Democracy
Democracy incorporates a government system where everyone in the country is entitled to choose their political representatives who will air out their issues and make them part of the government. On the other hand, autocracy is a system of governance where all the political powers of a country are subjected to one person, and their decisions cannot be changed by any person independent of how negative or positive impacts they may bring to the people. Democracies are militarily stronger than autocracies because national defense is a public good, and more public goods will be provided in democracies than in autocracies is a true statement. Because national defense is a public good and in a democratic government, more decisions and implementation of rules will favor the people who elected their representatives. In autocracy or dictatorship, all the leader’s actions will only favor a powerful group of people, which may only be a tiny fraction of the general public (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40270756?seq=1).
In most cases, autocratic governments offer public transports, schools, and healthcare facilities at lower levels compared to the democratic governments (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.451.2812&rep=rep1&type=pdf). The difference between public goods provision in democracies and autocracies comes about in terms of citizens’ preferences. Citizens are aware of the public goods they require, and therefore they have the freedom to elect a leader who can provide their needs in a democratic government. In autocracies, policies are set without considering citizen’s preferences because only one powerful individual is responsible. In most cases, they put in place the policies that benefit people in equal positions as them. Therefore, it is visible how much a certain form of governance can affect the national defense as public goods and even other public goods that common citizen requires for their swift survival in a specific government.
Most governments that practice democratic governance are often developed and secure compared to the autocratic or dictatorship governance system. All forms of government will consider the advantages and impacts these public goods bring to their political interests. The argument does not mean that all non-democratic governments do not provide public goods such as national defense to their people. They do but to a lower extent. It is therefore clear that the degree of public goods provision echoes the interests of the citizens. Their safety and security are taken care of more in democratic government than in autocracies. The national defense will be put in place in favor and protect the general public and all the citizens.
The command and control approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a regulation system in which the government sets some regulations that provide rules that the pollution agents must adhere to. In most cases, the regulatory authorities are conditions put in place; for instance, no industry or greenhouse should be allowed to emit more than a certain amount of greenhouse gas per a given output. In cap and trader, the authorities give out a cap on the amount of greenhouse gas emitted per annum. The incentive-based approach; o emission fee works to maintain cost-effectiveness and maintain the actions of firms, industries, and greenhouses. The inclusion of fees and incentives help in influencing the extent of pollution from the agents.
The command and control approach involves a long process and time since it requires the authorities to find out the greenhouse gas emissions for the whole energy supply chain. For instance, the different industries with different amounts of fuel and toxic gas released differ, and therefore each has to be calculated separately so that the limit can be enforced. All the plants, firms, industries, and greenhouses have to comply with these commands. In greenhouse gas emissions under this approach, a minimum standard is set to reduce the amounts of gas emitted.
Economists and specialist argue that cap and emission fee is a favorable approach since it is market-based. The two approaches are ideal because they create incentives and encourage households and firms to conserve and adopt favorable emission strategies for the safety of the people and the environmental preservations. At the beginning of energy production and gas emission processes, the cap may be difficult even to reach, but as time goes and more production takes place and the amounts of gas emitted increase, the firms start to emitting amounts that go up to the limits sets by the authorities. It is a cost-effective method, and that’s why most specialists and economists will consider it a better approach than the traditional based approach. The emission fee approach is also convenient since the firms pay a certain amount for every ton of emissions. It is an approach that is almost similar to cap and trade, but the difference comes since cap and trade consider yearly emission and not tones of emissions.
As much as the incentive-based approaches are more convenient and advisable, most countries and governments employ the traditional command and control approach to regulate the greenhouse gas effect. Some of the drawbacks that the command and control approach makes the specialists prefer incentive-based approaches over them include; the authorities’ high costs to collect information and the time spent n the process. It is also not economically effective since there are no changes enforced to the plants for the emission of gases. However, it is a convenient method since observing conformity is easier; the approach also gives clear results, and the firms that will not comply with the set standards of emission ware fined. Therefore, it is easier to meet the goal of environmental conservation and preservation when the government employee this approach.
I agree with the claim because in proportional representation adopted by the European welfare states focuses and considers the minority’s representation and the less fortunate general public that do not get represented in the majoritarian system. Many European welfare states invest more in general public education because of its proportional representation system. The proportional representation system suggests the general public’s representation that took part in the elections and all the political parties. It is the reason behind the European investment in more general public education than the private and charter schools because of the employment of fairness in the people’s representation. It could be compared to the democratic government, which focuses more on the interest of the people.
Majoritarian representation, on the other hand, does not give the minorities the right to representation. In this system, the majority is given the right to the point of their representatives. Just like in autocracy or dictatorship, decisions of the common citizen is not considered, and the dictators’ decisions may only favor the small group of powerful people, the majoritarian rule encourages the investment in schools of the high class than favors the few powerful people who can afford the school’s requirements. Most of the United States and the United Kingdom population do afford the private and charter schools because of the high levels of powerful representation oft h e powerful population.
The proportional representation system pioneers economic openness and the need for education by the people and promotes education for all the people. Therefore, education spending versus redistribution differs between the schools, both private and charter in the Us and the UK, and the general public education system in Europe. Majoritarian focuses on giving everyone the right to make decisions in the society, and therefore, their educational needs after voting representatives are to be fulfilled by their representatives. Therefore, the US majoritarian system of voting explains too much investment and development of private and charter schools compared to Europe.