By most measures, life over the past four or five decades has gotten better only for a narrow stratum of the population. Everyone else has muddled through, anywhere from one to several paychecks or one doctor’s visit away from bankruptcy. (The inability to pay medical bills is the single greatest reason for bankruptcy in the United States). Unfortunately, we tend not to consider “most measures” of the well-being of people. We think in very narrow terms. The most commonly used measure of well-being is the gross domestic product (GDP). It is an excruciatingly narrow concept. Many, probably most, economists believe that the capitalist system will create the greatest amount of wealth and, in theory, this means the greatest amount of well-being. They call this the first law of welfare economics. The problem is that “law” will not come to fruition without government involvement and strong societal institutions. This has led many social scientists to advocate for broadening, beyond GDP). Discuss the need for a new measure of societal well-being. The following resources will help you to understand the concern over the GDP.
he research undertaken here concerns the mechanisms and motivations that led the UK to ratify the CAT, an international human rights treaty. The decision to sign and ratify was preceded, as is typical in Britain, by a focused internal decision-making process. This is centred around an Inter-Ministerial Group joining together the Home Office, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and various other relevant stakeholders. The most appropriate type of evidence to analyse the required casual mechanisms for ratification is thus private evidence from this group. This is particularly true for considerations of reputation and identity, as states may not want to speak publicly about matters that might embarrass them. Individuals are more likely to be frank when expressing themselves in private, and so it is easier to understand true motivations behind ratification without reliance solely on public documentation. These records are therefore crucial for assessing motives and calculations and have been freshly opened this year in the British National Archives. I located, organized and analysed most of the invaluable reports, memoranda and letters from 1977, when discussions regarding signature and ratification of the CAT took off, until 1990, two years after the UK signed the CAT. Having thus determined what evidence will be used, it remains to establish which causal mechanisms are most pertinent for explaining ratification. These causal mechanisms will be determined by using process tracing, ‘the analysis of evidence on processes, sequence, and conjunctures of events within a case’. This tool of qualitative analysis helps both describe political and social phenomena and evaluate causal claims. Using diagnostic evidence from the British Archives, process-tracing enables the evaluation of causal evidence for a hypothesis from a sequence of events. Process-tracing is particularly successful at focusing on the unfolding of events over time, providing a dynamic analysis of the stability of causal mechanisms. For the purposes of this research project, I focus on a single process-tracing test that aims to show the relevance of various arguments for ratification during the UK process of signature and ratification. This test focuses in particular on arguments surrounding reputation and the broader international politics of social competition. Accordingly, I will use a ‘hoop’ test, designed to affirm the relevance of a hypothesis, in order to determine how best to explain Britain’s ratification of the CAT.>GET ANSWER