Bernhard, Michael, and Ekrem Karakoç. “Civil Society and the Legacies of Dictatorship.” World Politics, vol. 59, no. 4, 2007, pp. 539–567. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40060172. Michael Bernhard is a professor at the University of Florida and Ekrem Karakoc is a professor at Binghamton University. They are addressing the affects that a dictatorship leaves on a country after their rule and even in the possible transition into a democracy. It seems that the audience of this paper would be for someone in the field of political science or taking on of these professor’s class. The paper starts off by covering what an effective and lasting democracy is. According to the paper “The literature on democratization emphasizes that successful
…show more content…
This source was still peer reviewed and contains important information. This paper addresses the history of Cuba all the way back to 1850. The audience is not specific, but could be useful to anyone wanting to learn more about Cuba. The author starts the paper with overall history of Cuba, which is unimportant to me, but then goes into the government and economics of Cuba, which is very important. Cuba is a totalitarian state, who leader is Fidel Castro. He is the leader of everything and runs the country by himself. Cuba’s over government party is the communist party, which is Castro’s personal choice. The Cubans are given vary little right through a constitution that are also not allowed to be used against the government. They have the rights to assembly and association. Fidel Castro only gained full control of Cuba in 1192, when the National assembly amended the 1976 constitution. This economic of Cuba though follow heavy communist and socialist views. Specifically, the Marxist-Leninist precepts. With this view point the government own roughly 75 percent of the work force. It very common for highly qualified works to work average job that can earn dollar tips, because it allows them to have access to better goods and …show more content…
The Authors are address the effectiveness of a Democracy vs. a Dictatorship. They address right away that it is common that people think that a democracy is needed for a country to grow. These is untrue and it has been witnessed before, one example is South Korea. Then go over the different ways the governments invest in themselves to promote growth. The dictatorships invested more in infrastructure capital, while democracies invest in education, but lacks higher capital investment. The number one thing that could determine, which government is better for a country is how big the country is. It showed that smaller countries grew faster with a dictatorship, than small countries with a democracy. Though this is not the case for larger countries; larger countries were shown to better from a democracy than a dictatorship. Through the data the growth rate of each government was affected by population size, ethnic diversity, and stage of
This source was still peer reviewed and contains important information. This paper addresses the history of Cuba all the way back to 1850. The audience is not specific, but could be useful to anyone wanting to learn more about Cuba. The author starts the paper with overall history of Cuba, which is unimportant to me, but then goes into the government and economics of Cuba, which is very important. Cuba is a totalitarian state, who leader is Fidel Castro. He is the leader of everything and runs the country by himself. Cuba’s over government party is the communist party, which is Castro’s personal choice. The Cubans are given vary little right through a constitution that are also not allowed to be used against the government. They have the rights to assembly and association. Fidel Castro only gained full control of Cuba in 1192, when the National assembly amended the 1976 constitution. This economic of Cuba though follow heavy communist and socialist views. Specifically, the Marxist-Leninist precepts. With this view point the government own roughly 75 percent of the work force. It very common for highly qualified works to work average job that can earn dollar tips, because it allows them to have access to better goods and …show more content…
The Authors are address the effectiveness of a Democracy vs. a Dictatorship. They address right away that it is common that people think that a democracy is needed for a country to grow. These is untrue and it has been witnessed before, one example is South Korea. Then go over the different ways the governments invest in themselves to promote growth. The dictatorships invested more in infrastructure capital, while democracies invest in education, but lacks higher capital investment. The number one thing that could determine, which government is better for a country is how big the country is. It showed that smaller countries grew faster with a dictatorship, than small countries with a democracy. Though this is not the case for larger countries; larger countries were shown to better from a democracy than a dictatorship. Through the data the growth rate of each government was affected by population size, ethnic diversity, and stage of