Question

a) Discuss the impact of the carious labor market measures employed in Europe to regulate the labor market. Which is likely to be the most successful and why? Explain your rationalization and reason in detail. b) How have the histories of the different nations and regions discussed here shaped their capitalist systems?

Answer 1

a. The basic stance in economic theory that today affects European labor policy and many nation states holds that, unless they are impeded by legal regulation or collective agreements, labor markets will become apparent, leading to maximum employment and better general welfare. If salaries or non-wage labor expenses drop, or employers find it easy to reject unwanted workers (both jointly and individually), employment rates should be anticipated to increase, offering greater rates of jobs than nations where postal workers have safe rights, social rights and wage levels, but big numbers stay unemployed.

Labor markets can take a lengthy time to clear up, and since labor units are human beings, they experience insecurity and anxiety if, while the market is "adjusted," they suffer dropping earnings and unemployment without social policy assistance (this has been demolished in the search for lower non-wage labor expenses if a neoliberal program is carefully pursued). When many workers ' lives are harassed by insecurity and uncertainty about the future, consideration must be provided to the reality that employees are also consumers and that they may lack consumer confidence if their working lives are very insecure.

At times of economic recession, flexible labour markets might provoke a decline in demand, which only worsens the recession. Whether these operations involve public services, dependent on government financing, or private services, dependent on private acquisitions, under circumstances of austerity measures involving limited public spending and low or insecure salaries, they discover it hard to flourish. In such instances, a stable economy requires continuous demand from mass customers.

b. 1-Advantage in comparison. A nation with a history of labor-intensive development will have (except when changed by industrial policy) labor-exporting sectors,

2-New institutionalism. Institutions–and the historical struggles that shaped them–dictate the development of a country. From the takeover of rights by the nobles in the Magna Carta to the pragmatism of Lee Kwan Yew. From Juarez's call to take authority from the hacienda owners to Lenin's new economic policy and capital / wealth divisions get' locked-in.'

3-Systems similar to those of the world. Without understanding the New World slave trade, you can not comprehend industrialization in the UK. Economic historians realized this long before the perspective of economic growth ever emerged from Wallerstein's World Systems perspective. Spices and silk in the Far East assisted the outposts of the Silk Road in the Caucases Their own local culture served their economy...

Histories shape regions ' economies so thoroughly and fully. Politicians, their relationships, and luck-can alter that. No working economist, however, recognizes the strawman perspective of econonics that the attention seekers are ignorantly portraying. Economy does not operate the same everywhere, and doe snot treat the world as a great abstraction.