19, 2013, Retrieved from: http://whyarticles.com/urbanization-its-causeseffects-and-benefits/    

 © Dixit Bhatta 2013

Schooling: Importance and inequality

          Sociological theories can be used to describe many social processes, and clearly, we can analyze schooling using them. There many macro and micro theories available to us, but we will use two theories to shed some light on our praise as well as criticism of schooling. 

          So, let us see the importance of schooling using the Structural-functionalism theory. It states that “society is in a state of balance and kept that way through the function of society's component parts” (Hammond, 2010). According to it, the problems in the society can be taken in a similar way like dysfunctions in our body. We can identify the dysfunctions and use our understanding to correct them. As far as societies are concerned, most of them actually find the equilibrium and retain it. Now, if we relate it with schooling, someone with more years of schooling will certainly be more aware of social harmony, will have a better understanding of personal and collective needs of the society, an improved sense of mutual cooperation and open-minded thinking. If such people are in large number in the society, they will find the balance more easily, unlike the historical cases where lack of understanding have resulted in even social collapse. So, schooling is an important aspect of having social balance; higher the average years of schooling, higher is the probability of social harmony.

          Now, from the opposite point of view, we have another Sociological theory that can be applied to see how schooling gives continuity to social inequality. The Conflict Theory states that “that those who have perpetually try to increase their wealth at the expense and suffering of those who have not” (Hammond, 2010). This theory, when applied to schooling, reiterates the same process. People holding the larger resources have access to better schooling, while those, who do not have, have to even drop out of schools due to their inability to afford good education. The richer ones can easily send their children to better institutions and provide them every possible facility paving the way for a stable future. With a lot of money at their disposal, they do not even have the pressure to succeed in studies or finding a job. On the contrary, the poor ones have to think of their socio-economic status before thinking of joining any elite institution for higher education. In addition, they have to handle the pressure to be as much competitive with apparently less amount of resources to help them. In this way, schooling gives continuity to the trend of social inequality.  

          So, this was a general overview of how schooling influences our society. It actually depends on our personal perception to realize how important or unfair it is. Nevertheless, one thing is true for sure; it is always better to be educated, regardless of your socio-economic status.

Reference:

Hammond, Dr. R.J. (2010), Social Theories, Introduction to Sociology (Smashwords Edition), p. 17-27

 © Dixit Bhatta 2013