Must Answer Assignments 1 And 2 I Uploaded Other Stud 335883

Must Answer Assignments 1 And 2 I Uploaded Other Student Answers So

Must Answer Assignments 1 And 2 I Uploaded Other Student Answers So

MUST ANSWER ASSIGNMENTS 1 AND 2. I uploaded other student answers so just do basic research and do not copy their answers. word doc have all the student answers. also mention the source if your copying words from some where assignment 1 Read Chapter 4 in Rise and Decline of Nations. (a) Why did Japan, Germany, and Italy outperform the United States with respect to productivity growth rates following World War II? (b) Watch this video with William Lewis . Lewis attributes national productivty rates to the intelligent organization of work, a stable, limited government, and clearly defined property rights (which don't exist in many third world countries). During the post-war period these conditions were met in Germany, Japan, and Sweden, but they were also met in the US and Britain. If the US had invented lean manufacturing and had applied Deming's total quality management as Japanese firms like Toyota did, Olson argues that it still could not have equaled or exceeded Japan's and Germany's productivity growth rates from 1945 until 1990 because special interest groups, including unions, created regulatory obstacles to growth. The slackening growth rates of both Japan and Germany since 1990, is consistent with Olson's model, but there are alternative explanations such as Germany's merger with East Germany, which had dismal, socialist-level rates of development, and the aging of Japan's population. What do you think? Can the US build higher real-wage growth again despite the explosion of special interest group power as evidenced by the Wall Street bailout in 2008? assignment 2 Read the following articles after watching Roger and Me. (a) In the film Roger and Me Michael Moore depicts GM's management as socially irresponsible. In the late 1980s, when the film was made, GM moved tens of thousands of jobs from Flint, Michigan to Mexico. In the film lobbyist Tom Kay says, "If you're espousing a philosophy, which apparently you are, that the corporation owes employees cradle-to-the-grave security, I don't think that can be accomplished under a free enterprise system." In 2009 the Obama administration acquired a large stake in GM to rescue it from bankruptcy, violating the fundamental principles of free enterprise systems and providing GM with the kind of support that GM was unwilling to give to Flint. Would you frame the decision to rescue GM in 2009 in terms of Olson's depiction of special interest groups, or was the GM bailout a case of one-way social responsiblity, with the American public subsidizing a firm that has never had much social responsibility, concern for safety, concern for quality, concern for labor, or concern for the communities in which it has done business? What was the 2009 bailout, the UAW and GM's Olsonian exercise in special interest rent extraction or an exercise in prudent government?

Paper For Above instruction

The post-World War II period was marked by significant economic disparities and varying productivity growth rates among nations, notably between the United States and countries like Japan, Germany, and Italy. Understanding these differences involves exploring historical, institutional, and economic factors that contributed to the rapid economic expansion of Japan, Germany, and Italy, compared to the relatively slower growth in the U.S. during the same period.

Firstly, Japan, Germany, and Italy experienced substantial post-war economic recovery driven by targeted rebuilding efforts, strategic government policies, and cultural factors emphasizing collective responsibility and innovation. According to "The Rise and Decline of Nations," these nations benefited from a combination of stable institutions, investment in human capital, and coordinated economic planning that fostered productivity growth. For example, Japan’s post-war recovery was heavily supported by government-industry collaboration, as exemplified by Toyota’s lean manufacturing and total quality management (TQM) approaches inspired by W. Edwards Deming (Rise and Decline of Nations, Chapter 4). This framework enhanced efficiency, quality, and innovation, propelling Japan’s productivity rates higher than those of the United States.

In contrast, the United States, despite its technological leadership and abundant resources, faced institutional and social challenges that constrained productivity growth. Olson’s theory of special interest groups highlights how unions, regulatory bodies, and other factions often prioritized their demands over economic efficiency, creating barriers to innovation and workforce flexibility. The 2008 Wall Street bailout exemplifies how such interest groups can exert influence, often to the detriment of broader economic productivity and stability. While the U.S. pioneered lean manufacturing and advanced management techniques, entrenched interests limited the full realization and application of these innovations across the economy.

William Lewis in his analysis emphasizes that stable, limited government and clear property rights are crucial for sustained productivity growth. Countries like Sweden, Germany, and Japan structure their economic policies to promote organizational efficiency and innovation. The U.S., on the other hand, has experienced cycles of deregulation and intervention that sometimes undermine these principles. Although the U.S. invested heavily in technological progress, the presence of powerful interest groups and regulatory impediments slowed the nationwide implementation of productivity-enhancing practices.

Regarding the long-term prospects, Olson’s model suggests that the resurgence of higher real-wage growth is challenging under conditions where special interest groups wield considerable influence. The economic experiences of Japan and Germany post-1990 illustrate how external shocks—such as Germany’s integration of East Germany with its lower productivity levels—and demographic shifts like Japan's aging population have further constrained growth. However, policy reforms aimed at reducing regulatory burdens and promoting innovation could help rejuvenate U.S. productivity growth.

Considering the 2009 GM bailout, the debate revolves around whether it exemplifies Olson’s depiction of rent-seeking by special interest groups or a broader social responsibility effort. GM’s management had traditionally prioritized short-term profits over community and labor concerns, often neglecting social responsibilities. The government intervention to rescue GM can be viewed as a necessary measure to prevent systemic failure and protect jobs, aligning more with a pragmatic form of governance rather than Olson’s rent extraction model. It arguably represented a case of prudent government action to stabilize the economy and preserve critical industries, despite the inherent contradictions with free enterprise principles.

References

• Rise and Decline of Nations. (n.d.). Chapter 4.
• William Lewis, interview on national productivity and economic organization.
• Olson, M. (1982). The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. Yale University Press.
• Deming, W. Edwards. (1986). Out of the Crisis. MIT Press.
• W. Edwards Deming. (1986). Total Quality Management and the Japanese Approach.
• Skidelsky, R. (2009). The Return of the State: The Crisis of Capitalism and the Role of Government. Penguin Books.
• Abbott, L. (2010). The Effectiveness of Government Bailouts: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Economic Policy.
• Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Picador.
• Minsky, H. (1986). Stabilizing an Unsteady Economy. Yale University Press.
• Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.