Influences Of Spice Trade In British-India

Influences Of Spice Trade In British-India Introduction Colonisation refers strictly to migration, for example, to settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations, while colonialism deals with this as well as the ruling of new territories existing peoples. Spice Colonisation There are many reasons to start a colonisation and spice trade is one of the most influential key reason since ancient times. Spice Colonisation occurs with the value of spices, spice route, timeline of spice trade, spice influences and impacts in pre-colonisation, during colonisation and post colonisation both the coloniser and colonised. Spice colonisation happened mostly in South East Asia areas and India during the Classical period to Middle Age and until the modern colonialism, by Greece, Roman Empire and the Vikings to Western European countries. The history of spice is almost as old as human civilisation. It is a history of lands discovered, empires built and brought down, wars won and lost, treaties signed and flouted, flavours sought and offered, and the rise and fall of different religious practices and beliefs. Spices were among the most valuable items of trade in ancient and medieval times. Many of these spices (think of pepper and cinnamon) have become so ubiquitous that it is difficult to reconcile the fact that until very recently they were rare and expensive commodities. Indeed, the history of commerce and trade is the history of spices and it is no exaggeration to say that America would not have been discovered were it not for the European desire to break the Arab traders monopoly on spices.    The search for a cheaper way to obtain spices from the East led to the great Age of Exploration and the discovery of the New World. European explorers such as Ferdinand Magellan, Vasco da Gama, and Bartholomeu Dias began their long sea voyages to discover a sea route to the sources of spices. Christopher Columbus went westwards from Europe in 1492 to find a sea route to the lands of spices but found the Americas. In 1497 the Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama discovered a sea route around the southern tip of Africa, eventually reaching Kozhikode on the southwest coast of India in 1498. British in India Spice Colonisation India is once the most influential country in spice trade and route. Before British colonised India in spice trade, the Arabians, Roman Empire, Portuguese and Dutch had been taking control of India for the same reason. The British Empire has formed a company called the British East India Company. The British East India Company was a joint-stock company that was originally formed to do business with the East Indies. But eventually, the company ended up doing business primarily with the Indian subcontinent and China. It is commonly said that in the history of the world there is no more wonderful story than that of the advent of the British Empire in India. East India Company was unique as it started its humble beginning as the mere trading company and later took over political interest and changed to the ruler of the entire country. In 1799, British Empire had gained its full vigor and was named the most powerful political and military force in India, after Tipu Sultan of Mysore was de feated. Architectural Influences of British in India The British Empire has brought many influences into India including cultural exchange, cuisine, technologies and most of all, architecture. Roughly from 1799, the British Empire had commenced the prolonged history of British architecture that was rule in India for the next 200 years. With this elevated status the Britons also gauged the need and responsibility to govern territories under their control and to be viewed as a powerful, civilized force by the Indians. During the colonisation, the British brought with them their architecture style and symbolism as well as  more technologically advanced building methods and materials that the Indians adapted to their own directly or modified to fit their own social and  cultural constructs. While the British held deep admiration for the ancient Indian culture and its relics, including architecture, even to the point of maintaining much of its unique traditions and aesthetics, they both introduced new philosophies, symbolisms, technologies, materials, and building methods to the Indians. These new ideas and elements that the British brought to Indian architecture fundamentally changed not only the general appearance, but also the meaning, function, and  how architecture was viewed by the Indians and British alike. Before 1947, the understanding of Indians art and architecture was still linked to how they perceived their role within British imperialism. However, after India independent they wanted to illustrate that India had a living artistic tradition, although the natives were unaware of it, and they considered it to rescue it from oblivion. In their determined effort to rescue Indias artistic past, people started to develop their own standards for judging and categorizing Indian arts and crafts. Collecting art specimens and organizing them according to scientific principles was driven by the 19th century British pre-occupation with division and classification, exaggerated in the colonial context by the desire to fathom the diversity of Indian culture. More importantly the classification of arts and architectures were tied directly to economy. However, the British intervention was necessary to set India on a better future. Language First was the language, many Indians were conversant with the English language, because the British colonialists intended to export their values and culture by teaching the Indian population their language. This has brought huge benefits for future development in India after its independence. For the economy, most of companies during post-colonization era still engaged in outsourcing business which trading with European and America. Good English skill bring them better quality work and more work opportunities. Meanwhile, more businessmen and traders were attracted to India for investment because of the economical labour, good services and communication. Lot of benefits for native people who could speak better English in trading with each and other. Law Secondly, the British annexed many princely states and formed laws and policies of their own. Slowly but rapidly the entire Indian subcontinent came under the British rule. Although this had met with dissatisfaction and resentment by most of Indians, it still made contribute to Indias future development. Law in modern India largely based on English common law because of the long period of British colonial influence, and various legislations first introduced by the British are still in effect in modified forms today especially on improving womens rights in India. Urban Development British ruled in India for almost 300 years, and in the year 1600 British came in India. Then they start to settle in India. Because of global spice trading, most of them firstly settled in the coastal city. During the settlement, British brought lots of their technologies and rules onto this land. Most of them are appeared in the port cities. One of most famous port city in India during post-colonial era was Bombay. By middle 19th century, the British introduced the railways, telegraph and postal service in Bombay. This great instruments, the railways, postal services significantly affected the developmental course of modern India. These technologies increased quality of peoples community and social life. One of great railway station building in India that still can be found nowadays is called Victoria Terminus in Bombay. Prior to the railway age, Bombay had become an important port-city and administrative centre. With additional economic and population growth happen in Bombay after Indias independent, the demand of residential and industrial lands start to increase. This made Bombays site start to extend from the coast into centre India. The footprint of the city development is followed by the railways route. Ending Trade in India in the present day involves less nationalistic qualities than it did in the past. Spice growers now export their products through their own organizations or through exporting houses. Spices are now distributed by food manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. With the advances in technology and science, too, the spices are now able to flourish in other parts of the world with similar climates as India. There is no longer the problem of having to travel halfway across the world to obtain spices. The abundance of sources and the absence of influences from profit-hungry nations make for the affordable prices we see every day in grocery stores. However, the spice route played a significant role for Indias development. Quite extraordinary in its incomparable neo-classical lordliness stood the Bombay Town Hall. The Greek Doric Order of its commanding temple-fronts undoubtedly turned eyes for its international outlook.

Organizational Behavior and Design Essay

Leadership exists in both formal and informal fashion. Formal leadership is defined by Byrnes (2003, p. 160) as ‘leadership by a manager who has been granted the formal authority or right to command’. Formal authority in this sense means those elements that automatically come with leadership – perhaps a title, an office, a budget, the right to make decisions, a set of subordinates, a reporting relationship, and so on. Formal leaders are appointed or elected to lead the group by virtue of such characteristics as their position in the organization and their interest or expertise in relation to the group’s focus. A formal leader is one who possesses organizational authority to direct and control the activities of subordinates. The individual issues orders and instructions to his subordinates by virtue of his formal authority within the organization. The formal leader is responsible and accountable to those who have elected him in a formal way. At the managerial or executive level, this paper asserts that formal leadership is not always necessary; at least, the execution of formal authority by the leader must constantly depend on the situation. The main reason behind this assertion is that formal leadership strategies that carry out perceived improvements do not always generate a common vision among leadership groups. Nor does formal leadership always establish or follow guidelines for carrying out improvements. For instance, Durk Jager, former Procter & Gamble (P&G) CEO, has many traits of a good manager and may have managed P&G well during his time but he was not seen by those whom he managed as being the leader. This example just implies that formal authority is not the sole basis of leadership in part because leadership relationships are based on additional resources other than authority, like expertise and interpersonal skills. The formal leader cannot depend solely on the use of formal authority because subordinates seldom put maximum effort under the pressure of authority. Being a successful businessperson or manager does not make a person a good leader. Just because someone is assigned a formal leadership role does not guarantee that the person will be the only leader of the group, or will become effective in the said role, as evidenced in the aforementioned example. A top level manager like Jager that has considerable authority but lacked leadership qualities is likely to be less effective than a supervisor with little authority but a high degree of qualities. People in formal leadership positions may wield force or authority using only their position and the resources and power that come with it, but never get the cooperation that people who exercise both formal and informal leadership at the same time. Informal leadership can be valuable assets to an organization’s formal leadership, and they can use their influence to work with the goals of the organization. In this light, giving managers formal authority is less important than ensuring that their expertise, creativity, initiative and interpersonal skills infuse organizational improvement efforts. Further, while most open-minded formal leaders believe in their own importance, seeing themselves as central to the health of the organization, they do not always regard it as essential that they review either their role or organizational convictions. Furthermore, strictly formal organizations can seldom define all the possible variations of responsibility and personal interaction to be expected of all members in all situations. Nevertheless, organizations appear to be founded upon a basic system of stable expectations regarding differential responsibilities and relationships among the members. This is not a one-way process. That is, it is not the organization alone which sets up role expectations for its members. The members set up expectations for each other and for the organization as a whole. Moreover, while group members can agree upon which members hold the position of leader, the inconsistencies between such agreement and the attempts to evaluate leadership in terms of group productivity is evidently due to a low correlation between actually influential behavior and formal leadership status. In conclusion, it would be highly beneficial for an organization if members think of leadership as a behavior, not a formal role, as it will extend the capability for leadership behaviors to all organizational members and call for a change in how the organization approaches leadership development, which then should focus beyond managers or future managers to include all organizational members. Such a conception of leadership does not require that the functions of leadership be vested in one person. Any person who influences the group is playing a leader’s role and in this sense several individuals may be viewed as leaders at different times. In this paper, it is accepted that leadership may shift among group members depending upon the situations confronted by the group. Formal leaders, then, are office holders elected to play the most influential roles most of the time. The informal or effective leaders are the individuals who in fact do play the most influential roles most of the time. Those in formal leadership positions may have final authority, but others, within their own more constrained domains, will still need to draw on virtually the same set of leader attributes. These other’ leaders support the organizational leadership and extend the reach of those in formal leadership positions. Their leadership is manifest through their ability to work effectively with others, derive consensus, take initiative, question, and propose. These forms of participation in leadership are rarely considered as leadership per se, especially from traditional (i. . , narrow) perspectives. Rather than viewing leadership as the province of a few elites that have formal leadership role designations, an alternative perspective of this paper views leadership as an outcome of effective social structures and processes. It is the aggregate ability to create shared work that is meaningful to people and to add value to an organization. From this latter perspective, everyone can and should participate in both formal and informal leadership.

Business Partner Model Essay

The business partnering model and its impact on both the HR function and HR practice Since the concept of the business partnering model was introduced by Ulrich in 1997, the composition of the HR function has dramatically changed. As Goodge (2005) identified, â€Å"partnering is fundamentally changing almost every HR function, every HR job, and every HR career† (Pg. 32). Ulrich argued that HR needed to deliver on both a strategic and administrative level and identified four key roles through which organisations could achieve this (Torrington et al. 2007). The model has become a fixation for much of the HR community and its introduction has initiated a fundamental change to the HR function’s anatomy over the last decade (Francis & Keegan, 2008). The key themes which will be discussed within this literature review are the impact of the model on the competencies required of successful business partners, the debate of HR’s strategic focus as a result of the model and the loss of the employee champion role. However, attention must first be brought to the partnering model itself. The Model Ulrich’s business partnering model focuses on four key roles that HR need to address in order to deliver organisational excellence (Ulrich 1998). Becoming a ‘strategic partner’ in the execution of organisational strategy, increasing functional efficiency by being an ‘administrative expert’, fully engaging employees by becoming an ‘employee champion’ and finally, through facilitating and encouraging a culture of flexibility and acceptance to the evolving business environment as a ‘change agent’ (Ulrich 1998). Precursors to Ulrich’s partnering model are Tyson and Fell’s 1985 model, based upon three fundamental positions using a construction site metaphor (architect, clerk of works and contract negotiator) and Storey’s 1992 model based on the four roles required in the shift from personnel management to Human Resource Management (regulator, handmaiden, adviser and changemaker) (Torrington et al. , 2007). In 2005, Ulrich and Brockbank mused over the partnering model once more and proposed a refreshed framework. This was not a revolutionary diversion from the original model, however a reflection of the changing roles that they had been observing in organisations since the introduction of the original model (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005a). The model was upgraded with the omission of the roles ‘employee champion’, ‘change agent’ and ‘administrative expert’, with these being replaced by ‘employee advocate’ (focusing on current employee needs), ‘human capital developer’ (preparing employees to be successful for the future) and ‘functional expert’ (administrative efficiency and the development of policies) (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005a). The ‘strategic partner’ role remained within the refreshed model and they also added a fifth dimension which was that of the ‘HR Leader’, the genuine leadership role which ties all four key roles together (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005a). What is interesting from the literature, is that although this more modern model has been considered, it is the original model to which most commentators refer. Before considering the impact of this model on HR functions and practice, it is important to first consider why such a large number of organisations have found it appropriate to restructure their HR departments in this way. In 1998, Ulrich himself questioned the effectiveness of the role that HR played in organisations and recognised that his model needed to move away from HR’s traditional activities, which focused on processes, to a focus on deliverables (Ulrich, 1998). The new model was a way of ensuring that HR as a function was adding value and increasing organisational competitiveness (Ulrich, 1997) and his approach of using HR professionals as strategic business partners was being seen as a mechanism for allowing changes to be made in order for HR to make these significant competitive and strategic contributions (Goodge, 2005). Lawler & Mohrman (2003) argued that in organisations where competitive advantage was created through human and intellectual capital, the demand for HR to be a strategic partner was greater. What makes a competent business partner? Defining what the single role of a business partner involves is rather ambiguous and much of the recent literature identifies that there is no single model for HR business partnering, therefore leaving each organisation to have their own interpretation of what a business partner is (Caldwell, 2008 & 2010; Torrington et al. , 2007; Beckett, 2005). In some organisations the impact of the model has only gone as far as an upgraded ob title (Beckett, 2005; Pitcher, 2008) and it is this weak implementation in some companies that has led to various criticisms of the model (Peacock, 2008; Pitcher, 2008). This leads to the first key discussion identified within the literature, which questions the use of competency models in the selection, development and success of business partners in achieving the outcome of ‘organisational excellence’. With the business partner role seeking a more strategic mind-set, it has been seen as increasingly more difficult to find people who fit the role (Beckett, 2005). Caldwell (2010) has most recently discussed the use of competency models for the better selection and development of HR business partners, as a new way of aligning HR strategy with organisational performance. The competencies that have been argued as most essential for a successful business partner are being a strong operational executor, a cultural steward, a strategic architect, a business ally and credible activist, an experienced talent manager and organisational designer (Ulrich, 2008 cited in Caldwell, 2010). The competencies, in theory, would lead the business partner to performing a balance of the four key roles originally proposed by Ulrich, however what is clearly apparent from the literature, is that the business partner role is wide open for interpretation (Torrington et al. , 2007; Beckett, 2005). Therefore what can be argued as a benefit of using a competency framework, is that it can potentially offer a more consistent approach to selection, development and success of partnering (Caldwell, 2010). Caldwell’s (2010) study considered the HR and business strategy linkage, with selection and development of business partners through the use of competency models as antecedents to this link. What was indicated in his study was that using these competency frameworks was largely effective in the selection of HR business partners, however much less effective in the development and linking between HR strategy and organisational performance (Caldwell, 2010). The relationship between HR roles and competency models is an area of significant controversy and it was not long before questions were raised as to how each key role played out within the business partner position; whether there were a holistic set of competencies for the business partner role or separate competencies for the four key roles (Caldwell, 2010). Other queries were raised in the literature regarding the weighting of importance of each of the competencies and also whether or not these competencies were generally applicable to all HR practitioners or just to those playing a business partner role (Caldwell, 2010). Ulrich and Brockbank (2005a) appreciated that not all of the key roles could be played to the same degree and depending on which HR category you specialised in, different roles may take a priority. This therefore brings the reader back to Torrington et al. (2007) and Becketts’ (2005) notion that there is no single model and that although the discussions are advancing within the literature about the role of business partners, it appears there has been no agreement of the best method of implementation. This was reflected in Caldwell’s study, where he appreciated that the creation of the competency models was beneficial, but that the problem highlighted in HR practice was the difficulty of managing the transition from possessing the competencies, to delivering the capability (Caldwell, 2010). One of the most talked about competencies within the literature is that of possessing business understanding. Lawler and Mohrman (2003) discussed in their research that for someone fulfilling the role of business partner, strong understanding of the business was essential. Beckett (2005) also advocates the need for a commercially aware candidate, however in practice, this is very difficult to recruit for within the pool of HR professionals. As a result of this limited pool of resources, there has been a rise in members within the HR function who have been parachuted in from other areas of the business, such as marketing or sales (Francis & Keegan, 2006). Lawler and Mohrman’s (2003) study noted that one quarter or senior HR professionals had side stepped into the HR function from these other business areas, with the objective of greater strategic alignment with the business. Therefore potentially increasing the impact the HR function has on organisational performance (Francis & Keegan, 2006). There are, however, various implications to HR practice by focusing business partner competencies in such a way. Although HR professionals may see this odern commercial and strategic focus as enhancing the value of their role, it is being observed that line managers and employees can often become sceptical and mistrustful that HR are focused too much on business objectives rather than on those of the people (Caldwell, 2010). Beckett (2005) also outlines concerns of appointing a HR business partner who only has commercial experience by arguing that you are open to the risk of unsafe management of the business, however on the flipside, by getting the balance wrong and isolating your business partners from the rest of the HR function, it can result in losing the HR focus. Therefore a ‘perfect’ business partner would have a balanced background of commercial and business acumen, coupled with the experience of the multiple facets of HR in order to really add strategic value and deliver ‘organisational excellence’ (Lawler & Mohrman, 2003). The shift towards a strategic focus One of the fundamental factors of the business partnering model is ensuring that the HR and business strategies are aligned, therefore enabling the HR function to deliver organisational excellence. This leads to the next key theme identified within the literature regarding the shift to a strategic HR focus which has resulted in a repositioning of the identity of the HR profession (Wright, 2008). Wright (2008) observes that moving towards strategic HRM has contributed to the occupation losing its wider social objectives and transforming into a simple agent of capital (p. 1068). These discussions are contradictory to the balanced purpose of Ulrich’s four key roles, however the literature has suggested that out of the four roles, the strategic partner has been represented with unbalanced proportion. Lawler and Mohrman (2003) argue that if HR does not play a strategic partnering role, how can the function be fully aligned with what the business needs are and then deliver the most effective activities? It is clear from the discussions within the literature that as organisations become more cost effective and streamlined, they will increasingly require fewer HR practitioners to undertake the transactional workloads as this will be transferred to shared service models or outsourcing. Therefore the argument for a partnership to be truly effective, requires the HR function to put more emphasis on the strategic activities such as organisational design and planning (Lawler & Mohrman, 2003). In practice this seems to have been the case and the impact on organisations who have adopted the partnering model have witnessed a transformation in their HR activities, shifting away from the traditional administrative functions to devoting more attention to organisational level activities such as those strategic activities discussed above (Lawler & Mohrman, 2003). Focusing competencies on this link between HR and business strategy however, could lead to the business partner role becoming unsustainable (Caldwell, 2010) and Hope Hailey et al. (2005) question the strategic-heavy focus. Their study demonstrated that while the HR function is becoming more notable strategically, the human side of the functionality is deteriorating (Hope Hailey et al. 2005), thus suggesting that the strategic role on its own does not necessarily enhance the organisational performance of the human capital. Ulrich’s (1997) proposal required HR professionals to be both operational and strategic in their focus through all of the four key roles, however Caldwell (2003) noted the inherent ‘role conflict’ which would naturally emerge from this performance of more than one role, due to the competing demands made upon them by employees and senior management (Hope Hailey et al. 2005). As discussed earlier, the partnering model is most effective and successful in organisations which rely on human and intellectual capital as a source of competitive advantage (Lawler & Mohrman, 2003), therefore if business partners don’t balance the needs of the people focusing roles, they will not achieve the organisational excellence Ulrich’s (1997) model was designed for. Hope Hailey et al. 2005) agree with Caldwell (2003) that ‘role conflict’ is inevitable with the performance of multiple roles and therefore question whether it will ever be possible in practice for the HR function to balance both employee and management needs through fulfilling Ulrich’s four key roles. The ‘perfect’ partner can balance these conflicting roles by having a strategic influence at a corporate level and strong expertise in operational delivery, however as noted in the literature around competencies, these qualities are not easy to find, nor to develop. What has happened to the role of ‘employee champion’? The final key discussion which has been noted from the recent literature, progresses from the fixation of the strategic focus of the partnering model and questions the shift of attention away from the employee. Wright (2008) observed that for nearly all respondents of his study, the strategic adviser role was seen as a much more attractive identity than that of the traditional image of the bureaucratic HR manager. Therefore, one can see how the profession is seen to be losing its focus on the people facing ‘employee champion’ role. Lawler and Mohrman (2003) argue that for partnership to work HR must increase their faith in line managers and transfer various transactional HR responsibilities to them (Lawler & Mohrman, 2003), therefore the answer to this lost role therefore seems to be addressed by this devolvement. The benefits which have been argued for doing this are that it creates more time for HR to become more strategically proactive (Lawler & Mohrman, 2003) and line managers can become responsible and answerable to their employees which strengthens their relationships by almost becoming an HR champion (Ulrich, 1998). In practice however, Hope Hailey et al. (2005) believe that the failure to recognise the importance of the employee champion role is a big mistake and that the devolvement of such a responsibility to line management may be flawed. They noted that empirical research had suggested that devolving various HR responsibilities to the line was being met with certain inefficiencies to deliver such responsibilities, such as lack of training and lack of time, few incentives to fulfil the additional work and the need to focus on delivering their own short term business results (McGovern, 1999 cited in Hope Hailey et al. , 2005). The devolvement is also problematic in the sense that line managers are not always capable or motivated to take on the role of employee champion (Hope Hailey et al. , 2005). Francis and Keegan (2005) were also sceptical over the benefits of devolving HR responsibilities to line management and identified three major problems associated with the delegation of such duties. Firstly, they observed a loss of employee confidence as HR focus shifted to strategic business issues; a cost to employee well-being as a result of potential inconsistent application of policies and processes; and finally a disenchantment amongst HR practitioners who were unable to perform the role that was at the fundamental heart of HR – the employee champion, advocate and counsellor. Francis and Keegan (2005) concluded that not only did this affect the relationship between HR and the workforce, but between the HR professionals themselves. They also noted the strangeness of this shift away from the employee champion role amid the HR community’s grand plans to increase employee engagement (Francis & Keegan, 2005). In essence, it therefore appears that considerable caution must be used in initiating such transfers of accountability. Conclusion It can plainly be observed that over a decade after the introduction of Ulrich’s business partnering model, the HR community are still avidly debating its practical usefulness. What can be gathered from the key discussions is that the theoretical model makes a stellar case for increasing organisational performance and raising the profile of the HR function, however it seems that the impact of the model in practice is that it is the implementation of the model that is failing its success in most organisations. The academic writers are keen to dissect the benefits and limitations of the model, however what really needs to be reported is exactly how to implement the model in practice and to identify this across a range of different organisations. Further research also needs to be undertaken in the area of business partner development, as it appears the essential competencies have been numerously defined, but the focus on training HR practitioners to think and behave in Ulrich’s business partner mind-set requires further investigation. As businesses change, HR functions are being increasingly required to demonstrate their strategic value and this model seems to have provided a platform for really adding value, however as discussed in the final section, it is imperative that the HR function retain a balanced approach to their roles and not to lose sight of the fundamental people side of the people versus processes equation.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal Essay - 990 Words

Following the First World War, another cataclysmic event occurred in the form of a depression. When the stock Market crashed on â€Å"Black Tuesday† in 1929 along with various alternate causes such as the installment buying of the 1920s, the United States became encapsulated within a massive economic depression known as â€Å"The Great Depression.† After the Election of 1932, the new president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was elected. Franklin D. Roosevelt along with his advisor group called the â€Å"Brain Trust† proposed the revolutionary policy known as the New Deal which drastically changed the basics of American society by distributing wealth as well as giving rights to the disadvantaged. First off, the primary goal of the New Deal was to recover and†¦show more content†¦They treated him as their hero and pictures of him were posted everywhere from people’s houses to barber shops. Later during the first hundred days, the government passed the Bank ing Act of 1933 creating the FDIC to guarantee bank deposits, which prevented people from losing all of the money in their accounts if a bank went bankrupt. Moreover, Roosevelt set out to provide relief for the rural poor. At the time, farmers were overproducing. They hoped that by growing more they could make up for falling produce prices, but their efforts were futile since the more they produced further prices fell. Roosevelts solution was the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The AAA provided payments to farmers in return for their agreement to cut production by up to one-half, the money to cover this program came from increased taxes on meat packers, millers, and other food processors. A month later, Congress passed the Farm Credit Act, which provided loans to those farmers in danger of foreclosure. Several other New Deal programs established government control over industry. The National Industrial Recovery Act consolidated businesses and coordinated their activities with the aim o f eliminating overproduction and, by so doing, stabilizing prices. The NIRA also established the Public Works Administration, which set aside $3 billion to create jobsShow MoreRelatedFranklin D. Roosevelt And The New Deal1116 Words   |  5 PagesHyde Park, New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt was stricken with polio in 1921. He became the 32nd US president in 1933, and was the only president to be elected four times. Roosevelt led the United States through the Great Depression and World War II, and greatly expanded the powers of the federal government through a series of programs and reforms known as the New Deal. Roosevelt died in Georgia in 1945. President Roosevelt’s parents made a living both on real estate and trade. Roosevelt was schooledRead MoreFranklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal1289 Words   |  5 PagesFranklin D. Roosevelt was one of the most powerful and influential democratic presidents that the United States has ever put into office. Though he was diagnosed with polio and had to be confined to a wheelchair, for many years Roosevelt tried to regain the ability to walk by swimming . He still managed to lead this country out of the worst economic depression the country had seen in its young life. Many Americans were out of work with the depression going on and banks were closed because peopleRead MoreFranklin D. Roosevelt And The New Deal1827 Words   |  8 PagesJahdiel Evans April 18, 2017 History 1302 Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal Throughout the history of our great nation, certain presidents have been known to stand out from the rest. These prominent leaders are well known for their lasting, if not positive, impact on American society. One such president that fits this category is Franklin D. Roosevelt. In Allan M. Winkler’s biography Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Making of Modern America, the author provides an in-depth examination of Roosevelt’sRead MorePresident Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deals1681 Words   |  7 Pagessocial blow to the American people, people were out of job, food, money and homes while society turned everyone against each other it was everyman for himself. President Franklin D. Roosevelt new deals were effect in providing jobs to the men of the families starting from the oldest to the youngest men in the family. The New Deal improved both the economic and social lives of the American people. The Great Depression caused a deafening blow in the economy of America as people raced to the banks toRead MoreThe New Deal Policies By Franklin D. Roosevelt914 Words   |  4 PagesThe New Deal policies were created by Franklin D. Roosevelt and his people who are known as the â€Å"New Dealers†. They were created in hopes that they would bring relief, recovery, and reform to America and help bring America out of the depression. This flawed plan that many historians believe was largely a success brought America another rescission and caused the unemployment rate to rise. To believe that the New Deal was largely a success is to overlook its many failures and negative impact on AmericaRead MoreFranklin D. Roosevelt s New Deal1772 Words   |  8 Pagesneeded their spirits restored. The 32nd president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, assumed the Presidency in 1932 and intended to revive America with his economic stimulus plan, the New Deal (Tindall Shi, 2013). Although Rooseveltâ€℠¢s New Deal did not end the Great Depression, Roosevelt’s New Deal cannot be deemed as a failure, but rather a success, as the New Deal provided short-term economic relief and long-term structural reform. When Franklin Roosevelt took office, the Great Depression was nearly at itsRead MoreFranklin D Roosevelt s New Deal2091 Words   |  9 Pages I spent a little time on you tube during my research for this essay in order to get an idea of how several current documentaries portray Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal implementations during his presidency throughout the Great Depression. I felt that many of the documentaries seemed only to highlight the benefits of FDR’s leadership as president. I couldn’t help but disagree because some of the mentioned â€Å"benefits† just didn’t sound like benefits from my perspective. I also noticed the overwhelmingRead MoreFranklin D. Roosevelt s Impact On The New Deal939 Words   |  4 Pages3.)Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected into office in 1932 and promised a new deal for Americans. From a social welfare perspective he was viewed as the best president because he advanced social welfare policies. Initial proposals were timid at this time and focused on balancing budgets, similar to prior thinking. Once Roosevelt was elected into office, the activism of those suffering helped push this period in a more progressive era. In 1933 Roosevelt initiated a variety of programs and policies duringRead MorePresident Franklin D. Roosevelt s New Deal1279 Words   |  6 Pagesnation was in a state of crisis when Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933. The Great Depression had caused severe unemployment (up to 90% in some cities!), business failures, and serious disruptions in international trade. It’s no understatement that Roosevelt had a lot of work to do to fix the nation and restore trust in the government! This is when FDR’s New Deal comes in. As an AP US History student, it is important for you to know what the New Deal is, but also why it is important. ThisRead MorePresident Franklin D. Roosevelt s New Deal1374 Words   |  6 PagesPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal did not solve the problems of the Great Depression and slowed economic recovery for America until World War II. The Great Depression brought about a high unemployment, and the New Deal did not deal with it successfully. The Democratic Party benefited from the New Deal’s social and work programs because it shifted the African American vote from Republican to Democrat. (Powell, 2003) Some of the programs from the New Deal that exist today are broken and manipulated