What Are the Different Forms of Literature Free Essays

Literature is a form of expression. It is an expression of one’s feeling, ideas, emotions, personal experience and imagination. It conveys through a piece of writing that can be valued in the works of art, especially, novels, plays and poems. We will write a custom essay sample on What Are the Different Forms of Literature? or any similar topic only for you Order Now It is divided into two fictional and non-fictional literatures. Fictional literature is based on imagery writing than reality. It provides information, education and entertainment to the readers. Non-fictional literature is based on reality. It denotes about the facts, real places, real events and character. The world of literature suggests an art form. Works of literature particularly represent a genre. Literature can be varied from one generation to another generation. Great literatures transform the man who reads it towards the man who wrote it. The life of human and nature is explored in the way of literature. The good literature has emotional element, the element of imagination and fancy, the element of composition and style. Literature is an expression of life. It is the man’s script of thoughts and emotion. It is characterized by permanent qualities. Every great work comes from an ideal person, to know his ideal record we should read his literature. Literature talks about the ideals of people, love, faith, duty and friendship. Literature can be classified into novel, short story and dramas. The concept of literature varied over time. British literature was considered one of the most widespread literatures in the world. This was the period, which faced lots of inventions and developments in the England. All the developments were influenced by the authors and imitated in their own works. There was also a great development in British literature. England flourished from the year 800 BC. British literature includes the works of old English, middle English and modern English each denoted different periods. The most important events in England were the Germanic invasions. Germanic was followed by Angles and Saxons. Angles and Saxons were established in various parts of the Britain. British literature states about the human and of its experience. It describes about the difficulty of achieving the community. Common people’s problems were reflected in the periodicals and newspapers. Humanism became the most important in the life of intellectuals and in the English literature. It was the fundamental quality found in the people of the renaissance period. British literature was bound up with historical shifts of British identity. The most important historical event was the Hundred Year’s war, the Black Death this made many writers to write about it. Many people were encouraged to translate Latin works into English. English were recorded in chronicles this was the first historical record. English was wide spread all over the country of England. By the year 1300 English was used by all classes of people. The most common goal of the poet was to make English more flexible. During the fifteenth century English language attained the modern form. Poetry was more essential in the seventh and eighth century of England. Poetic talents were highly valued in the English literature. Heroic couplet, ballad and sonnets were some of the important thing introduced in the English literature. This made the poetry writing even more effectiveness in the literature. The prose of old English has only the English soil and not the Germanic origins. There was a rise in morality play in the fourteenth century. It teaches people about morals and values of human lives. The Canterbury Tales was one of the famous works of Chaucer which reflects the society of England and the real characters who lived in the society. The most remarkable thing in England was the invention of printing press by Caxton in 1476. The invention made a huge development that all the books in the manuscript were changed into printed books. It encouraged writings of all kinds of works and also improved the standardization of English language. The age reason can be divided into three The Restoration Age, The Augustan Age and The Age of Johnson. There was a great development in scientific inventions like navigation, shipbuilding and discoveries of sea route. Queen Elizabeth Age was considered one of the fruitful periods of English history. She made a lot of developments in English history. The Elizabethan literature reflects the new nationalism. Many new genres, themes, ideas were introduced in English literature. Elizabethan literature commonly influenced self-confident and about the expanding of nation powers and increasing the wealth. In the sixteenth and seventeenth century drama was flourished in England in the works of university wits. Jacobean drama started with the drama including the Shakespeare’s plays. Drama continued to expand until the theaters were closed. Novels were popular in the Britain. The novels were considered not only the form of entertainment but also means of analyzing and offering solutions social and political problems. The century was ended with gothic novels. The development of poetry, novels and drama attained a great height. It was influenced by the pupil because of the humanism, morality and the historical truth which arouses interest towards the people. How to cite What Are the Different Forms of Literature?, Papers

Organizational Theory Post Modernist and Critical Theory

Question: Discuss about theOrganizational Theory for Post Modernist and Critical Theory. Answer: Introduction Organizational theories are based on three perspectives which are modern, symbolic-interpretive and the post modern theory. All these theories have a different perspective as per the given situation when it is about managing an organization. A company makes huge profit that is based on the ability of the CEO. Investment decisions are taken by the CEO which is measured in terms of profit and loss. The data recognized by post- modernist in case of gender equity helps in understanding the amount of difference in the sector. Post Modernist approach makes those set of rules and guidelines that can be followed by the people working in the organization Post-Modernist does focus on the rationalization of organizational practices. They are more concerned for attaining efficiency and effectiveness. The modern mind is trained for progress both scientifically and productively According to them the behavior of an individual at work depends upon his value, attitude and belief. Hence behavior of th e work force can be changed to managerial end by focusing upon shared attitude (Hatch and Cunliffe,2013). There is a positive correlation between the organizational performance and the strength of the corporate culture. It highly influences individual behavior when they share similar goals. Whereas the critical theory focuses on analyzing the HRD policy challenges the suppression of human knowledge to gain justice, equality, and fairness. This also improves the performance o each and every individual working in an organization. Workers need to have a structure in order to accomplish the pre-determined goals (Delgado and Stefancic, 2012). The essay is reflects the contrast in between the two perspective. Firstly it describes the role of gender equity at workplace according to the post-modernist perspective. Secondly it critically analyzes the role of Deconstructing the Privilege and Power of Employee Engagement at workplace. The critical theory focuses on the changing society and the role played by different social background in managing it. In context of the privilege and position it describes the role played by an employee and an organization in attaining significant position. Critical theory analyzes the behavior of an individual towards the organization in building a suitable position (Lenski, 2013). According to (Shuck. et al.2016) the aspect of critical management studies and critical pedagogy the rising critical human resource development is one of the important aspects against the well defined theories and practices. A significant HRD policy challenges the suppression of human knowledge to gain justice, equality, and fairness. A critical HRD is based on decisive viewpoint that help in formulating diversity of theoretical improvement which includes discursive, gendered, materialist, and anti-racist. An imaginary ideological contradicts in between the radical course of action and critical theory. The managerialist or performative frames activities in synchronization while coordinating in between the other departments. In a given scenario Human Resource Practice are in full coordination with other area. Probable configurations of a HRD plays an important role in meeting the ongoing needs. This organizational theory provides a clear job description in order to set genuine objectives. All these Functions are important in setting the rules for attaining organizational objectives. This theory helps in attaining goals in an effortless manner. The Post-modernist diverges from the other perspective on the basis of unwillingness to make ontological and epistemological changes. They undertake a very critical approach to an issue and their approaches are challenging under the social domain (Mahoney and Thelen, 2009). Critical theory has a different approach when compared with the post modernist theory. In case of inequality at workplace the theory focuses on the changes taking place in the society. According to Deconstructing the Privilege and Power of Employee Engagement - Critical Theorist Perspective it is focused on the change in status of characteristics that unearned privilege are easy but more powerful. (Why Critical theory got introduction on article but not post modernist?, please add in same for post modernist article) The higher a persons designation at workplace, the more likely is the chances to be rewarded within the organizational hierarchy. This perspective discusses an open intervention related to the unearned experience. It is however related with Critical theory however put a challenge on the traditional way of doing work. They are using those methods which are necessary for responding to the ongoing situation. According to them there is a distinction in the market situation th at will either provide privilege in accordance to the changing needs. the result on ongoing distinction in between the employees has become more complex. Weber has described that the society is split into distinct sub parts. Within the class there is also a distinction in terms of the sub-class in the society. Feminisms lean to dispute that empirical, scientific approaches to research are masculine in procedure. Women have faced inequality in the society since very beginning. Women still do not have full rights at the workplace. Society is more inclined towards the patriarchal society. Gender inequality arises due to inequality arising out of capitalism. The arrival of the feminist theory arrived due to breakdown of the capitalist economy. Women are often seen as choosing part time work instead of the full time work. The two most important context related to the critical perspective is the power of the organization and the power over the organization. Callahan focus on the third kin d of transformational power related to the critical perspective. Engagement into the business activity is more important to attain support from each and every activity (Dutton and Ragins, 2007; Putnam and Mumby, 2013). Postmodern theory diverges from the rest of the perspective on the basis of its unwillingness to understand the truth or to make permanent commitments. Therefore it is necessary to understand the implication of equality at workplace under the post modernist approach. The article Trapped by metaphors for organizations: Thinking and seeing womens equality and inequality - Post Modernist Perspective showcases the privilege given to women at workplace. Post modern theory tries to fit in between the philosophical positions. They refuse to take a temporary philosophical stand because doing those privileges would forms awareness over others and this disobeys postmodern ethics. Post modernism is associated with the introduction into the organizational culture while dealing with the organizational and cultural issues (Manning, 2012). Organizational culture is considered to be one of the important parts while dealing with the post-modern approach. The theory related to Attention to discourse s uggests that, those researchers who are interested in the post-modern theory give more importance to 'culture' than others. It does not have very much in common as organizational culture can be considered as a part of the discursive formation. The major influences on post-modernism have been White and Foucault. Post-modernism has shifted their emphasis away. They have shifted their interest from seeing archival research towards a view that is the conference and traditions of writing However organizations are taking all possible efforts to understand the possible outcome and taking possible efforts to strengthen authority with their acquaintance(March, 2013). The relationship between concepts is changing due to undefined word or concepts. These theories are developed on the basis of decisively examining the postulations of major theories. These theories are making an attempt to establish the totality of human survival. Post-modernism consider the notion that the past repeats itself i n a consistent form. Inequality at work on the basis of gender is a common issue. All the three perspective can be compared by using the organizational structure that is social and physical in nature. The social structure is defined as a connection in between the individuals working at different department. The social structure concept was developed by Max Webber which is called as a systematic study of bureaucracy (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2013). Michel Foucault was the greatest French philosopher contributing towards the postmodern perspective. It helps in defining the role and responsibilities of each and every individual working in an organization and setting their role as per the hierarchy. Flat organizational structure has more division as compared to the hierarchy structure. Their focus is to carry out the work in an effective and efficient manner by primarily focusing on each and every aspect attached with the organization (Mendenhall, 2012). Different people have different type of feelings and experiences. It can be noticed that the routine remain the same but they are applied in a different manner by different individual. An unpredicted incidence can cause improvisation in routine activities. They see an organization as a community and act accordingly (Chia, 1995). The power theory therefore belongs to the post modernist perspective is more critical in their approach towards power (Clarke, 2005; Hatch and Schultz, 2010).The deconstruction of the privilege and power is focused on exploring four principles that are based on one who controls the context of work, secondly on one who determines the experience of engagement, Thirdly on the value of engagement and lastly on the benefits derived from high levels of engagement. The organizations and employees are both benefitted from the result associated with the knowledge of employee commitment. The organization is exclusively located to control all the system of power and pri vilege. Organizations can attain desired level of engagement through an obligation while manifestation of privilege in unequal states of power, credibility and access. According to the post-modernist there is no proper structure in an organization because they believe that there are no boundaries. They apply approaches like de-differentiation, de-centralization and de-constructingin achieving organizational goals. Post- Modernist does follow an actual method which is recognized by majority of people working in an organization. They have a restriction on surpassing the hierarchy level but the post-modern provide with recourses and technology where people have to set their own ideology. They have their own mindset which is concerned with doing things in a different manner. According to them each individual has a different method to get their work done. Post modernist organizations are moreover considered as a feminist organization as they believe that every individual has equal rights (Tsoukas and Knudsen, 2005). Organizational culture is important for developing a cohesive environment at workplace. It needs to ensure that the degree of participation is well-defined to create more awareness among the participants. There are three level of culture defined in an organization hierarchy which is as follows: artifacts, values, and assumptions (Fleetwood, 2005). These are the different set of norms as established by the organization in order to accomplish mission and vision as mentioned to employees. As per the post modernist Approach there is a huge impact of the corporate culture in an organization. Employees share similar goals in a modern organization and argue that the external factors have a huge influence in order to improve the performance. The external changes according to them help in catching up with the changing environment. Quantitative method is used to analyze the degree of change occurring in an organization which is used to relate with the performance and adaptation. Various different tools are used by the researchers in order to understand the relationship in between the organizational structure and culture (Hosking and McNamee, 2006). It is important to understand that the organization exist in terms of different perspective. They focus on different theories and procedures in order to explore organizational culture. In term of both the theories it is important to understand the theory related to the privilege at work as a critical approach. It is evident that the concept of privilege is evident at work. It is important to be understood at this situation that it is at this intersection of privilege and meaningful work. This makes engagement a potentially privileged state for an employee at work. Both the individual and the workplace has a benefit from engagement but organization has more power than employee. Equality at work place is in according to the post-modernist approach depending upon the Feminist standpoint theory. The theory aims on an epistemic privilege over the character of gender relations. The gender as per the theory describes the viewpoint of feminist at work. It describes it on the basis of the post-modernist perspective. The post modernist theory therefore emerged as an obscure jargon. They describe themselves as the system of the thoughts that are important to manage equality at workplace. References Chia, R., 1995. From modern to postmodern organizational analysis.Organization studies,16(4), pp.579-604. Clarke, A., 2005.Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Sage. Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J., 2012.Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press. Dutton, J.E. and Ragins, B.R.E., 2007.Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Fleetwood, S., 2005. Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical realist perspective.Organization,12(2), pp.197-222. Hatch, M.J. and Cunliffe, A.L., 2013.Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press. Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M., 2010. Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand governance1.Journal of Brand Management,17(8), pp.590-604. Hosking, D.M. and McNamee, S. eds., 2006.The social construction of organization. Oslo: Liber. King, B.G., Felin, T. and Whetten, D.A., 2010. PerspectiveFinding the organization in organizational theory: A meta-theory of the organization as a social actor.Organization Science,21(1), pp.290-305. Lenski, G.E., 2013.Power and privilege: A theory of social stratification. UNC Press Books. Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. eds., 2009.Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge University Press. Manning, K., 2012.Organizational theory in higher education. Routledge. March, J.G., 2013.Handbook of Organizations (RLE: Organizations)(Vol. 20). Routledge. McKinley, W., 2010. Organizational theory development: Displacement of ends?.Organization Studies,31(1), pp.47-68. Mendenhall, M.E., 2012.Global leadership: Research, practice, and development. Routledge. Putnam, L.L. and Mumby, D.K. eds., 2013.The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. Sage Publications. Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S. and Jang, Y.S., 2015.Classics of organization theory. Cengage Learning. Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C., 2005.The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Oxford Handbooks.

Great Expectations Essays (173 words) - English-language Films

Great Expectations In Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens, light is used symbolically through the example of Estella. Miss Havisham brings Estella up in the darkness, consequently sheltering her from the true meaning of life. By Miss Havisham's orders, the house in which Estella lives is lit only by artificial light. Estella constantly lives a false life by never knowing the true significance of her words and actions. Her confinement to the darkness affects Pip, the one person who truly loves her. Estella represents his unreachable star, a light in the darkness that he faithfully reaches for. The sun, earth's star, is our source of life. In this way, Estella acts as Pip's continual source of inspiration. He strives to become a gentleman for her, so he can spend the rest of his life by her side. Pip's life was unfulfilled until "her light came along the dark passage like a star." This light, in the darkness of her surroundings, will light the way for Pip and always guide him back to Estella. The light that Estella represents is significant to this remarkable work, Great Expectations.

Why You Should Use Web Push To Reach Your Email Marketing Haters

Why You Should Use Web Push To Reach Your Email Marketing Haters What if I said  weve been blowing smoke when we talked about email marketing on this blog? Weve devoted a fair amount of space talking about email marketing- many thousands and thousands of words, in fact. First, weve convinced you that a substantial effort has to go toward building the number of emails on your list. Then, weve told you about the best ways to get people to sign up, and how to get people to open your email. But what if email was on the road to inevitable failure? What if there was something coming that would make it obsolete? Think of all the effort youve put into your email list. Its terrifying to consider that it might be the marketing version of the VHS tape, but perhaps that is inevitable thanks to Web push. Why You Should Use #WebPush To Reach Your #EmailMarketing Haters via @JulieNeidlingerWhat Is Web Push? You are already familiar with Web push  if you  are using an Internet browser like Safari (Chrome and Firefox have indicated theyll be getting Web push soon), and get notifications for things such as new Twitter activity. In a way, Web push is sort of like the notifications you get on your smartphone, except that Web push happens through your computers Internet browser, where most of us spend our workday. Any of your readers who have allowed your notifications to appear in their browser will receive a notification the next time you publish new content.  They can click on the notification and be taken to your freshly published content easily. Web push is attractive to your readers for several reasons. 1. Web push is easy to use. Web push is simple for your readers to set up.  When readers arrive at your Web push-enabled website, a notification pops up asking if theyd like to be notified every time you publish new content. Unlike email or other calls-to-action, Web push is painless. The user can easily select Allow or Dont Allow  when asked if they want notifications, and the window goes away. Thats it. They can go on with their Internet browsing without having to verify email later or go to a sign-up page. The barrier to entry is very low- you cant get much easier than one click, which is all that Web push requires of your reader. 2. The permission window is familiar. The Web push window that pops up asking if your reader would like to be notified looks like any other browser-based permission window. Thats easier to trust than a custom marketing pop-up window. Why You Should Be Using Web Push Not every content marketing tool that comes along is worth your time, but Web push is something you should consider using. It very directly gets your content in front of eyeballs that are receptive to it, making it similar to email in that readers have opted in. Its easy to get started. You can get your site ready for Web push without having to be a developer. Using Roost, you can set up Web push on your site easily with several integrations, including a WordPress plugin that makes managing Web push from your WordPress dashboard possible. Roost makes setting up Web push in your WordPress blog easy. With Roost, your notifications can be automatically generated whenever you publish new content, or you can create custom notifications and send them manually to all of your subscribers. Taking the idea of push notifications a step further, you could also use Pushbullet to get notifications right where your readers are. Pushbullet is a mobile app (not limited to just a  browser) that also has browser extensions to make push available for non-Safari users. While Pushbullet has features directed at individual user convenience (text messaging, link sharing between devices, phone notifications to your desktop), they also allow users to subscribe to channels. Thats where content marketers might want to take notice. By setting up a Pushbullet channel that uses your RSS feed, you can notify subscribers of new content immediately, much the same as Safari users experience Web push. It appears on their mobile phone, and on their desktop. Web push happens where your audience is. One of the big challenges content marketers face is choosing which social networks they will publish content on. There are so many networks, and each network attracts a different kind of user. Content marketers often struggle with managing all of these publishing channels. With Web push, it doesnt matter what social networks your reader prefers, because it has nothing to do with them. Instead, it is independent of social networks, appearing right in their browser. You dont have to create different, customized messages optimized for different networks. You dont have to research which kind of networks your niche performs best on. Just like with the email you send, your content arrives where your audience is  already working, outside of a network. Web push helps build data for you. When we measure the success of a blog post or headline, we often deal with a variety of metrics. Traffic, perhaps, and how many social shares it received. Web push gives you another avenue of metrics, allowing you to A/B test everything from the best time to send notifications to what kind of messages might lead to unsubscribing. For those of you who like to A/B test and base content marketing decisions on hard data, Web push is another building block for you, a chance to learn about your audiences behavior outside of social networks and search engines. Try #WebPush to A/B test #headlines and understand the best times to publish your #blog posts.Web push gives you control and customization. Despite the simplicity of Web push, both for the end user and for you to set up, you still have some customizations and control available to you. Roost recently announced that you can  now send specific blog post categories to different subscriber segments, allowing your readers to see only what they want to see. If youre a heavy blogger and publish several posts a day, you might send out a notification to a summary email or link instead of a notification for every blog post. You can send out important product updates, or breaking news. With the simple system of Web push, you can  control what gets sent to whom. It is more than just an RSS feed on notification steroids. Web push opens a door for people who dont like email marketing. Not everyone likes getting marketing emails, and Web push helps  solve  that problem. Youre probably pretty invested in your email marketing, accepting the loss of those folks you know dont want your marketing email in their inbox. According to blogger  Tim Varner, Web push has an opt-in rate that is 10 times higher than email newsletters. Ill admit Ive become both worn out and disinclined to hand out my email address as freely as I once did. Web push allows me to stay connected to a blog I like but keep my email to myself. I can also control what kind of notifications Ill receive, and I like that I have control. Web push is the perfect patch for the anti-marketing  streak that runs through some of your audience. #WebPush is the perfect way to reach  your #EmailMarketing haters.Why Email Is Still The King Web push sounds pretty great, doesnt it? But rest assured that all of the attention weve given to growing your email list hasnt been misplaced. We havent led you astray. We were not blowing smoke. The truth is, Web push will not replace email. Its cool, it has promise, and its yet another great tool for your content marketing tool box, butit isnt as powerful as email. Web push is easy to abuse. Its so easy to send notifications to your subscribers that you might be tempted to do it more often than you should.  Notifications arent the same as an email. An email shows up in the inbox and sits there until your reader decides to do something with it. A notification does not give the reader that kind of control, and a simple one-click unsubscribe is likely to happen if the notifications annoy your reader in that moment. Just as Web push  notifications are  easy to allow, its easy to turn off, too.  The temptation and simplicity of sending out many notifications may  prove too much for some marketers. Web push does not get an email address. Attracting audience members who  dont want to give you an email address is a catch 22. Web push doesnt give you anything from your audience, beyond the permission of sending notifications and the data from their usage.

Teaching Strategies Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Teaching Strategies - Article Example The content knowledge in this strategy is the encouragement of peer to peer communication and interaction. This strategy enables learners to interact with students who speak English as the primary language s that they are enabled to clarify the essential concepts. The instructor uses various activities which helps the learners to go through he guided interaction successfully by grasping key language skills and concepts. This strategy helps learners to practice their pre-reading and also pre-writing skills so that they could have a meta-cognition of English language. This strategy helps the learners to express their thinking processes in verbal and written language. The assessment activities that teachers use in this strategy include think aloud and guides for complete chapter readings (Tissington and LaCour, 2010). Explicit instruction involves teaching the essential language concepts with an aim of building the background knowledge of the learners. At this stage, learners are given tasks which require cognitive skills of English reading. The teacher employs tools and activities which enable learners to classify, analyze, compare, interpret and synthesize the language concepts. This strategy aims at introducing learners to concepts which emanate from familiar themes, prompts and resources. The instructor aims at motivating the learners to link various ideas from their linguistic and social cultural backgrounds so that the interest of the student in learning English is determined. The motivation of the teacher will enable students to overcome the learning challenges (Tissington and LaCour,

Homework Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 5

Homework - Case Study Example The employees think that they will have lesser control over their functions and that the new way of doing things is posed to lessen their influence on strategic operations of the organization. Finally, and obvious resistance to change is the lack of skills especially in computer technology. Most employees are wondering how they will cope with information systems that they barely understand. The first step in dealing with resistance to change is awareness creation among all employees. Awareness creation should take place early enough so that the employees can understand the urgency and need for the proposed change. After creating awareness, it is imperative to train employees in the necessary skills for handling computer programs. In this case, Martin should develop training programs that focus on fully equipping employees with the computer skills. Another way of dealing with resistance to change is diversifying job functions since computers will render some staff jobless. There should be initiative to encourage task diversification so that employees can handle more than one function within the

Russias Economy During Yeltsin Era

Russias Economy During Yeltsin Era Analyse the principle problems facing the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era. How have these problems been tackled? Abstract The following dissertation will analyse the principle problems facing the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era. In many respects these principle problems facing the Russian economy stemmed from the economic and political disintegration of the Soviet Union combined with how effectively or ineffectively the Yeltsin administration had attempted to deal with those problems. As will be discussed the principle economic problems that faced the Russian Federation in 1992 were daunting, and therefore it is not surprising that some of these problems remained unsolved and were bequeathed to the incoming Putin government after Yeltsin’s surprise resignation at the end of 1999. Yeltsin had seemed to be Russia’s political saviour in August 1991 when he led the resistance to the attempted coup of Soviet hard-liners against Gorbachev. The failure of that coup inevitably accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union. However, the Russian economy would prove much harder to tackle t han desperate Soviet generals and KGB chiefs.[1] The principle problems of the Russian economy can be arguably traced back to the inefficiencies of the Soviet Union’s command economy and its massive military expenditure during the Cold War. These economic problems accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union itself and made it difficult to make the economic transition to capitalism without major economic implications.[2] The Soviet Union for all its economic faults had at least provided a basic standard of living, which meant that none of its people starved or were in severe economic distress. This was despite a stagnant economy, although its economic stability crumbled with remarkable speed. For much of the Yeltsin era the Russian economy could not match the basic living standards of the old Soviet Union for many of its citizens.[3] It could be argued that the transition to capitalism contributed to the worsening of the principle problems outlined below, and that ill thought out economic policies since have made it more difficult for those problems to be effectively tackled during and after the Yeltsin era. Among the main themes of this dissertation is that the Yeltsin government did not have a consistent set of economic and political policies to solve the principle problems of the Russian economy, which in turn hampered the effective tackling of those problems. The so called young reformers led by Yegor Gaider and Anatoly Chubais had the most thought out strategies for the Russian economy, yet they did not have a constant control over the government’s economic policy throughout the Yeltsin era.[4] Besides not all the economic strategies advocated by the young reformers proved to be effective once the Russian government put those strategies into practice. The ways in which all the principle problems of the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era were all interconnected are arguably obvious and apparent. To a certain extent it will be argued that Boris Yeltsin himself did not help the Russian government to tackle the principle problems of the Russian economy. The link betwee n principle problems in the Russian economy and political ones plus social factors will be discussed when and where appropriate. This dissertation will seek to examine the reasons for the Russian economy taking over a decade to achieve real growth, despite following the policies that it was advised would promote stability, liberalised and privatised economy. This dissertation will attempt to analyse whether the economic transition achieved anything at all to justify an estimated 47 % decrease in living standards between 1991 and 2000. How many Russians believed that the detrimental effects of the principle problems of the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era could have been averted or tackled earlier?[5] When Boris Yeltsin assumed the presidency of the Russian Federation it was still part of the Soviet Union and not even a sovereign state in its own right also it did not have control over economic policy. Yeltsin presided over the dismantling of Communist control in Russia, yet he found it very difficult to construct capitalism from virtually non-existent foundations as any form of capitalist economic activity had been illegal for much of the previous 75 years after the Communist Revolution.[6] By the time Yeltsin left his presidential office, the Russian Federation was a fully independent state that nominally, if not completely become a liberal democracy with a capitalist market economy. However, the dual Russian transitions to liberal democracy and capitalism from an authoritarian Communist State proved difficult and many have argued that those transitions remain incomplete. The incompleteness of the transition to capitalism and the political and economic make up of the Russian fed eration had a strong influence upon the principle problems facing the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era. Russia had been used to authoritarian government with state controlled central planning for the economy so the process of liberalisation had been uneven and had unwelcome social and economic consequences across Russia. The legacy of misguided Soviet economic planning took much effort and a great deal of suffering for the poorest sections of the Russian society to break, it seemed to help a minority of Russians make their fortunes, whilst leaving the rest to fend for themselves. In Russia the correlation between political and economic weaknesses arguably helped to make the post-communist economic and democratic situation imperfect and even corrupt.[7] The move to bring capitalism to Russia in less than a decade was as revolutionary as Stalin’s attempts to achieve industrialisation during collectivisation, yet the opposite aims of privatising the economy. The aim of the Yeltsin government to bring capitalism was a sensible notion, yet the ways that it was implemented caused controversy as well as arguably increasing the impact of the principle problems that afflicted the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era.[8] Decline and signs of recovery 1992 1998 The initial bout of economic shock therapy administered in 1992 brought about hyperinflation, the closure of many factories and enterprises, which led inevitably to mass unemployment. Gaider and the other young reformers in the Yeltsin government had to end state subsidies to factories and intoduce the lifting of price controls at one go rather than to introduce reforms gradually. It was harsh economic medicine for a country burdened with the consequences of communism’s profound economic and political failures, although Yeltsin did not have the political strength or motivation to carry out shock therapy as extensively as Gaider and the other ‘young reformers’ had originally intended. Through much of the 1990s the young reformers and the richest entrepreneurs known as the oligarchs competed for political influence and power, whilst contending to gain control of the Russian economy or a share of its greatest spoils. Neither the young reformers nor the oligarchs were popular with the majority of the Russian people, yet none of them particularly cared. They were not involved in popularity contests, they were arguing over power and riches. Sometimes they might do things that were good for the Russian economy, yet they were mainly interested in achieving their own agendas than serving the national interests of Russia.[9] The weakness of the Russian economy further weakened the position of the Russian government at the start of the Yeltsin era. These were political as well as economic weaknesses that still existed when Yeltsin left office. Yeltsin’s first term was undermined by political disputes with the Russian Supreme Soviet, which Yeltsin eventually closed down and replaced with a new parliament, the Duma. Yeltsin had to maintain his political position whilst attempting to prevent the Communists and nationalists making sufficient electoral gains to restrict his political room to manoeuvre. Yeltsin was able to maintain his hold on power, despite a strong challenge from the Communists after his re-election in 1996. Yeltsin’s second term in office highlighted his inability to find a Prime Minister that was politically reliable, could manage, or even reduce the weakness of the Russian economy and who did not want to assume the presidency as Yeltsin’s replacement before Yeltsin was due to leave office in June 2000. Yeltsin’s second term witnessed his problems with ill health worsen, which in turn meant that the Russian economy as well as the Russian government was not as effectively managed as they needed to be. When Yeltsin appointed the virtually unheard of Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister he believed that he had found a man that could fix the Russian economy and solve its political problems. Perhaps more importantly for Yeltsin and his family, Putin was unwilling to prosecute either him or his relatives for their links to the corruption and inefficiency of the Yeltsin era.[10] The Russian economy did show signs of revival towards the end of Yeltsin’s first presidential term, yet in many respects such a revival was more apparent than real. The vast majority of Russians were economically worse off than they had been before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Declining inflation and unemployment rates did not benefit most of them, especially those that lost their jobs, their savings, and all hope with the shock therapy of 1992 which resulted in inflation rates of around 2,000%. The new Russian economy seemed to benefit former Communist party officials; bureaucrats, factory, and state farm managers that managed to gain control of former state owned enterprises. The other main beneficiaries were the handful of entrepreneurs, subsequently known as the oligarchs that had become very wealthy through their links with Yeltsin. The Russian economy for the first time also had millions of shareholders eager to show their capitalist credentials. The Russian governm ent did not however, share in the beginning of the Russian economy during the middle of the 1990s, the strength and capabilities of the Yeltsin government to deal with economic problems was undermined by falling revenues. Government revenues had been reduced through the economic contraction of the early 1990s, higher spending on social security, lower global prices for Russian oil exports, plus extensive tax evasion. Not that anybody had to deliberately evade paying their taxes given the massive size of the tax arrears owed to the Russian government. The breakdown of the Soviet Union led to other problems such as lower exports to the other former Soviet republics and the inability of countries such as the Ukraine to pay for Russian gas and oil.[11] The table below that shows the annual changes in Russia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures between 1992 to 1999 amply demonstrates the disastrous state of the Russian economy throughout much of the Yeltsin era. [12] Stock market crash and Government weakness The perilous financial position of the Yeltsin government itself proved to undermine the revival of the Russian economy as it directly contributed to the collapse of the Russian stock market in 1998. The crash of 1998 ruined millions of small-scale shareholders in Russia and reduced the scale of foreign investment in the Russian economy. Russian investors were in effect made to suffer due to the ineptness of the Russian government in raising enough taxes to run the country and avoid bankruptcy.[13] Under Yeltsin the Russian State had lost out in terms of revenue and economic independence to the oligarchs, profits that should have lined the coffers of the Kremlin lined the pockets of Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Potanin, and the other oligarchs. All of these factors combined to make the insolvency of the Russian State as principle problem of the Russian economy. Restoring the solvency of the government would increase its scope to solve the other principle problems of the Russian economy , as well as restore the political authority of the state.[14] When Vladimir Putin assumed power his government was faced not only with the task of restoring the solvency of the Russian state, he also had to restore the faith of Russians and foreigners that the government would not default on its loans. The crash of August 1998 had led to the Yeltsin government defaulting on $40 billion worth of foreign loans. The crisis in confidence also saw the rouble decline to a third of its pre-crash value.[15] The Russian economy was not helped by international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or foreign governments most notably the United States by the amounts of capital as the Russian government would have liked.[16] As Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had already shown his commitment to restoring the solvency and the power of the Russian State. Putin’s strength of character plus his determination to succeed contributed to Yeltsin’s decision to resign and maximise Putin’s chances of retaining the presidency after the 2000 presidential election. Putin was elected president in 2000 and claimed the credit for Russia’s improving economy as well as apparent victory in the war against Chechen separatists. Putin put himself forward as the man capable of curing Russia’s profound economic, social, and political problems. If confidence alone was the sole key to solving the principle problems of the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era, then Russia should have been a prosperous state the day Putin entered the Kremlin.[17] Principle Problems of the Russian Economy The first principle problem facing the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era was the incomplete nature of the transition to a capitalist market economy. The support of Boris Yeltsin for the measures needed for a full transition to a market economy was not consistent throughout his time in office. The economic reforms introduced in 1992 hit the Russian economy harder than the similar reforms introduced in former Communist states such as Poland and Hungary. Russia had a larger economy, more state enterprises and factories plus a much longer period under communist control than any of the former communist states Central and Eastern Europe had. The Yeltsin government received plenty of advice as to whether to introduce economic liberalisation all at once or gradually, although at that point there was no hard evidence as to which approach would be the most successful in the long run. In the short run economic contraction was expected before the Russian economy would show signs of i mprovement and growth.[18] However, the period of economic contraction was longer than many experts had predicted, although the sheer scale of the problems facing the Russian economy throughout the Yeltsin era were enormous. A healthy Boris Yeltsin, despite his lack of knowledge concerning capitalist economics, might have given the government more urgency in tackling those economic proms it could. However, during his second term as president Yeltsin suffered from the affects of heavy drinking and a severe heart condition. Given the prominence of presidential power in the Russian political system having an incapacitated president was detrimental to the tackling of Russia’s economic problems. Not only was Yeltsin frequently ill he would intervene in the government at some inopportune moments. Yeltsin had a tendency to appoint Prime Ministers and cabinets on a whim. If a Prime Minister proved incapable of tackling the country’s many social, economic, and political problem s they would be removed. Paradoxically if a Prime Minister was too successful in resolving those problems or appeared to be more popular than Yeltsin they were also removed from office.[19] A principle problem facing the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era was that a proper banking system similar to those operating in more established capitalist economies had not been fully developed to aid the Russian economy’s transition in to a capitalist economy. There are various reasons why the lack of a fully developed banking system became a principle problem facing the Russian economy. The lack of such a properly developed and regulated system hindered and deterred foreign businesses from investing in the Russian economy, as potential investors could not be sure of where their money was going. The lack of foreign investment slowed down economic growth in the financial sector of the Russian economy. Growth in the financial sector was needed to compensate for the contractions in the industrial and agricultural sectors of the economy.[20] The lack of a properly regulated banking system also aided the money laundering of illegal profits from the organised crime gan gs that seemed to proliferate after the Soviet Union collapsed. Organised crime gangs had been able to take advantage of the Russian government’s struggle to maintain full political and economic control of Russia. The unregulated nature of the Russian banking system did not help stem the flow of financial capital out of the Russian economy during the Yeltsin era. The Yeltsin government seemed unable or unwilling to take effective measures to stop the flow of capital that was so detrimental to the Russian economy. If the Russian government had been able to attract as much investment into the Russian economy as there was capital exported away from it then the economy would have achieved greater stability and growth. However, the IMF made economic aid and loans to the Russian government conditional upon the Russians on improving the Russian banking system to international standards of performance and regulation. The Russian government could in return claim that Russia’s e conomic problems would have decreased if the Russians had received all the international aid and investments that had been promised in the early 1990s. Whilst aid was slow in coming forward the foreign debts owed by Russia from $97 billion in 1992 to a burdensome $152 billion by 1998. During the same period the amount of GDP the Russian government had to use to service its foreign debts doubled to 60%. That was money that the Russian government could have spent in more productive ways such as increasing spending on non-military research or tackling the social and economic problems that were reducing the performance of the Russian economy.[21] A principle problem facing the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era was organised crime. Organised crime gangs, as previously noted, took advantage of the lack of political and economic control in Russia. The way in which the transition to a capital economy in Russia had been attempted had benefited organised crime gangs. Organised crime had existed in the Soviet Union due to the people wanting consumer goods as well as drugs that were not available through state enterprises. Under the Soviet economy system all private economic activity had been illegal. Organised crime gangs find post-Communist Russia an easy place to operate with little fear of being caught, rival gangs were more of a threat to each other than the Russian police were to them. If the gangs could not bribe the police they could frequently outfight them. The financial dire straits of the Russian government meant that there were not enough police or customs officials to deter, let alone catch organised crime g angs and their members. Poorly or infrequently paid police and customs officials had little motivation in stopping criminals, including those that resisted the temptation to take bribes.[22] Another principle problem facing the Russian economy at the end of the Yeltsin era was the informal economy in which employers paid in cash, whilst neither they or their workers paid taxes on their earnings or profits. However, the informal economy had in many respects helped to maintain the Soviet economy, despite its in efficiencies and stagnation. The economic reforms introduced at the start of the Yeltsin era offered chances and opportunities to organised crime gangs and individual entrepreneurs to make their fortunes. Previous experience of working in the informal economy did prove advantageous to many Russians wanting to make their fortunes or faced with the more mundane task of surviving.[23] The Russians have a long tradition of people who know the right people within the bureaucracy being able to further their own position. Corruption, bribery, and the calling in of favours could make all the difference between success and failure during the Yeltsin era. The informal economy grew due to the greater economic freedom and the unregulated nature of the Russian economy once market liberalisation had occurred. For many Russians being part of the informal economy was the only way to make ends meet. The Russian government had drastically reduced the number of state owned enterprises, whilst cutting subsidies to the newly privatised enterprises. Private enterprises in Russia would frequently not pay their workers for months to try to stay in business as they found it very difficult to survive against foreign competitors. Not being paid for months or only been paid in kind prompted workers further into the informal economy. Due to the lack of money available to the Russian government public sector employees were not always paid either. Desperation forced many Russians into holding two or three jobs to make ends meet. Without the informal economy the social and economic problems facing Russia could have been worse. [24] When private and public sector workers were paid, the high inflation at the beginning of the Yeltsin era meant that most Russians had to find extra sources of income or face economic ruin. It is difficult to have an accurate idea of the informal economy within framework of the Russian economy in terms of its share of GDP and its actual size. Statistics from the Russian government were even in the 1990s domestically or internationally known for their accuracy. Given the lack of resources available to the Russian police, customs officials, and bureaucrats it is not surprising that few people were caught for their involvement within the informal economy or that Russian officials could be bribed to turn a blind eye. During the Yeltsin era, the Russian government estimated that 25% of Russia’s GDP was generated by the informal economy. Other sources such as the IMF and the Russian press put the figure as high as 80%.[25] The harsh economic realities of life in Yeltsin’s Russia meant that corruption and unregulated economic activity increased dramatically. Organised crime gangs were able to gain from people’s misery and desperation in terms of increased levels of drug taking and prostitution. The collapse of Soviet authority and the difficulty of Russia and its neighbours had in securing their mutual borders had given the organised crime gangs the opportunity to expand their activities as well as their profits.[26] These increases in gang activities lead to higher levels of crime, as people had to resort to desperate measures to feed drug habits and gangs fought each other. Although the outbreaks of gang warfare witnessed in cities such as St Petersburg can mainly be regarded as a law and order issue, such events did have an economic impact during the Yeltsin era. Economic hardship, drug taking, and prostitution have heavily contributed to declining life expectancy rates. Many of the peo ple that should be the most economically active in Russia are either working informally and therefore not paying taxes or they have died prematurely. Drug taking and prostitution have increased the spread of AIDS so that Russia has one of the highest infection rates in the world. The demographic decline in Russia, if left unchecked could have major implications for the Russian economy as well as disastrous effects on its society. Organised crime may help many Russians survive from day to day, yet it makes some gang members very wealthy whilst depriving the Russian government of much needed revenue and leaving the cost of sorting out serious law and order as well as health problems. Organised gangs were also able to take advantage of the Russian governments wars in Chechnya during the Yeltsin era by selling drugs and weapons to both Russian troops and Chechen rebel fighters.[27] Overall the effect on the population of the Russian Federation was an average annual decrease in the popul ation of around 750,000 people throughout the entire 1999s.[28] At the end of the Yeltsin era another principle problem facing the Russian economy was the uncompetitiveness of many industries and businesses. Again the legacy of the economic system of the Soviet Union plays its part in the weaknesses of the Russian economy. The Soviet system had not produced words that Russian consumers or potential foreign consumers had wanted. Instead the Soviet economic planners had determined production levels and the types of goods produced. Once state subsidies were removed all factories and enterprises and the Russian economy was open to unrestricted foreign imports. Russian enterprises were forced to close, drastically cut their workforces, or not pay their workers for long periods. Some businesses resorted to not paying their taxes as part of their efforts to stay operative.[29] One of the leading oligarchs, Mikhail Khodorkovsky estimated that upwards of a million Russian enterprises should have been declared bankrupt. In 1996 the Yeltsin government state d that around 35% of Russian factories and businesses were on the verge of bankruptcy. The Russian government estimated that 80% of Russian factories and businesses were in financial dire straits.[30] The instability of the rouble and a lack of foreign currencies and investment also made it difficult for Russian enterprises to remain competitive. De-valuations of the rouble would briefly aid competitiveness, yet did not offer a long-term solution. Lack of foreign investment and profits made it more difficult for Russian factories to replace obsolete equipment or the latest training for their workers. The standard of education in Russia tended to be high, although there was a lack of people trained in Information Technology and more advanced industrial procedures, especially outside of the military research establishment.[31] The Yeltsin government and the young reformers had hoped that large-scale foreign investment would revive even the most outdated enterprises in the Russian econ omy. Although, not all of the potential foreign investors were put of by the lack of market regulation, the less than welcoming reception received from officials, Russian businesses, and the Russian public deterred many investors from investing in Russia.[32] The young reformers had hoped that their policies would only lead to a short-term contraction of the Russian economy, with a more competitive and modernised Russia emerging from shock therapy. They and Yeltsin were caught by surprise when the affect of shock therapy lasted throughout the Yeltsin era. A sharp contraction in the production levels of Russian heavy industries was expected and indeed occurred. However, the biggest falls in production witnessed during the Yeltsin era was in the production of consumer goods rather than in the more traditional heavy industries. Whilst production in those heavy industries of coal, steel, oil and gas declined by 45% during the 1990s that was not as bad as the decline in production of consumer goods. The move to a capitalist market economy had been anticipated to provide stimulation for increases in the production of Russian made consumer goods such as colour television sets, personal computers, and video recorders. Instead production of these consumer items declined dramatically, by 80% for television sets, 60% for personal computers, and 99% for video recorders. A section of the Russian economy that the government had believed would promote economic growth and provide jobs for those that lost their jobs in other sectors of the economy ceased to exist to any meaningful extent. There are two fairly straightforward explanations for the slump in the production of consumer goods. Those Russians that could afford television sets, personal computers, and video recorders brought more reliable and fashionable imported foreign brands. Through the liberalisation of the Russian economy and the efforts of the informal economy such goods became more widely available if not affordable throughout the Yeltsin era. For the poorest sections of Russian society that had their savings wiped out by inflation and their prospects diminished by unemployment or underemployment throughout the Yeltsin era there were little prospects of them buying the essentials to live let alone Russian or non-Russian consumer goods. The poor could not even afford the low quality and cheaper Russian made goods.[33] A principle problem of the Russian economy closely related to its uncompetitiveness was the increasing shortages of workers, skilled ones in particular. At the start of the Yeltsin era the severe contraction of the Russian economy meant that unemployment had increased. It was not only capital that left the Russian economy once the country moved to a market economic system. Some of the brightest and most capable people working in the Russian economy left the country for better pay and prospects abroad. Of course, not everybody was able to take the opportunity to earn his or her future in exile. In some respects the most harm done to the Russian economy was by the calibre of academics and technicians that left the country. The Yeltsin government could not do as much to halt the brain drain as it had to cut spending on higher education, health services and most notably on defence projects and research. Cuts in defence spending could be justified, as a war with the United States and its NATO allies seemed impossible. The shortage of skilled workers was worsened by the reduction in life expectancy, especially amongst men. The effects of lower life expectancy were mult