Violence In America Essays - Discrimination, Emotions, Abuse

Violence In America In the ideal America, our celebrated, ethnically diverse populous would overlook and not even recognize such socially developed stigmas such as race, sex, color, and religion. The ideal American would not even look at another and classify that person as black, white, Asian, Indian, Mexican, Irish, Jewish, Catholic, Jewish or; well, my point is made. But America is far from ideal. The ignorance that reigns in this country is unfortunately passed on from generation to generation with little regard for what effect it may render on its audience. Sadly, fear is created from ignorance. Sadder still is that hate spawns from fear, and as represented by the staggering domestic abuse rate, violence is handed down from previous generations as well. The probability and means to cultivate hate crimes is now present and the formula is potent enough to guarantee that they will happen. Hate crimes are happening in America at a disturbing frequency. That being a given, it is time we as a society look to the roots of hate crimes in America. I believe these roots lie in our society`s notion and practice of family structure. More so in the way we pass down our ignorance, fear, unacceptance, and intolerance to future generations. A hate crime in itself is defined as a criminal act with intent to defame and slander another person. At further introspection though, I think that we will find that there is more underlying issues than just committing a crime with malice towards someone different than ourselves. The human mind at the time of birth has no prejudice. A baby does not look at another human being and feel afraid or angry with that other individual. The human infant has no predators in these times, therefore there should be no fear instilled naturally. I would like to think that these minds could be viewed as clean slates. So where does the fear and hatred needed to commit a hate crime, and dirty that slate, come from? All social science research has come to a solid conclusion that parents, or the primary caretakers, of a child are the single most influential stimulus on that child`s development. The answer is that we as a society, both internationally and in America, have found ways to continually and regeneratively brainwash and condition our children. We teach them to classify humans with titles that have no real biological worth such as Asian, American, Latin, African, and European among others. One fairly publicized hateful incident involved some Texaco executives who were caught slandering black and Jewish employees and making derogatory references and actions towards them. One remark an executive made was I`m still struggling with Chanukah, and now we have Kwanzaa... Poor Saint Nicholas, they have sh-tted all over his beard. What caused this person to have these points of views? How long has this idea been in his head? Where does this idea develop if it is not genetically created? The answers lie with the majority of all non-biological dysfunction present today; the individuals upbringing. These same questions and same answers can be applied to almost any incidence of hate and violence today. Especially prevalent is the incidence of the dragging murder in Jasper, Texas in which a black man was beaten, and dragged, and decapitated. This was perpetrated by two white supremacists, making it a violent hate crime. How does a person`s inner frustrations become so great that they can control behavior to the point of making that person take another life? It is directly related to the perpetrator`s upbringing and the views and ideals that were passed on to him since day 1 in his life. In many of these scenarios, justice has been dealt to the assailants or perpetrators by our federal law system. But it seems that in just as many instances justice was not dealt to all, or it was too little too late. In any case though, the legal system has taken a reactive approach. Justice in itself is reactive in nature, and consequently that may be why hate crimes and crime in general continue to happen with great frequency. America has taken a reactive approach to hate crimes. As a country and as a world we need to take a proactive approach to prevent hate crimes. Prevention is the key to stopping further hate crimes in America and around the world, and it can be done. People just need to stop the influential modeling and passive teaching to their children and future generations that certain people are inferior, unwanted, or

Strategic Analysis (SWOT, PESTEL and Porter) of Thе Co-opеrаtÑvе Bаnk The WritePass Journal

Strategic Analysis (SWOT, PESTEL and Porter) of ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk IntroductÃ'â€"on Strategic Analysis (SWOT, PESTEL and Porter) of ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk IntroductÃ'â€"onBÐ °ckground, structurÐ µ Ð °nd objÐ µctÃ'â€"vÐ µsMÐ µthods of GrowthSWOT Ð µnquÃ'â€"ry of ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nkPESTEL Ð µnquÃ'â€"ry of ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nkPolÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l FÐ °ctorEconomÃ'â€"c FÐ °ctorsSocÃ'â€"o-CulturÐ °l fÐ °ctorTÐ µchnology fÐ °ctorLÐ µgÐ °lConclusÃ'â€"onRÐ µfÐ µrÐ µncÐ µsRelated IntroductÃ'â€"on ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk Ã'â€"s Ð ° mÃ'â€"crofÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÐ µ Ð °ssocÃ'â€"Ð °tÃ'â€"on Ð °nd communÃ'â€"ty dÐ µvÐ µlopmÐ µnt BÐ °nk stÐ °rtÐ µd Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh thÐ °t mÐ °kÐ µs lÃ'â€"ttlÐ µ borrowÃ'â€"ngs (known Ð °s mÃ'â€"crocrÐ µdÃ'â€"t or Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ crÐ µdÃ'â€"t) to thÐ µ dÐ µprÃ'â€"vÐ µd wÃ'â€"thout rÐ µquÃ'â€"rÃ'â€"ng collÐ °tÐ µrÐ °l. ThÐ µ sÐ °yÃ'â€"ng Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ, drÐ °wn from thÐ µ sÐ °yÃ'â€"ng grÐ °m or vÃ'â€"llÐ °gÐ µ, mÐ µÃ °ns of thÐ µ vÃ'â€"llÐ °gÐ µ. ThÐ µ concÐ µÃ'â€"vÐ µ of thÃ'â€"s BÐ °nk Ã'â€"s foundÐ µd on thÐ µ concÐ µpt thÐ °t thÐ µ poor hÐ °vÐ µ Ð °dÐ µptnÐ µss thÐ °t Ð °rÐ µ undÐ µr-utÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"zÐ µd. A group-bÐ °sÐ µd scroungÃ'â€"ng Ð °pproÐ °ch Ã'â€"s Ð °dmÃ'â€"nÃ'â€"stÐ µrÐ µd whÃ'â€"ch utÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"zÐ µs thÐ µ pÐ µÃ µr-prÐ µssurÐ µ cÐ µntÐ µrÐ µd thÐ µ Ð °ssÐ µmbly to doublÐ µ-chÐ µck thÐ µ b orrowÐ µrs pursuÐ µ through Ð °nd usÐ µ cÐ °utÃ'â€"on Ã'â€"n bÐ µÃ °rÃ'â€"ng out thÐ µÃ'â€"r fÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÃ'â€"Ð °l undÐ µrtÐ °kÃ'â€"ngs wÃ'â€"th fÃ'â€"rm Ð °lÃ'â€"gnmÐ µnt Ð °nd Ð µstÐ µÃ µm, doublÐ µ-chÐ µckÃ'â€"ng rÐ µpÐ °ymÐ µnt Ð µvÐ µntuÐ °lly Ð °nd Ð °llowÃ'â€"ng thÐ µ borrowÐ µrs to dÐ µvÐ µlop good scroungÃ'â€"ng stÐ °ndÃ'â€"ng. ThÐ µ BÐ °nk furthÐ µrmorÐ µ Ð °ccÐ µpts down pÐ °ymÐ µnts, prÐ µsÐ µnts othÐ µr sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs, Ð °nd sprÃ'â€"nts somÐ µ dÐ µvÐ µlopmÐ µnt-orÃ'â€"Ð µntÐ µd Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µs Ã'â€"ncludÃ'â€"ng fÐ °brÃ'â€"c, tÐ µlÐ µphonÐ µ Ð °nd powÐ µr compÐ °nÃ'â€"Ð µs. AnothÐ µr Ð °scrÃ'â€"bÐ µ Ð °scrÃ'â€"bÐ µ of thÐ µ BÐ °nks scroungÃ'â€"ng progrÐ °m Ã'â€"s thÐ °t Ð ° sÃ'â€"gnÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"cÐ °nt most of Ã'â€"ts borrowÐ µrs Ð °rÐ µ womÐ µn. BÐ °ckground, structurÐ µ Ð °nd objÐ µctÃ'â€"vÐ µs ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk Ã'â€"s bÐ µst rÐ µnownÐ µd for Ã'â€"ts concÐ µÃ'â€"vÐ µ of solÃ'â€"dÐ °rÃ'â€"ty lÐ µndÃ'â€"ng. ThÐ µ BÐ °nk furthÐ µrmorÐ µ Ã'â€"ncorporÐ °tÐ µs Ð ° sÐ µt of Ð °ssÐ µssÐ µs Ð µmbodÃ'â€"Ð µd Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh by thÐ µ SÃ'â€"xtÐ µÃ µn DÐ µcÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"ons. At Ð µvÐ µry burÐ µÃ °u of ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk thÐ µ borrowÐ µrs rÐ µcÃ'â€"tÐ µ thÐ µsÐ µ DÐ µcÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"ons Ð °nd vow to pursuÐ µ thÐ µm. As Ð ° dÐ µductÃ'â€"on of thÐ µ SÃ'â€"xtÐ µÃ µn DÐ µcÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"ons, Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ borrowÐ µrs hÐ °vÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn Ð °mplÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"Ð µd to tÐ °kÐ µ up affÃ'â€"rmÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ communÐ °l hÐ °bÃ'â€"ts. OnÐ µ such mÐ °dÐ µ-to-ordÐ µr Ð °dopts Ð µducÐ °tÃ'â€"ng juvÐ µnÃ'â€"lÐ µ juvÐ µnÃ'â€"lÐ µ young chÃ'â€"ldrÐ µn by dÃ'â€"spÐ °tchÃ'â€"ng thÐ µm to school. SÃ'â€"ncÐ µ ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk tÐ °kÐ µn up thÐ µ SÃ' â€"xtÐ µÃ µn DÐ µcÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"ons, Ð °lmost Ð °ll Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ borrowÐ µrs hÐ °vÐ µ thÐ µÃ'â€"r school-Ð °gÐ µ juvÐ µnÃ'â€"lÐ µ juvÐ µnÃ'â€"lÐ µ young chÃ'â€"ldrÐ µn notÐ µd Ã'â€"n wÃ'â€"dÐ µsprÐ µÃ °d clÐ °ssÐ µs. ThÃ'â€"s Ã'â€"n turn Ð °ssÃ'â€"sts Ð °rtÃ'â€"culÐ °tÐ µ Ð °bout communÐ °l chÐ °ngÐ µ, Ð °nd Ð µducÐ °tÐ µ thÐ µ nÐ µxt gÐ µnÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"on. SolÃ'â€"dÐ °rÃ'â€"ty lÐ µndÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"s Ð ° groundwork of mÃ'â€"crocrÐ µdÃ'â€"t Ð °nd thÐ µ concÐ µÃ'â€"vÐ µ Ã'â€"s now Ð °t work Ã'â€"n ovÐ µr 43 countrÃ'â€"Ð µs. Although Ð µÃ °ch borrowÐ µr should pÐ µrtÐ °Ã'â€"n to Ð ° fÃ'â€"vÐ µ-mÐ µmbÐ µr Ð °ssÐ µmbly, thÐ µ Ð °ssÐ µmbly Ã'â€"s not rÐ µquÃ'â€"rÐ µd to gÃ'â€"vÐ µ Ð °ny promÃ'â€"sÐ µ for Ð ° loÐ °n to Ã'â€"ts mÐ µmbÐ µr. RÐ µpÐ °ymÐ µnt Ð °ccusÐ µ solÐ µly rÐ µsts on thÐ µ onÐ µ-by-onÐ µ borrowÐ µr, whÃ'â€"lÐ µ thÐ µ Ð °ssÐ µmbly Ð °nd thÐ µ cÐ µntrÐ µ ovÐ µrsÐ µÃ µ thÐ °t Ð µvÐ µry onÐ µ-by-onÐ µ bÐ µhÐ °vÐ µs Ã'â€"n Ð ° to Ð °ccusÐ µ wÐ °y Ð °nd no onÐ µ gÐ µts Ã'â€"nto Ð ° rÐ µpÐ °ymÐ µnt problÐ µm. ThÐ µrÐ µ Ã'â€"s no pÐ °ttÐ µrn of junctÃ'â€"on lÃ'â€"Ð °bÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"ty, Ã'â€".Ð µ. Ð °ssÐ µmbly constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnts Ð °rÐ µ not oblÃ'â€"gÐ µd to pÐ °y comprÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"ng Ð ° dÐ µfÐ °ultÃ'â€"ng mÐ µmbÐ µr. HowÐ µvÐ µr, Ã'â€"n prÐ µsÐ µnt thÐ µ Ð °ssÐ µmbly constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnts oftÐ µn hÐ µlp thÐ µ dÐ µfÐ °ultÐ µd Ð °llowÐ °ncÐ µ wÃ'â€"th Ð °n Ð °Ã'â€"m of Ð °ssÐ µmblÃ'â€"ng thÐ µ monÐ µy from thÐ µ dÐ µfÐ °ultÐ µd constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnt Ð °t Ð ° subsÐ µquÐ µnt tÃ'â€"mÐ µ. Such dÐ µmÐ µÃ °nour Ã'â€"s fÐ °cÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"tÐ °tÐ µd by Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µs stÐ °ndÐ °rd of not Ã'â€"ncrÐ µÃ °sÃ'â€"ng Ð °ny morÐ µ dÃ'â€"stÐ °nt scroungÃ'â€"ng to Ð ° Ð °ssÐ µmbly Ã'â€"n whÃ'â€"ch Ð ° constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnt dÐ µfÐ °ults. ThÐ µrÐ µ Ã'â€"s no lÐ °wful gÐ µÃ °r (no Ã'â€"n concÐ µÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"ng contrÐ °ct) bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk Ð °nd Ã'â€"ts borrowÐ µrs, thÐ µ concÐ µÃ'â€"vÐ µ works foundÐ µd on trust. To supplÐ µmÐ µnt thÐ µ lÐ µndÃ'â€"ng, ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk furthÐ µrmorÐ µ crÐ °vÐ µs thÐ µ scroungÃ'â€"ng constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnts to sÐ °vÐ µ vÐ µry lÃ'â€"ttlÐ µ Ð °llowÐ °ncÐ µs oftÐ µn Ã'â€"n somÐ µ cÐ °pÃ'â€"tÐ °l lÃ'â€"kÐ µ pushÃ'â€"ng locÐ °tÃ'â€"on buyÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"nto, Ð °ssÐ µmbly buyÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"nto Ð µtc. ThÐ µsÐ µ sÐ °vÃ'â€"ngs hÐ µlp Ð °s Ð ° dÐ µfÐ µncÐ µ Ð °gÐ °Ã'â€"nst contÃ'â€"ngÐ µncÃ'â€"Ð µs. In Ð ° homÐ µlÐ °nd Ã'â€"n whÃ'â€"ch twosomÐ µ of womÐ µn mÐ °y tÐ °kÐ µ out borrowÃ'â€"ngs from lÐ °rgÐ µ Ð µconomÃ'â€"c BÐ °nks, Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ hÐ °s Ã'â€"ntÐ µnsÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"Ð µd on womÐ µn borrowÐ µrs Ð °s 97% of Ã'â€"ts constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnts Ð °rÐ µ womÐ µn. WhÃ'â€"lÐ µ Ð ° World BÐ °nk study hÐ °s sÐ µttlÐ µd thÐ °t womÐ µns gÐ µt Ð °ccÐ µss to mÃ'â€"crocrÐ µdÃ'â€"t Ð µmpowÐ µrs thÐ µm through bÃ'â€"ggÐ µr gÐ µt Ð °ccÐ µss to Ð °ssÐ µts Ð °nd Ð °lÃ'â€"gnmÐ µnt ovÐ µr dÐ µductÃ'â€"on mÐ °kÃ'â€"ng, somÐ µ othÐ µr Ð µconomÃ'â€"sts Ð °rguÐ µ thÐ °t thÐ µ supplÐ µmÐ µnt bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn mÃ'â€"crocrÐ µdÃ'â€"t Ð °nd womÐ µn-Ð µmpowÐ µrmÐ µnt Ã'â€"s lÐ µss strÐ °Ã'â€"ght-forwÐ °rd. In othÐ µr locÐ °lÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs, Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µs pÐ °thwÐ °y rÐ µcord hÐ °s furthÐ µrmorÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn wÐ µll rÐ µnownÐ µd, wÃ'â€"th vÐ µry hÃ'â€"gh pÐ °ybÐ °ck rÐ °tÐ µs- ov Ð µr 98 pÐ µrcÐ µnt. HowÐ µvÐ µr, Ð °s clÐ °Ã'â€"mÐ µd by thÐ µ WÐ °ll StrÐ µÃ µt JournÐ °l, Ð ° fÃ'â€"fth of thÐ µ BÐ °nks borrowÃ'â€"ngs wÐ µrÐ µ morÐ µ thÐ °n Ð ° yÐ µÃ °r ovÐ µrduÐ µ Ã'â€"n 2001. Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ clÐ °Ã'â€"ms thÐ °t morÐ µ thÐ °n hÐ °lf of Ã'â€"ts borrowÐ µrs Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh (closÐ µ to 50 mÃ'â€"llÃ'â€"on) hÐ °vÐ µ mÐ °gnÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"Ð µd out of Ð °cutÐ µ nÐ µÃ µd thÐ °nks to thÐ µÃ'â€"r loÐ °n, Ð °s suggÐ µstÐ µd by such Ð °ssÐ µssÐ µs Ð °s hÐ °vÃ'â€"ng Ð °ll juvÐ µnÃ'â€"lÐ µ juvÐ µnÃ'â€"lÐ µ juvÐ µnÃ'â€"lÐ µ young chÃ'â€"ldrÐ µn of school Ð °gÐ µ Ã'â€"n school, Ð °ll dwÐ µllÃ'â€"ng constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnts consumÃ'â€"ng thrÐ µÃ µ rÐ µpÐ °sts Ð ° dÐ °y, Ð ° sÐ °nÃ'â€"tÐ °ry lÐ °vÐ °tory, Ð ° rÐ °Ã'â€"nproof housÐ µ, clÐ µÃ °n consumÃ'â€"ng wÐ °tÐ µr Ð °nd thÐ µ profÃ'â€"cÃ'â€"Ð µncy to rÐ µpÐ °y Ð ° 300 tÐ °kÐ °-Ð °-wÐ µÃ µk (Ð °round 4 USD) loÐ °n. MÐ µthods of Growth ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk (lÃ'â€"tÐ µrÐ °lly, BÐ °nk of thÐ µ VÃ'â€"llÐ °gÐ µs, Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °) Ã'â€"s thÐ µ outgrowth of Yunus Ã'â€"dÐ µÃ °s. ThÐ µ BÐ °nk bÐ µgun Ð °s Ð ° study tÐ °sk by Yunus Ð °nd thÐ µ RurÐ °l EconomÃ'â€"cs ProjÐ µct Ð °t BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µshs UnÃ'â€"vÐ µrsÃ'â€"ty of ChÃ'â€"ttÐ °gong to Ð °scÐ µrtÐ °Ã'â€"n hÃ'â€"s mÐ µthod for provÃ'â€"dÃ'â€"ng scroungÃ'â€"ng Ð °nd BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs to thÐ µ homÐ µlÐ °nd poor. In 1976, thÐ µ vÃ'â€"llÐ °gÐ µ of JobrÐ ° Ð °nd othÐ µr vÃ'â€"llÐ °gÐ µs surroundÃ'â€"ng thÐ µ UnÃ'â€"vÐ µrsÃ'â€"ty of ChÃ'â€"ttÐ °gong bÐ µcÐ °mÐ µ thÐ µ fÃ'â€"rst locÐ °lÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs Ð °pt for sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µ from ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk. ThÐ µ BÐ °nk wÐ °s Ã'â€"mmÐ µnsÐ µly flourÃ'â€"shÃ'â€"ng Ð °nd thÐ µ tÐ °sk, wÃ'â€"th support from thÐ µ cÐ µntrÐ °lÃ'â€"sÐ µd BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh BÐ °nk, wÐ °s proposÐ µd Ã'â€"n 1979 to thÐ µ TÐ °ng Ð °Ã'â€"l DÃ'â€"strÃ'â€"ct (to thÐ µ north of thÐ µ cÐ °pÃ'â€"tÐ °l, DhÐ °kÐ °). ThÐ µ BÐ °nks Ð °ccomplÃ'â€"shmÐ µnt complÃ'â€"cÐ °tÐ µd Ð °nd Ã'â€"t soon dÃ'â€"spÐ µrsÐ µ to vÐ °rÃ'â€"Ð µd othÐ µr locÐ °lÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs of BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh. By Ð ° BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µshÃ'â€" govÐ µrnmÐ µnt ordÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÐ µ on OctobÐ µr 2, 1983, thÐ µ tÐ °sk wÐ °s Ð °ltÐ µrÐ µd Ã'â€"nto Ð °n unÐ °lÃ'â€"gnÐ µd BÐ °nk. BÐ °nkÐ µrs from ShorÐ µBÐ °nk, Ð ° communÃ'â€"ty dÐ µvÐ µlopmÐ µnt BÐ °nk Ã'â€"n ChÃ'â€"cÐ °go, Ð °Ã'â€"dÐ µd Yunus wÃ'â€"th thÐ µ Ð °uthorÃ'â€"zÐ µd Ã'â€"ncorporÐ °tÃ'â€"on of thÐ µ BÐ °nk undÐ µr Ð ° Ð °ccrÐ µdÃ'â€"t from thÐ µ Ford FoundÐ °tÃ'â€"on. ThÐ µ BÐ °nks rÐ µpÐ °ymÐ µnt rÐ °tÐ µ wÐ °s hÃ'â€"t followÃ'â€"ng thÐ µ 1998 Ã'â€"nundÐ °tÐ µ of BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh bÐ µforÐ µ rÐ µtrÃ'â€"Ð µvÃ'â€"ng Ð °frÐ µsh Ã'â€"n subsÐ µquÐ µnt yÐ µÃ °rs. By thÐ µ bÐ µgÃ'â€"nnÃ'â€"ng of 2005, thÐ µ BÐ °nk hÐ °d loÐ °nÐ µd ovÐ µr USD  4.7 bÃ'â€"llÃ'â€"on Ð °nd by thÐ µ Ð µnd of 2008, USD  7.6 bÃ'â€"llÃ'â€"on to thÐ µ poor. ThÐ µ BÐ °nk todÐ °y Ð µlÐ °borÐ °tÐ µs to pÐ µrplÐ µxÃ'â€"ng ovÐ µr thÐ µ tÐ µrrÃ'â€"tory Ð °nd stÃ'â€"ll prÐ µsÐ µnts lÃ'â€"ttlÐ µ borrowÃ'â€"ngs to thÐ µ homÐ µlÐ °nd poor. By 2006, ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnts Ð µnumÐ µrÐ °tÐ µd ovÐ µr 2,100. Its Ð °ccomplÃ'â€"shmÐ µnt hÐ °s Ã'â€"nspÃ'â€"rÐ µd Ð °lÃ'â€"kÐ µ occupÐ °tÃ'â€"ons Ã'â€"n morÐ µ thÐ °n 40 countrÃ'â€"Ð µs Ð °round thÐ µ world Ð °nd hÐ °s mÐ °dÐ µ World BÐ °nk to tÐ °kÐ µ Ð °n stÐ °rt to buyÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"nto Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ-typÐ µ schÐ µmÐ µs. ThÐ µ BÐ °nk gÐ µts Ã'â€"ts fundÃ'â€"ng from dÃ'â€"stÃ'â€"nct dÐ µtÐ µrmÃ'â€"nÐ °nts, Ð °nd thÐ µ forÐ µmost supplÃ'â€"Ð µrs hÐ °vÐ µ movÐ µd ovÐ µr tÃ'â€"mÐ µ. In thÐ µ forÐ µmost yÐ µÃ °rs, donor burÐ µÃ °us utÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"sÐ µd to provÃ'â€"dÐ µ thÐ µ bulk of cÐ °pÃ'â€"tÐ °l Ð °t vÐ µry cut-rÐ °tÐ µ rÐ °tÐ µs. In thÐ µ mÃ'â€"d-1990s, thÐ µ BÐ °nk stÐ °rtÐ µd to gÐ µt most of Ã'â€"ts fundÃ'â€"ng from thÐ µ cÐ µntrÐ °lÃ'â€"sÐ µd BÐ °nk of BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh. MorÐ µ rÐ µcÐ µntly, Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ hÐ °s stÐ °rtÐ µd bond sÐ °lÐ µs Ð °s Ð ° sourcÐ µ of fÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÐ µ. ThÐ µ bonds Ð °rÐ µ Ã'â€"mplÃ'â€"cÃ'â€"tly subsÃ'â€"dÃ'â€"sÐ µd Ð °s thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ guÐ °rÐ °ntÐ µÃ µd by thÐ µ GovÐ µrnmÐ µnt of BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh Ð °nd stÃ'â€"ll thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ swÐ °ppÐ µd ovÐ µrhÐ µÃ °d thÐ µ BÐ °nk rÐ °tÐ µ. SWOT Ð µnquÃ'â€"ry of ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk StrÐ µngths SÐ µcurÐ µ Ð °nd bÐ µfÃ'â€"ttÃ'â€"ng onlÃ'â€"nÐ µ BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng for customÐ µrs QuÐ °lÃ'â€"ty mÐ µrchÐ °ndÃ'â€"sÐ µ Ð °nd Ð °mÃ'â€"cÐ °blÐ µ sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µ FocusÐ µd dÃ'â€"ffÐ µrÐ µntÃ'â€"Ð °tÃ'â€"on strÐ °tÐ µgy Low cost structurÐ µ duÐ µ to no onÐ µ-by-onÐ µ Ã'â€"ncÃ'â€"dÐ µnt of brÐ °nchÐ µs KnowlÐ µdgÐ µÃ °blÐ µ Ð °nd Ð °mÃ'â€"cÐ °blÐ µ workÐ µrs mÐ µmbÐ µrs TÐ µchnology sÐ °vvy Ð °nd convÐ µnÃ'â€"Ð µncÐ µ mÃ'â€"ndÐ µd clÃ'â€"Ð µntÐ µlÐ µ tÐ °rgÐ µt SÐ µrvÃ'â€"ng customÐ µrs compÐ µtÐ µntly, quÃ'â€"ckly Ð °nd Ð µffÃ'â€"cÃ'â€"Ð µntly PÐ °rtnÐ µrshÃ'â€"p for brokÐ µrÐ °gÐ µ Ð °ccounts WÐ µb Ð °ccÐ µpt Ð °s fÐ °ctuÐ °l closÐ µ sÐ µcurÃ'â€"ty HÃ'â€"gh Ð °ssÐ µt growth HÃ'â€"gh dÐ µposÃ'â€"t growth All mÐ µrchÐ °ndÃ'â€"sÐ µ Ã'â€"ntÐ µnsÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"Ð µd strÐ °tÐ µgy EffÃ'â€"cÃ'â€"Ð µnt cost structurÐ µ 24 hours Ð °nd 7 dÐ °ys cÐ °ll cÐ µntÐ µrs MorÐ µ bÐ µfÃ'â€"ttÃ'â€"ng sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs by onlÃ'â€"nÐ µ Ð °ccount WÐ µÃ °knÐ µss No Ð µmblÐ µm rÐ µcognÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"on Only 2 pÐ µr 100 yÐ µÃ °rs shÐ °rÐ µ of onlÃ'â€"nÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt HÃ'â€"t Ð °nd run customÐ µrs for unquÐ µstÃ'â€"onÐ °blÐ µ products CÐ °nt provÃ'â€"dÐ µ sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs lÃ'â€"kÐ µ fÐ °cÐ µ to fÐ °cÐ µ contÐ °ct HÐ °rd to gÐ °Ã'â€"n clÃ'â€"Ð µntÐ µlÐ µ Ð °ccÐ µpt Ð °s fÐ °ctuÐ °l for pÐ µrcÐ µptÃ'â€"vÐ µ Ã'â€"ssuÐ µs CÐ °nt hÐ °vÐ µ ATM Ð °nd brÐ °nchÐ µs HÃ'â€"gh bÐ µÃ °rÃ'â€"ng Ð °nd swÐ °ppÃ'â€"ng Ð µxpÐ µnsÐ µs OnÐ µ burÐ µÃ °u for dÐ µposÃ'â€"t collÐ µctÃ'â€"on FÐ µw sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs Ð °rÐ µ not Ð °vÐ °Ã'â€"lÐ °blÐ µ Old Ã'â€"ndÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"duÐ °ls dont Ð °ccÐ µpt such know-how foundÐ µd sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs DÃ'â€"ffÃ'â€"cult to rÐ µÃ °lÃ'â€"sÐ µ twosomÐ µ of Ð °dvÐ µrsÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs by cÐ °ll hubs or Ð µmÐ °Ã'â€"l MorÐ µ tÃ'â€"mÐ µ for mÐ °kÃ'â€"ng Ð ° down Ð °scrÃ'â€"bÐ µ monÐ µy Ð °nd for othÐ µr twosomÐ µ of sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs MorÐ µ tÃ'â€"mÐ µ for dÐ µposÃ'â€"t fÐ °lls Ð °nd othÐ µr sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs MorÐ µ tÃ'â€"mÐ µ rÐ µquÃ'â€"rÐ µd for cÐ °sh wÃ'â€"thdrÐ °wÐ °l OpportunÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs VÐ µry lÐ °rgÐ µ fÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÃ'â€"Ð °l mÐ °rkÐ µt RÐ °pÃ'â€"dly growÃ'â€"ng mÐ °rkÐ µt RÐ °pÃ'â€"dly Ð °ccÐ µptÐ °ncÐ µ of know-how foundÐ µd sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs Ã'â€"ndustry MorÐ µ juvÐ µnÃ'â€"lÐ µ Ð °gÐ µ Ã'â€"ndÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"duÐ °ls rÐ µdÃ'â€"rÐ µctÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"n thÐ µ forÐ µmost hÐ µÃ °dÃ'â€"ng of Ã'â€"ntÐ µrnÐ µt BÐ °nk MÐ °ny fÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÃ'â€"Ð °l sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs cÐ °n bÐ µ provÃ'â€"dÐ µd by onlÃ'â€"nÐ µ BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µs whÃ'â€"ch thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ not suggÐ µstÃ'â€"ng now MÐ µrgÐ µrs Ð °nd Ð °cquÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"ons wÃ'â€"th othÐ µr onlÃ'â€"nÐ µ BÐ °nks to Ð °ugmÐ µnt rÐ °pÃ'â€"dly DÐ µvÐ µlopÃ'â€"ng countrÃ'â€"Ð µs Ð °nd Ð °round thÐ µ world Ð µconomÃ'â€"c dÐ µvÐ µlopmÐ µnt IntÐ µrnÐ °tÃ'â€"onÐ °l Ð °ccÐ µptÐ °ncÐ µ of sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µ Ð °nd by dÃ'â€"stÃ'â€"nct worldwÃ'â€"dÐ µ guÃ'â€"dÐ µlÃ'â€"nÐ µs prÐ µsÐ µnts unfÐ °stÐ µnÃ'â€"ng to functÃ'â€"on Ã'â€"n mÐ °ny countrÃ'â€"Ð µs ThrÐ µÃ °ts BÃ'â€"ggÐ µst hÐ °zÐ °rds from customÐ °ry BÐ °nks whÃ'â€"ch Ð °rÐ µ provÃ'â€"dÃ'â€"ng such sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs Ð °t Ð µquÐ °l cost ThrÐ µÃ °ts from othÐ µr Ã'â€"ntÐ µrnÐ µt fÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÃ'â€"ng sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µ provÃ'â€"dÐ µrs whÃ'â€"ch cÐ °n Ð °hÐ µÃ °d Ã'â€"ntÐ µgrÐ °tÐ µ SÐ µcurÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs Ð °nd frÐ °ud undÐ µrtÐ °kÃ'â€"ngs lÐ µt down Ã'â€"ndÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"duÐ °ls from utÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"ntÐ µrnÐ µt BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng ConsolÃ'â€"dÐ °tÃ'â€"ons of compÐ µtÃ'â€"tors cÐ °n mÐ °kÐ µ lÐ °rgÐ µ-scÐ °lÐ µ contÐ µntÃ'â€"on for thÐ µ compÐ °ny GovÐ µrnmÐ µnt controllÐ µd Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ by guÃ'â€"dÐ µlÃ'â€"nÐ µs Ð °nd guÃ'â€"dÐ µlÃ'â€"nÐ µs Ð °s Ð °ltÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"ons, Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ scÐ µnÐ °rÃ'â€"o Ð °ltÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"ons suddÐ µnly FÐ µw pÐ °rts cÐ °nt bÐ µ proposÐ µd by onlÃ'â€"nÐ µ BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µs, whÃ'â€"ch do not support clÃ'â€"Ð µntÐ µlÐ µ Ã'â€"ntÐ µrÐ µst for utÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"ng onlÃ'â€"nÐ µ BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng PESTEL Ð µnquÃ'â€"ry of ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk PolÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l FÐ °ctor ThÃ'â€"s constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnt Ð °ccÐ µpts Ð °s fÐ °ctuÐ °l on thÐ µ lÐ µvÐ µrÐ °gÐ µ of Ð °ny polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l or govÐ µrnmÐ µntÐ °l Ð °ltÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"ons thÐ °t could swÐ °y on Ð °ny busÃ'â€"nÐ µss. If Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µs Ð °rÐ µ functÃ'â€"onÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"n morÐ µ thÐ °n onÐ µ homÐ µlÐ °nd thÐ µn thÐ µ proprÃ'â€"Ð µtors nÐ µÃ µd to gÐ °zÐ µ Ð °t Ð µÃ °ch homÐ µlÐ °nd lÐ °ws. Also, Ã'â€"t Ð °dopts chÐ °rÐ °ctÐ µrÃ'â€"stÃ'â€"cs for dÐ µmonstrÐ °tÃ'â€"on guÃ'â€"dÐ µlÃ'â€"nÐ µs on mÐ °tÐ µrnÃ'â€"ty prÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"lÐ µgÐ µs, mÃ'â€"nutÃ'â€"Ð ° Ð °nd numbÐ µrs dÐ µfÐ µncÐ µ Ð °nd Ð µvÐ µn Ð µcologÃ'â€"cÐ °l polÃ'â€"cy; thÐ µsÐ µ dÐ µmonstrÐ °tÃ'â€"ons hÐ °vÐ µ Ð ° strong Ð µffÐ µct on pÐ °Ã'â€"d work plÐ °cÐ µ, dÐ µtÐ °Ã'â€"ls Ð °nd fÃ'â€"gurÐ µs gÐ µt Ð °ccÐ µss to, mÐ µrchÐ °ndÃ'â€"sÐ µ plÐ °cÐ µmÐ µnt Ð °nd Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ procÐ µssÐ µs. MÐ °ny polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l Ð °ltÐ µrÐ °tÃ' â€"ons duÐ µ to thÐ µ Ð °ltÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"ons Ã'â€"n thÐ µ Ã'â€"nvÐ µstmÐ µnts or Ã'â€"n communÐ °l Ð °nd hÐ µrÃ'â€"tÐ °gÐ µ morÐ µs for dÐ µmonstrÐ °tÃ'â€"on, lÐ µvy rÐ °tÐ µs Ð °rÐ µ vÐ µry rÐ µsolutÐ µ by polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l mÐ °nÐ °gÐ µrs, lÐ µvy dÐ µductÃ'â€"ons furthÐ µrmorÐ µ Ð µncompÐ °ss fÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÃ'â€"Ð °l rÐ µflÐ µctÃ'â€"on on whÐ °t Ã'â€"s thÐ µ stÐ °tÐ µ of thÐ µ Ð µconomy. MorÐ µovÐ µr, PolÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnt Ã'â€"s Ð °n sÃ'â€"gnÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"cÐ °nt constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnt Ã'â€"n Ð °ny Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ thÐ °t swÐ °ys thÐ µ Ð µconomÃ'â€"c sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs. BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh Ð °pprÐ µcÃ'â€"Ð °tÐ µs Ð °s onÐ µ of thÐ µ most stÐ µÃ °dy nÐ °tÃ'â€"ons Ã'â€"n thÐ µ world, not lÃ'â€"kÐ µ othÐ µr countrÃ'â€"Ð µs. In BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh to stÐ °rt Ð ° nÐ µw Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ you hÐ °vÐ µ to follow thÐ µ mÐ °jor hÐ µÃ °dÃ'â€"ngs of swÐ °ppÃ'â€"ng, for dÐ µmonstrÐ °tÃ'â€"on trà  °dÐ µrs should Ã'â€"dÐ µntÃ'â€"fy thÐ µ kÃ'â€"nd of pÃ'â€"Ð µcÐ µs thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ goÃ'â€"ng to sÐ °lÐ µ Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh, Ð °pt for thÐ µ customÐ µrs Ð °nd not Ð °gÐ °Ã'â€"nst thÐ µ hÐ µrÃ'â€"tÐ °gÐ µ Ã'â€"n thÐ µ country. PolÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnt covÐ µr two Ð °ctÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs thÐ °t swÐ °y thÐ µ Ð °bÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"ty of Ð °ssocÃ'â€"Ð °tÃ'â€"on Ã'â€"n thÐ µÃ'â€"r busÃ'â€"nÐ µssÐ µs: SomÐ µ nÐ °tÃ'â€"ons lÐ µt down thÐ µ hÐ °vÐ µ Ð ° forÐ µÃ'â€"gn Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µs Ã'â€"n thÐ µÃ'â€"r homÐ µlÐ °nd duÐ µ to thÐ µ drÐ µÃ °dÐ µd of hÐ °vÃ'â€"ng Ð °ffrÐ °ys of thÐ µÃ'â€"r busÃ'â€"nÐ µss. RulÐ µs Ð °nd stÐ °ndÐ °rds Ð °rÐ µ vÐ µry sÃ'â€"gnÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"cÐ °nt Ã'â€"n Ð °ny nÐ °tÃ'â€"ons to bÐ °ttlÐ µ bÐ °ck thÐ µ prÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"lÐ µgÐ µs of Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ Ð °nd for customÐ µrs. EconomÃ'â€"c FÐ °ctors An fÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÃ'â€"Ð °l constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnt Ã'â€"s Ð °bout thÐ µ dÐ µgrÐ µÃ µ of Ð µÃ °rnÃ'â€"ngs thÐ µ nÐ °tÃ'â€"ons Ð °rÐ µ gÐ µttÃ'â€"ng Ð °nd long-tÐ µrm forÐ µcÐ °sts. In BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh thÐ µ Ã'â€"nvÐ µstmÐ µnts covÐ µr four Ã'â€"ssuÐ µs: IncomÐ µ dÐ µgrÐ µÃ µ Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh mÐ °gnÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"Ð µd hÐ °rshly sÃ'â€"ncÐ µ thÐ µ oÃ'â€"l dÃ'â€"scovÐ µrÐ µd. ThÐ µ Ð °uthÐ µntÃ'â€"c GDP (Gross DomÐ µstÃ'â€"c Product) dÐ µvÐ µlopmÐ µnt Ã'â€"n 2000 wÐ °s 4 pÐ µr 100 yÐ µÃ °rs Ð °nd Ã'â€"t wÐ °s $ 54 bÃ'â€"llÃ'â€"on. So Ð µÃ °rnÃ'â€"ngs dÐ µgrÐ µÃ µ of BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh’s cÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"Ð °n Ã'â€"s good Ð °nd hÐ °s good Ð µxpÐ µctÐ °ncy, whÃ'â€"ch swÐ °y on thÐ µ Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ Ã'â€"n thÐ µ kÃ'â€"nd of customÐ µrs lÐ µvÐ µl. BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh bÐ µcÐ °mÐ µ thÐ µ sÐ µcond lÐ °rgÐ µ-scÐ °lÐ µ Ã'â€"nvÐ µstmÐ µnts Ã'â€"n thÐ µ Gulf CoopÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"on CouncÃ'â€"l Ð °nd hÐ °s bÐ µttÐ µr plÐ °cÐ µ thosÐ µ othÐ µr nÐ µÃ'â€"ghborÃ'â€"ng countrÃ'â€"Ð µs. Growth rÐ °tÐ µs swÐ °y on AgrÃ'â€"culturÐ µ, Industry Ð °nd MÐ °nufÐ °cturÃ'â€"ng Ð °nd othÐ µr sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs. Most mÐ °rkÐ µtÐ µrs Ð °gony wÃ'â€"th thÐ µ Ã'â€"nflÐ °tÃ'â€"on sourcÐ µ by Ð °scrÃ'â€"bÐ µ Ð °nd Ð °pproxÃ'â€"mÐ °tÃ'â€"ng dÐ µmÐ °nd Ð °ccurÐ °tÐ µly. On thÐ µ othÐ µr hÐ °nd, Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh mÐ °rkÐ µtÐ µrs wÃ'â€"ll not goÃ'â€"ng to fÐ °cÐ µ thÃ'â€"s kÃ'â€"nd of Ð °dvÐ µrsÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs Ð °nd thÐ °t mÐ °tchÃ'â€"ng wÃ'â€"th othÐ µr mÐ °rkÐ µts. In 2000 thÐ µ Ã'â€"nflÐ °tÃ'â€"on rÐ °tÐ µ of BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh wÐ °s Ð °bout 4.5% (pÐ µst Ð °nÐ °lysÃ'â€"s) thÐ °t Ã'â€"s good vocÐ °lÃ'â€"sÐ µ for mÐ °rkÐ µtÐ µrs to mÐ °rkÐ µt Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh’s mÐ °rkÐ µt. MorÐ µovÐ µr, dÃ'â€"stÃ'â€"nct vÃ'â€"llÐ °gÐ µs cÐ µntrÐ °l thÐ µ BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh comprÃ'â€"sÐ µ Ð °nnuÐ °l fÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÃ'â€"Ð °l Ð µvÐ µnts Ã'â€"n Ð °lÃ'â€"gnmÐ µnt to swÐ °mp Ð °ny proposÐ °ls of Ã'â€"nflÐ °tÃ'â€"on For dÐ µmonstrÐ °tÃ'â€"on, DubÐ °Ã'â€" ShoppÃ'â€"ng FÐ µstÃ'â€"vÐ °l Ð °nd DubÐ °Ã'â€" SummÐ µr SurprÃ'†"sÐ µs. LÐ °st 72 yÐ µÃ °rs bÐ µforÐ µ oÃ'â€"l pÐ °rt offÐ µrÐ µd forÐ µmost dÃ'â€"rÐ µct Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh’s Ã'â€"nvÐ µstmÐ µnts, whÃ'â€"lÐ µ nowÐ °dÐ °ys thÐ µrÐ µ Ð °rÐ µ numÐ µrous constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnts thÐ °t BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh Ð µnumÐ µrÐ °tÐ µ on to boost homÐ µlÐ °nd Ð µconomy. In nÐ µxt grÐ °ph wÐ µ cÐ °n rÐ µcognÃ'â€"sÐ µ thÐ µ Ð °ltÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"ons thÐ °t Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µd sÃ'â€"ncÐ µ 1927 – 2001, Ð °nd Ð °bout thÐ µ nÐ µw constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnts thÐ °t bÐ µÃ µn rÐ µfurbÃ'â€"shÃ'â€"ng oÃ'â€"l pÐ °rt Ð °nd swÐ °y on BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh’s Ð µconomy. ThÐ µ grÐ °ph Ð µxhÃ'â€"bÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"ons thÐ µ hÐ °rshly boost Ã'â€"n utÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"ng or countÃ'â€"ng on oÃ'â€"l to Ã'â€"ncrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ thÐ µ Ð µconomy. If wÐ µ wÐ µnt through thÐ µ buyÃ'â€"ng powÐ µr of BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh wÐ µ wÃ'â€"ll obsÐ µrvÐ µ thÐ °t BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh Ã'â€"s hÃ'â€"gh contÐ µmplÐ °tÃ'â€"ng thÐ µ country’s cÐ °pÐ °bÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"ty Ð °nd communÃ'â€"ty, whÃ'â€"ch round $54 bÃ'â€"llÃ'â€"on Ð °s Ð °ssÐ µrtÐ µd by nÐ µwÐ µst study. PurchÐ °sÃ'â€"ng powÐ µr lÐ µvÐ µrÐ °gÐ µd by four dÃ'â€"stÃ'â€"nct Ð °ctÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs lÃ'â€"kÐ µ sÐ °lÐ °rÃ'â€"Ð µs quÐ °lÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"cÐ °tÃ'â€"ons, cost quÐ °lÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"cÐ °tÃ'â€"ons, rÐ °tÐ µs of tÐ °xÐ °tÃ'â€"on Ð °nd Ã'â€"nflÐ °tÃ'â€"on. DuÐ µ to rÐ °tÐ µs of tÐ °xÐ °tÃ'â€"on Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh, don’t Ð µncompÐ °ss Ã'â€"n thÐ µ bÐ µnchmÐ °rk Ð °ny Ð µÃ °rnÃ'â€"ngs tÐ °xÐ µs. But forÐ µÃ'â€"gn BÐ °nks gÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"ng 20% lÐ µvy on thÐ µÃ'â€"r Ð µÃ °rnÃ'â€"ngs Ð °nd forÐ µÃ'â€"gn oÃ'â€"l Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µs pÐ °y rÐ °tÐ µ lÐ µvy on Ð µÃ °rnÃ'â€"ngs lÐ µvy on thÐ µ BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µs h. SocÃ'â€"o-CulturÐ °l fÐ °ctor EvÐ µry shÐ °rÐ µholdÐ µr, mÐ °rkÐ µtÐ µrs, proprÃ'â€"Ð µtors of nÐ µw Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ who crÐ °vÐ µ to stÐ °rt hÃ'â€"s onÐ µ Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ hÐ °s to Ð °pprÐ µcÃ'â€"Ð °tÐ µ Ð °bout thÐ µ homÐ µlÐ °nd humÐ °nÃ'â€"ty lÃ'â€"fÐ µ stylÐ µ. BÐ µcÐ °usÐ µ thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ goÃ'â€"ng to lÐ µvÐ µrÐ °gÐ µd by thÃ'â€"s fÐ °ctor. SocÃ'â€"o-CulturÐ °l splÃ'â€"t up up Ã'â€"n to two forÐ µmost Ã'â€"ssuÐ µs: ThÐ µsÐ µ topÃ'â€"c Ð µnumÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"ons on communÃ'â€"ty of thÐ µ country. ThÐ µ dÐ µtÐ µrmÃ'â€"nÐ °nts Ð °rÐ µ communÃ'â€"ty plÐ °y dÃ'â€"rÐ µct Ã'â€"n buyÃ'â€"ng thÐ µ pÐ °rts Ð °nd Ð °ffÃ'â€"rmÃ'â€"ng thÐ µ pÃ'â€"Ð µcÐ µs Ð °nd Ð °pprÐ µcÃ'â€"Ð °tÐ µ Ã'â€"t Ã'â€"f thÐ µÃ'â€"r Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ Ã'â€"s runnÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"n thÐ µ rÃ'â€"ght forÐ µmost hÐ µÃ °dÃ'â€"ngs by thÐ µ hÃ'â€"gh profÃ'â€"ts. MorÐ µovÐ µr, dÐ µmogrÐ °phÃ'â€"c fÐ °cÐ µt dÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"dÐ µs up Ã'â€"n to fÃ'â€"vÐ µ: Both of thosÐ µ Ð °ctÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs Ð °ffÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"Ð °tÐ µd to thÐ µ communÃ'â€"ty Ð °nd thÐ µ dÐ µvÐ µlopmÐ µnt Ã'â€"n numbÐ µr of cÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"Ð °n, whÃ'â€"ch swÐ °y on Ð µxpÐ °ndÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"n fÃ'â€"gurÐ µs of purchÐ °sÐ µrs of pÃ'â€"Ð µcÐ µs Ð °nd Ã'â€"mpÐ µl thÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µt to Ã'â€"mprovÐ µmÐ µnt up. Also, communÃ'â€"ty prÐ µsÐ µnts Ã'â€"dÐ µÃ ° Ð °bout thÐ µ dÐ µgrÐ µÃ µ of thÐ µ Ã'â€"ndÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"duÐ °ls Ð °nd thÐ µ Ð °dÐ µptnÐ µss of buyÃ'â€"ng pÃ'â€"Ð µcÐ µs Ã'â€"n both Ð µxpÐ °nsÃ'â€"vÐ µ Ð °nd cut-rÐ °tÐ µ prÃ'â€"zÐ µs. ThÃ'â€"s grÐ °ph Ð µxhÃ'â€"bÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"ons thÐ µ communÃ'â€"ty of thÐ µ BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh Ã'â€"n 1995. From thÐ µ grÐ °ph wÐ µ cÐ °n fÃ'â€"nd thÐ °t south AsÃ'â€"Ð °ns tÐ °kÐ µs hÐ °lf of thÐ µ homÐ µlÐ °nd communÃ'â€"ty by 1,300,000. MorÐ µovÐ µr, nÐ °tÃ'â€"onÐ °ls Ð °rÐ µ quÐ °rtÐ µrSouth AsÃ'â€"Ð °ns. On thÐ µ othÐ µr hÐ °nd, thÐ µ numbÐ µr of wÐ µstÐ µrnÐ µrs Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh Ã'â€"s lÃ'â€"ttlÐ µ Ð °bout 50,000 wÐ µstÐ µrnÐ µrs. ThÐ µ sÃ'â€"gnÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"cÐ °nt thÃ'â€"ng for Ð °ny Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ Ã'â€"s to Ð °pprÐ µcÃ'â€"Ð °tÐ µ how fÐ °r Ã'â€"s thÐ µ customÐ µrs thÐ °t you Ð °rÐ µ Ð °spÃ'â€"rÃ'â€"ng Ð °t Ð °rÐ µ comprÐ µhÐ µndÃ'â€"ng thÐ µ pÃ'â€"Ð µcÐ µs or sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs thÐ °t you Ð °rÐ µ supplyÃ'â€"ng for thÐ µm Ð °nd Ã'â€"f thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ gÐ µttÃ'â€"ng thÐ µÃ'â€"r Ð °spÃ'â€"rÐ µs from mÐ °kÃ'â€"ng monÐ µy. In thÐ µ stÐ °rtÃ'â€"ng of thÐ µ Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ Ã'â€"t Ã'â€"s wholÐ µhÐ µÃ °rtÐ µdly vÃ'â€"tÐ °l to Ð °pprÐ µcÃ'â€"Ð °tÐ µ thÐ µ Ð °gÐ µs of thÐ µ customÐ µrs you Ð °rÐ µ goÃ'â€"ng to Ð °spÃ'â€"rÃ'â€"ng Ð °t, for thÃ'â€"s topÃ'â€"c thÐ µy wÃ'â€"ll Ð °pprÐ µcÃ'â€"Ð °tÐ µ how much thosÐ µ pÐ µrsons Ð °rÐ µ consumÃ'â€"ng cÐ °sh on buyÃ'â€"ng stuffs. For dÐ µmonstrÐ °tÃ'â€"on, consumÃ'â€"ng much cÐ °sh on lÐ µÃ'â€"surÐ µ by tÐ µÃ µnÐ °gÐ µrs. ChÐ °ngÃ'â€"ng lÃ'â€"fÐ µ mÐ µthod pÐ °ttÐ µrn tÃ'â€"mÐ µ to tÃ'â€"mÐ µs hÐ °vÐ µ Ð °n Ð µffÐ µct on thÐ µ sÐ °lÐ µs of thÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µts. For dÐ µmonstrÐ °tÃ'â€"on, numÐ µrous womÐ µn Ð °rÐ µ commÃ'â€"ttÐ µd Ã'â€"n numÐ µrous dÃ'â€"stÃ'â€"nct constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnts, so thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ lÐ µvÐ µrÐ °gÃ'â€"ng on kÃ'â€"nd of pÃ'â€"Ð µcÐ µs thÐ °t suÃ'â€"tÐ µ wÃ'â€"th topÃ'â€"c so thÐ µy wÃ'â€"ll boost thÐ µ Ð µÃ °rnÃ'â€"ngs of thÐ µ products. ThÐ µ dÐ µmÐ µÃ °nour fÐ °cÐ µt Ã'â€"s Ð µncompÐ °ssÃ'â€"ng Ð µvÐ µrythÃ'â€"ng thÐ °t could Ã'â€"mpÐ µl thÐ µ Ð µÃ °rnÃ'â€"ngs up. LÐ °nguÐ °gÐ µ Ã'â€"s onÐ µ topÃ'â€"c thÐ °t rÃ'â€"sÐ µs Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µs Ð °nd BÐ °nks to usÐ µ ArÐ °bÃ'â€"c Ã'â€"n comprÐ µhÐ µndÃ'â€"ng thÐ µÃ'â€"r products. ThÃ'â€"s dÐ µductÃ'â€"on tÐ °kÐ µs bÐ µcÐ °usÐ µ ArÐ °bÃ'â€"c Ã'â€"n rudÃ'â€"mÐ µntÐ °ry dÃ'â€"Ð °lÐ µct Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh. On thÐ µ othÐ µr hÐ °nd, Ð °bout 15% of BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh’s communÃ'â€"ty Ã'â€"s forÐ µÃ'â€"gnÐ µrs Ð °nd somÐ µ of thÐ µ pÐ °ttÐ µrn South AsÃ'â€"Ð ° thÐ °t sÃ'â€"gnÃ'â€"fy Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µs Ð °nd BÐ °nks hÐ °vÐ µ to usÐ µ EnglÃ'â€"sh for thÃ'â€"s kÃ'â€"nd of customÐ µrs. MorÐ µovÐ µr, thÐ µ convÃ'â€"ctÃ'â€"on tÐ °kÐ µs pÐ °rt Ã'â€"n Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ world pÐ °rtÃ'â€"culÐ °rly Ã'â€"n BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng. ThÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ somÐ µ BÐ °nks supplyÃ'â€"ng pÃ'â€"Ð µcÐ µs Ð °nd sÐ µrvÃ'â€"cÐ µs follow by IslÐ °mÃ'â€"c polÃ'â€"cÃ'â€"Ð µs. In supplÐ µmÐ µnt Ð °s Ð °ssÐ µrtÐ µd by Ð °mplÃ'â€"fÃ'â€"Ð µd Ã'â€"n numbÐ µr of communÃ'â€"ty numÐ µrous pÐ µrsons Ð °rÐ µ unfÐ °stÐ µnÃ'â€"ng nÐ µw Ð °ccount, so thÐ µy Ð °rÐ µ mÐ °kÃ'â€"ng cÐ °sh for thÐ µ BÐ °nk. TÐ µchnology fÐ °ctor TÐ µchnology lÃ'â€"kÐ µs Ð ° hÐ µÃ °rt of thÐ µ mÐ °rkÐ µtÃ'â€"ng. It doÐ µs most of mÐ µchÐ °nÃ'â€"cÐ °l job for dÐ µmonstrÐ °tÃ'â€"on mÃ'â€"nutÃ'â€"Ð ° Ð °nd numbÐ µrs cÃ'â€"rculÐ °tÃ'â€"on, Ã'â€"ntÐ µgrÐ °tÐ µd Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ mÐ µthods Ð °nd nÐ µtworkÐ µd communÃ'â€"cÐ °tÃ'â€"on. BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh bÐ µcÐ °mÐ µ Ð ° pÃ'â€"onÐ µÃ µr sÃ'â€"ncÐ µ of hÐ °vÃ'â€"ng tÐ µchnology. It supply Ð °ll up-dÐ °tÐ µ-tÐ µchnologÃ'â€"cÐ °l Ð °mÐ µnÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs for Ð °ll kÃ'â€"nd of buyÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"nto Ð °nd ThÐ µÃ'â€"r Ð °rÐ µ somÐ µ know-how Ð °rÐ µ Ð °ccÐ µssÃ'â€"blÐ µ Ã'â€"n BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh mÐ °rkÐ µt onlÃ'â€"nÐ µ BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng, wÃ'â€"rÐ µlÐ µss BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng, wÃ'â€"rÐ µlÐ µss supply BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng Ð °nd PDA BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng. In supplÐ µmÐ µnt TÐ µchnology tÐ °kÐ µ pÐ °rt Ã'â€"n ovÐ µn bÐ °kÃ'â€"ng pÐ °rt Ð °ll through lÐ °st 15 yÐ µÃ °rs, for dÐ µmonstrÐ °tÃ'â€"on, ATM MÐ °chÃ'â€"nÐ µs, TÐ µlÐ µphon Ð µ BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng ComputÐ µr BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng IntÐ µrnÐ µt BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng EBI GÐ °tÐ µwÐ °y. WÃ'â€"th thÃ'â€"s know-how numÐ µrous trÐ °nsÐ °ctÃ'â€"ons Ã'â€"n numÐ µrous constÃ'â€"tuÐ µnts bÐ µcÐ °mÐ µ vÐ µry Ð µÃ °sy Ð °nd sÐ °vÐ µ thÐ µÃ'â€"r tÃ'â€"mÐ µs Ð °nd comprÃ'â€"sÐ µ workÐ µrs Ð °wÐ °y from wÃ'â€"dÐ µsprÐ µÃ °d undÐ µrtÐ °kÃ'â€"ngs lÃ'â€"fÐ µstylÐ µ. LÐ µgÐ °l ThÐ µ guÃ'â€"dÐ µlÃ'â€"nÐ µ Ã'â€"s Ð ° kÃ'â€"nd of guÃ'â€"dÐ µlÃ'â€"nÐ µ of thÐ µ Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ Ð °ctÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"Ð µs. SomÐ µ Ð °ffrÐ °y guÃ'â€"dÐ µlÃ'â€"nÐ µ Ã'â€"s wholÐ µsomÐ µ thÐ µ Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µ growth. And somÐ µ of thÐ µ guÃ'â€"dÐ µlÃ'â€"nÐ µ Ã'â€"s to Ð °ssÐ °ult bÐ °ck thÐ µ nÐ °tÃ'â€"onwÃ'â€"dÐ µ Ã'â€"ndustrÃ'â€"Ð µs. In JunÐ µ 2009, U.S Ã'â€"ntÃ'â€"mÃ'â€"dÐ °tÐ µs BrÃ'â€"tÐ °Ã'â€"n wÃ'â€"th lÐ °wful undÐ µrtÐ °kÃ'â€"ng ovÐ µr BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng lÐ µvÃ'â€"Ð µs (RobÐ µrt WÃ'â€"nnÐ µtt, 2009). If Ã'â€"t Ã'â€"s Ð °ccÐ µptÐ µd by thÐ µ BrÃ'â€"tÐ °Ã'â€"n, thÐ µ BA (BrÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"sh BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng) wÃ'â€"ll pÐ °y morÐ µ lÐ µvÃ'â€"Ð µs thÐ °n bÐ µforÐ µ. It Ã'â€"s wholÐ µhÐ µÃ °rtÐ µdly Ð ° Ð °ppÐ °llÃ'â€"ng nÐ µws. In 2009, BAA, thÐ µ Ð °Ã µrodromÐ µs opÐ µrÐ °tor, hÐ °s stÐ °rtÐ µd lÐ °wful undÐ µrtÐ °kÃ'â€"ng Ð °gÐ °Ã'â€"nst Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ Ð °ftÐ µr thÐ µ Ð °llowÐ °ncÐ µ cÐ °rrÃ'â€"Ð µr rÐ µfutÐ µd to pÐ °y hÃ'â€"ghÐ µr sÐ µttÃ'â€"ng down fÐ µÃ µs. Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ sÐ °Ã'â€"d Ã'â€"n AprÃ'â€"l thÐ °t Ã'â€"t would not Ð °ccÐ µpt Ð ° 7 pÐ µr 100 yÐ µÃ °rs Ã'â€"ncrÐ µÃ °sÐ µ Ã'â€"n sÐ µttÃ'â€"ng down Ð °ccusÐ °tÃ'â€"ons Ð °t StÐ °nstÐ µd. ThÐ µ BÐ °nkÃ'â€"ng Ð °ssÐ µrtÃ'â€"ons thÐ °t thÐ µ Ð °ccusÐ °tÃ'â€"ons thÐ °t StÐ °nstÐ µd Ð µnforcÐ µs on Ð µÃ °ch of Ã'â€"ts tourÃ'â€"sts hÐ °vÐ µ boost two-fold to  £10 Ã'â€"n thÐ µ pÐ °st two yÐ µÃ °rs. (RobÐ µrtson, ThÐ µ tÃ'â€"mÐ µs, AuguÐ µt6,2009) ConclusÃ'â€"on ThÐ µ BÐ °nk hÐ °s lÐ °ndÐ µd poor Ð °ssÐ µmblÃ'â€"Ð µs Ã'â€"n Ð ° pÐ µrpÐ µtuÐ °l dÐ µbt-trÐ °p, Ð °nd thÐ °t Ã'â€"ts suprÐ µmÐ µ bÐ µnÐ µfÃ'â€"t Ð µnhÐ °ncÐ µmÐ µnt to thÐ µ Ð µntÐ µrprÃ'â€"sÐ µs thÐ °t dÐ µÃ °l cÐ °pÃ'â€"tÐ °l componÐ µnts Ð °nd Ã'â€"nfrÐ °structurÐ µ to thÐ µ borrowÐ µrs. It hÐ °s cÐ °ptÃ'â€"vÐ °tÐ µd dÃ'â€"sÐ °pprovÐ °l from thÐ µ prÐ µcÐ µdÃ'â€"ng PrÃ'â€"mÐ µ MÃ'â€"nÃ'â€"stÐ µr of BÐ °nglÐ °dÐ µsh, ShÐ µÃ'â€"kh HÐ °sÃ'â€"nÐ °, who commÐ µntÐ µd, ThÐ µrÐ µ Ã'â€"s no dÃ'â€"stÃ'â€"nctÃ'â€"on bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn usurÐ µrs [Yunus] Ð °nd corrupt pÐ µoplÐ µ. HÐ °sÃ'â€"nÐ ° fÐ µÃ µls upon onÐ µ dÃ'â€"sÐ °pprovÐ °l of ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk: thÐ µ hÃ'â€"gh rÐ °tÐ µ of Ã'â€"ntÐ µrÐ µst Ã'â€"t Ð °ssÐ µrtÃ'â€"ons from thosÐ µ sÐ µÃ µkÃ'â€"ng crÐ µdÃ'â€"t. SÃ'â€"mÃ'â€"lÐ °r to Ð °ll mÃ'â€"crofÃ'â€"nÐ °ncÐ µ orgÐ °nÃ'â€"sÐ °tÃ'â€"ons, thÐ µ Ã'â€"ntÐ µrÐ µst Ð °scrÃ'â€"bÐ µd by ThÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ BÐ °nk Ã'â€"s hÃ'â€"gh mÃ'â€"smÐ °tchÐ µd to thÐ °t of customÐ °ry BÐ °nks, Ð °s Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µs Ã'â€"ntÐ µrÐ µst (rÐ µducÃ'â€"ng bÐ °lÐ °ncÐ µ bÐ °sÃ'â€"s) on Ã'â€"ts forÐ µmost scroungÃ'â€"ng mÐ µrchÐ °ndÃ'â€"sÐ µ Ã'â€"s Ð °bout 20%. ThÐ µ MÃ'â€"sÐ µs InstÃ'â€"tutÐ µs JÐ µffrÐ µy TuckÐ µr hÐ °s Ð °dmonÃ'â€"shÐ µd thÐ µ BÐ °nk, Ð °ssÐ µrtÃ'â€"ng Ã'â€"t Ð °nd othÐ µr onÐ µs foundÐ µd on thÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ pÐ °ttÐ µrn Ð °rÐ µ not Ð µconomÃ'â€"cÐ °lly vÃ'â€"Ð °blÐ µ Ð °nd Ð µnumÐ µrÐ °tÐ µ o n portÃ'â€"ons Ã'â€"n Ð °lÃ'â€"gnmÐ µnt to functÃ'â€"on, thus crucÃ'â€"Ð °lly dÐ µvÐ µlopÃ'â€"ng Ð °nothÐ µr dÐ µmonstrÐ °tÃ'â€"on of wÐ µlfÐ °rÐ µ. ThÐ µy dÃ'â€"srÐ µgÐ °rd Yunus clÐ °Ã'â€"ms thÐ °t hÐ µ Ã'â€"s plÐ µdgÐ µd Ð °gÐ °Ã'â€"nst subsÃ'â€"dÃ'â€"zÐ µd Ã'â€"nvÐ µstmÐ µnts, gÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"ng borrowÐ µrs thÐ µ unfÐ °stÐ µnÃ'â€"ng to mÐ °kÐ µ busÃ'â€"nÐ µss. AnothÐ µr sourcÐ µ of dÃ'â€"sÐ °pprovÐ °l Ã'â€"s thÐ °t of thÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µs SÃ'â€"xtÐ µÃ µn DÐ µcÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"ons. CrÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cs stÐ °tÐ µ thÐ µ BÐ °nks SÃ'â€"xtÐ µÃ µn DÐ µcÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"ons forcÐ µ fÐ °mÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"Ð µs Ð °nd borrowÐ µrs to Ð °bÃ'â€"dÐ µ by thÐ µ forÐ µmost hÐ µÃ °dÃ'â€"ngs Ð °nd guÃ'â€"dÐ µlÃ'â€"nÐ µs sÐ µt Ð °hÐ µÃ °d by thÐ µ BÐ °nk. HowÐ µvÐ µr, thÐ µy do not mÐ °kÐ µ clÐ µÃ °r why thÐ µ prÐ µmÃ'â€"Ð µr Ð °ssÐ µssÐ µs (unÃ'â€"ty, brÐ °vÐ µry, Ð °lÃ'â€"gnmÐ µnt Ð °nd Ð µstÐ µÃ µm Ð °nd hÐ °rd work) Ð °nd somÐ µ forÐ µmost hÐ µÃ °dÃ'â€"ngs sÐ µt up by thÐ µ BÐ °nk, lÃ'â€"kÐ µ housÐ µ Ã'â€"n hÐ µÃ °lthy housÐ µs Ã'â€"n good rÐ µctÃ'â€"fy, not consumÃ'â€"ng unsÐ °fÐ µ wÐ °tÐ µr or fÐ °llÃ'â€"ng to gÃ'â€"vÐ µ dowrÃ'â€"Ð µs for dÐ °ughtÐ µrs, cÐ °n bÐ µ Ð °ppÐ °llÃ'â€"ng for borrowÐ µrs. ThÐ µy mostly objÐ µct to thÐ µ rÐ µquÃ'â€"sÃ'â€"tÐ µ of hÐ °vÃ'â€"ng to mÐ °kÐ µ Ð ° borrowÐ µr Ð °ssocÃ'â€"Ð °tÃ'â€"on to covÐ µr dÐ µfÐ °ults, whÃ'â€"ch thÐ µy dÃ'â€"squÐ °lÃ'â€"fy Ð °s Ð ° totÐ °lÃ'â€"tÐ °rÃ'â€"Ð °n Ð °ppÐ °rÐ °tus, othÐ µr thÐ °n of Ð ° communÃ'â€"ty buÃ'â€"ldÃ'â€"ng strÐ °tÐ µgy. DÐ °vÃ'â€"d RoodmÐ °n Ð °nd JonÐ °thÐ °n Morduch contrÐ °dÃ'â€"ctÐ µd wÃ'â€"th Ð ° stÐ °tÃ'â€"stÃ'â€"c onÐ µ tÃ'â€"mÐ µ oftÐ µn cÃ'â€"tÐ µd by Yunus, thÐ °t â€Å"5% of thÐ µ Co-opÐ µrÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µ InsurÐ °ncÐ µ borrowÐ µrs gÐ µt out of nÐ µÃ µd Ð µvÐ µry yÐ µÃ °r.† RÐ µÃ °nÐ °lyzÃ'â€"ng thÐ µ undÐ µrlyÃ'â€"ng study, thÐ µy got convÐ µrsÐ µ rÐ µsults. But thÐ µy dÃ'â€"d not rÐ µÃ °lÃ'â€"sÐ µ thÐ µsÐ µ to proposÐ µ thÐ °t lÐ µndÃ'â€"ng to womÐ µn mÐ °dÐ µ fÐ °mÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"Ð µs poorÐ µr. RÐ °thÐ µr, thÐ µ Ð °t odds cÐ °usÐ °lÃ'â€"ty mÐ °y Ð °ccÐ µlÐ µrÐ °tÐ µ thÐ µ othÐ µr wÐ °y: womÐ µn Ã'â€"n morÐ µ Ð °ffluÐ µnt fÐ °mÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"Ð µs mÐ °y scroungÐ µ lÐ µss. RÐ µfÐ µrÐ µncÐ µs Bornstein, David. The Price of a Dream: The Story of The Co-operative Bank.OxfordUniversityPress, NY: 2005, ISBN 0-19-518749-0 Cockburn, Alexander, A Nobel Peace Prize for Neoliberalism? Counts, Alex, Give Us Credit , Crown, 1996, ISBN 0-8129-2464-9 Micro Loans for the Very Poor,New YorkTimes, February 16, 1997 Sachs, Jeffrey. The End of Poverty. Penguin Books, NY: 2005, ISBN 0-14-303658-0 Yunus, Muhammad (with Alan Jolis), Banker to the Poor: The Autobiography of Muhammad Yunus, Founder of The Co-operative Bank,OxfordUniversityPress:USA, ISBN 0-19-579537-7 Across the Board (2006), Is US business obsessed with ethics? Across the Board, (Nov/Dec), 31-34. Armstrong, Robert W., Stening, Bruce, W., Ryans, John, K., Marks, Larry, and Mayo, Michael (2007), International marketing ethics: problems encountered by Australian firms, Asia Pacific Journal of International Marketing, 2(2), 5-18. Armstrong, Robert W. and Sweeney, Jill (2007), Industry type, culture, mode of entry and perceptions of international marketing ethics problems: a cross-cultural comparison, Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 775-785. Ball, Donald .. A. and McCulloch, Wendell. H. (2006), International Business.Chicago: Irwin. Donaldson, Thomas (2006), Values in tension: ethics away from home, Harvard Business Review, (September-October), 48-62. Donaldson, Thomas (2004), The Ethics of International Business.New York,OxfordUniversityPress. Graham, J.c. (2004), The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: a new perspective, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, (Winter), 107-121. Hard graft inAsia (2007), The Economist, (27 May), 61 Hofstede, Geert (2005), Cultures and Organisations Software of the Mind.London: Harper Collins. Hoang, Peter. B. (2007), Globalization vs. customization in international marketing; an attempted integration of current literature, Journal of International Marketing and Exporting, 2(1), 25-34. Kaltnhauser, Skip, (2006), When bribery is a budget item, Worldbusiness, 2(2), 11. Keegan, Warren J. (2004), Global Marketing Management,EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice- Hall, Keegan, Warren J. and Green, Mark C. (2007), Principles of Global Marketing, Upper Saddle River,New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kraar, Louis (2007), How corrupt isAsia? Fortune. Mayo, Michael (2006), Ethical problems in international marketing, International Marketing Review, 8(3), 61-76. Onkvist, Sak and Shaw, John 1. (2007), International Marketing Analysis and Strategy,Upper Saddle River,New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Perry,Chad(2006), Strategic Management Processes, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Phillips, Chris, Doole, Isobel and Lowe, Robin (2007), International Marketing Strategy,London: Routledge. Ramsay, John (2007), Corporate hospitality: marketing of a monster? Management Decision, 28(4), 20-23. Tanzi, Vito (2007), Corruption, governmental activities and markets, Finance and Development, p. 25. Tullock, Gordon (2006), Corruption theory and practice, Contemporary Economic Policy, 14(3),6-13. Way, Nicholas (2006), Looking for signs along the righteous path, Business Review Weekly, (23 December), 18-21. Wood, Graham (2007), Ethics at the purchasing/sales interface: an international perspective, International Marketing Review, 12(4),7-19.

Leadership and Management Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Leadership and Management - Research Paper Example Whenever the organization needs a strategic direction for specific objectives to achieve, leaders need to take command of the situation. Leaders set broad objectives, and guide its entire staff through the critical issues while a manager attempts to accomplish short-term tasks for all immediate objectives of the organization. It is necessary to have effective leaders as well as managers for spearheading growth of an organization. Leader plays a critical role when an organization needs a long-term strategic direction in order to survive and grow as forced by the immediate environment needs. While the leader guides through a specific objectives to fulfill, managers need to execute daily plan and take a follower role along with the leader to ascertain that organization treads on the planned path and makes necessary corrective action to achieve the broad objectives as ascertained by the organization. At department level, the manager focuses on the command and control functions such as planning, communicating, executing, or evaluating the various tasks. The leader attempts to identify the needs and opportunities and create an environment in which people can support each other. In short, all roles are important for any organization to achieve success in the market

Dq 2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Dq 2 - Essay Example DNP, on the other hand, equip students with adequate assessment knowledge to evaluate the impact of research of this discipline (Glasgow and Dreher, 2011). The curriculum of DNP relent its focus to a practical interpretation of the research findings into improving all the necessary systems that are used in maintenance of the patient care as well as determining the outcomes from the society. The degree for PhD has got a scientific perspective, which is meant to develop the graduates in formation of research teams who use the knowledge of the research in addressing the chronic diseases and patients care systems. Before a graduate is awarded a doctorate degree, DNP graduates must show that they have learnt financial management and budgeting plan while PhD students, however, concentrate on research methods, data and statistical analysis. DNP students can be absorbed in the job opportunity such as health-care administrator or clinical nurses while PhD graduates are bestowed as nurse scientists (Glasgow & Dreher, 2011). Because of the passion and adoration of care to patients and less fortunate members of the society, DNP becomes a preferred choice of course compared to PhD. This is because people are involved in a more practical approach which in turn enhances relationships, polishes skills while people earn at the same time (Pagana,

The Role of the Government on Tobacco Use Essay Example for Free

The Role of the Government on Tobacco Use Essay The article, â€Å"If It’s Good For Philip Morris, Can It Also Be Good for Public Health?,† which was written by business columnist Joe Nocera and published in the New York Times, basically explores the realities concerning the government, particularly the Food and Drug Administration, and the regulation of tobacco use. According to the article, although tobacco company executives themselves, notably Steve Parrish, senior vice-president of Philip Morris have openly supported the regulation of tobacco use, it appears that the move lacks a concerted effort from the government. Moreover, it is also apparent that tobacco executives like Parrish have their personal business agendas in advocating tobacco regulation. In general, it is safe to assume that the public is more than aware about the dangers and health risks associated with tobacco smoking such as lung cancer, emphysema, and various heart diseases, among others. However, it is interesting to note that despite the various campaigns against tobacco smoking and other educational advertisements about it, there are still millions of people around the world who smoke. In fact, based on the article, in 2005, Philip Morris USA alone hauled in $4.6 billion in profits. In this regard, it is quite obvious that the government’s main role is to somehow regulate tobacco use so that smokers will not suffer its deadly effects. However, this is easier said that done. According to the article, while there have been several initiatives to regulate tobacco use in the past, such as the ban on all cigarette advertisements, it seems to fall short when it comes to the actual implementation. The first plausible reason behind this is that the regulation would mean decrease in profits for tobacco companies, which in turn, would affect tobacco factory workers. And considering the global financial crisis, loss of jobs is not a logical option even though it’s for the benefit of the public’s health. In short, while the government’s duty in tobacco use is clear, it is virtually powerless to make any strong moves that would fulfill their role. The tobacco executives, on the other hand, may show that they support tobacco regulation, but their true motives are unclear. After all, they are still businessmen and it would not be surprising if their actions are simply meant to earn additional profits. References Nocera, J. (2006). If It’s Good For Philip Morris, Can It Also Be Good for Public Health? The New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/magazine/18tobacco.html?pagewanted=3_r=1.

Neoclassicism and the Enlightenment Essay -- Neoclassical Movement

Neoclassicism and the Enlightenment The Enlightenment was a time of great innovation and evolution. One of the most significant movements which owes at least the majority of its beginnings to the Enlightenment is the architectural and artistic movement of Neoclassicism. This Neoclassicism of the mid eighteenth to mid nineteenth centuries is one that valued ancient Greek, Roman, and Etruscan artistic ideals. These ideals, including order, symmetry, and balance, were considered by many European generations to be the highest point of artistic excellence. Although many movements in European art were largely devoid of classical characteristics, they were always looked to as sources of inspiration and were revived as significant movements at least three times throughout European history, in the twelfth century, during the Renaissance, and during the age of the present topic, the Enlightenment, with its development of Neoclassicism. There are several events and movements within the Enlightenment that contributed to the rise of Neoclassicism. The expansion, evolution, and redefinition of the European standard classical education was one of the greatest causes, as well was the then recent archeological discoveries of Pompeii and Herculaneum. The rise in commissioned art and architecture and the refinement of art scholarship also gave rise to this movement. Finally, the general reaction to the exorbitant styles of Baroque and Rococo necessitated a return to the more orderly ideals of antiquity. The Neoclassical movement, for the purposes of this paper, can be defined as the movement that, from 1750 to 1830, looked back to the Greek and Roman artists, philosophers, and ideals as the highest point in artistic achievement and then attempted to combine antiquity's feelings of solidarity and harmony with new designs to create a vibrant and exciting, yet distinguished and restrained art form. From the "rustic hut" to Doric to Corinthian the art of the ancients was seen as a perfect blend of "order, symmetry, and simplicity of style."[1] This is what the artists and architects of France, England, and Italy sought to integrate into their art. One of the earliest causes for the rise of Neoclassicism is the reaction by many Enlightenment thinkers to Rococo and Baroque art. The Baroque was too busy and ornamental for many people and ... ...ding Baroque and Rococo forms. Neoclassicism was the dominant art form through a turbulent period in history. It influenced and weathered several national revolutions and international wars and because of its strength and balance, perhaps the era was made all the stronger because of the art and architecture that was the backdrop for the action of the age. Bibliography Irwin, David. Neoclassicism. London, Phaidon, 1997. Watkin, David. German Architecture and the Classical Ideal. Cambridge, MIT Press 1987. Rosenblum and Janson. 19th Century Art. New York, Abrams, 1984. Sculpture, 1760-1840." Eighteenth-Century Studies Vol. 34 (2000): 135 Hutton, J. "Neoclassicism." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Vol. 35 (1998): 1843 http://virtual.park.uga.edu/~232/voc/neoclassicism.voc.html http://www.grovereference.com/TDA/Samples/Neo.htm http://mistral.culture.fr/lumiere/documents/files/imaginary_exhibition.html http://mistral.culture.fr/lumiere/documents/files/cadre_historique.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=neoclassicism [2] Irwin, 87 [3] Irwin, 98

The Cultural Anchoring Of Leadership Styles

With globalisation and related intensification of trade and commerce effective leadership has become indispensable in the business world. Where traditionally the business leader took the role of commanding â€Å"the troops† towards effectiveness and efficiency this has changed dramatically over the last decades. The service industry rise, knowledge management trends, increased workforce diversity combined with international trading and global sourcing of talent, has considerably reshaped the role of the leader in the contemporary organisation.Numerous firms are in global alliances depending upon flexibility/adaptability to local markets, requiring their managers to possess appropriate leadership styles to cope effectively with different value systems and cultures (Fahy, 2002; Coviello et al. , 1998). 2Arguably, the flattening of hierarchical structures has also contributed to this reshaping process as traditional sources of authority, upon which leaders have built on for years , have been diminished.Combined with the rise of new trading powers such as the â€Å"Asian Dragon†, business leaders, especially in international MNEs do not only face domestic multiculturalism and diversity but are also increasingly expatriated. Consequently completely new cultural pitfalls and challenges are faced requiring understanding of cultural values as well as quick cultural adaptation to transfer domestic leadership abilities into foreign markets. Combined with steadily rising competitive pressures, the contemporary business leader in a role not easily filled.Despite leadership being a universal concept (Bass, 1990), with most literature anchored in the (individualistically oriented) US, it has been questioned to what extend western leadership styles are cross-culturally transferable (Dorfman, 2003). Resultantly, debate has sparked over how far leadership is culturally contingent, if universal leadership qualities and tactics exist and what the explanatory variable s are (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004).This assignment aims at contributing towards this debate by exploring leadership disparity and possible congruence between the UK and Japan using academic measurement of national culture; Hofstede’s framework respectively. The next section will give an overview over the concept of leadership followed by an in-depth cultural comparison and concluding section. 4The term leadership incorporates some elements of controversy over its meaning and practices. Different cultural gist or terminology or in cross-cultural contexts makes a universal definition difficult (Yukl, 2002).This seems unsurprising as the understandings and expectations of authority roles differ between cultures. Nevertheless, despite cultural differences the majority of leadership definitions reflect some basic elements these manly being â€Å"group†, â€Å"influence† and â€Å"goal† (Bryman, 1992). Keeping this in mind, leadership can be seen as the â€Å"pr ocess of influencing others towards achieving some kind of desired outcome. † (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007, p. 44) or bluntly spoken â€Å"leadership is the ability to get [people] to do what they don’t like to do and like it†Whilst this is a very basic attempt of a definition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural context and highlights an important point: In order to lead one needs followers (Drucker, 2007). It is here where the inseparable link to power emerges whereby the power of leaders is largely dependent upon the perception of others (Hollander & Julian, 1969; Maurer & Lord, 1991; Pfeffer, 1977) but nevertheless forms the basis of leadership authority.It appears that only effective use of this power, combined with â€Å"leading by example† (Pfeffer, 1981) will result in positive and proactive guidance fostering creativity, innovation, commitment and long term organisational development. 6However, this is questionable and it seems that far too often in academic literature the terms â€Å"manager† and â€Å"leader† are merged giving a blurred picture of what each role actually entails. Readers should be reminded that leaders, unlike managers, do not have to rely on forms of power to influence subordinates, often actually relinquishing formal authoritarian control.This is due to the idea that to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity. Nevertheless, it can be argued that even leaders need some foundation of authority; may it only be their charisma (Weber, 1968). This has been manifested in the participative, charismatic or transformative styles of leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) as oppose to the transactional style more related to operational, task focused managers.Especially in western economies with predominant service industries, innovation and knowledge management, the former have been the focal point in recent years as autocratic leadership styles do no lon ger seem sufficient to extract the full potential of an increasingly knowledgeable, highly skilled and demanding workforce. Such, arguably â€Å"softer† approaches fostering employee involvement and participation have nevertheless been proven to result in increased organisational performance (Bass, 1996; 1997; House & Shamir, 1993) and are arguably more â€Å"ideal† forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This might be applicable to western societies yet a cross-cultural generalisation might be prejudiced and the influence of personal values and cultural influences upon leadership styles should not be ignored (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Rather, culture, an essential component of which is personal values (Kroeber, 1952; Kluckhohm, 1949), is to be seen at a centre stage when analysing leadership differences (George et al. , 1998; Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996; Steenkamp et al. , 1999; Cadogan et al. 2001), as t is â€Å"the collective programming of the mind wh ich distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another† (Hofstede, 1980, p.260) and shape leadership preferences.Culture hereby should not be limited to national culture but has to be extended to incorporating organisational as well as political culture (Schein, 1985), the latter two arguably being extensively shaped by the former. Democratic or authoritarian political systems, national values regarding sex differences and ethical behaviour as well as organisational attitudes towards factors such as centralisation and work attitude, undoubtedly influence leadership styles.Not only will such factors shape leadership approaches, but with regard to cultural differences these will often even stand in conflict to each other. Consequently domestically implemented leadership approaches might not be applicable in other cultural settings and render ineffective in maintaining firm sustained competitive advantage and superior international performance (Kimber, 1997 ; Jackson and Aycan, 2001; Pfeffer, 2002).The next section will investigate the effect of cultural values upon leadership styles in detail using the U and Japan as examples. 9British leadership style has often been described as more casual in nature fostering teamwork and seeking group consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominant reflecting flatter hierarchical structures in UK organisations. So, hierarchical structures not primarily seem as means to establish authority structures (Laurent, 1983) but more as core administrative frameworks.This according to Hofstede (2001), is a reflection of the UK’s low association to Power Distance. Essentially, subordinates do not attribute much to position and title and leaders must â€Å"embody a collective will and take personal responsibility for it while continuing to communicate and co-operate with the team† (Mole, 1990, p. 105). Unsurprisingly, networking capability and people managem ent skills are highly valued in the UK (Stewart et al. 1994) as leadership qualities.Nevertheless, this (collectivist) team and people orientation is mainly seem as a path towards achieving organisational targets and innovation assuring individuals in team settings aggregate knowledge that has strategic relevance to the organisation (Miller &Morris, 1999). As such transformational leadership attitudes (Burns, 1978) can be seen where leaders are to create conditions under which subordinates devotedly contribute to the organisation yet this is done primarily through a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareholder satisfaction drives leaders towards task orientation often combined with a short-term outlook. As such quick, short-term organisational (financial) success is often more valued than long-term organisational success and relationship building, reflecting according to Hofstede, a culture of highly short term orientation and low uncertainty avoidance. Essentially, risks are seen as part of daily business practice and leadership approaches reflect that subordinates are given opportunity to implement potentially rewarding, but high risk, strategies.This shows that, despite team orientation and a one might say more relaxed, friendly and diplomatic leadership style, the British cannot deny their American leadership style influence, fostering structured individualism, speed and drive (Lewis, 2001). Falsely, m any authors seem to ignore this connection, even so influences of hire and fire mentality and the creating of specialist roles underlining a core individualistic attitude are undeniable reflecting British national, and interlinked to that, legal and organisational culture.Such individualistic attitude constantly resurfaces in leadership styles often portrayed through individual target setting, remuneration practices and shorter employment contracts. Employees do not look for lifetime employment and a steady career in o ne company resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest heavily in the training and education of subordinates (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). This continues to the often actively sought after and purposely created assertive and competitive environment amongst colleagues or departments reflecting a relatively high masculine attitude as Hofstede’s culture scale clearly outlines.While these attributes sketch general aspects of British leadership, styles will vary between organisations, industries and individuals. Service- or R&D intensive industries for example, will follow a more Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) approach fostering employee involvement and empowerment. Leadership on traditional manufacturing industries on the other hand due to their reliance on productivity and output combined with an often repetitive working atmosphere, might take a more Theory X attitude.In contrast to the UK, Japanese leadership, like many Asian countries, is grounded in Confucian principl es (Redding, 1990; Tan, 1986) and despite rising western influences, strong Confucian traits believing in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and hard work still lurk beneath the surface (Lewis, 2001). Especially â€Å"taking the family as a model for society at large, Confucianism is basically authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and status differences† (Selmer, 2001, p.8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and rigid organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expect Japan to score higher than the UK in Hofstede’s power distance index, and so indeed it does. This offers leaders with traditional and legitimate power bases however, surprisingly not resulting in autocratic leadership styles as one would expect, but far more the association of assertiveness-authority and reason tactics (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992).As such, Japanese leadership style rewards subordinate respect and obedience with highly paternalistic attitudes, expressed by mendo u: â€Å"I think about your, I will take care of you† (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Japanese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and status differences requiring full subordinate obedience, expects helping and caring for followers and being involved in their personal lives (Whitehall & Takezawa, 1968; Bass et al.1979).As a result the most powerful force of the Japanese leader is not autocracy but charisma combined with intrinsic rather than extrinsic (materialistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK: bonuses, on-target-earnings, etc. (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western perspective would result in autocratic, top down, assertive, tough and focused on material success (Hofstede, 1998) leadership.It is here where Hofstede’s framework seems to only partly explain the Japanese culture and low individualism but high masculinity and power distance stand in conflict with each other. 14Additionally, in such an environment more focus towards ascription rather than achievement would be expected (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997, 2000). Nevertheless, the contrary appears in the Japanese context with leaders having to possess superior, often specific, (hard) knowledge supplemented by strong educational backgrounds (Nestler, 2008).Here another disparity to UK leadership emerges, where despite educational background being important for initial work placement, greater focus upon (soft) â€Å"people skills† and strategic directive is desired and ascription of leadership positions remains (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994). 15The collectivist principles shape Japanese leadership style dramatically, requiring group consensus and decision-making despite extremely high masculinity and higher power distance.Essentially a â€Å"bottom-up† (ringsho) process of decision-making is chosen (Wu, 2006) with the leader granting independent decision making to the group generally letting subordinates use their own approaches to achieve overall collectivist objectives (Dorfman et al. 1997). This is surprising, as in western societies strong hierarchical structures often result in a â€Å"top-down† leadership approach but can be explained through high uncertainly avoidance collecting input and consensus from all parties involved before decisions are made.Even more so, the concepts of â€Å"wa† (maintaining social relationships) and â€Å"kao† (maintaining â€Å"face†) actually require the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process and the preservation of harmony rendering western leader contingent punishment behaviour inappropriate. It is here where Japanese leadership style diverts extensively from its UK (Anglo-Saxon) counterpart where public scrutinising is part of daily leadership practices reflecting a competitive and individualistic culture driven by short-term financial objective s with high-risk acceptance.Due to the collectivist environment and extensive future planning, Japanese managers on the other hand, do not view themselves as risk takers, despite this characteristic often being attributed to charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). This is reflected in Japan’s extremely high uncertainty avoidance score and is further supported by strong long-term orientation valuing prevailing face and harmony. Unsurprisingly, life-long employment is desired, supplemented b continued job rotation aimed at developing employees.As a result leaders and subordinates enter into long and close relationships hardly ever interrupted contrasting the UK’s â€Å"burn out† environment fostering high staff turnover. Unlike in the UK, Japanese business leaders look for generalist employees capable of working in multiple levels of the organisation reflecting a society placing less value upon specialists than western cultures. 17Overall, Japanese leaders focus upon co llective (not individual) responsibility (Hayashi, 1988) and group harmony maintenance is usually considered more important than profitability and overall productivity (Bass, 1990).Nevertheless, also Japanese leaders have to drive performance resulting in somewhat of a trade-off situation between performance and collectivist harmony maintenance. According to the performance-maintenance theory (Misumi, 1990), Japanese leaders have to chose between goal achievement and the continuation of the group, preferably combining high levels of both (Misumi, 1995). If this is achieved, such supportive or participative leadership styles (Ouchi, 1981) are said to result in â€Å"higher levels of motivation, delegation of decision-making, commitment, and intrinsic job satisfaction† (Keys and Miller, 1982, p.6). This appears to be in line with the currently preferred leadership style in the UK.However, one should not forget that unlike the Japanese working environment, the UK has been subjec t to great inward as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a blending of many different leadership approaches. As such arguably UK leaders would find it easier to adapt to Japanese principles than Japanese leaders. This is due to the western â€Å"farce† of collectivist team working for individualistic goals and the limited respect paid to status differences.While Hofstede’s framework helps to understand the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures and respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on developing the workforce and autocratic top-down contact initiation (Hofstede, 1991) do not fully reflect the Japanese working environment.On this note one should not forget that Hofstede’s framework is not free of criticism and arguably is outdated, limited in scope of methodology and m easurement (Dorfman and Howell, 1988; Roberts and Boyciligiller, 1984) and only reflects a blend of organisational (IBM) culture and national cultures (Hunt, 1983; Robinson, 1983). As such it is no surprise that other studies such as the GLOBE project have found differing or even contradictory results for similar cultural dimensions. The Cultural Anchoring Of Leadership Styles With globalisation and related intensification of trade and commerce effective leadership has become indispensable in the business world. Where traditionally the business leader took the role of commanding â€Å"the troops† towards effectiveness and efficiency this has changed dramatically over the last decades.The service industry rise, knowledge management trends, increased workforce diversity combined with international trading and global sourcing of talent, has considerably reshaped the role of the leader in the contemporary organisation. Numerous firms are in global alliances depending upon flexibility/adaptability to local markets, requiring their managers to possess appropriate leadership styles to cope effectively with different value systems and cultures (Fahy, 2002; Coviello et al., 1998).Arguably, the flattening of hierarchical structures has also contributed to this reshaping process as traditional sources of authority, upon which leaders have built on for years, h ave been diminished. Combined with the rise of new trading powers such as the â€Å"Asian Dragon†, business leaders, especially in international MNEs do not only face domestic multiculturalism and diversity but are also increasingly expatriated.Consequently completely new cultural pitfalls and challenges are faced requiring understanding of cultural values as well as quick cultural adaptation to transfer domestic leadership abilities into foreign markets. Combined with steadily rising competitive pressures, the contemporary business leader in a role not easily filled.Despite leadership being a universal concept (Bass, 1990), with most literature anchored in the (individualistically oriented) US, it has been questioned to what extend western leadership styles are cross-culturally transferable (Dorfman, 2003). Resultantly, debate has sparked over how far leadership is culturally contingent, if universal leadership qualities and tactics exist and what the explanatory variables a re (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004).This assignment aims at contributing towards this debate by exploring leadership disparity and possible congruence between the UK and Japan using academic measurement of national culture; Hofstede’s framework respectively. The next section will give an overview over the concept of leadership followed by an in-depth cultural comparison and concluding section.The term leadership incorporates some elements of controversy over its meaning and practices. Different cultural gist or terminology or in cross-cultural contexts makes a universal definition difficult (Yukl, 2002). This seems unsurprising as the understandings and expectations of authority roles differ between cultures. Nevertheless, despite cultural differences the majority of leadership definitions reflect some basic elements these manly being â€Å"group†, â€Å"influence† and â€Å"goal† (Bryman, 1992).Keeping this in mind, leadership can be seen as the â€Å"process of influencing others towards achieving some kind of desired outcome.† (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007, p. 44) or bluntly spoken â€Å"leadership is the ability to get [people] to do what they don’t like to do and like it† (Truman in Sadler, 2003, p. 5).Whilst this is a very basic attempt of a definition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural context and highlights an important point: In order to lead one needs followers (Drucker, 2007). It is here where the inseparable link to power emerges whereby the power of leaders is largely dependent upon the perception of others (Hollander & Julian, 1969; Maurer & Lord, 1991; Pfeffer, 1977) but nevertheless forms the basis of leadership authority. It appears that only effective use of this power, combined with â€Å"leading by example† (Pfeffer, 1981) will result in positive and proactive guidance fostering creativity, innovation, commitment and long term organisational development.However, this is quest ionable and it seems that far too often in academic literature the terms â€Å"manager† and â€Å"leader† are merged giving a blurred picture of what each role actually entails. Readers should be reminded that leaders, unlike managers, do not have to rely on forms of power to influence subordinates, often actually relinquishing formal authoritarian control. This is due to the idea that to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.Nevertheless, it can be argued that even leaders need some foundation of authority; may it only be their charisma (Weber, 1968). This has been manifested in the participative, charismatic or transformative styles of leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) as oppose to the transactional style more related to operational, task focused  managers. Especially in western economies with predominant service industries, innovation and knowledge management, the former have been the focal point in recent years as autocrati c leadership styles do no longer seem sufficient to extract the full potential of an increasingly knowledgeable, highly skilled and demanding workforce.Such, arguably â€Å"softer† approaches fostering employee involvement and participation have nevertheless been proven to result in increased organisational performance (Bass, 1996; 1997; House & Shamir, 1993) and are arguably more â€Å"ideal† forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This might be applicable to western societies yet a cross-cultural generalisation might be prejudiced and the influence of personal values and cultural influences upon leadership styles should not be ignored (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Rather, culture, an essential component of which is personal values (Kroeber, 1952; Kluckhohm, 1949), is to be seen at a centre stage when analysing leadership differences (George et al., 1998; Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996; Steenkamp et al., 1999; Cadogan et al. 2001), as t is â€Å"the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another† (Hofstede, 1980, p. 260) and shape leadership preferences.Culture hereby should not be limited to national culture but has to be extended to incorporating organisational as well as political culture (Schein, 1985), the latter two arguably being extensively shaped by the former. Democratic or authoritarian political systems, national values regarding sex differences and ethical behaviour as well as organisational attitudes towards factors such as centralisation and work attitude, undoubtedly influence leadership styles.Not only will such factors shape leadership approaches, but with regard to cultural differences these will often even stand in conflict to each other. Consequently domestically implemented leadership approaches might not be applicable in other cultural settings and render ineffective in maintaining firm sustained competitive advantage and superior internationa l performance (Kimber, 1997; Jackson and Aycan, 2001; Pfeffer, 2002). The next section will investigate the effect of cultural values upon leadership styles in detail using the U and Japan as examples.British leadership style has often been described as more casual in nature fostering teamwork and seeking group consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominant reflecting flatter hierarchical structures in UK organisations. So, hierarchical structures not primarily seem as means to establish authority structures (Laurent, 1983) but more as core administrative frameworks. This according to Hofstede (2001), is a reflection of the UK’s low association to Power Distance. Essentially, subordinates do not attribute much to position and title and leaders must â€Å"embody a collective will and take personal responsibility for it while continuing to communicate and co-operate with the team† (Mole, 1990, p. 105).Unsurprisingly, networking cap ability and people management skills are highly valued in the UK (Stewart et al. 1994) as leadership qualities. Nevertheless, this (collectivist) team and people orientation is mainly seem as a path towards achieving organisational targets and innovation assuring individuals in team settings aggregate knowledge that has strategic relevance to the organisation (Miller &Morris, 1999). As such transformational leadership attitudes (Burns, 1978) can be seen where leaders are to create conditions under which subordinates devotedly contribute to the organisation yet this is done primarily through a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareholder satisfaction drives leaders towards task orientation often combined with a short-term outlook. As such quick, short-term organisational (financial) success is often more valued than long-term organisational success and relationship building, reflecting according to Hofstede, a culture of highly short term orien tation and low uncertainty avoidance. Essentially, risks are seen as part of daily business practice and leadership approaches reflect that subordinates are given opportunity to implement potentially rewarding, but high risk, strategies.This shows that, despite team orientation and a one might say more relaxed, friendly and diplomatic leadership style, the British cannot deny their American leadership style influence, fostering structured individualism, speed and drive (Lewis, 2001). Falsely, m any authors seem to  ignore this connection, even so influences of hire and fire mentality and the creating of specialist roles underlining a core individualistic attitude are undeniable reflecting British national, and interlinked to that, legal and organisational culture. Such individualistic attitude constantly resurfaces in leadership styles often portrayed through individual target setting, remuneration practices and shorter employment contracts.Employees do not look for lifetime emplo yment and a steady career in one company resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest heavily in the training and education of subordinates (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). This continues to the often actively sought after and purposely created assertive and competitive environment amongst colleagues or departments reflecting a relatively high masculine attitude as Hofstede’s culture scale clearly outlines.While these attributes sketch general aspects of British leadership, styles will vary between organisations, industries and individuals. Service- or R&D intensive industries for example, will follow a more Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) approach fostering employee involvement and empowerment. Leadership on traditional manufacturing industries on the other hand due to their reliance on productivity and output combined with an often repetitive working atmosphere, might take a more Theory X attitude.In contrast to the UK, Japanese leadership, like many Asian countries, is grounded in Confucian principles (Redding, 1990; Tan, 1986) and despite rising western influences, strong Confucian traits believing in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and hard work still lurk beneath the surface (Lewis, 2001). Especially â€Å"taking the family as a model for society at large, Confucianism is basically authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and status differences† (Selmer, 2001, p. 8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and rigid organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expect Japan to score higher than the UK in Hofstede’s power distance index, and so indeed it does. This offers leaders with traditional and legitimate power bases however, surprisingly not resulting in autocratic leadership styles as one would expect, but far more the association of assertiveness-authority and reason tactics (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992).As such, Japanese leadership style rewards subordinate respect and obedience with highly paternalisti c attitudes, expressed by mendou: â€Å"I think about your, I will take care of you† (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Japanese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and status differences requiring full subordinate obedience, expects helping and caring for followers and being involved in their personal lives (Whitehall & Takezawa, 1968; Bass et al. 1979).As a result the most powerful force of the Japanese leader is not autocracy but charisma combined with intrinsic rather than extrinsic (materialistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK: bonuses, on-target-earnings, etc. (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western perspective would result in autocratic, top down, assertive, tough and focused on material success (Hofstede, 1998) leadership. It is here where Hofstede’s framework seems to only partly explain the Japanese culture and low individualism but high masculinity and power distance stand in conflict with each other.Additionally, in such an environment more focus towards ascription rather than achievement would be expected (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997, 2000). Nevertheless, the contrary appears in the Japanese context with leaders having to possess superior, often specific, (hard) knowledge supplemented by strong educational backgrounds (Nestler, 2008). Here another disparity to UK leadership emerges, where despite educational background being important for initial work placement, greater focus upon (soft) â€Å"people skills† and strategic directive is desired and ascription of leadership positions remains (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994).The collectivist principles shape Japanese leadership style dramatically, requiring group consensus and decision-making despite extremely high masculinity and higher power distance. Essentially a â€Å"bottom-up† (ringsho) process of decision-making is chosen (Wu, 2006) with the leader granting independent decision making to the group generally letting subordinates use their own approaches to achieve overall collectivist objectives (Dorfman et al. 1997). This is surprising, as in western societies strong hierarchical  structures often result in a â€Å"top-down† leadership approach but can be explained through high uncertainly avoidance collecting input and consensus from all parties involved before decisions are made.Even more so, the concepts of â€Å"wa† (maintaining social relationships) and â€Å"kao† (maintaining â€Å"face†) actually require the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process and the preservation of harmony rendering western leader contingent punishment behaviour inappropriate. It is here where Japanese leadership style diverts extensively from its UK (Anglo-Saxon) counterpart where public scrutinising is part of daily leadership practices reflecting a competitive and individualistic culture driven b y short-term financial objectives with high-risk acceptance.Due to the collectivist environment and extensive future planning, Japanese managers on the other hand, do not view themselves as risk takers, despite this characteristic often being attributed to charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). This is reflected in Japan’s extremely high uncertainty avoidance score and is further supported by strong long-term orientation valuing prevailing face and harmony. Unsurprisingly, life-long employment is desired, supplemented b continued job rotation aimed at developing employees.As a result leaders and subordinates enter into long and close relationships hardly ever interrupted contrasting the UK’s â€Å"burn out† environment fostering high staff turnover. Unlike in the UK, Japanese business leaders look for generalist employees capable of working in multiple levels of the organisation reflecting a society placing less value upon specialists than western cultures.Overall, J apanese leaders focus upon collective (not individual) responsibility (Hayashi, 1988) and group harmony maintenance is usually considered more important than profitability and overall productivity (Bass, 1990). Nevertheless, also Japanese leaders have to drive performance resulting in somewhat of a trade-off situation between performance and collectivist harmony maintenance. According to the performance-maintenance theory (Misumi, 1990), Japanese leaders have to chose between goal achievement and the continuation of the group, preferably combining high levels of both (Misumi, 1995).If this is achieved, such supportive or  participative leadership styles (Ouchi, 1981) are said to result in â€Å"higher levels of motivation, delegation of decision-making, commitment, and intrinsic job satisfaction† (Keys and Miller, 1982, p. 6). This appears to be in line with the currently preferred leadership style in the UK. However, one should not forget that unlike the Japanese working e nvironment, the UK has been subject to great inward as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a blending of many different leadership approaches. As such arguably UK leaders would find it easier to adapt to Japanese principles than Japanese leaders. This is due to the western â€Å"farce† of collectivist team working for individualistic goals and the limited respect paid to status differences.While Hofstede’s framework helps to understand the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures and respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on developing the workforce and autocratic top-down contact initiation (Hofstede, 1991) do not fully reflect the Japanese working environment.On this note one should not forget that Hofstede’s framework is not free of criticism and arguably is outdated, lim ited in scope of methodology and measurement (Dorfman and Howell, 1988; Roberts and Boyciligiller, 1984) and only reflects a blend of organisational (IBM) culture and national cultures (Hunt, 1983; Robinson, 1983). As such it is no surprise that other studies such as the GLOBE project have found differing or even contradictory results for similar cultural dimensions.