Question

Write about Different social structures within the Global environment write about it with an and make a table of contents with abstract, introduction, appendix, and conclusion and other stuff.

-an outlook on future growth and expansion.

-background for international trade and investment activities and the international economic activity of nations and the balance of payments.

-impacts of covid-19 on services and culture

-Development of a working knowledge of the international monetary system, financial markets, and trend toward economic integration around the world as well as achieving an understanding of the political and legal dimensions that affect international business.

Answer 1

Social structure, in sociology the stable arrangement of institutions whereby human beings in a society interact and live together. Social structure is often treated together with the concept of social change, which deals with the forces that change the social structure and the organization structure of society.

Studies of social structure attempt to explain such matters as integration and trends in inequality. In the study of these phenomena, sociologists analyze organizations, social categories (such as age groups), or rates (such as of crime or birth). This approach, sometimes called formal sociology, does not refer directly to individual behaviour or interpersonal interaction. Therefore, the study of social structure is not considered a behavioral science; at this level, the analysis is too abstract. It is a step removed from the consideration of concrete human behaviour, even though the phenomena studied in social structure result from humans responding to each other and to their environments. Those who study social structure do, however, follow an empirical (observational) approach to research, methodology, and epistemology.

Structure And Social Organization

The term structure has been applied to human societies since the 19th century. Before that time, its use was more common in other fields such as construction or biology. Karl Marx used construction as a metaphor when he spoke of “the economic structure [Struktur] of society, Thus, according to Marx, the basic structure of society is economic, or material, and this structure influences the rest of social life, which is defined as nonmaterial, spiritual, or ideological.

Within the broad framework of these and other general features of human society, there is an enormous variety of social forms between and within societies. Some social scientists use the concept of social structure as a device for creating an order for the various aspects of social life. In other studies, the concept is of greater theoretical importance; it is regarded as an explanatory concept, a key to the understanding of human social life. Several theories have been developed to account for both the similarities and the varieties. In these theories, certain aspects of social life are regarded as basic and, therefore, central components of the social structure. Some of the more prominent of these theories are reviewed here.

Structural Functionalism

According tos a British social anthropologist, gave the concept of social structure a central place in his approach and connected it to the concept of function. In his view, the components of the social structure have indispensable functions for one another—the continued existence of the one component is dependent on that of the others—and for the society as a whole, which is seen as an integrated, organic entity. His comparative studies of preliterate societies demonstrated that the interdependence of institutions regulated much of social and individual life. Radcliffe-Brown defined social structure empirically as patterned, or “normal,” social relations (those aspects of social activities that conform to accepted social rules or norms). These rules bind society’s members to socially useful activities.

Contemporary sociologists criticize later definitions of social structure by scholars such as Spencer and Parsons because they believe the work (1) made improper use of analogy, (2) through its association with functionalism defended the status quo, (3) was notoriously abstract, (4) could not explain conflict and change, and (5) lacked a methodology for empirical confirmation.

Theories Of Class And Power

Parsons’s work has been criticized for several reasons, not least for the comparatively meagre attention he paid to inequalities of power, wealth, and other social rewards. Other social theorists, including functionalists such as American sociologist Robert K. Merton, have given these “distributional” properties a more central place in their concepts of social structure. For Merton and others, social structure consists not only of normative patterns but also of the inequalities of power, status, and material privileges, which give the members of a society widely different opportunities and alternatives.

The Marxian view is succinctly summarized in Marx’s phrase “The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas.” These ideas are regarded as reflections of class interests and are connected to the power structure, which is identified with the class structure. This Marxian model, which was claimed to be particularly valid for capitalist societies, has met with much criticism. One basic problem is its distinction between economic structure and spiritual superstructure, which are identified with social being and consciousness, respectively. This suggests that economic activities and relations are in themselves somehow independent of consciousness, as if they occur independently of human beings.

Nevertheless, the Marxian model became influential even among non-Marxist social scientists. The distinction between material structure and nonmaterial superstructure continues to be reflected in sociological textbooks as the distinction between social structure and culture. Social structure here refers to the ways people are interrelated or interdependent; culture refers to the ideas, knowledge, norms, customs, and capacities that they have learned and share as members of a society.

Structuralism

Another important theoretical approach to the concept of social structure is structuralism (sometimes called French structuralism), which studies the underlying, unconscious regularities of human expression—that is, the unobservable structures that have observable effects on behaviour, society, and culture. French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss derived this theory from structural linguistics, developed by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. According to Saussure, any language is structured in the sense that its elements are interrelated in nonarbitrary, regular, rule-bound ways; a competent speaker of the language largely follows these rules without being aware of doing so. The task of the theorist is to detect this underlying structure, including the rules of transformation that connect the structure to the various observed expressions.

The critical difference between social structure theory and structuralism is one of approach. Analysis of social structure uses standard empirical (observational) methods to arrive at generalizations about society, while structuralism uses subjective, interpretive, phenomenological, and qualitative analysis. Most sociologists prefer the social structure approach and regard structuralism as philosophical—that is, more compatible with the humanities than with the social sciences. Still, a significant number of sociologists insist that structuralism occupies a legitimate place in their discipline.

An future outlook on Social Structure Theory:

Currently, those pursuing research in the area of social structure follow limited but practical goals. They focus on the development of theories, laws, generalizations, calculi, and methods that account for structural regularities in society. They are not, however, concerned with demonstrating the limitless structural regularities in society (such as linguistic routines, the permanence of national boundaries, the stability of religious practices, or the durability of gender or racial inequality).

In concrete terms, the task of structural analysis is not so much to account for poverty, for example, as it is to account for the rates of poverty. Likewise, the analysis focuses on empirical data such as the distribution of cities in the world, the patterns of land use, the shifts in educational achievement, changes in occupational structure, the manifestation of revolutions, the increase in collaboration between institutions, the existence of networks among groups, the routines of different types of organizations, the cycles of growth or decline in organizations and institutions, or the unintended collective consequences of individual choices.

Only a few sociologists have developed structural theories that apply to institutions and whole societies—an approach known as macrosociology. Gerhard Lenski in Power and Privilege (1966) classified societies on the basis of their main tools of subsistence and, unlike Marx, demonstrated statistically that variations in the primary tools used in a given society systematically accounted for different types of social stratification systems.

Impact on Balance of Trade:

Economists use the BOT to measure the relative strength of a country's economy. The balance of trade is also referred to as the trade balance or the international trade balance. A country that imports more goods and services than it exports in terms of value has a trade deficit. Conversely, a country that exports more goods and services than it imports has a trade surplus. The formula for calculating the BOT can be simplified as the total value of imports minus the total value of exports.

here are countries where it is almost certain that a trade deficit will occur. For example, the United States has had a trade deficit since 1976 because of its dependency on oil imports and consumer products. Conversely, China, a country that produces and exports many of the world's consumable goods, has recorded a trade surplus since 1995.

A trade surplus or deficit is not always a viable indicator of an economy's health, and it must be considered in the context of the business cycle and other economic indicators. For example, in a recession, countries prefer to export more to create jobs and demand in the economy. In times of economic expansion, countries prefer to import more to promote price competition, which limits inflation.

In 2019, Germany had the largest trade surplus by current account balance with Japan and China coming in second and third. Conversely, the United States had the largest trade deficit, even with the ongoing trade war with China, with the United Kingdom and India coming in second and third. (For related reading, see "Which Factors Can Influence a Country's Balance of Trade?

COVID-19 & Overall Impact:

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented human and health crisis. The measures necessary to contain the virus have triggered an economic downturn. At this point, there is great uncertainty about its severity and length. The latest Global Financial Stability Report shows that the financial system has already felt a dramatic impact, and a further intensification of the crisis could affect global financial stability.

Since the pandemic’s outbreak, prices of risk assets have fallen sharply. At the worst point of the recent selloff, risk assets suffered half or more of the declines they experienced in 2008 and 2009. For example, many equity markets—in economies large and small—have endured declines of 30 percent or more at the trough. Credit spreads have jumped, especially for lower-rated firms. Signs of stress have also emerged in major short-term funding markets, including the global market for U.S. dollars.

To preserve the stability of the global financial system and support the global economy, central banks across the globe have been seen as the first line of defense. First, they have to significantly ease monetary policy by cutting policy rates—in the case of advanced economies to historic lows. And half of the central banks in emerging markets and lower income countries have to also cut policy rates. The effects of rate cuts will be reinforced through central banks’ guidance about the future path of monetary policy and expanded asset purchase programs.

Second, central banks have to provide additional liquidity to the financial system, including through open market operations. Third, a number of central banks have agreed to enhance the provision of U.S. dollar liquidity through swap line arrangements. And finally, central banks have to reactivate programs used during the global financial crisis as well as launched a range of new broad-based programs, including to purchase riskier assets such as corporate bonds. By effectively stepping in as “buyers of last resort” in these markets and helping contain upward pressures on the cost of credit, central banks are ensuring that households and firms continue to have access to credit at an affordable price. To date, central banks have announced plans to expand their provision of liquidity—including through loans and asset purchases have to indicate a readiness to do more if conditions warrant.

As a result of these actions aimed at containing the fallout from the pandemic, investor sentiment will be stabilized . Strains in some markets wil be abated somewhat and risk asset prices will be recovered a portion of their earlier declines. Sentiment continues to be fragile, however, and global financial conditions remain much tighter compared to the beginning of the year.

Market strain

Volatility has spiked, in some cases to levels last seen during the global financial crisis, amid the uncertainty about the economic impact of the pandemic. With the spike in volatility, market liquidity has deteriorated significantly, including in markets traditionally seen as deep, like the U.S. Treasury market, contributing to abrupt asset price moves.

Conclusion

Social structure and social change are general concepts used by social scientists, particularly in the fields of sociology and social and cultural anthropology. They are often conceived of as polarized concepts, with social structure referring to basic characteristics of social life—those demonstrating a lasting and permanent quality—and social change reflecting the opposite. However, the relationship between the two concepts is more complicated. Social structure, for example, cannot be conceptualized adequately without some recognition of actual or potential change, just as social change, as a more or less regular process, is structured over time and is inconceivable without the notion of continuity. Both concepts, in the end, can contribute to a fuller understanding of society, its patterns, and patterns of change.