Research Korner: Comparative Written Essay

Comparison of the Pension System of Hong Kong and Japan

Introduction Pension funds have a pervasive influence on the economy, affecting in particular the maturity and, to some degree, the magnitude of saving, patterns of employment and retirement, adequacy and distribution of retirement income, and corporate finance. But the best way to conceptualize their function may be as a form of retirement-income insurance.   There are arguments both for and against funding. Governments have accordingly chosen to maintain at least basic levels of pay-as-you-go social security. The scope of such unfunded social-security schemes has historically been the key determinant of the scale of private retirement saving (Davis 1997). But, in addition, demographic difficulties of social security are currently leading many governments to consider a shift away from comprehensive social security towards private funded pensions. Given social-security provisions, the degree to which pension funds are used as the vehicle for retirement saving depends crucially on the fiscal and regulatory regime. Regulation of aspects such as portability of pensions may also have important consequences for economic efficiency. There is little consensus between countries on the appropriate form of regulation; some a priori suggestions based on economic theory as to good practice can be made (Davis 1997). Pensions are used to give finances to individuals after they reach a certain retiring age. There are different systems for pension payments. Each country has a pension system that offers something different. A country’s pension system is aligned to the demands of the internal situation and the needs of the citizen. This paper intends to compare the pension system of Hong Kong and Japan.   Social Policies In general, social policy-makers engage in a range of activities related to discovering and trying to solve social problems, or meeting an array of human needs. Yet the very idea that there are social problems out there waiting to be discovered is also controversial. Spending money and employing people to deliver services is a central part of policy-making, and social policy tends to be one of the biggest single items of expenditure for modern governments. In short, social policy refers to what governments do when they attempt to improve the quality of people's lives by providing a range of income support, community services and support programs. Although social policy is an activity that governments do, it is not just confined to the realm of government, however. There has already been reference to the fact that some people do research or engage in advocacy for policy change. This is one way of recognizing that policy-making involves many other organizations besides government bureaucracies and departments (Dalton, Smyth & Watts 2006). Although multi tiered institutions are likely to produce some broadly similar features of social policy development, there is also substantial variation within the universe of multi tiered political systems (Leibfried & Pierson 1995).   The extent of reserved powers, the nature of shared arrangements for decision making, and the forms in which constituent units are represented at the center have important consequences. The evolution of social policy in multi tiered systems exhibits a pronounced territorial dimension. Social policy integration is a process that involves the interplay of policymakers and policies at the central level with the political actors and policies of a polity's constituent units. Three broad consequences of multi tiered governance have particular relevance to social policy development: the introduction of constituent members as autonomous policymakers and political actors, the prevalence of dilemmas associated with shared decision making, and the modification of strategies and resources available to social groups (Leibfried & Pierson 1995).The possibility of policy preemption suggests that an important source of variation among multi tiered systems arises from the timing of social policy interventions by constituent members and central authorities. And where constituent members act first, the dynamics of preemption are likely to have consequential effects on social policy development. The relations between different governmental tiers are not exclusively ones of competition and preemption, however. Constituent members may also play a significant role as petitioners, seeking central government responses to collective action problems. Needing to balance policy goals with institutional protections for constituent units, multi tiered systems generally produce far more complex decision making arrangements than do centralized systems (Leibfried & Pierson 1995). Social policies involves the guidelines that governments use to change maintain or create specific living conditions that match situations that are conducive to human welfare.  Social policy is affected by the changing scenario in a country or region. Social policy aims to meet human needs by focusing on concepts such as education, health and housing. Through social policy human welfare is upgraded to acceptable levels.   Pension Policies Like funded occupational plans, mandatory saving schemes can foster long-term saving and capital market development. But unlike defined benefit occupational schemes, they are fully funded by nature rather than by regulation. Their coverage can be broad. They do not imply portability problems or inhibit labor mobility. They permit workers to diversify risk. And unlike defined contribution occupational schemes, they allow workers, who bear the investments risk, to choose the investment manager. Mandatory saving nevertheless creates a new set of problems (Bodie, Mitchell & Turner1996). Most notably, privately managed schemes fail to insure workers against poor investment performance of the funds, a problem especially great where many workers have had little financial experience or information. In addition, they do not assist workers with low lifetime incomes or provide adequate pensions in the start-up years of the plan. For these reasons, a decentralized mandatory saving scheme requires a regulatory structure that protects workers against ill-informed investment choices. In a mandatory saving scheme, the worker's pension is financed by the saving account that accumulates before retirement and its size depends on the contribution rate, the growth rate of earnings, the interest rate, and the number of working and retirement years (Bodie, Mitchell & Turner1996).   If a higher wage replacement rate is desired, a higher contribution rate is required. The required contribution rate rises the longer the retirement period is relative to the working period and the smaller the rate of return is relative to the growth rate of real earnings. The required contribution rate is higher in plans that make poor investments, incur high administrative costs, index pensions to prices or wages, or permit accumulated balances to be used for other purposes such as housing, education, or health care. Traditionally, pension specialists have assumed that real rates of return are about two percentage points higher than the growth rate of real earnings. In mandatory saving schemes workers assume the investment and inflation risks for their own retirement funds. Investment risk arises from variations in investment performance and is closely related to pension fund solvency risk. Investment risk is particularly high at the time of retirement, when many workers use their accumulated assets to purchase a lifetime annuity; the level of interest rates and the state of the financial market on the date the annuity is purchased are critical (Cornwell, Dorsey & Macpherson 1998).  One of the most hotly debated issues in pension economics is the effect of pay-as-you-go versus funded schemes on household and national saving. Some analysts argue that pension schemes have no effect on total national saving, that consumers substitute taxes or saving under the scheme for other forms of saving. Other analysts maintain that pay-as-you-go schemes reduce national saving while funded pension schemes displace some personal saving but not on a one for one basis, so total national saving increases (Cornwell, Dorsey & Macpherson 1998).  A part of a country’s social policy is its pension policies. This kind of policy sets the guidelines in the collection and disbursement of funds for retirees. The pension policies helps in making sure that retirees will have sources of income even if they have stopped working.   Japan Pension System Under the current Japanese pension system, the lifetime pension benefit of an average salaried man born in 1935 is greater than his lifetime pension contributions by $500,000. If he were faced with the contribution and benefit schedules that a person born in 2000 faces, his lifetime benefit would be less than his lifetime contribution by $250,000. This means that the net pension benefit is different between the two cohorts by $750,000 even under the assumption that their lifetime incomes are equal. Such extreme inequity between different cohorts is caused by the fact that Japan's public pension system is essentially a pay-as-you-go system. There are three public pension systems in Japan: the National Pension (NP), the Private Sector Employee Pension (PEP), and the Government and Education Sector Employee Pension (GEP).  The NP covers all adults from 20 to 60 years old. The PEP covers employees in the private sector, and the GEP covers employees in the public sector and private schools (Ihori & Tachibanaki 2002).  The main cause of the generational conflict over public pensions is that the Japanese pension system is financed basically by the pay-as-you-go scheme, where the benefits for the retired at any given time are financed by contributions from the contemporary workers. Under this scheme, increases in the size of the retiree population relative to the size of the working population push up the pension burden borne by each worker (Ihori & Tachibanaki 2002). The pension system of Japan focuses on the pay as you go system. In such system the finances received by the retiree is affected by the collection from the contributing workers.   Hong Kong Pension system The guiding principles and parameters of Hong Kong's social-security system were defined between the mid 1940s and the mid 1960s when the government made it clear that its top concern was economic growth and that social welfare was to be provided primarily by family and voluntary agencies The principle of limited state involvement was even more clearly manifested in the launch of the privately funded Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) in 1995. The establishment of the MPF was the final step in a process that began almost four decades earlier. The adoption of MPF was consistent with the Hong Kong government's efforts since the mid 1990s to reduce its role in social security. Civil servants are a privileged lot in Hong Kong and this is reflected in their retirement benefits. They have been entitled to pensions since the early years of colonial rule and are currently governed by Pension Benefits Ordinance and Regulations. The scheme is non-contributory and is funded from the government's general revenues (Ramesh 2003). The government is actively considering replacing the taxpayer-funded civil servants' pension with an MPF-like scheme. However, instead of the 5 per cent that private employers contribute, the government will contribute 25 per cent to its employees' individual accounts (Ramesh 2003). Hong Kong is not focused on social security and because of that the government has no direct policy on pension systems. The government only has a mandatory provident fund that aims to help employees to save some money until their day of retirement comes.  This scheme requires the personnel to contribute monthly to MPF Schemes IN approved private organizations. Table of similarities and differences of Japan and Hong Kong’s pension policy 	 		 		 		Similarities 		 		 		Differences 	 	 		 		 		Both countries require the collection 		of pension funds. 		 		 		Japan uses the Pay as you go system; 		Hong Kong uses the MPF system. 	 	 		 		 		Both countries intend to provide 		finances to retirees and other people without a job. 		 		 		Japan has a well organized strategy on 		pension and its systems; Hong Kong has not given much focus on the 		Pension system. 	 	 		 		 		Both countries gain commendable funds 		from the pension collection. 		 		 		Japan has limitations on private 		collections for pension systems; Hong Kong gives more freedom for 		private firms to institute their own pension system. 	 	 		 		 		Both countries use the pension system 		to demonstrate that the government cares for social security. 		 		 		Japan constantly amends its policies on 		pensions; Hong Kong has little concern over such system. 	   The similarities and difference in the pension policies Changes in the global economy are important, but it is primarily social and economic transformations occurring within affluent democracies that generate fiscal strain. Slower economic growth associated with the transition to a post-industrial economy, the maturation of government policy commitments, and population ageing and changing household structures have all combined to create a context of essentially permanent austerity. At the same time, tax levels strain public tolerance, while payroll contribution rates appear to jeopardize employment. While tax increases have contributed to closing the gap between commitments and resources, it is difficult to imagine that in many countries changes in revenues alone could be sufficient to maintain fiscal equilibrium. Yet support for the welfare state remains widespread almost everywhere. The core constituencies for social programs are broad. Furthermore, social actors have made important commitments over extended periods of time to distinct national systems of health care, labor market, and pension policy. These systems are thus deeply embedded in national polities (Pierson 2001). Finally, most political systems contain major formal or informal veto points which militate against radical change. In most countries, there is little sign that the basic commitments to a mixed economy of welfare face a fundamental political challenge. Nor is there much evidence of convergence towards some neo liberal orthodoxy. Pension systems have become major targets of welfare state reform understandably, given the budgetary implications of current trends in most countries (Pierson 2001).   Pension reform, for instance, is high on the agenda almost everywhere. Here, proposed reforms will have major implications for the distribution of benefits and burdens along the lines of income, class, gender, and age. A critical question will be the extent to which adjustments in pension systems fall on those currently in retirement as opposed to current workers. Decisions to tighten links between pension contributions and benefits are likely to disadvantage most women and many blue-collar workers. By contrast, in most cases these controversial reforms of public pension systems are not likely to produce intense divisions between public and private sector workers. A critical issue, however, will be the manner in which both public and private sector unions choose to balance the conflicting interests of different generations of workers (Sparkes 2002).  Social and pension policies affected the similarities of the two country’s pension system.  The social policy of taking care of the citizens paved the way for both countries to render mandatory collection of funds that will be used in their old age. If both Japan and Hong Kong does not have a responsibility to take care of their people, they would not even suggest having a pension fund.  The social policy of providing financial security to the people paved the way for Japan and Hong Kong to provide finances to retirees and other people without a job. The two countries allowed the collection of funds that the people might need as they grow old. The two countries made sure that the people will have financial security through collection of funds that can only be used at a specific period of time. Both countries gain commendable funds from the pension collection. This helped both countries to commence with their social policy on providing infrastructures to the people. The funds collected are reused by both countries to fund for various infrastructure projects.   Each country’s focus and policy affected the difference of the two country’s pension system Japan uses the Pay as you go system to show that they really want to participate in providing social security while Hong Kong uses the MPF system to distance itself and focus on things they believe are more important. Japan has a organized strategy on pension systems to make sure that the proper social policy that will be followed; Hong Kong has not given much focus on the Pension system.  Japan has limitations on private collections for pension systems. This shows that it really wants the pension system to work.  Hong Kong on the other hand gives more freedom for private firms to institute their own pension system so that they can concentrate on other issues.   Globalization and both welfare systems Recent fundamental changes in the global economy make world markets and transnational corporate players more powerful than nation states. They amount to a worldwide trend toward privatization and anti-statism. Instead, the international market for goods and capital are seen as the purveyors of not only healthy economies, but good governance and satisfied citizenries. To be sure, various dislocations will occur and there will be clear winners and losers but, ultimately, in this vision, the neo liberal process will triumph. Economic globalization represents a major transformation in the territorial organization of key economic sectors. To what extent it also represents a possible transformation in the structures of politico-economic power is a difficult and controversial question (Smith, Solinger & Topik 1999). The major dynamics at work in the global economy contain the capacity to undo the particular form of the intersection of sovereignty and territory embedded in the modern state and the modern state system. But this may not necessarily mean that sovereignty is less of a feature of the international system. Rather, it may signal the relocation of some components of national state sovereignty onto supranational authorities or privatized corporate systems (Smith, Solinger & Topik 1999). Together with the increasing opportunities that globalization offers borrowers, investors, and financial intermediaries has come a series of challenges to the internal sovereignty of national governments and in particular their regulatory authorities. Some argue that financial integration is causing governments to lose power over their own economies. Not only do the growing powers of national and international bond markets limit the flexibility of governments to chart independent fiscal and monetary policies, but governments also find themselves more constrained in what they can spend, as raising money is not as straightforward as it once was. Moreover, financial integration and footloose capital have combined to make taxation an international rather than a domestic issue (Reinicke 1998). Not only is it difficult to determine where a global company should be taxed; even in cases where jurisdiction can be agreed on, many companies are easily able to reshuffle their tax liabilities from countries with higher to those with lower rates of taxation (Reinicke 1998). Like what globalization does to businesses and countries, it may force a singular system for pension and welfare systems. Globalization may create the need for a unitary pension system that will dictate the contribution and benefits of all employees. This will not be a good thing for employees because this will force them to pay higher fees.   Conclusion Pensions are used to give finances to individuals after they reach a certain retiring age. Pensions ensure that one will have sources of income after they have stopped working. There are different systems for pension payments. Each country has a pension system that offers something different. Hong Kong and Japan has pension systems that have similarities and difference. Hong Kong and Japan’s main focus affects their social policy to the extent that the similarities or differences of their pension policy will depend on their focus.   References Bodie, Z, Mitchell, OS & Turner, JA (eds.) 1996, Securing employer-based pensions: An international perspective, The Pension Research Council, Philadelphia.   Cornwell, c, Dorsey, S & Macpherson, D 1998, Pensions and productivity, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, MI   Dalton, T, Smyth, P & Watts, R 2006, Talking policy: How social policy is made, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, N.S.W.   Davis, EP 1997, Pension funds: Retirement-income security and capital markets an international perspective, Clarendon Press, Oxford.   Ihori, T & Tachibanaki, T (eds.) 2002, Social security reform in advanced countries: Evaluating pension finance, Routledge, New York.   Leibfried, S & Pierson, P (eds.) 1995, European social policy: Between fragmentation and integration, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.   Pierson, P (ed.) 2001, The new politics of the welfare state, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.   Ramesh, M 2003, Social policy in East and Southeast Asia: Education, health, housing and income maintenance, RoutledgeCurzon, New York.   Reinicke, WH 1998, Global public policy: Governing without government?, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.   Smith, DA, Solinger, DJ & Topik, SC 1999, States and sovereignty in the global economy, Routledge, London.   Sparkes, R 2002, Socially responsible investment: A global revolution, Wiley, New York.

Comparison of the Pension System of Hong Kong and Japan

Introduction Pension funds have a pervasive influence on the economy, affecting in particular the maturity and, to some degree, the magn...

Comparison of two short stories

LOVE – THE ROOT CAUSE OF CRIMES     Andre Dubus’ “Killings” and William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” look into the themes of passion, crime and morality. The violence committed in both stories is caused by love. “Killings” portrays a father’s love for his child and the desire to take revenge of his death. However, the crime he has committed led to self destruction and some sort of self murder as he faced questions of morality. The character find himself in a difficult position as he took revenge and failed to see that guilt would come haunting him. Feelings of anger and righteousness are illustrated by the character in the story. Similarly, “A Rose for Emily” portrays love as the root cause of the crime. In this story, Ms. Emily’s father suppressed her woman’s life. The death of her father liberated her which eventually led to the killing of her lover who wanted to leave her. The two stories are similar in terms of the themes of passion and crime. However, the characters differ greatly on the impact of their crimes. In “Killings”, the character felt guilt and a sort of emotional self death. While the character on “A Rose for Emily” died with no regret for what she committed. Both of the characters committed crimes of passion which are driven by different factors. The first one was driven by the loss of his son and the second one for the loss of her freedom to love and the desire to satisfy that longing.  But despite these differences, the characters ultimately find themselves isolated. “Killings” is based on the theme of punishment and revenge. The lead character, Matt Fowler, plans to take revenge on Richards Strout, the man who killed his son. This murder was more of a private revenge rather than self protection. However, Matt Fowler was unintentionally provoked by his wife for protection who suffered tremendously just by seeing the man who killed their son everyday. As Dubus wrote, “Ruth can’t even go out for cigarettes and aspirin....She sees him all the time. It makes her cry” (). Although the crime committed by Fowler is motivated by the death of his son, it doesn’t serve as a justification for the killing. The revenge he has taken that resulted to the same act of killing became a sad issue in the story. The murder depressed him and he was confused between the clear guilt of Strout and the knowledge that despite the apparent guilt, he was still a human being. At the end of the story when Strout is murdered, Matt is left with guilt and a feeling of isolation. As Dubus wrote, “The gun kicked in Matt’s hand, and the explosion of the shot surrounded him, isolated him in a nimbus of sound that cut him off from all his time, all his history, isolated him standing absolutely still on the dirt road with the gun in his hand” ().  Eventually, the story is unsettling because of the desire to take revenge and the feeling of isolation brought by the murder. Thus, the story creates sympathy with his desire to kill his son’s murderer and the horrifying feeling associated with that desire. The story is ironic because it shows the dark side of the character with his desire to kill and at the same time the sympathy with his horrifying feeling of death and the fact of killing a human being.  “A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner is centered on the theme of a suppressed woman who longed for eternal love. It shocks us when we find out the lead character, Emily, has kept the corpse of Homer Barron in her house for forty years. Despite the fact that she had thirty years to bury Homer Barron, she chose to keep him and sleep with him throughout those years. The act of killing her faithless lover sets the dark and sympathetic side of the character. In the story, Ms. Emily symbolizes a woman belonging to a higher class family that is controlled and suppressed by her father. With this, she began to despise people of the ordinary class. After her father’s death, she basically started her life all over again as a young girl which shows the change on her being an independent woman. Her interest in Homer Barron though was not really well appreciated by the townspeople but she did not sacrifice her love because of what people said. Emily was a strong woman trying to fight for her right. Her father turned her life into a hell when he was alive and the townspeople would not stop gossiping about her either. However, she found the eternal love she was looking for all her life by killing Homer and she succeeded to be with him whether he was alive or not. A fair amount of symbolism is used in this story by the author to give us pictures of how the longing for love led to the crime committed. Symbolism starts off with the title, “a Rose for Emily”. Rose may have several meanings. It may symbolize happiness, sadness or love that Ms. Emily was deprived of by her father. As the author illustrated, “Her skeleton was small and spare. She looked bloated, like a body long submerged in motionless water and of that pallid hue” (). The author shows and lets us visualize how depressed she is in these descriptions when her father died or when the sheriff visits her about the tax collection. These short stories expose the power of love as an encouraging tool to commit crime. “Killings” and “A Rose for Emily” with themes of crime, passion and morality, lead us to have sympathy towards the characters and morally justify their murderous acts.  However, the love of a father for his son was the motivation of the character in ‘Killings’ to murder his son’s killer while on the other hand the character of Ms. Emily was motivated by her search for the eternal love. Both characters are faced to the question of morality. However, Emily’s character was stronger and no regret was felt until the end of the story. She represents a woman fighting for her right against the opinion of other people. The character of Matt Fowler was ironic in nature. He represents a man that is taking revenge of his son’s death by killing the murderer but ending up with self emotional death as a result of his own crime.

Comparison of two short stories

LOVE – THE ROOT CAUSE OF CRIMES Andre Dubus’ “Killings” and William Faulkner’s “A R...

Comparative Leadership

Every brilliant leader has its own way of leading his nation. They have different approach in reaching progress and development of their country. I will compare to great military leaders in history Germany’s Adolf Hitler and Italy’s Benito Mussolini. They both rise in power in the times of the World Wars. When Adolf Hitler came into power in 1933, the Germans have a great belief that he will make Germany as the most powerful nation in the world. Nazi party members believe that Hitler’s leadership is free and independent as well as it was exclusive and unlimited.  Hitler’s charismatic leadership gained popularity because of his political skills and magnetism. He managed to minimize unemployment. He was also a great speaker, he always told the public about his missions for Germany. Hitler was a visionary and not a natural Head of State. He was bored with paper works and often signed papers without reading them. Despite Hitler’s limitless power, Hitler was aware that his power will lose its potency without the help of the Nazi party together with the German people. He listens to the opinions of all the members of the Nazi party and analyzed how these opinions help him in maintaining power. He always told the Germans that he was not a dictator but a guide in obtaining Germany’s mission. Hitler did not believe in the existence of limitless power, because he knew that he has his weaknesses as a leader. Hitler conceived his role in terms of a duty to restore Germany to a great power, and his belief in the importance of his mission was patronize by the German nation, enabled him to be a charismatic leader. Hitler's own perception was an idealistic belief of an artist with a vision, rather than a politician with ability for running a state. As such he could go beyond official bureaucratic procedures in governing the country and he relied on German support to do so. On the other hand, Benito Musollini was a great speaker and a good writer of his time. He became an editor for the Milan socialist paper Avanti. He became well known among the Italian socialists, but soon started promoting his views for war against Germany in World War I. He began to develop his ideas that would soon become known as Fascism. He also joined the military and became a corporal. Mussolini and several other veterans formed the National Fascist Party. This party grew in popularity among the people of Italy, who were hopeless with the chaos surrounding them. Mussolini seemed to have the answers to bring their country into order. The ruling Leftist party ordered a general strike in the nation. Mussolini was enraged and issued an ultimatum that if they did not end the strike, his Fascist party would. The Leftist claimed he was trying to siege the government, but the armed forces wanted nothing to do with stopping the fascists from preventing the strike. As the new premier, he gradually transformed the government into a dictatorship.  Opposition was put down by an efficient secret police and the Fascist party militia, and the press was strictly controlled. Parliamentary government ended in 1928, and the state economy was reorganized along the lines of the Fascist corporative state. Conflict between church and state was ended by the Lateran Treaty of 1929.   Mussolini was called Duce (leader) by his followers, and he held, besides the premiership, as many portfolios as he saw fit. His ambition to restore ancient greatness found expression in grandiloquent slogans and speeches and in the erection of monumental buildings. The encouragement he gave to the already high Italian birth rate, his imperialistic designs, and his incitement of extreme nationalist groups created an explosive situation. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler realized that the way to a rise in power was through the people and their opinions/support therefore imposing their own ideals through incredible propaganda techniques and speeches. Hitler believed that only a dictatorship, though he claimed that he was not a dictator could rescue Germany from the pit in which it had fallen. This was not at all unlike Mussolini's ideals and techniques he imposed upon Italy. Mussolini was an opportunist and his rise to power was a combination of parliamentary maneuver and radical pressure. The Italian people welcomed his authority because he made them believe that he would generate change in Italy. Italians were tired of strikes and riots within Italy, responsive to the trappings of Fascism, and ready to submit to dictatorship offered by the Fascist party of Mussolini, provided the national economy was stabilized and their country restored to its dignity as promised. The two leaders both have charisma to the public. They both have the vision of having sustainable progress in their countries. They also lead their political parties to govern their countries. In times of war and poverty, the two military leaders gave hope to the people. Many believed that they can resolve such problems. Hitler was inspired by Mussolini’s actions, so he obtained absolute power over Germany. They use both the characteristic of Fascism which is the glorification of the emotions. The difference between the two is that Hitler is a visionary while Mussolini was a brilliant tactician. They both practice military values of discipline, courage and intelligence. References 1.    Adolf Hitler and Charismatic Leadership [Online] Available at: http://eeuropeanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/adolf_hitler_and_charmismatic_leadership [Accessed 23 Feb 2010] 2.    Commando Supremo [Online] Available at: http://www.comandosupremo.com/Mussolini.html [Accessed 23 Feb 2010]

Comparative Leadership

Every brilliant leader has its own way of leading his nation. They have different approach in reaching progress and development of their ...

Comparative Leadership

Comparative Leadership

Every brilliant leader has its own way of leading his nation. They have different approach in reaching progress and development of their ...

Top