Vraag Google

Je was op zoek naar: just keep clam and focus on the positive (Engels - Hindi)

Menselijke bijdragen

Van professionele vertalers, bedrijven, webpagina's en gratis beschikbare vertaalbronnen.

Voeg een vertaling toe

Engels

Hindi

Info

Engels

keep clam and cook on

Hindi

इसे जारी रखो

Laatste Update: 2014-08-27
Gebruiksfrequentie: 1
Kwaliteit:

Referentie: Anoniem

Engels

keep clam and trust

Hindi

क्लैम और ट्रस्ट रखें

Laatste Update: 2018-10-31
Gebruiksfrequentie: 1
Kwaliteit:

Referentie: Anoniem

Engels

Keep clam and marry a mechanical engineer

Hindi

क्लैम रखें और एक यांत्रिक इंजीनियर से शादी करें

Laatste Update: 2018-09-20
Gebruiksfrequentie: 1
Kwaliteit:

Referentie: Anoniem

Engels

Marketing Strategy of Colgate-Palmolive Company - December 15th, 2010 Marketing Strategy of Colgate-Palmolive Company : Colgate-Palmolive Company (NYSE: CL) is an American diversified multinational corporation focused on the production, distribution and provision of household, health care and personal products, such as soaps, detergents, and oral hygiene products (including toothpaste and toothbrushes). Under its "Hill's" brand, it is also a manufacturer of veterinary products. The company's corporate offices are on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[3] Statistics: Public Company Incorporated: 1806 as The Colgate Company Employees: 36,000 Sales: $10.58 billion (2004) Stock Exchanges: New York Euronext Frankfurt London Zurich Ticker Symbol: CL NAIC: 311111 Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing; 325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing; 325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing; 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing; 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing; 335211 Electric Housewares and Household Fan Manufacturing; 339994 Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing Company Perspectives: Our long history of strong performance comes from absolute focus on our core global businesses, combined with a successful worldwide financial strategy. This financial strategy is designed to increase gross profit margin and reduce costs in order to fund growth initiatives and generate greater profitability. Key Dates: 1806: Company is founded by William Colgate in New York to make starch, soap, and candles. 1857: After founder's death, company becomes known as Colgate & Company. 1873: Toothpaste is first marketed. 1896: Collapsible tubes for toothpaste are introduced. 1898: B.J. Johnson Soap Company (later renamed Palmolive Company) introduces Palmolive soap. 1910: Colgate moves from original location to Jersey City, New Jersey. 1926: Palmolive merges with Peet Brothers, creating Palmolive-Peet Company. 1928: Colgate and Palmolive-Peet merge, forming Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Company. 1947: Fab detergent and Ajax cleanser are introduced. 1953: Company changes its name to Colgate-Palmolive Company. 1956: Corporate headquarters shifts back to New York. 1966: Palmolive dishwashing liquid is introduced. 1967: Sales top $1 billion. 1968: Colgate toothpaste is reformulated with fluoride; Ultra Brite is introduced. 1976: Hill's Pet Products is purchased. 1987: The Softsoap brand of liquid soap is acquired. 1992: The Mennen Company is acquired; Total toothpaste is introduced overseas. 1995: Latin American firm Kolynos Oral Care is acquired; Colgate-Palmolive undergoes major restructuring. 1997: Total toothpaste is launched in the United States; Colgate takes lead in domestic toothpaste market. 2004: Company acquires European oral care firm GABA Holding AG; major restructuring is launched. Company History: Colgate-Palmolive Company's growth from a small candle and soap manufacturer to one of the most powerful consumer products giants in the world is the result of aggressive acquisition of other companies, persistent attempts to overtake its major U.S. competition, and an early emphasis on building a global presence overseas where little competition existed. The company is organized around four core segments--oral care, personal care, home care, and pet nutrition--that market such well-known brands as Colgate toothpaste, Irish Spring soap, Softsoap liquid soap, Mennen deodorant, Palmolive and Ajax dishwashing liquid, Ajax cleanser, Murphy's oil soap, Fab laundry detergent, Soupline and Suavitel fabric softeners, and Hill's Science Diet and Hill's Prescription Diet pet foods. Colgate-Palmolive has operations in more than 200 countries and generates about 70 percent of its revenue outside the United States. Beginnings In 1806, when the company was founded by 23-year-old William Colgate, it concentrated exclusively on selling starch, soap, and candles from its New York City-based factory and shop. Upon entering his second year of business, Colgate became partners with Francis Smith, and the company became Smith and Colgate, a name it kept until 1812 when Colgate purchased Smith's share of the company and offered a partnership to his brother, Bowles Colgate. Now called William Colgate and Company, the firm expanded its manufacturing operations to a Jersey City, New Jersey, factory in 1820; this factory produced Colgate's two major products, Windsor toilet soaps and Pearl starch. Upon its founder's death in 1857, the firm changed its name to Colgate & Company and was run by President Samuel Colgate until his death 40 years later. During his tenure several new products were developed, including perfumes, essences, and perfumed soap. The manufacture of starch was discontinued in 1866 after a fire destroyed the factory. In 1873 Colgate began selling toothpaste in a jar, followed 23 years later by the introduction of Colgate Ribbon Dental Cream, in the now familiar collapsible tube. By 1906 the company was also producing several varieties of laundry soap, toilet paper, and perfumes. Colgate & Company shifted its headquarters to Jersey City in 1910. While the Colgate family managed its manufacturing operations on the East Coast, soap factories were also opened in 1864 by B.J. Johnson in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (under the name B.J. Johnson Soap Company), and in 1872 by the three Peet brothers in Kansas City, Kansas. In 1898 Johnson's company introduced Palmolive soap, which soon became the best-selling soap in the world and led the firm to change its name to the Palmolive Company in 1916. The Peets, who sold laundry soap mainly in the Midwest and western states, merged their company (Peet Brothers) with Palmolive in 1926, forming Palmolive-Peet Company. Two years later that firm joined with Colgate & Company to form Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Company, with headquarters in Jersey City. Palmolive-Peet's management initially assumed control of the combined organization. On October 25, 1929, management signed an agreement to merge the company with Kraft Phenix Cheese Corporation (forerunner of Kraft Foods) and Hershey Chocolate Company. The three companies would continue to operate independently, but they would become subsidiaries of a holding company slated to be called International Quality Products Corporation. Just four days after the deal was signed, however, the stock market crashed, forcing the huge amalgamation to be scuttled. In the wake of the crash, the Colgate family regained control of Colgate-Palmolive-Peet and installed Bayard Colgate as president in 1933. International Expansion Colgate & Company had been a pioneer in establishing international operations, creating a Canadian subsidiary in 1913 and one in France in 1920. In the early 1920s the firm expanded into Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Mexico. Colgate or its successor firm next created subsidiaries in the Philippines, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa in the late 1920s. In 1937 the company moved into India and by the end of the 1940s had operations in most of South America. By 1939 Colgate-Palmolive-Peet's sales hit $100 million. In the 1940s and 1950s the company also built upon its strategy of growth by acquisition, buying up a number of smaller consumer product companies. Organic growth remained on the agenda as well, and in 1947 the company introduced two of its best-known products, Fab detergent and Ajax cleanser. These acquisitions and new products, however, did little to close the gap between Colgate and its arch-rival, the Procter & Gamble Company, a firm that had been formed in the 1830s and had by now assumed a commanding lead over Colgate in selling detergent products in the United States. Meanwhile, the firm adopted its present name in 1953 and moved its offices for domestic and international operations to New York City in 1956. In 1960 George H. Lesch was appointed Colgate's president in the hopes that his international experience would produce similar success in the domestic market. Under his leadership, the company embarked upon an extensive new product development program that created such brands as Cold Power laundry detergent, Palmolive dishwashing liquid, and Ultra Brite toothpaste. In an attempt to expand beyond these traditional, highly competitive businesses into new growth areas, Colgate also successfully introduced a new food wrap called Baggies in 1963. As a result of these product launches, the company's sales grew between 8 and 9 percent every year throughout the 1960s. Sales topped the $1 billion mark in 1967. Lesch assumed the chairmanship of Colgate, and David Foster became president in 1970 and CEO in 1971. Foster was the son of the founder of Colgate-Palmolive's U.K. operations. He joined the company in 1946 as a management trainee and rose through the sales and marketing ranks both in the United States and overseas. New Strategies for the 1970s During the 1970s, as environmental concerns about phosphate and enzyme detergent products grew, the company faced additional pressure to diversify beyond the detergent business. In response to this pressure, Foster instituted a strategy that emphasized internal development via a specialized new venture group; joint ventures for marketing other companies' products; and outright acquisitions of businesses in which Colgate could gain a marketing advantage over Procter & Gamble. In 1971, for example, the company began selling British Wilkinson Sword Company razors and blades in the United States and other countries. In 1972 Colgate-Palmolive acquired Kendall & Company, a manufacturer of hospital and industrial supplies. It was originally hoped that the Kendall acquisition would bolster the pharmaceutical sales of Colgate's Lakeside Laboratories subsidiary, which had been acquired in 1960. The partnership never materialized, however, and Lakeside was sold in 1974. The Kendall business proved to be one of Foster's most successful acquisitions. Within two years, the subsidiary was producing sales and earnings results well above the company's targeted goals. On the product development side, meanwhile, Irish Spring deodorant soap was introduced in 1972. In 1971 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission enacted restrictions on in-store product promotions, such as couponing. In response to these restrictions, Foster began to employ other tactics designed to enhance Colgate's visibility in the marketplace. Two such programs awarded money to schools and local civic groups whose young people collected the most labels and boxtops from selected Colgate products. Under Foster, Colgate-Palmolive also began to sponsor a number of women's sporting events, including the Colgate-Dinah Shore Winner's Circle, a women's professional golf tournament. Foster chose women's sports in an effort to appeal to Colgate-Palmolive's primarily female customer base. He even went so far as to have Colgate buy the tournament's home course, the Mission Hills Country Club in Palm Springs, California, so that he could supervise the maintenance of the greens. In 1973 Colgate acquired Helena Rubinstein, a major cosmetics manufacturer with strong foreign sales but a weak U.S. presence. Believing that its marketing expertise could solve Rubinstein's problems, Colgate reduced both the number of products in the company's line and the number of employees in its workforce, increased advertising expenditures, and moved the products out of drugstores and into department stores. The following year the company acquired Ram Golf Corporation and Bancroft Racket Company, and in 1976 it bought Charles A. Eaton Company, a golf and tennis shoe manufacturer. Although total U.S. sales of consumer products appeared to be slowing by the end of 1974, particularly in soaps and detergents, Colgate's international sales continued to carry the company forward. It maintained its leadership position abroad through new product development geared specifically to local tastes throughout Europe as well as through its involvement in the growing markets of less-developed countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Setbacks Beginning in the Late 1970s Foster's diversification strategy initially improved earnings, but Colgate's domestic sales, market share, and profit margins were beginning to soften. This was due, in large part, to an economic recession and an advertising cutback the company had made in an attempt to boost earnings. Colgate was consistently losing the marketing battle in personal care products to Procter & Gamble. It had no leading brands and few successful new product introductions because of reduced spending for research and development. In an effort to remedy this problem and broaden its product mix, Colgate moved into food marketing in 1976 with the acquisition of Riviana Foods, a major producer of Texas long-grain rice with its own subsidiaries in pet food (Hill's Pet Products), kosher hot dogs (Hebrew National Kosher Foods), and candy. The Riviana acquisition, however, did not live up to the company's expectations. Along with purchasing a successful rice-milling business, Colgate found that it had also saddled itself with two unprofitable restaurant chains and a low-quality candy company. In 1977 declines in the price of rice seriously eroded Riviana's cash flow. Helena Rubinstein created additional headaches. Whereas other cosmetic manufacturers had moved their products from department store distribution to higher-volume drugstores, Colgate's management elected to keep Rubinstein products in department stores even though stores' demands for marketing support eroded the company's margins so severely that it lost money on every cosmetic item sold. Colgate finally sold the business in 1980 to Albi Enterprises. Foster had become chairman in 1975. In 1979, embattled by a series of marketing failures and the pressures of an acquisition strategy that yielded more losers than winners, Foster suddenly resigned, citing ill health. The company's president and chief operating officer, Keith Crane, was appointed as Foster's successor. A 42-year Colgate employee, Crane quickly instituted a new management structure consisting of several group vice-presidents, reunited all domestic operations under one group, and realigned division managers in an attempt to promote a more cohesive organization. Consumer advertising and product research were given renewed emphasis to support the company's basic detergent and toothpaste lines. Over the next two years, Crane sold a number of Foster's acquisitions that no longer fit with the company's long-term strategic plan, including Hebrew National Kosher Foods, which had been part of the Riviana purchase; Ram Golf; and the Bancroft Racket Company. Crane also put the Mission Hills Country Club up for sale and withdrew Colgate's sponsorship of the sporting events his predecessor had nurtured. Also during the late 1970s and the 1980s, Colgate found itself named as a defendant in two lawsuits. In 1981 the company lost a suit brought by United Roasters, who successfully argued that Colgate had violated the terms of a contract between the two firms for Colgate to market Bambeanos, a soybean snack produced by United Roasters, and was awarded $950,000. The following year the company was sued by the federal government for alleged job discrimination. According to a complaint filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Colgate had failed or refused to hire people between the ages of 40 and 70 since 1978 and had also deprived employees in that age group of opportunities for promotion. By the end of 1982 Crane also experienced problems at Colgate. Several attempts at new product development never made it out of the test-market stage. Increased advertising expenditures for a limited number of major brands produced only temporary gains in market share while slowly killing off other products receiving little or no media support. Even Fresh Start detergent, one of the most successful new products to come out of the Foster era, was having problems retaining market share. Thus while Procter & Gamble's sales and margins were increasing, Colgate's were on the decline. To make matters worse, the strong dollar overseas hurt Colgate's international sales, and changes in Medicare policy weakened Kendall's business. Turnaround Under Reuben Mark, Mid- to Late 1980s In 1983 Crane relinquished the title of president to Reuben Mark, one of the company's three executive vice-presidents and a member of Crane's management advisory team. Mark also assumed the position of chief operating officer at that time; one year later he succeeded Crane as CEO. Mark built upon his predecessor's restructuring efforts in an attempt to increase profits and shareholder value. Between 1984 and 1986 several inefficient plants were closed, hundreds of employees laid off, and noncore businesses sold, including the remnants of the Riviana Foods acquisition, except for the Hill's Pet Products subsidiary. In an attempt to refocus the company's marketing and profitability, Mark developed a set of corporate initiatives intended to address business areas ranging from production-cost reduction to new product development, with a heavy emphasis on motivating employees and involving them in company decision-making. In response to the implementation of these ideas, the company's U.S. toothpaste business enjoyed a boost with first-to-the-market introductions of a gel toothpaste and a pump-type dispenser bearing the Colgate brand name. Similar U.S. market share gains were earned by new and improved versions of its Palmolive and Dynamo detergents and Ajax cleaner. Palmolive automatic dishwashing liquid debuted in 1986. With the company's turnaround firmly underway, business units managed by key executives were formed to develop plans for the company's major product categories. The purpose of each plan was to identify how products under development could be best introduced in domestic and international markets. Two years into this strategic reorganization, coinciding with Mark's appointment as chairman in 1986, Colgate confronted an embarrassing controversy. Since the early 1920s Hawley & Hazel Chemical Company had marketed a product called Darkie Black and White Toothpaste in the Far East. Colgate had acquired a 50 percent interest in this company in 1985. The following year, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of Protestant and Roman Catholic groups, demanded that Colgate change what it deemed to be the product's racially offensive name and packaging, which depicted a likeness of Al Jolson in blackface. The company acknowledged the criticism and agreed to make the necessary changes. Colgate also continued to seek out growth areas in its personal care product and detergent businesses. In 1987 it acquired a line of liquid soap products (including the Softsoap brand) from Minnetonka Corporation, the first transaction the company had made in the personal care area in several years. Building upon its success in launching an automatic dishwashing detergent in liquid form ahead of its competitors, the company also beat Procter & Gamble to the market with a laundry detergent packaged in a throw-in pouch called Fab 1 Shot, although this product failed to sustain consumer interest or reach sales expectations over the long term. Buoyed by product development breakthroughs and a renewed commitment to consumer products marketing, Colgate sold its Kendall subsidiary and related healthcare businesses in 1988 to Clayton & Dubilier. The sale enabled Colgate to retire some debt, sharpen its focus on its global consumer products businesses, and invest in new product categories. Moreover, Mark's global approach enabled the company to maintain its overall profitability despite not having a leadership position in the United States. Although Colgate lagged behind Procter & Gamble in the toothpaste

Hindi

Marketing Strategy of Colgate-Palmolive Company - December 15th, 2010 Marketing Strategy of Colgate-Palmolive Company : Colgate-Palmolive Company (NYSE: CL) is an American diversified multinational corporation focused on the production, distribution and provision of household, health care and personal products, such as soaps, detergents, and oral hygiene products (including toothpaste and toothbrushes). Under its "Hill's" brand, it is also a manufacturer of veterinary products. The company's corporate offices are on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[3] Statistics: Public Company Incorporated: 1806 as The Colgate Company Employees: 36,000 Sales: $10.58 billion (2004) Stock Exchanges: New York Euronext Frankfurt London Zurich Ticker Symbol: CL NAIC: 311111 Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing; 325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing; 325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing; 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing; 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing; 335211 Electric Housewares and Household Fan Manufacturing; 339994 Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing Company Perspectives: Our long history of strong performance comes from absolute focus on our core global businesses, combined with a successful worldwide financial strategy. This financial strategy is designed to increase gross profit margin and reduce costs in order to fund growth initiatives and generate greater profitability. Key Dates: 1806: Company is founded by William Colgate in New York to make starch, soap, and candles. 1857: After founder's death, company becomes known as Colgate & Company. 1873: Toothpaste is first marketed. 1896: Collapsible tubes for toothpaste are introduced. 1898: B.J. Johnson Soap Company (later renamed Palmolive Company) introduces Palmolive soap. 1910: Colgate moves from original location to Jersey City, New Jersey. 1926: Palmolive merges with Peet Brothers, creating Palmolive-Peet Company. 1928: Colgate and Palmolive-Peet merge, forming Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Company. 1947: Fab detergent and Ajax cleanser are introduced. 1953: Company changes its name to Colgate-Palmolive Company. 1956: Corporate headquarters shifts back to New York. 1966: Palmolive dishwashing liquid is introduced. 1967: Sales top $1 billion. 1968: Colgate toothpaste is reformulated with fluoride; Ultra Brite is introduced. 1976: Hill's Pet Products is purchased. 1987: The Softsoap brand of liquid soap is acquired. 1992: The Mennen Company is acquired; Total toothpaste is introduced overseas. 1995: Latin American firm Kolynos Oral Care is acquired; Colgate-Palmolive undergoes major restructuring. 1997: Total toothpaste is launched in the United States; Colgate takes lead in domestic toothpaste market. 2004: Company acquires European oral care firm GABA Holding AG; major restructuring is launched. Company History: Colgate-Palmolive Company's growth from a small candle and soap manufacturer to one of the most powerful consumer products giants in the world is the result of aggressive acquisition of other companies, persistent attempts to overtake its major U.S. competition, and an early emphasis on building a global presence overseas where little competition existed. The company is organized around four core segments--oral care, personal care, home care, and pet nutrition--that market such well-known brands as Colgate toothpaste, Irish Spring soap, Softsoap liquid soap, Mennen deodorant, Palmolive and Ajax dishwashing liquid, Ajax cleanser, Murphy's oil soap, Fab laundry detergent, Soupline and Suavitel fabric softeners, and Hill's Science Diet and Hill's Prescription Diet pet foods. Colgate-Palmolive has operations in more than 200 countries and generates about 70 percent of its revenue outside the United States. Beginnings In 1806, when the company was founded by 23-year-old William Colgate, it concentrated exclusively on selling starch, soap, and candles from its New York City-based factory and shop. Upon entering his second year of business, Colgate became partners with Francis Smith, and the company became Smith and Colgate, a name it kept until 1812 when Colgate purchased Smith's share of the company and offered a partnership to his brother, Bowles Colgate. Now called William Colgate and Company, the firm expanded its manufacturing operations to a Jersey City, New Jersey, factory in 1820; this factory produced Colgate's two major products, Windsor toilet soaps and Pearl starch. Upon its founder's death in 1857, the firm changed its name to Colgate & Company and was run by President Samuel Colgate until his death 40 years later. During his tenure several new products were developed, including perfumes, essences, and perfumed soap. The manufacture of starch was discontinued in 1866 after a fire destroyed the factory. In 1873 Colgate began selling toothpaste in a jar, followed 23 years later by the introduction of Colgate Ribbon Dental Cream, in the now familiar collapsible tube. By 1906 the company was also producing several varieties of laundry soap, toilet paper, and perfumes. Colgate & Company shifted its headquarters to Jersey City in 1910. While the Colgate family managed its manufacturing operations on the East Coast, soap factories were also opened in 1864 by B.J. Johnson in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (under the name B.J. Johnson Soap Company), and in 1872 by the three Peet brothers in Kansas City, Kansas. In 1898 Johnson's company introduced Palmolive soap, which soon became the best-selling soap in the world and led the firm to change its name to the Palmolive Company in 1916. The Peets, who sold laundry soap mainly in the Midwest and western states, merged their company (Peet Brothers) with Palmolive in 1926, forming Palmolive-Peet Company. Two years later that firm joined with Colgate & Company to form Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Company, with headquarters in Jersey City. Palmolive-Peet's management initially assumed control of the combined organization. On October 25, 1929, management signed an agreement to merge the company with Kraft Phenix Cheese Corporation (forerunner of Kraft Foods) and Hershey Chocolate Company. The three companies would continue to operate independently, but they would become subsidiaries of a holding company slated to be called International Quality Products Corporation. Just four days after the deal was signed, however, the stock market crashed, forcing the huge amalgamation to be scuttled. In the wake of the crash, the Colgate family regained control of Colgate-Palmolive-Peet and installed Bayard Colgate as president in 1933. International Expansion Colgate & Company had been a pioneer in establishing international operations, creating a Canadian subsidiary in 1913 and one in France in 1920. In the early 1920s the firm expanded into Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Mexico. Colgate or its successor firm next created subsidiaries in the Philippines, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa in the late 1920s. In 1937 the company moved into India and by the end of the 1940s had operations in most of South America. By 1939 Colgate-Palmolive-Peet's sales hit $100 million. In the 1940s and 1950s the company also built upon its strategy of growth by acquisition, buying up a number of smaller consumer product companies. Organic growth remained on the agenda as well, and in 1947 the company introduced two of its best-known products, Fab detergent and Ajax cleanser. These acquisitions and new products, however, did little to close the gap between Colgate and its arch-rival, the Procter & Gamble Company, a firm that had been formed in the 1830s and had by now assumed a commanding lead over Colgate in selling detergent products in the United States. Meanwhile, the firm adopted its present name in 1953 and moved its offices for domestic and international operations to New York City in 1956. In 1960 George H. Lesch was appointed Colgate's president in the hopes that his international experience would produce similar success in the domestic market. Under his leadership, the company embarked upon an extensive new product development program that created such brands as Cold Power laundry detergent, Palmolive dishwashing liquid, and Ultra Brite toothpaste. In an attempt to expand beyond these traditional, highly competitive businesses into new growth areas, Colgate also successfully introduced a new food wrap called Baggies in 1963. As a result of these product launches, the company's sales grew between 8 and 9 percent every year throughout the 1960s. Sales topped the $1 billion mark in 1967. Lesch assumed the chairmanship of Colgate, and David Foster became president in 1970 and CEO in 1971. Foster was the son of the founder of Colgate-Palmolive's U.K. operations. He joined the company in 1946 as a management trainee and rose through the sales and marketing ranks both in the United States and overseas. New Strategies for the 1970s During the 1970s, as environmental concerns about phosphate and enzyme detergent products grew, the company faced additional pressure to diversify beyond the detergent business. In response to this pressure, Foster instituted a strategy that emphasized internal development via a specialized new venture group; joint ventures for marketing other companies' products; and outright acquisitions of businesses in which Colgate could gain a marketing advantage over Procter & Gamble. In 1971, for example, the company began selling British Wilkinson Sword Company razors and blades in the United States and other countries. In 1972 Colgate-Palmolive acquired Kendall & Company, a manufacturer of hospital and industrial supplies. It was originally hoped that the Kendall acquisition would bolster the pharmaceutical sales of Colgate's Lakeside Laboratories subsidiary, which had been acquired in 1960. The partnership never materialized, however, and Lakeside was sold in 1974. The Kendall business proved to be one of Foster's most successful acquisitions. Within two years, the subsidiary was producing sales and earnings results well above the company's targeted goals. On the product development side, meanwhile, Irish Spring deodorant soap was introduced in 1972. In 1971 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission enacted restrictions on in-store product promotions, such as couponing. In response to these restrictions, Foster began to employ other tactics designed to enhance Colgate's visibility in the marketplace. Two such programs awarded money to schools and local civic groups whose young people collected the most labels and boxtops from selected Colgate products. Under Foster, Colgate-Palmolive also began to sponsor a number of women's sporting events, including the Colgate-Dinah Shore Winner's Circle, a women's professional golf tournament. Foster chose women's sports in an effort to appeal to Colgate-Palmolive's primarily female customer base. He even went so far as to have Colgate buy the tournament's home course, the Mission Hills Country Club in Palm Springs, California, so that he could supervise the maintenance of the greens. In 1973 Colgate acquired Helena Rubinstein, a major cosmetics manufacturer with strong foreign sales but a weak U.S. presence. Believing that its marketing expertise could solve Rubinstein's problems, Colgate reduced both the number of products in the company's line and the number of employees in its workforce, increased advertising expenditures, and moved the products out of drugstores and into department stores. The following year the company acquired Ram Golf Corporation and Bancroft Racket Company, and in 1976 it bought Charles A. Eaton Company, a golf and tennis shoe manufacturer. Although total U.S. sales of consumer products appeared to be slowing by the end of 1974, particularly in soaps and detergents, Colgate's international sales continued to carry the company forward. It maintained its leadership position abroad through new product development geared specifically to local tastes throughout Europe as well as through its involvement in the growing markets of less-developed countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Setbacks Beginning in the Late 1970s Foster's diversification strategy initially improved earnings, but Colgate's domestic sales, market share, and profit margins were beginning to soften. This was due, in large part, to an economic recession and an advertising cutback the company had made in an attempt to boost earnings. Colgate was consistently losing the marketing battle in personal care products to Procter & Gamble. It had no leading brands and few successful new product introductions because of reduced spending for research and development. In an effort to remedy this problem and broaden its product mix, Colgate moved into food marketing in 1976 with the acquisition of Riviana Foods, a major producer of Texas long-grain rice with its own subsidiaries in pet food (Hill's Pet Products), kosher hot dogs (Hebrew National Kosher Foods), and candy. The Riviana acquisition, however, did not live up to the company's expectations. Along with purchasing a successful rice-milling business, Colgate found that it had also saddled itself with two unprofitable restaurant chains and a low-quality candy company. In 1977 declines in the price of rice seriously eroded Riviana's cash flow. Helena Rubinstein created additional headaches. Whereas other cosmetic manufacturers had moved their products from department store distribution to higher-volume drugstores, Colgate's management elected to keep Rubinstein products in department stores even though stores' demands for marketing support eroded the company's margins so severely that it lost money on every cosmetic item sold. Colgate finally sold the business in 1980 to Albi Enterprises. Foster had become chairman in 1975. In 1979, embattled by a series of marketing failures and the pressures of an acquisition strategy that yielded more losers than winners, Foster suddenly resigned, citing ill health. The company's president and chief operating officer, Keith Crane, was appointed as Foster's successor. A 42-year Colgate employee, Crane quickly instituted a new management structure consisting of several group vice-presidents, reunited all domestic operations under one group, and realigned division managers in an attempt to promote a more cohesive organization. Consumer advertising and product research were given renewed emphasis to support the company's basic detergent and toothpaste lines. Over the next two years, Crane sold a number of Foster's acquisitions that no longer fit with the company's long-term strategic plan, including Hebrew National Kosher Foods, which had been part of the Riviana purchase; Ram Golf; and the Bancroft Racket Company. Crane also put the Mission Hills Country Club up for sale and withdrew Colgate's sponsorship of the sporting events his predecessor had nurtured. Also during the late 1970s and the 1980s, Colgate found itself named as a defendant in two lawsuits. In 1981 the company lost a suit brought by United Roasters, who successfully argued that Colgate had violated the terms of a contract between the two firms for Colgate to market Bambeanos, a soybean snack produced by United Roasters, and was awarded $950,000. The following year the company was sued by the federal government for alleged job discrimination. According to a complaint filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Colgate had failed or refused to hire people between the ages of 40 and 70 since 1978 and had also deprived employees in that age group of opportunities for promotion. By the end of 1982 Crane also experienced problems at Colgate. Several attempts at new product development never made it out of the test-market stage. Increased advertising expenditures for a limited number of major brands produced only temporary gains in market share while slowly killing off other products receiving little or no media support. Even Fresh Start detergent, one of the most successful new products to come out of the Foster era, was having problems retaining market share. Thus while Procter & Gamble's sales and margins were increasing, Colgate's were on the decline. To make matters worse, the strong dollar overseas hurt Colgate's international sales, and changes in Medicare policy weakened Kendall's business. Turnaround Under Reuben Mark, Mid- to Late 1980s In 1983 Crane relinquished the title of president to Reuben Mark, one of the company's three executive vice-presidents and a member of Crane's management advisory team. Mark also assumed the position of chief operating officer at that time; one year later he succeeded Crane as CEO. Mark built upon his predecessor's restructuring efforts in an attempt to increase profits and shareholder value. Between 1984 and 1986 several inefficient plants were closed, hundreds of employees laid off, and noncore businesses sold, including the remnants of the Riviana Foods acquisition, except for the Hill's Pet Products subsidiary. In an attempt to refocus the company's marketing and profitability, Mark developed a set of corporate initiatives intended to address business areas ranging from production-cost reduction to new product development, with a heavy emphasis on motivating employees and involving them in company decision-making. In response to the implementation of these ideas, the company's U.S. toothpaste business enjoyed a boost with first-to-the-market introductions of a gel toothpaste and a pump-type dispenser bearing the Colgate brand name. Similar U.S. market share gains were earned by new and improved versions of its Palmolive and Dynamo detergents and Ajax cleaner. Palmolive automatic dishwashing liquid debuted in 1986. With the company's turnaround firmly underway, business units managed by key executives were formed to develop plans for the company's major product categories. The purpose of each plan was to identify how products under development could be best introduced in domestic and international markets. Two years into this strategic reorganization, coinciding with Mark's appointment as chairman in 1986, Colgate confronted an embarrassing controversy. Since the early 1920s Hawley & Hazel Chemical Company had marketed a product called Darkie Black and White Toothpaste in the Far East. Colgate had acquired a 50 percent interest in this company in 1985. The following year, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of Protestant and Roman Catholic groups, demanded that Colgate change what it deemed to be the product's racially offensive name and packaging, which depicted a likeness of Al Jolson in blackface. The company acknowledged the criticism and agreed to make the necessary changes. Colgate also continued to seek out growth areas in its personal care product and detergent businesses. In 1987 it acquired a line of liquid soap products (including the Softsoap brand) from Minnetonka Corporation, the first transaction the company had made in the personal care area in several years. Building upon its success in launching an automatic dishwashing detergent in liquid form ahead of its competitors, the company also beat Procter & Gamble to the market with a laundry detergent packaged in a throw-in pouch called Fab 1 Shot, although this product failed to sustain consumer interest or reach sales expectations over the long term. Buoyed by product development breakthroughs and a renewed commitment to consumer products marketing, Colgate sold its Kendall subsidiary and related healthcare businesses in 1988 to Clayton & Dubilier. The sale enabled Colgate to retire some debt, sharpen its focus on its global consumer products businesses, and invest in new product categories. Moreover, Mark's global approach enabled the company to maintain its overall profitability despite not having a leadership position in the United States. Although Colgate lagged behind Procter & Gamble in the toothpaste

Laatste Update: 2017-09-02
Gebruiksfrequentie: 1
Kwaliteit:

Referentie: Anoniem
Waarschuwing: Bevat onzichtbare HTML-opmaak

Engels

Green chemistry From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the concept of the environmentally friendly design of chemical products and processes. For the journal, see Green Chemistry (journal). Green chemistry, also called sustainable chemistry, is an area of chemistry and chemical engineering focused on the designing of products and processes that minimize the use and generation of hazardous substances.[1] Whereas environmental chemistry focuses on the effects of polluting chemicals on nature, green chemistry focuses on technological approaches to preventing pollution and reducing consumption of nonrenewable resources.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Green chemistry overlaps with all subdisciplines of chemistry but with a particular focus on chemical synthesis, process chemistry, and chemical engineering, in industrial applications. To a lesser extent, the principles of green chemistry also affect laboratory practices. The overarching goals of green chemistry—namely, more resource-efficient and inherently safer design of molecules, materials, products, and processes—can be pursued in a wide range of contexts.

Hindi

ग्रीन कैमिस्ट्री (हिन्दी)

Laatste Update: 2016-12-29
Gebruiksfrequentie: 1
Kwaliteit:

Referentie: Anoniem

Engels

Fukuyama Francis Fukuyama From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama image from BloggingHeads.tv podcast Fukuyama in 2005 Born October 27, 1952 (age 63) Chicago, Illinois, U.S Website fukuyama.stanford.edu Institutions George Mason University[1] Johns Hopkins University Stanford University Main interests Developing nations Governance International political economy Nation-building and democratization Strategic and security issues Notable ideas End of history Influences [show] Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama (born October 27, 1952) is an American political scientist, political economist, and author. Fukuyama is known for his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), which argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government. However, his subsequent book Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity (1995) modified his earlier position to acknowledge that culture cannot be cleanly separated from economics. Fukuyama is also associated with the rise of the neoconservative movement,[2] from which he has since distanced himself.[3] Fukuyama has been a Senior Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University since July 2010.[4] Before that, he served as a professor and director of the International Development program at the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University. Previously, he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University.[4] He is a council member of the International Forum for Democratic Studies founded by the National Endowment for Democracy and was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation.[5] Contents 1 Early life 2 Education 3 Writings 3.1 Neoconservatism 3.2 Fukuyama's current views 4 Affiliations 5 Personal life 6 See also 7 Selected bibliography 7.1 Scholarly works (partial list) 7.2 Books 7.3 Essays 8 See also 9 References 10 External links Early life Francis Fukuyama was born in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. His paternal grandfather fled the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and started a shop on the west coast before being interned in the Second World War.[6] His father, Yoshio Fukuyama, a second-generation Japanese American, was trained as a minister in the Congregational Church, received a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chicago, and taught religious studies.[7][8][9] His mother, Toshiko Kawata Fukuyama, was born in Kyoto, Japan, and was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, founder of the Economics Department of Kyoto University and first president of Osaka City University.[10] Francis grew up in Manhattan as an only child, had little contact with Japanese culture, and did not learn Japanese.[7][8] His family moved to State College, Pennsylvania in 1967.[10] Education Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom.[8][11] He initially pursued graduate studies in comparative literature at Yale University, going to Paris for six months to study under Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida, but became disillusioned and switched to political science at Harvard University.[8] There, he studied with Samuel P. Huntington and Harvey Mansfield, among others. He earned his Ph.D. in political science at Harvard for his thesis on Soviet threats to intervene in the Middle East.[8][11] In 1979, he joined the global policy think tank RAND Corporation.[8] Fukuyama lived at the Telluride House and has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an education enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including Steven Weinberg, Paul Wolfowitz and Kathleen Sullivan. Fukuyama was the Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University from 1996 to 2000. Until July 10, 2010, he was the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. He is now Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow and resident in the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.[11] Writings Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Fukuyama predicted the eventual global triumph of political and economic liberalism: What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such.... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. Authors like Ralf Dahrendorf argued in 1990 that the essay gave Fukuyama his 15 minutes of fame, which will be followed by a slide into obscurity.[12][13] He continued to remain a relevant and cited public intellectual leading American communitarian Amitai Etzioni to declare him "one of the few enduring public intellectuals. They are often media stars who are eaten up and spat out after their 15 minutes. But he has lasted."[14] One of the main reasons for the massive criticism against The End of History was the aggressive stance that it took towards postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy had, in Fukuyama's opinion, undermined the ideology behind liberal democracy, leaving the western world in a potentially weaker position.[15] The fact that Marxism and fascism had been proven untenable for practical use while liberal democracy still thrived was reason enough to embrace the hopeful attitude of the Progressive era, as this hope for the future was what made a society worth struggling to maintain. Postmodernism, which, by this time, had become embedded in the cultural consciousness, offered no hope and nothing to sustain a necessary sense of community, instead relying only on lofty intellectual premises.[16] Being a work that both praised the ideals of a group that had fallen out of favor and challenged the premises of the group that had replaced them, it was bound to create some controversy. Fukuyama has written a number of other books, among them Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity and Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the latter, he qualified his original "end of history" thesis, arguing that since biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow humans to alter human nature, thereby putting liberal democracy at risk.[17] One possible outcome could be that an altered human nature could end in radical inequality. He is a fierce enemy of transhumanism, an intellectual movement asserting that posthumanity is a desirable goal. In another work, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, Fukuyama explores the origins of social norms, and analyses the current disruptions in the fabric of our moral traditions, which he considers as arising from a shift from the manufacturing to the information age. This shift is, he thinks, normal and will prove self-correcting, given the intrinsic human need for social norms and rules. In 2006, in America at the Crossroads, Fukuyama discusses the history of neoconservatism, with particular focus on its major tenets and political implications. He outlines his rationale for supporting the Bush administration, as well as where he believes it has gone wrong. In 2008, Fukuyama published the book Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap Between Latin America and the United States, which resulted from research and a conference funded by Grupo Mayan to gain understanding on why Latin America, once far wealthier than North America, fell behind in terms of development in only a matter of centuries. Discussing this book at a 2009 conference, Fukuyama outlined his belief that inequality within Latin American nations is a key impediment to growth. An unequal distribution of wealth, he stated, leads to social upheaval, which then results in stunted growth.[18] Neoconservatism As a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism, although his works came out years after Irving Kristol's 1972 book crystallized neoconservatism.[19] Fukuyama was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization's 1998 letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq Saddam Hussein.[20] He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol's September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. not only "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", but also embark upon "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".[21] In a New York Times article from February 2006, Fukuyama, in considering the ongoing Iraq War, stated: "What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a 'realistic Wilsonianism' that better matches means to ends."[22] In regard to neoconservatism he went on to say: "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world – ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."[22] Fukuyama's current views Fukuyama began to distance himself from the neoconservative agenda of the Bush administration, citing its excessive militarism and embrace of unilateral armed intervention, particularly in the Middle East. By late 2003, Fukuyama had voiced his growing opposition to the Iraq War[23] and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense.[24] At an annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in February 2004, Dick Cheney and Charles Krauthammer declared the beginning of a unipolar era under American hegemony. "All of these people around me were cheering wildly,"[25] Fukuyama remembers. He believes that the Iraq War was being blundered. "All of my friends had taken leave of reality."[25] He has not spoken to Paul Wolfowitz (previously a good friend) since.[25] Fukuyama declared he would not be voting for Bush,[26] and that the Bush administration had made three major mistakes:[citation needed] Overstating the threat of radical Islam to the US Failing to foresee the fierce negative reaction to its "benevolent hegemony". From the very beginning showing a negative attitude toward the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations and not seeing that it would increase anti-Americanism in other countries Misjudging what was needed to bring peace in Iraq and being overly optimistic about the success with which social engineering of western values could be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general. Fukuyama believes the US has a right to promote its own values in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls "realistic Wilsonianism", with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends 43% of global military spending,[27] but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness. The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US proved to have excelled in during the aftermath of World War II was the formation of international institutions. A return to support for these structures would combine American power with international legitimacy. But such measures require a lot of patience. This is the central thesis of his 2006 work America at the Crossroads. In a 2006 essay in The New York Times Magazine strongly critical of the invasion, he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that neoconservatives:[28] believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support. Fukuyama announced the end of the neoconservative moment and argued for the demilitarization of the War on Terrorism:[28] [W]ar is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" [quoting John F. Kennedy's inaugural address] whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. Fukuyama endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 US presidential election. He states:[29] I'm voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don't work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would be a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale. Affiliations Between 2006 and 2008, Fukuyama advised Muammar Gaddafi as part of the Monitor Group, a consultancy firm based in Cambridge, MA.[30] In August 2005, Fukuyama co-founded The American Interest, a quarterly magazine devoted to the broad theme of "America in the World". He is currently chairman of the editorial board.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the RAND Corporation's Political Science Department from 1979 to 1980, 1983 to 1989, and 1995 to 1996. He is now a member of the Board of Trustees.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2001 to 2004.[11] Fukuyama is a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS). Fukuyama is on the steering committee for the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.[31] Fukuyama is a long-time friend of Libby. They served together in the State Department in the 1980s. Fukuyama is a member of the Board of Counselors for the Pyle Center of Northeast Asian Studies at the National Bureau of Asian Research.[32] Fukuyama is on the board of Global Financial Integrity. Fukuyama is on the executive board of the Inter-American Dialogue. Personal life Fukuyama is a part-time photographer. He also has a keen interest in early-American furniture, which he reproduces by hand.[33] He is keenly interested in sound recording and reproduction, saying, "These days I seem to spend as much time thinking about gear as I do analyzing politics for my day job."[25] Fukuyama is married to Laura Holmgren, whom he met when she was a UCLA graduate student after he started working for the RAND Corporation.[8][11] He dedicated his book Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity to her. They live in California, with their three children, Julia, David, and John away in school. See also Daniel Bell Selected bibliography Scholarly works (partial list) The Soviet Union and Iraq since 1968, Rand research report, 1980 Books The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press, 1992. ISBN 0-02-910975-2 Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0-02-910976-0 The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Free Press. 1999. ISBN 0-684-84530-X Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2002. ISBN 0-374-23643-7 State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-8014-4292-3 America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2006. ISBN 0-300-11399-4 US edition After the Neo Cons: Where the Right went Wrong. London: Profile Books. 2006. ISBN 1-86197-922-3 UK edition Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap between Latin America and the United States (editor). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-536882-6 The Origins of Political Order. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2011. ISBN 978-1-846-68256-8 Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2014. ISBN 978-0-374-22735-7 Essays The End of History?, The National Interest, Summer 1989 Women and the Evolution of World Politics, Foreign Affairs October 1998 Immigrants and Family Values, The Immigration Reader 1998. ISBN 1-55786-916-2 Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, The Atlantic Monthly, May 1999 Social capital and civil society, paper prepared for delivery at the International Monetary Fund Conference on Second Generation Reforms, October 1, 1999 The neoconservative moment, The National Interest, Summer 2004 After neoconservatism, The New York Times Magazine, February 19, 2006 Supporter's voice now turns on Bush, The New York Times Magazine, March 14, 2006 Why shouldn't I change my mind?, Los Angeles Times, April 9, 2006 The Fall of America, Inc. Newsweek, October 13, 2008 The New Nationalism and the Strategic Architecture of Northeast Asia Asia Policy January 2007 Left Out, The American Interest, January 2011 Is China Next?, The Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2011 The Future of History; Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012 What is Governance? Governance (journal), March 2013

Hindi

Francis Fukuyama From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama image from BloggingHeads.tv podcast Fukuyama in 2005 Born October 27, 1952 (age 63) Chicago, Illinois, U.S Website fukuyama.stanford.edu Institutions George Mason University[1] Johns Hopkins University Stanford University Main interests Developing nations Governance International political economy Nation-building and democratization Strategic and security issues Notable ideas End of history Influences [show] Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama (born October 27, 1952) is an American political scientist, political economist, and author. Fukuyama is known for his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), which argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government. However, his subsequent book Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity (1995) modified his earlier position to acknowledge that culture cannot be cleanly separated from economics. Fukuyama is also associated with the rise of the neoconservative movement,[2] from which he has since distanced himself.[3] Fukuyama has been a Senior Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University since July 2010.[4] Before that, he served as a professor and director of the International Development program at the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University. Previously, he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University.[4] He is a council member of the International Forum for Democratic Studies founded by the National Endowment for Democracy and was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation.[5] Contents 1 Early life 2 Education 3 Writings 3.1 Neoconservatism 3.2 Fukuyama's current views 4 Affiliations 5 Personal life 6 See also 7 Selected bibliography 7.1 Scholarly works (partial list) 7.2 Books 7.3 Essays 8 See also 9 References 10 External links Early life Francis Fukuyama was born in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. His paternal grandfather fled the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and started a shop on the west coast before being interned in the Second World War.[6] His father, Yoshio Fukuyama, a second-generation Japanese American, was trained as a minister in the Congregational Church, received a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chicago, and taught religious studies.[7][8][9] His mother, Toshiko Kawata Fukuyama, was born in Kyoto, Japan, and was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, founder of the Economics Department of Kyoto University and first president of Osaka City University.[10] Francis grew up in Manhattan as an only child, had little contact with Japanese culture, and did not learn Japanese.[7][8] His family moved to State College, Pennsylvania in 1967.[10] Education Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom.[8][11] He initially pursued graduate studies in comparative literature at Yale University, going to Paris for six months to study under Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida, but became disillusioned and switched to political science at Harvard University.[8] There, he studied with Samuel P. Huntington and Harvey Mansfield, among others. He earned his Ph.D. in political science at Harvard for his thesis on Soviet threats to intervene in the Middle East.[8][11] In 1979, he joined the global policy think tank RAND Corporation.[8] Fukuyama lived at the Telluride House and has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an education enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including Steven Weinberg, Paul Wolfowitz and Kathleen Sullivan. Fukuyama was the Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University from 1996 to 2000. Until July 10, 2010, he was the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. He is now Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow and resident in the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.[11] Writings Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Fukuyama predicted the eventual global triumph of political and economic liberalism: What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such.... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. Authors like Ralf Dahrendorf argued in 1990 that the essay gave Fukuyama his 15 minutes of fame, which will be followed by a slide into obscurity.[12][13] He continued to remain a relevant and cited public intellectual leading American communitarian Amitai Etzioni to declare him "one of the few enduring public intellectuals. They are often media stars who are eaten up and spat out after their 15 minutes. But he has lasted."[14] One of the main reasons for the massive criticism against The End of History was the aggressive stance that it took towards postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy had, in Fukuyama's opinion, undermined the ideology behind liberal democracy, leaving the western world in a potentially weaker position.[15] The fact that Marxism and fascism had been proven untenable for practical use while liberal democracy still thrived was reason enough to embrace the hopeful attitude of the Progressive era, as this hope for the future was what made a society worth struggling to maintain. Postmodernism, which, by this time, had become embedded in the cultural consciousness, offered no hope and nothing to sustain a necessary sense of community, instead relying only on lofty intellectual premises.[16] Being a work that both praised the ideals of a group that had fallen out of favor and challenged the premises of the group that had replaced them, it was bound to create some controversy. Fukuyama has written a number of other books, among them Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity and Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the latter, he qualified his original "end of history" thesis, arguing that since biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow humans to alter human nature, thereby putting liberal democracy at risk.[17] One possible outcome could be that an altered human nature could end in radical inequality. He is a fierce enemy of transhumanism, an intellectual movement asserting that posthumanity is a desirable goal. In another work, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, Fukuyama explores the origins of social norms, and analyses the current disruptions in the fabric of our moral traditions, which he considers as arising from a shift from the manufacturing to the information age. This shift is, he thinks, normal and will prove self-correcting, given the intrinsic human need for social norms and rules. In 2006, in America at the Crossroads, Fukuyama discusses the history of neoconservatism, with particular focus on its major tenets and political implications. He outlines his rationale for supporting the Bush administration, as well as where he believes it has gone wrong. In 2008, Fukuyama published the book Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap Between Latin America and the United States, which resulted from research and a conference funded by Grupo Mayan to gain understanding on why Latin America, once far wealthier than North America, fell behind in terms of development in only a matter of centuries. Discussing this book at a 2009 conference, Fukuyama outlined his belief that inequality within Latin American nations is a key impediment to growth. An unequal distribution of wealth, he stated, leads to social upheaval, which then results in stunted growth.[18] Neoconservatism As a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism, although his works came out years after Irving Kristol's 1972 book crystallized neoconservatism.[19] Fukuyama was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization's 1998 letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq Saddam Hussein.[20] He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol's September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. not only "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", but also embark upon "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".[21] In a New York Times article from February 2006, Fukuyama, in considering the ongoing Iraq War, stated: "What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a 'realistic Wilsonianism' that better matches means to ends."[22] In regard to neoconservatism he went on to say: "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world – ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."[22] Fukuyama's current views Fukuyama began to distance himself from the neoconservative agenda of the Bush administration, citing its excessive militarism and embrace of unilateral armed intervention, particularly in the Middle East. By late 2003, Fukuyama had voiced his growing opposition to the Iraq War[23] and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense.[24] At an annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in February 2004, Dick Cheney and Charles Krauthammer declared the beginning of a unipolar era under American hegemony. "All of these people around me were cheering wildly,"[25] Fukuyama remembers. He believes that the Iraq War was being blundered. "All of my friends had taken leave of reality."[25] He has not spoken to Paul Wolfowitz (previously a good friend) since.[25] Fukuyama declared he would not be voting for Bush,[26] and that the Bush administration had made three major mistakes:[citation needed] Overstating the threat of radical Islam to the US Failing to foresee the fierce negative reaction to its "benevolent hegemony". From the very beginning showing a negative attitude toward the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations and not seeing that it would increase anti-Americanism in other countries Misjudging what was needed to bring peace in Iraq and being overly optimistic about the success with which social engineering of western values could be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general. Fukuyama believes the US has a right to promote its own values in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls "realistic Wilsonianism", with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends 43% of global military spending,[27] but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness. The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US proved to have excelled in during the aftermath of World War II was the formation of international institutions. A return to support for these structures would combine American power with international legitimacy. But such measures require a lot of patience. This is the central thesis of his 2006 work America at the Crossroads. In a 2006 essay in The New York Times Magazine strongly critical of the invasion, he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that neoconservatives:[28] believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support. Fukuyama announced the end of the neoconservative moment and argued for the demilitarization of the War on Terrorism:[28] [W]ar is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" [quoting John F. Kennedy's inaugural address] whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. Fukuyama endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 US presidential election. He states:[29] I'm voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don't work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would be a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale. Affiliations Between 2006 and 2008, Fukuyama advised Muammar Gaddafi as part of the Monitor Group, a consultancy firm based in Cambridge, MA.[30] In August 2005, Fukuyama co-founded The American Interest, a quarterly magazine devoted to the broad theme of "America in the World". He is currently chairman of the editorial board.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the RAND Corporation's Political Science Department from 1979 to 1980, 1983 to 1989, and 1995 to 1996. He is now a member of the Board of Trustees.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2001 to 2004.[11] Fukuyama is a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS). Fukuyama is on the steering committee for the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.[31] Fukuyama is a long-time friend of Libby. They served together in the State Department in the 1980s. Fukuyama is a member of the Board of Counselors for the Pyle Center of Northeast Asian Studies at the National Bureau of Asian Research.[32] Fukuyama is on the board of Global Financial Integrity. Fukuyama is on the executive board of the Inter-American Dialogue. Personal life Fukuyama is a part-time photographer. He also has a keen interest in early-American furniture, which he reproduces by hand.[33] He is keenly interested in sound recording and reproduction, saying, "These days I seem to spend as much time thinking about gear as I do analyzing politics for my day job."[25] Fukuyama is married to Laura Holmgren, whom he met when she was a UCLA graduate student after he started working for the RAND Corporation.[8][11] He dedicated his book Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity to her. They live in California, with their three children, Julia, David, and John away in school. See also Daniel Bell Selected bibliography Scholarly works (partial list) The Soviet Union and Iraq since 1968, Rand research report, 1980 Books The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press, 1992. ISBN 0-02-910975-2 Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0-02-910976-0 The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Free Press. 1999. ISBN 0-684-84530-X Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2002. ISBN 0-374-23643-7 State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-8014-4292-3 America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2006. ISBN 0-300-11399-4 US edition After the Neo Cons: Where the Right went Wrong. London: Profile Books. 2006. ISBN 1-86197-922-3 UK edition Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap between Latin America and the United States (editor). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-536882-6 The Origins of Political Order. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2011. ISBN 978-1-846-68256-8 Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2014. ISBN 978-0-374-22735-7 Essays The End of History?, The National Interest, Summer 1989 Women and the Evolution of World Politics, Foreign Affairs October 1998 Immigrants and Family Values, The Immigration Reader 1998. ISBN 1-55786-916-2 Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, The Atlantic Monthly, May 1999 Social capital and civil society, paper prepared for delivery at the International Monetary Fund Conference on Second Generation Reforms, October 1, 1999 The neoconservative moment, The National Interest, Summer 2004 After neoconservatism, The New York Times Magazine, February 19, 2006 Supporter's voice now turns on Bush, The New York Times Magazine, March 14, 2006 Why shouldn't I change my mind?, Los Angeles Times, April 9, 2006 The Fall of America, Inc. Newsweek, October 13, 2008 The New Nationalism and the Strategic Architecture of Northeast Asia Asia Policy January 2007 Left Out, The American Interest, January 2011 Is China Next?, The Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2011 The Future of History; Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012 What is Governance? Governance (journal), March 2013

Laatste Update: 2016-07-05
Gebruiksfrequentie: 1
Kwaliteit:

Referentie: Anoniem
Waarschuwing: Bevat onzichtbare HTML-opmaak

Engels

5S was developed in Japan. It was first heard of as one of the techniques that enabled what was then termed 'Just in Time Manufacturing'. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's 5-year study into the future of the automobile in the late 1980s identified that the term was inappropriate since the Japanese success was built upon far more than components arriving only at the time of requirement. John Krafcik, a researcher on the project, ascribed Lean to the collective techniques being used in Japanese automobile manufacturing; it reflected the focus on waste in all its forms that was central to the Japanese approach. Minimised inventory was only one aspect of performance levels in companies such as Toyota and in itself only arose from progress in fields such as quality assurance and Andon boards to highlight problems for immediate action.

Hindi

अनुवाद पर सही व्याकरण

Laatste Update: 2016-04-15
Gebruiksfrequentie: 1
Kwaliteit:

Referentie: Anoniem

Engels

googal translate engBy Daniel A. Rosenblum 2013, Vol. 5 No. 10 | pg. 2/4 | « » Cite References Print 5 Before the Streets: Livelihoods in Rural Bihar The children of rural Bihar are connected with the rest of India unlike any other time in history. In the district town of Sitamarhi, a place that sits some twenty miles from the Nepal border, the skyline is littered with cell phone towers. On the streets below, walkways are filled with mud, trash, and cow dung. Passersby trough through the mess to buy flee-bitten mitahi (sweets) and the sweltering fruits at nearby stands. For the children of Sitamarhi, they live in this contrast—the severe juxtaposition of “modernity”3 and urbanization with the dilapidated infrastructure surrounding them. The villages within five miles of the district town scarcely receive electricity, prompting me to wonder how anyone with a cell phone was able to recharge their phones.4 The villages I spent the majority of my time in, Amritpur and Baksampur5, gave insight into the livelihoods of children in rural Bihar. In Amritpur, every corner and passageway of the village had more and more children. At times, it would seem the ratio of children to adults was ten to one. Many of these children had prominent signs of malnutrition: kwashiorkor, stunned growth, and slowly healing infections (Bhutta, Black, Cousens, & Ahmed, 2008; Som, Pal, & Bharati, 2007). One boy of about twelve, Deepak, had a nasty infection on his lower leg that continued to worsen over the week I visited. However, there was no formal doctor in the village, only someone trained in basic medical practices. He would have to go to Sitamarhi town to be given medicine, which would cost too much money for Deepak’s mother. This was a problem all too common for children of rural Bihar. School quality and attendance throughout Sitamarhi district was quite mixed. A government school I visited in Amritpur was highly understaffed, lacking proper materials and facilities, and seemed more of a social gathering point for youth. Children would sit along the walls with other classmates drawing, talking, and laughing while the teachers and administrators sat near the entrance splitting their time between socializing and supervising. When we arrived, the teachers began to complain of uneven wage scales and low salaries, providing this as a link for chaos at the school. However, another school we visited in Baksampur, which was run entirely by women, had sufficient materials, was properly staffed, and seemed to be extremely beneficial for the students. In both cases, there were noticeably tensions between attending school and working at home. Especially for older children, many would work in the mornings, helping to transplant rice, and then check into school for the second half of the day. In some cases, children would stop attending school entirely in order to help at home, such as with the case of a lower caste girl in Baksampur, Hoja.6 Pressure to earn began to outweigh the importance of schooling as the children grew older, leading to the abandonment of education in order to help the family. The livelihoods of Bihari youth were rapidly transforming, surrounded by new “modern” pursuits and desires within a rural structure and community. Lunch at an Amritpur government school Lunch Photo Credit: Khushboo Jain Tracking Agricultural Transformations Bihar’s agricultural history is extremely complex, wrapped among transforming government policy, development, and increasing mechanization of the agrarian system. Prior to the Green Revolution taking hold in Bihari agriculture, there was a structure of landholding: the Zamindar system, established under the British Raj. The system’s abolishment, however, is what I wish to focus on, in terms of the uneven effects it had on rural villages, landholdings, and landlessness. The zamindari was a system of landholding that consolidated fields in the hands of powerful village elites. For Bihar, this meant most of the land fell in the hands of upper caste Hindus (Chaudhry, 1988). Peasants were then typically tied to the land, working for the grain they produced, while remaining landless themselves. In the late 19th century, however, Bihar began to feel the effects of commercialism, beginning a process of out-migration from both the zamindar and lower class populations. In the Chapra region at the beginning of this century, upper castes had to resort to occupations other than agriculture. Rajputs, an upper caste group, went out for ‘service’ along with lower class individuals, becoming “peons and durwans in estates of larger zamindars” (de Haan 2002:120). Out-migration existed in high numbers during the zamindari system for both landowners and lower caste laborers, yet the economic gaps between landowners and lower class, as well as the frequency of migration seemed to increase after the foundation of India and the subsequent abolishment of the colonial landholding system.lish to hindi

Hindi

By Daniel A. Rosenblum 2013, Vol. 5 No. 10 | pg. 2/4 | « » Cite References Print 5 Before the Streets: Livelihoods in Rural Bihar The children of rural Bihar are connected with the rest of India unlike any other time in history. In the district town of Sitamarhi, a place that sits some twenty miles from the Nepal border, the skyline is littered with cell phone towers. On the streets below, walkways are filled with mud, trash, and cow dung. Passersby trough through the mess to buy flee-bitten mitahi (sweets) and the sweltering fruits at nearby stands. For the children of Sitamarhi, they live in this contrast—the severe juxtaposition of “modernity”3 and urbanization with the dilapidated infrastructure surrounding them. The villages within five miles of the district town scarcely receive electricity, prompting me to wonder how anyone with a cell phone was able to recharge their phones.4 The villages I spent the majority of my time in, Amritpur and Baksampur5, gave insight into the livelihoods of children in rural Bihar. In Amritpur, every corner and passageway of the village had more and more children. At times, it would seem the ratio of children to adults was ten to one. Many of these children had prominent signs of malnutrition: kwashiorkor, stunned growth, and slowly healing infections (Bhutta, Black, Cousens, & Ahmed, 2008; Som, Pal, & Bharati, 2007). One boy of about twelve, Deepak, had a nasty infection on his lower leg that continued to worsen over the week I visited. However, there was no formal doctor in the village, only someone trained in basic medical practices. He would have to go to Sitamarhi town to be given medicine, which would cost too much money for Deepak’s mother. This was a problem all too common for children of rural Bihar. School quality and attendance throughout Sitamarhi district was quite mixed. A government school I visited in Amritpur was highly understaffed, lacking proper materials and facilities, and seemed more of a social gathering point for youth. Children would sit along the walls with other classmates drawing, talking, and laughing while the teachers and administrators sat near the entrance splitting their time between socializing and supervising. When we arrived, the teachers began to complain of uneven wage scales and low salaries, providing this as a link for chaos at the school. However, another school we visited in Baksampur, which was run entirely by women, had sufficient materials, was properly staffed, and seemed to be extremely beneficial for the students. In both cases, there were noticeably tensions between attending school and working at home. Especially for older children, many would work in the mornings, helping to transplant rice, and then check into school for the second half of the day. In some cases, children would stop attending school entirely in order to help at home, such as with the case of a lower caste girl in Baksampur, Hoja.6 Pressure to earn began to outweigh the importance of schooling as the children grew older, leading to the abandonment of education in order to help the family. The livelihoods of Bihari youth were rapidly transforming, surrounded by new “modern” pursuits and desires within a rural structure and community. Lunch at an Amritpur government school Lunch Photo Credit: Khushboo Jain Tracking Agricultural Transformations Bihar’s agricultural history is extremely complex, wrapped among transforming government policy, development, and increasing mechanization of the agrarian system. Prior to the Green Revolution taking hold in Bihari agriculture, there was a structure of landholding: the Zamindar system, established under the British Raj. The system’s abolishment, however, is what I wish to focus on, in terms of the uneven effects it had on rural villages, landholdings, and landlessness. The zamindari was a system of landholding that consolidated fields in the hands of powerful village elites. For Bihar, this meant most of the land fell in the hands of upper caste Hindus (Chaudhry, 1988). Peasants were then typically tied to the land, working for the grain they produced, while remaining landless themselves. In the late 19th century, however, Bihar began to feel the effects of commercialism, beginning a process of out-migration from both the zamindar and lower class populations. In the Chapra region at the beginning of this century, upper castes had to resort to occupations other than agriculture. Rajputs, an upper caste group, went out for ‘service’ along with lower class individuals, becoming “peons and durwans in estates of larger zamindars” (de Haan 2002:120). Out-migration existed in high numbers during the zamindari system for both landowners and lower caste laborers, yet the economic gaps between landowners and lower class, as well as the frequency of migration seemed to increase after the foundation of India and the subsequent abolishment of the colonial landholding system.

Laatste Update: 2015-07-28
Gebruiksfrequentie: 1
Kwaliteit:

Referentie: Anoniem
Waarschuwing: Bevat onzichtbare HTML-opmaak

Engels

In today’s perspective, literacy does not mean about the writing and reading capabilities only. It has gained a broader meaning. It claims to guide people towards awareness and the change which is needed in order to achieve a better way of living. The National Literacy Mission was set up by Govt. of India on May 5th, 1988 with the aim to eradicate illiteracy from the country. The targeted group for the same was people belonging to the age group of 15 to 35 years. The literacy rate of India has been recorded 64.84% (2001 census) against 52.21% in 1991. It has been increased by more than 12% in a decade. Also, the literacy rate is supposed to be around 70-72% by the end of 2010 (As estimated by National Sample Survey). But the goal is yet to be achieved completely (i.e. to obtain 100% literacy). Right to education is one of the fundamental rights for the people. Education for all is the mission of UNESCO that has to be achieved by 2015. Currently, India falls below the threshold level of literacy rate i.e.75%. The National Literacy Mission Authority has been working to achieve its goal since its establishment. NLMA (National Literacy Mission Authority) works under the ministry of Human Resource & Development. The Govt. of India has launched several schemes to achieve the goals of NLM. The initial target for NLM was to focus on the people belonging to the age group of 15 to 25 years. There were 80 million people falling under this age group. It was a big challenge to address such a huge lot of people about literacy and its benefits. In a way, it was quite different from all technology based or economic missions. It was conceived as a social mission by all and that helped NLM to achieve the success. The other significant factor was the political will of leaders at different levels at that time. The politicians and bureaucrats understood the importance of this mission and it has gained a whole hearted success in several states viz. Kerala, Tamilnadu, Rajasthan, Manipur etc. The idea was to convince people about their active participation, mobilization of social forces. Soon it became a national consensus. Thanks to the advertisements, sensitization of local leaders and people’s participation. Given below are some of the pioneers of success for National Literacy Mission: Literacy campaigns have been launched in almost 600 districts of India.

Hindi

पेड़ों के महत्व के बारे में हिंदी निबंध

Laatste Update: 2014-09-24
Gebruiksfrequentie: 1
Kwaliteit:

Referentie: Anoniem
Waarschuwing: Bevat onzichtbare HTML-opmaak

Krijg een betere vertaling met
4,401,923,520 menselijke bijdragen

Gebruikers vragen nu voor assistentie



Wij gebruiken cookies om u de best mogelijke ervaring op onze website te bieden. Door de website verder te gebruiken, geeft u toestemming voor het gebruik van cookies. Klik hier voor meer informatie. OK