Importance of Recruitment and Selection of Salespeople Essay

Importance of Recruitment and Selection of Salespeople - Essay Example This exchange process – sales transaction – makes organizations focused on their clients and making sure the end users are satisfied. However, the sales process itself is what establishes the connection between an organization and a customer. Salespeople, as those who run and manage and sales process, are, in some sense, a chain that connects the business with its external environment and, what is more important, generates sales and, therefore, profits for the company. For this reason recruitment and selection of salespeople is one of the very important aspects of organizational behaviour since effectiveness of recruitment and selection of sales representatives is a basis for future success and effectiveness of the overall sales process of the company. Furthermore, as Darmon outlines (1993, 17), selection of salespeople has a great influence on the performance and profits of the organization. Sales are a direct source of company’s profit. Therefore, since salespe ople determine company’s sales, financial performance and profits, it can be said that salespeople are, actually, the tool that enables a commercial organization to fulfil its major goal of making profit. In addition, Slater and Olson (2000) point out that not only business performance, but the whole business strategy of an organization, is greatly impacted by sales force management (Slater and Olson 2000, 813). Therefore, effective recruitment and selection of salespeople has a direct influence on competitiveness of the business and, if implemented effectively, become a competitive advantage of an organization. Selecting Right People As it has been determined above, salespeople have a direct impact on financial performance, profits, and business strategy of an organization. So, if a salesperson fails in one’s efforts to sell the company’s product effectively, the company itself may fail as well. For that reason hiring right people for the sales positions is cru cial and vital for business success and effectiveness. Correctly chosen employees add value to the employing organization and, according to some estimates, increase sales and productivity to between 6 to 20 percent (Cooper, Robertson, and Tinline 2003, 6). A correct match between the job and an employee benefits the company in terms of reduced absenteeism and employee turnover because of higher employee satisfaction rates, as well as employee’s commitment and loyalty towards the organization. Furthermore, a right choice of a salesperson has a great impact on the company’s overall sales performance. as Armstron et al. (2009, 444) outline, the best salespeople usually make up the top 30 percent of the company’s salesforce, and bring up to 60 percent of the overall sales Armstron et al (2009, 444). This idea is supported by Johnson, Hair and Boles (1989), who believe that â€Å"hiring the right individual for a sales position remains one of the most crucial aspect s of a sales manager’s job† (Johnson, Hair, and Boles 1989, 53). The authors believe that a successful salesperson should have the following characteristics: enthusiasm, good organizational skills, persuasiveness, sales experience, ambition, ability to follow instructions, and sociability. However, while it is possible to identify these qualities when selecting and recruiting candidates, it might be more difficult to identify and recognize the qualities that might lead to a failure. Nevertheless, the very first task of a hiring manager is to identify the key characteristics of an ideal candidate for the position. Clear and precise specifications identified at the start of the selection and recruitment process will minimize the chance for a mistake at the stage of making a hiring decision (Roberts 1997, 4). The role a new employee is

A part of presentation Speech or Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

A part of - Speech or Presentation Example r practice platform; whereby on one hand, there is consumer expertise and free creativity, on the other hand the ways that the consumer activities are desirable by marketers. Co-creation however has marketing challenges with the establishment of ambiences that programs the freedom of consumers to exist in ways that allow harnessing of new liberated consumers and productive capabilities (Lury, 2004). The exchange of value and production of products or service depends mostly on capturing and generating iterative social communication as well as cooperation among consumers and corporations and consumers themselves. The principles of co-creation demonstrate the reconfiguration of power and labor characteristic of knowledge based and contemporary capitalism (Prahalad,2000). Putting customers to work is not entirely a new idea. For example, the increase in rationalized processes of the Facebook world that has relied much on appropriating customer work. Facebook allows its users to share their personal information on the website and also collects information from the `like` option then sells the data to other advertising websites hence earning money through the information shared. This makes the company successful and more profitable. Hereby, the co-creation concept illustrates how Facebook transfers the logic of consumer work from the production sphere and process efficiency to innova tion and development of a new product (Ritzer, 2004). Economy of co-creation involves experiments of value creation new possibilities, which are based on expropriation of technological, affective, cultural and social labor of the customer masses. Based on the consumer cooperation, co-creation demonstrates a dialogical model that does not privilege the vision of a company on production but what constitutes on the customer value or the marketing profession. In this case, rather than make customers work to rationalize the process of production as well as focus on their efficiency,

The Applicability Of The Clausewitzian Trinity Politics Essay

The Applicability Of The Clausewitzian Trinity Politics Essay Once considered a vital source of ageless strategic thought, the theories of Carl von Clausewitz have recently come under attack because of the changes in the nature of warfare, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. It is not disputed that his theories are thought provoking, but it will be argued that his writings can no longer be applicable universally in todays growing methods of warfare such as insurgent terrorism. Modern theorists such as John Keegan, have discredited the Clausewitz theories of war as invalid and having minor to no value in todays study of modern warfare when attempts are made to apply them to prevalent groups such as Al Qaeda.1 It is argued that the primary focus is on the Westphalia model of states and as a result Clausewitzs writings cannot be applied to insurgencies nor can they be applied to identities other than nation-states who wage war. Clausewitz may not have addressed specifically to insurgents warfare and non-state actors but looking closely at t he war on terror indicated that perhaps Carl von Clausewitzs theories may still be relevant because of the phenomenon of globalization. As is often the case with western civilizations way of thinking, problems are only looked at from their own points of view. If the international community were to broaden its perspective to engross the oppositions point of view, it could be seen how Clausewitzs theories of the trinity and the center of gravity remain relevant today and useful in todays method of so called fourth generation warfare. This approach can also identify potential vulnerabilities in the current conflicts with non state actors such as Al Qaeda and the general handling of Warfare in the 21st Century. Warfare has changed much over the past few centuries, especially since Carl von Clausewitz first wrote his manuscripts, which took the form of the book, On War. The world is now in the time of fourth generation warfare. Fourth Generation warfare is a term that was described William Lind and Thomas Hammes. This developed under the new wars thinking. They state that the warfare throughout history has progressed in distinct stages and that the world is currently in its fourth generation warfare. In this form of warfare, advanced western armed forces have to face hard to find and technologically inferior opponents who, through guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and campaigns focused at attacking and undermining western public support, are able to pose quite a significant threat to western security and civilization. Hammes and Lind believe that western forces struggle to capitalize on their military potential because they operate under outdated principles and doctrines of earlier modes of warf are that focused on maneuver warfare which was immortalized by the concept of the blitzkrieg.2 The generations that ran in between are as follows; first generation of warfare, which ran throughout the life of Clausewitz, from 1648 to the 1860s, was characterized by state-run wars. There were Orderly battlefields and militaries fought in formations of lines and columns against one another. As weapon technology, production and effectiveness improved, the order of battlefield began to break down. War I epitomized the second generation, that of attrition warfare. The next generation of warfare which lasted until the outbreak of World War II was trench warfare which evolved, becoming the third generation of warfare; maneuver warfare as stated above. In this scenario, the battlefield became a non-linear entity. Opponents of the concept of forth generation warfare such as Lawrence Freedman criticize the theory due to its selective nature in historical sources defined historical periods. Similar to Lawrence Freedman, Michael Evans found that this thinking had stages too neat and linear. Modern warfare is in fact a merger of forms. Perhaps these critics ascribe too much outward variations of warfare as fundamental changes to its nature. This has led to critics to assign demarcated generations where they are not valid. War has most definitely morph and always will yet these are contextual changes instead of fundamental changes.3 Globalization and the 21st Century It can be argued that Clausewitzs theories remain relevant today because of how globalization has blurred the definition of a nation-state. Clausewitz theorized in On War that war was only possible between nation-states because nation-states were the only forms of identity capable of conducting policy, and war was a continuation of policy by other means.4 John Keegan and others have argued that the international community does not recognize groups such as Al Qaeda as a state and Clausewitzian theory cannot apply to such groups, therefore his theories must be irrelevant in the current form of insurgent warfare. Non-state actors can display major characteristics traditionally associated with the Westphalia definition of a state. Clausewitzs theories were based on the definition of a nation-state as assigned by the treaties of Westphalia.5 these treaties formed the sovereignty of a nation-state in the absolute sense6. These treaties established borders for each nation-state, but gave ri se to the international recognition of the right for the nation-state to exist. After the Peace of Westphalia treaties, scholars and theorists categorized conflicts as internal civil wars or as wars between states. Regarding how Globalization has enabled the rise of the non-state actor to levels of organization that rival that of the traditional state, T. L. Friedman provides a very credible definition of globalization in his book as, the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before.7the ability now for people all over this globe to establish communications by voice, text, trade and commodities, recruitment, the ease of sharing of ideas and beliefs, and the influencing of communities and nations swiftly surpassing the emphasis on recognized borders. Globalization has given people the opportunity for to join the pursuit of common goals. Due to communication limitations in the past, movements or events was isolated to their geographic region. With todays media, those limitations do not apply or do not have to. On a side note however, it can be argued that globalization was always in existence, the nature of it however has changed. Reza Aslan argues in his book, How to Win a Cosmic War, that Globalization is not a new phenomenon, as we have seen in history. Empires and trade routes tried to tie the world together into a tighter network of culture and economy. The way modern technology has changed the way globalization has occurred is what paints it in a unique light. Warfare required the organizational ability and capacity of nation states to conduct and wage war prior to the phenomenon of globalization. The advances of the past century have radically changed that. The technology revolution and globalization has enabled non-state actors to be to acquire the knowhow, equipment, and tools required to wage war effectively against a nation state. For example, Al Qaeda, in order to spread its message and recruit, equip and train around the world, they have that ability, and the ability that previously was unavailable to non state actors; influence and resource is now in their reach. Non-state actors compete with the states in the international realm. Given the power and influence the non-state actor can show in todays international field, Clausewitz may recognize them as actors able to wage war. The Trinity Clausewitz claimed that in war exists a paradoxical trinity consisting of a link between the government, the army, and the people. He claimed that there must be a balance maintained between these three identities for the state to be successful in war.8He claimed that these all three are dependent on one another, and change in one affects the others.9 confusion arises from the exact translation of this part of his work and what Clausewitz actually meant when he described the trinity. Christopher Bassford and Edward J. Villacres in 1995 provide a description of the relationship claiming that Clausewitzs on War is describing three categories; non-rational forces (chance and luck irrational forces (violent emotion), and rationality (War as an instrument of policy). They go into further detail of these categories claiming that the people are paired with irrational forces, i.e. the emotions of primordial violence, enmity and hatred (perhaps even without as wars can be fought without care o n both sides for the reasons). The army and the commander are assigned the forces of friction, chance, and probability. This is under the creative guidance of the commander. Creativity shown by the commander can be based on the talent or genius he/she has. The government is assigned with the rational force of calculation; by reason driven policy.10 With regards to absolute and real war we find that this concept led 11 led Liddell Hart to claim that Clausewitz was an advocate of unlimited warfare, and claims by him could be held as responsibility for the devastation that occurred during First World War.12 The apostle of a revolutionary philosophy of war making was how John Keegan described Clausewitz claiming that he was a proponent of unconstrained warfare as being in the best interest of the state. 13 On War may start off looking as if Clausewitz supports these views, Liddell Hart and Keegans criticism may not have that much basis. As Clausewitz defines war as an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will and further states that to introduce the principle of moderation into The theory of war itself would always lead to logical absurdity; he then claims there is no logical limit to the application of that force this in turn must lead, in theory, to extremes.14 We can see that based on these sayings Clausewitz was indeed writing about war in a theoretical sense. Later on in his work Clausewitz points out that if you go from from the abstract to the real world the whole thing looks quite different.15 Clausewitz was basically exploring the philosophical nature of war as opposed to advocating absolute and unlimited nature of warfare. He was describing it as something not bound by limitations of reality. When looking at war and the wars absolute tendencies along with factors that limit it in reality, Clausewitz demonstrates that war is not ruled by a particular logic, but a combination of elements demonstrating diverse characteristics. According to Christopher Bassford, confusion occurs due to Clausewitzs use of a dialectical method of presenting his arguments. Therefore Clausewitzs talk about war as an abstract phenomenon should be seen as part of a much larger argument. Clausewitz after describing what is known as the primary trinity, he further describes and defines a secondary one, claiming that the first of these three aspects (violence and hatred)à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦concerns the people. The second (chance and luck) the commander and his army; the third (war as a policy) the government.16 This is where Clausewitz has brought on himself a barrage of criticism and is a focal point to target for authors who are advocates of the new war age and 4th generation warfare model. This second trinity, critics argue, implies that war is waged only among states because these political entities are the only entities to have a clear distinction between the government, the people, and the armed forces. With regards to a post world war 2 era, Clausewitzs detractors claim that since most modern wars are conducted or waged by non-state actors, this has led to Clausewitzs theories being mundane and out of date. A state-centric outlook now has become obsolete due to the rise and prevalence of non-state warfare in recent years.17 Bassford in his works has pointed out that Keegan and Kaldor disregard the main point that Clausewitz ascribes to war as a character consisting of violence, chance, and rationality and that these are related to the secondary trinity of people, armed forces, and government primarily as an example, not the rule. There is no sociopolitical nature described in the primary trinity and it is this distinction which is critical to show to critics of Clausewitzs work.18 Entities such as the state, communist revolution movements, tribal warlord, or any international terrorist organization are all subject to the relationship of the forces of violence, chance, and rationality. It can even be said that Clausewitz devoted a chapter in On War specifically to warfare waged by non-state actors as noted by Herberg-Rothe, 19. Daniel Moran claims that the trinity consists of abstractions and that basically viewing it as the 3 distinct arms of the government, army and people is wrong.20 If we are to look at the issue of whether Clausewitzs ideas of Rationality disable his work from being permitted in todays environment of non-state conflicts in which violence itself may be regarded as the only goal, it can be claimed that the primary trinity shows that he assigned to the waging of war no specific rationale. Hatred has as much of a place as reason does and is claimed by Robert Baumann the reasons to push states to declare war are similar to those which motivate tribes or insurgents. 21 Clausewitz himself stated that, policy is nothing in itself; it is simply the trustee for all these interests against other states. That it can err, subs serve the ambitions, private interests, and vanity of those in power, is neither here nor there. 22It can be deduced that Clausewitz did not necessarily enforce the notion that war had to follow a particular noble high and mighty form of rationality. Clausewitz can be seen as being neither an advocate of unlimited warfare nor is his analysis of warfare fully state-centric. His work can be seen as having use with regards to analyzing conflicts where actors other than states participate. Looking at insurgents and groups such as Al Qaeda, it can be argued that their Goals are working towards a cause they perceive perfectly rational and obvious just as the use of force carried out by a state actor would spark violent emotional reactions. Every player in an armed conflict, whether it be current or past has Been subject to the nature of chance and luck. His work is therefore just as relevant in canalizing conflicts of the twenty-first century conflicts and rise of multiple insurgencies across the globe just as he remains valid in the studying traditional interstate warfare. 23 In the primary trinity it is emphasized that the forces governing how warfare is conducted extends beyond the irrational to the rational influences of human emotion and the non-rational effects of chance and luck. It is in the second trinity where a link is formed between the abstract elements of the nature of warfare and warfare in reality by providing an example of how these forces can come together in society as it was at the time of writing. In the modern situation of states being democratic; the demarcation into the government, the people, and the armed forces that the Prussian theorist describes is currently valid and applicable. Clausewitz proves his validity in the current age when he claims that the general character of an era can have a drastic influence on the aims and goals pursued in warfare and importantly the methods used in order to do so. This does not signify a fundamental change in the nature of warfare itself. He stated that the aims a belligerent adopts, and the resources he employs must be governed by the particular characteristics of his own position; but they will also conform to the spirit of the age and to its general character. Certainly this provides a good example to which Clausewitz has clung on to validity in the modern age. The three elements can account for an unlimited number of variations of conflicts which shows how the trinity rejects the concept of demarcated historical periods by showing how the variable relationship gives warfare a particular character based on specifics in context. This notion provides us with historical consistency when it comes to the study of war and shows us that we must remain critical of claims that assign a certain development as a new phenomenon. M. L. R. Smith poignantly wrote; Call it what you will; new war, ethnic war, guerrilla war, low intensity war, terrorism, or the war on terrorismà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦in the end, there is only one meaningful category of war, and that is war itself.24 The primary trinity can enable modern scholarship to go beyond the violent aspect of terrorism and focus on the rational motives behind their actions. The second trinity can enable research to be able to point out and analyze the sociopolitical relationships within the movements such as terrorist groups or insurgencies and look at the wider social context i.e. the dynamics that determine the relationship between the combatants and the people who provide their popular base and strength. Studying such aspects is vital when it is the popular base of insurgencies and terrorist groups that are identified as the main aspect to target in order to win a modern conflict. Targeting terrorist groups legitimacy would also demonstrate how brute force with highly advanced weaponry alone is not sufficient to defeat terrorism. As stated before, the central aspect of a terrorist groups strength is with the population behind them which they depend on for legitimacy and recruits. If the terrorism in modern day conflicts is to be defeated, then western leaders will have to focus on the public support that is so vital to insurgents and terrorist groups worldwide. On closer examination of the war on terror now gone and president Obamas current fight against terrorism, it can be demonstrated that the theories of Carl von Clausewitz remain as relevant today in a climate of asymmetrical warfare as they did in the Napoleonic era. His theories provide a theoretical framework with which modern warfare and its aspects can be studied. When the western political and military leader scrutinize the trinity from the point of view of those they are up against, weaknesses in its own approach in the military and political aspects of the conflict can be addressed. Clausewitzs concepts, allowing for the multiple and evolving forms of conflict, remains valid today for the study and evaluation of most forms of warfare. NOTES: 1John Keegan, History of Warfare (New Yorke: Vintage Books 1996), 2. 2 William S. Lind, Keith Nightengale, Joseph W. Sutton, and Gary I. Wilson, Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation, in Terry Terriff, Aaron Karp, and Regina Karp, eds., Global Insurgency and the Future of Armed Conflict: Debating Fourth-Generation Warfare (New York: Routledge, 2008) 3 Lawrence Freedman, War Evolves into the Fourth Generation: A Comment on Thomas X. Hammes, in Terriff, Karp, and Karp, 82 4 Carl von Clausewitz, On War, eds. and trans, Michael Howard and Peter Paret. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 81. 5 Peace of Westphalia, available from http://www.schillerinstitute.org/strategic/ hzl_t_of_w_0599.html; 6 Ibid. 7 T.L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, 1999 (New York: Anchor, 1999), 7-8; available from http://www.sociology.emory.edu/globalization/glossary.html; Internet; accessed 12 January 2008. 8 Carl von Clausewitz, On War, eds. and trans, Michael Howard and Peter Paret. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 88 9Ibid. 10 Christopher Bassford and Edward J. Villacres, Reclaiming the Trinity, Parameters (Autumn 1995); available from http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/Trinity/TRININTR.htm; Internet accessed 22 September 2007. 11 Carl von Clausewitz, On War, eds. and trans, Michael Howard and Peter Paret. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 100 12 Christopher Bassford, John Keegan and the Grand Tradition of Trashing Clausewitz: A Polemic, War in History, 1 (November 1994), 319-36. 13 John Keegan, A History of Warfare (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), 17-18. 14 Clausewitz, 82-84. 15 Ibid., 86. 16 Clausewitz, 104. 17 Martin van Creveld, On Future War (London: Brasseys, 1991) ix 18 Villacres and Bassford, 9-19. 19 Herberg-Rothe, 165. 20 Daniel Moran, Strategic Theory and the History of War (Paper, US Naval Postgraduate School, 2001), 6-7. 21 Robert F. Baumann, Historical Perspectives on Future War, Military Review, 77 (March/April 1997),40-46. 22 Clausewitz, 729. 23 Van Creveld, 60-66, 97; Kaldor, A Cosmopolitan Response to New Wars, 505-14. 24 M. L. R. Smith, Strategy in the Age of Low Intensity Warfare: Why Clausewitz Is Still More Relevant than His Critics, in Duyvesteyn and Angstrom, 41-53

Traditional Schools versus Charter Schools Essay -- Education

Education is a very important aspect in society and is valued by parents, politicians, educators, and others in the community. The education of children is a vital role in any organized system because the future depends on those who are young to take over in the cycle of society. The institutions that provide children with an education can be divided into two categories known as traditional public schools and nontraditional schools. Nontraditional schools provide students with different learning environments compared to traditional schools and some specific examples of these schools are magnet schools, charter schools, and virtual schools (Newberry). All of these schools are relatively new and have controversial views across the country. A charter school is a public elementary or secondary school that is independent from the local school district and is able to operate due to a state charter that is issued when the institution opens. This type of school lacks various rules and regul ations that are set by the district in traditional schools and allows flexibility and new teaching methods to be used. Each type of school has different benefits that enable the school to function, but there are many arguments that analyze which type of school is more suitable for the education of children across the country. Charter schools have a lot of potential benefits that provide the students with an exceptional education and create satisfaction with the parents in the community. A charter school uses a very unique system to create the foundation of the institution. A charter is issued from the state and is put together by politicians, teachers, and parents in the community. As a result, every charter school is able to invent their own guidel... ...th, Mary. "Public Schools vs. Charter Schools." Education Bug. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2012. public-schools-vs--charter-schools.html>. - - -. "Public Schools Vs. Charter Schools." Education Bug. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2012. public-schools-vs--charter-schools.html>. Newberry, Jennifer. "Understanding Nontraditional Schools: K-State Education Expert Looks at Some Alternatives to Public Schools." K-State Perspective. N.p., Summer 2005. Web. 27 Mar. 2012. webzine/backtoschool/nontraditional.html>. Shilling, Ali. "The New York City Debate." Department of Psychology. Univesity of Michigan, n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2012. finalshilling.356/the_debate__charter_vs._public_schools_in_nyc>.

John Locke Essay

The topic that I chose for my philosophy paper is empiricism. Empiricism is the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. This idea was developed from a famous English philosopher, John Locke, states that knowledge can only come from our sensory experience, nowhere else. Empiricists believe that getting knowledge without the experience is unachievable. There are three subcategories of Empiricism; Classical, Moderate, and Radical. Classical Empiricism completely rejects the thought of â€Å"in-born† knowledge. It states that at birth, we are born as a blank slate. Throughout the years, the more experience the more we learn. Radical empiricism is a dividend of the theory that concludes that knowledge comes from our senses. When we experience certain things, the sense that comes along with it is what gives us the knowledge that we take from it. Moderate empiricism is a more improved on and fits today’s philosophical and psychological findings. Moderate empiricism writes that not all knowledge should come from what you live through; some of it is simply learned. A valid example that they used to further prove their theory is the understanding of school subjects such as math or history. A person doesn’t have to live through anything to understand that a triangle has three sides or that George Washington became president in 1789. I interpret this theory the way it was written. I understand where john Locke’s idea of empiricism evolved from and there are many pieces of evidence to support it. I think what this theory states is that our experiences define us as humans. What we live through is what gives us the knowledge on either how to improve on it, to learn from it, or to continue doing it. In many ways, I believe that this is true in sculpting our personality. I think this theory goes in search of why people are so different, despite that they are taught the same material in school, and they answer that with the fact that every individual goes through incomparable experiences and that’s what makes us different and therefore gives us our knowledge. There are numerous examples of empiricism. Any experience in which a lesson is taken from is proof of empiricism. That may include a job experience in which the employee disappointed their manager and now knows to do everything he can to avoid doing what it is that he did. This goes along with Classical and Radical empiricism. The individual has learned something based solely on experience, but also through the sense of embarrassment and disappointment. A student who puts in a large amount of effort in his work and then receives praise on it from his teacher will want to go through that experience again and feel accomplishment. I feel very diverse about this theory. In many ways I do agree with it because our experiences are what give us our beliefs and set us as different individuals. However, the theory in ways contradicts itself because it underestimates the power of learning in class and knowing  not to do certain things even. An example that I have lived through that goes along with my opinion on this is my health class in the seventh grade where we were taught all the vital effects of drugs. Therefore, I have learned, but not through experience, not to do drugs. I did not have to go through addiction or even experimentation of illegal substances in order to get the knowledge not to do them. The theory that more closely relates to my belief is rationalism. Rationalism states that knowledge is based off of reason. Examples of that is mathematical problems,  knowing an illusion isn’t real and that your mind is actually being deceived, and why things happen the way they do. We don’t touch a pot of boiling water because we’ve done it before and experienced pain, we don’t touch it because we see the steam coming out of it and with that, we imply our reasoning that it would burn if we do touch it. There is also a flaw in empiricism. We all perceive things differently, and therefore our knowledge may be inaccurate. A student presenting might think he did awful and never volunteer again because his experience gave him the false knowledge that he wasn’t able to do good. Meanwhile, his fellow classmates might have thought greatly of his presentation. Empiricism can give off false knowledge of our experience, making us self-conscious, and even changing our personality completely, all because of how we perceived it. That is why I apply rationalism to my life and personality. I don’t have to experience something in order to gain knowledge from it. I am able to make decisions based off of reasoning, knowing the effect of an action without having to experience it, and knowing what is right without having to do what is wrong first.

Large Scale Manufacturing in Pakistan

Compiled by: Mirza Rohail B http://economicpakistan. wordpress. com/2008/01/27/large-scale-manufacturing/ The manufacturing sector grew at an average rate of 8 percent from the sixties to the eighties, but fell to 3. 9 percent during the nineties. This was mainly caused by reduction in investment levels due to lack of continuity and consistency in policies. Political instability law and order position in the major industrial centers, transport bottlenecks, as well as unreliability and inadequate availability of power supply at affordable rates were additional factors pulling down the sector. The sector has shown impressive recovery recently and has grown at a compound rate of 10. 9 percent per annum during 2001 – 05, with Large Scale Manufacturing (LSM) growing even faster, becoming 19. 9% in 2005. The contribution of Large-Scale Manufacturing at basic prices stand at Rs 844 billion as compared with Rs 264 billion in 2000-01, figures from the Census of Large-Scale Manufacturing Industries (CMI) 2005-06 show. LSM contribution to GDP also called as Gross Value Added (GVA) at producers’ prices has been estimated at Rs 912 billion as compared with the previous Census 2000-01 amount of Rs 280 billion. Political and macroeconomic stability, rationalization of tariffs, increase in investments, improved utilization of productive capacity, and growth in demand for manufactured products, resulting from higher exports and consumer financing have been the major factors leading to this growth. Large Scale Manufacturing 1999 and 2000 – 1. 5% 2000 and 2001 – 11% 2001 and 2002 – 3. 5% 2002 and 2003 – 7. 2% 2003 and 2004 – 18. 1% 2004 and 2005 – 19. 9% 2005 and 2006 – 8. 7% 2006 and 2007 – 8. 6% 2007 and 2008 – 5% Census of Large-Scale Manufacturing Industries The contribution of Large-Scale Manufacturing at basic prices stand at Rs 844 billion as compared with Rs 264 billion in 2000-01, figures from the Census of Large-Scale Manufacturing Industries (CMI) 2005-06 show. The CMI is conducted after every five years using the frame of Provincial Labour Departments . It is conducted by Federal Bureau of Statistics (FBS) in collaboration with Provincial Directorates of Industries and Bureaus of Statistics (BoS) under the Industrial Statistics Act 1942. The basic price is the amount receivable by the producer from the purchaser for a unit of a good or service produced as output minus any tax payable, and plus any subsidy receivable. Census of manufacturing industries 2005-06 shows value of production at Rs 2929 billion depicting an increase of 165 percent over Rs 1104 billion in CMI 2000-01. LSM contribution to GDP also called as Gross Value Added (GVA) at producers’ prices has been estimated at Rs 912 billion as compared with the previous Census 2000-01 amount of Rs 280 billion. Capital stock or value of fixed assets amounted to Rs 1147 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005-06 as compared with Rs 428 billion at the end of fiscal year 2000-01. CMI 2005-06 frame was enhanced using industrial directories provided by provincial directorates of industries as well as results of Economic Census 2001 conducted by FBS. The total number of industries surveyed in CMI 2005-06 was 13,146 establishments. Out of these 6417 establishments supplied requisite data (compared to 4528 units in CMI 2000-01). 2364 establishments were found closed and 3213 establishments gave no response. The results of CMI would be cornerstone for the forthcoming revision of Pakistan’s National Accounts. Pakistan Manufacturing Industry Pakistan’s manufacturing industry is heavily dominated by food, textiles and apparel, and leather industries to the JF-17 Thunder extent of over 50 percent. The share of textiles and its derivatives in exports was as large as 67 percent in 2003-04. Other major segments in manufacturing include chemicals and pharmaceuticals (15. 2 percent), basic metal industry (7. 7 percent), nonmetallic mineral products (5. 1 percent), machinery (4. 6 percent), cement (4. percent), automobiles (4. 4 percent). Automobiles, electronics, cement, fertilizers and textiles have all showed cumulative double digit growth during the last three years. An important feature of the engineering sector is the level of competence reflected in local design and local content, (with deletion levels of 80 – 100 percent in electrical goods, 56-89 percent in automobile s and motor cycles, and 75-100 percent in domestic appliances). Manufacturing Statistics Progressive Year Initial data for Jul-Sep FY08 suggested a deceleration in the growth of LSM production to only 6. percent. Further, Large Scale Manufacturing (LSM) growth has declined to 5. 57 per cent during the first five months (July-November) of the current financial year due to economic slow-down and high interest rates and poor law and order situation. Similarly, improved prospects in transportation & storage sub-sectors on the back of relatively better production in major crops, strong contribution by finance and insurance sector and augmented administrative and defence related spending will provide support to adequate level of growth in the services sector. These prospects of the services sector would be neutralized to some extent by negative growth in the LSM, imports contraction, shrinking profits in the telecommunication sector. Leading indicators pertaining to the major sector wholesale and retail trade points towards a reasonable growth in this sub-sector. The targeted growth of 4. 1 percent is already almost half of last year’s actual 8. 2 percent. (c) ECONOMIC PAKISTAN

Commercial fishing

Commercial fishing Commercial fishing is a worldwide enterprise that involves the capture of marine and freshwater fish and shellfish and their preparation for market. Fishing equipment ranges from small boats whose nets are cast and hauled in by hand to factory ships equipped with the most advanced technologies for finding, harvesting, and preparing huge amounts of fish. These large catches are very costly, however, not only in the price of their equipment and fuel, but also in the depletion of fishery resources their use brings about.The major portion of the total fish harvest consists of few fish species, which are divided into two primary groups. Pelagic species - those which live in the near-surface layers of the oceans, this include several species of herring, tuna, salmon, anchovies, pilchard, sardines, menhaden, and mackerel. Demersal species - fish that live in the near-bottom layers of the ocean, this includes cod, sole, halibut, haddock, hake, and flounder.Bering Sea and the North Pacific Oc eanLarge catches are also made of a group of fish classed commercially as SHELLFISH - shrimp, lobster, scallops, oysters, clams, crabs, mussels, and squid. WHALING was once a major part of the fishing industry. Overfishing has endangered many whale numbers, however, and the field has lessened in importance.Almost all large pelagic and demersal fish catches are made over or near the continental shelf, the underwater plateau around the continents and large islands. In these waters temperatures, water depths, and the currents that influence the amounts of available food create an environment that is highly favourable to the existence of large schools of fish.The animals living in and on the bottom of the continental shelf serve as additional food sources for demersal fish. Also, most species spawn on continental shelves, and the main nursery grounds of many species are also in coastal regions. The main fishing...