Nationalization
NATIONALIZATION, in broad economic terms, the governmental appropriation of
property other than land, transferring it from the domain of private property to national
control. More specifically, the term designates the assumption by a nation of the
ownership of privately owned industry, distributive enterprises, or other businesses or
services. When applied as part of socialist or Communist programs for abolition of
private property, nationalization is sometimes known as socialization. Following a severe
change in government, such as a revolution, nationalization may be effected by
expropriation without compensation to the owners of the property, as in Soviet Russia in
1917-18 and in Cuba in 1959. In more gradual governmental evolution, property
appropriation may be effected by some form of payment to the owners, as in Great
Britain after the installation of the Labour party government in 1945. Denationalization
also occurs, as in the case of Britain's steel industry.
Historical Background.
Although some degree of government ownership of national resources, industry,
transportation, communications, or services essential to social welfare has been a feature
of every form of organized society, the subject of nationalization, prior to the latter part
of the 19th century, remained the concern primarily of social reformers. The 17th-century
English reformer Peter Chamberlen, for example, held that poverty could be eliminated
by the nationalization of royal and church estates, the commons or parks, forests, mines,
and other assets of land and sea; he advocated the confiscation of what he characterized
as unearned increments in manufacturing, trade, and agriculture. During the French
Revolution, the French socialist leader François Noël Babeuf advocated the immediate
nationalization of all corporations and of the property of individuals following their
deaths.
Periodically, reform movements in the U.S. have advocated specific nationalization. In
the late 19th century, the People's party proposed to break the monopolistic control of
freight rates by the railroads through "national ownership of . . . transportation."
The first government to initiate a complete nationalization of industry was that of the
Soviet Union under Lenin. With respect to other governments, nationalization was used
by formerly colonial and semicolonial countries to secure their natural resources against
exploitation by foreign capitalist interests; a typical example was the nationalization by
the Mexican government in the 1920s and '30s of the country's various mines and, to
safeguard Mexico's vast oil deposits, of the subsoil.
More recent examples of nationalization can be found in the Middle East and in Latin
America. One was the expropriation of the Suez Canal by Egypt in 1956. During the
early 1970s many of the foreign-owned oil interests in the Middle East were either partly
or totally nationalized in a concerted move by the Arab states to gain control over their
Mexico’s political and economic stability from 1940-1982 can be well understood by looking at one of Sergio’s televisions. In Mexican Lives, Judith Adler Hellman introduces the reader to Sergio Espinoza, a businessman who once employed some 700 workers to produce televisions, stereos and sound systems. His televisions’ high production costs, low quality, high prices and inaccessibility to the poor sketch a rough microcosm of the period from 1940-1982 by laying bare the inefficiencies of import substitution industrialization and the vast inequalities in Mexico. From 1940-82, economic growth and stability came at the expense of social justice and political pluralism. In particular, the Mexican campesinos, the backbone of the revolutionary Zapatista uprising, suffered from the economic development model and from the PRI’s ability to muzzle dissent.
For thirty-four years Mexico existed under the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz. During this time Mexico’s industries flourished however the Mexican people remained deep in poverty with little to no opportunities for educational growth. The Mexican revolution was the result of Diaz’s fall from leadership, the peons need for independence, and resulted in a new beginning for Mexico. The Mexican Revolution began due to Porfirio Diaz not allowing anyone to have a voice or say in whatever it is they must do. The people of Mexico were upset because everyone was in poverty because only a select few people actually had money because Porfirio Diaz allowed them to those select few where also the ones in power behind Porfirio. Due to all of the poverty and the poor not having a say in anything they do or have to do it caused an uprising of the peasants led by Emeliano Zapata and Pancho Villa which are greatly known for their effort against the corruption and poverty in Mexico. Although Porfirio Diaz had brought some great things to help Mexico flourish in the industrial form and economical form but for the normal working class citizens that aren’t good friends with Diaz or know him on a personal level are left broke and are left with no way to get away from their financial problems because Diaz doesn’t allow them to make enough money to prosper in anything they do. Diaz’s way of ruling Mexico was so bad that it didn’t even allow the majority of the people of Mexico to get an education because they couldn’t afford it. The only people to benefit from the new rail road systems and factories were the rich hacienda land owners. The rich hacienda owners were also the people who were basically in control over the peons they had control over them as ...
Up until 1931, no organized labor union had ever been recognized by the Mexican government. In fact, unde...
been seen through nations seeking to control the populous, such as in Germany during World
This was practiced when private land was taken to construct roads or other needs for the colonies. Although the development of roads benefited the public, the matter of payment for the seized land wasn’t a regulation. The payment to the private land owners was seen more as a courtesy then requirement. The power to exercise eminent domain by the federal government laid inactive until the case of Kohl v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government in 1875. Justice William Strong came to the conclusion that “the very nature of sovereignty allowed the taking of land for public use, and also invoked the Takings Clause as supporting the government's right to exercise eminent domain powers” (Newton 1). As the years pass, the powers of eminent domain seem to get interpreted more
Mexico’s has a rich history, culture, economy, and government. Prior to the Spanish arrival, Mexico was habited by Indian groups with varying economic and political systems. The communities that lived in the north comprised of gatherers and hunters. However, agriculturalists populated the rest of the country. They were a dense population and were characterized by varying cultures (Miller, 2015). The county has developed tremendously since the Spanish conquest. The government has also changed continuously over the years.
Davidson, J. (Ed.). (2002). Nation of nations: A concise narrative of the American republic (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
This has caused an absence of a core state for the Islamic world. There have been individual revolutions in several countries such as Omar Al Mukhtar in Libya, the Million Martyrs Revolution in Algeria…against Western colonization but the strategic centre of gravity had already shifted.
International Congress of Mexican History. Contemporary Mexico: Papers of the IV International Congress of Mexican History. Berkley, University of California Press, 1976
Lisa Lowe’s introduction on the word “globalization” was interesting as it reminded me of the readings and lectures regarding colonization of the United States. Globalization is described conditions that increased economic, social, and political interdependence among people. The article allows for comparisons to be made with eighteenth century America. For example, the arrival of English colonists led to a change in the North American landscape. This could also be described as an invasion of native land as colonists felt the land belonged to them. Similarly, Globalization also mentions American invasion in the context of the conflicts against Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, both seventeenth and twentieth century America appear to some effect
In Taft, California, with a perimeter of razor wire, armed prison guards, supervise hundreds of medium security level federal inmates. Welcome to one of America's newest and fastest growing trends in the area of corrections. This new phenomenon is termed, The Corporation of Modern Corrections. Faced with an increase in prison overcrowding and aging institutions, court orders demanding immediate reform coupled with a straining budget, mandatory minimum sentences, and the public's attitude toward "getting tough on crime", America's justice system is in need of an overhaul. Thus, government leaders are ready to consider different options to help reduce the strain, while still meeting is legal responsibility to provide services. The option to emerge to the forefront is Prison Privatization - " the transfer of asset's and of production of public goods and services from government to the private sector."1 in other words, private interest is being given the opportunity to help alleviate the strain of taking care of a growing population more economically and efficiently than the government.
Although it already existed long before through primitive trade and migration, globalization has become a major factor in the world organization since the twentieth century. With the creation of transnational companies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, political and economic associations appeared new powerful actors that cannot be left apart in states’ decisions and whose influence may, according to some, threaten the authority of nation-states. Indeed it can be thought that globalization is causing the end of borders between countries and what is more that it is creating a sort of universal society in which states’ sovereignty is not the main authority anymore. However this essay will try to demonstrate that globalization is not undermining state sovereignty but that it is in fact leading to its transformation and to a new variety of nations. In order to prove it I will first define the main key words and will then focus on the different arguments about the effects of globalization and finally I will demonstrate that globalization has led to a transformation of the concept of state sovereignty.
Saudi Arabia, the leader of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies), maintains a powerful position in negotiations with the U.S. and other countries. Its vast supply of oil directly effects per barrel pricing and is a unique bargaining tool in international politics. But Saudi Arabia is no ordinary country in today's world. Its borders are governed by a royal family of nearly 30,000 individuals, all of which share most of the wealth and almost all of the power. Its people, with foreign exceptions, are wholly Islamic and many practice the faith with a frightening sense of devotion. And despite the immense revenue generated by its oil reserves, part of its population still lives in absolute poverty. Although recently it has seen immense change, it is still a country fair behind the progressive world.
Initially and primarily the US’s influence in the Middle East was to prevent a hostile power from gaining control over a vital resource. With the outbreak of the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict, the perception of oil as a strategic commodity surfaced. The Arab states cut off all petroleum deliveries to the United States and forming cutbacks to other countries. At the same time, the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced a rapid increase in the pr...
In 1923 the worst prediction in the history of oil, the Arab peninsula did not attract Great Britain to colonize this empty desert for the general manager of British Petroleum Company. Sir Arnold Wilson announced that the Arab Peninsula did not cont...