《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson05 Definition of power
Lesson 05 Leadership 旅游管理专业英语PPT课件
Responsibilities
VISION
The faculty of seeing: eye, eyesight, seeing, sight. Archaic light1. See see/not see.
Unusual or creative discernment or perception: farsightedness, foresight, prescience. See foresight.
The leader with referent power has personal characteristics that appeal to others;
The leader who has expert power has certain expertise or knowledge;
first analyze the situation and then
decide what to do.
Look before youTlehade. behavioral approach
The situational approach.
THE TRAIT APPROACH
Is the oldest leadership perspective and was dominant for several decades. This approach seems logical for studying leadership.
the soundness,
Tpherefeyctaiorne, gorifted strategists who seize oinptepgorirttyuonf;itsipeosilothers overlook, but they are also passionately concerned with details — all the small, fundamental realities that can make or mar the grandest of plans.
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson11 the Glass-Stegall Act
The Glass-Stegall ActTwo separate laws are known as the Glass-Steagall Act. The first, enacted February 271932, by President Herbert Hoover, effectively took the United States off the gold standard and greatly increased the ability of the Federal Reserve to expand the money supply. The second, also known as the "Banking Act of 1933", enacted June 161933, by President Franklin Roosevelt, attempted to make banking safer and less prone to speculation. Both acts were reactions of the government to cope with the economic problems which followed the crash of 1929.The Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 included the following provisions:•Permitted Federal Reserve banks to use government securities as collateral for the issue of Federal Reserve notes•Relaxed the collateral security required by member banks at the discount window•Allowed the government to loan out the nation's gold reservesThe Banking Act of 1933 included the following provisions:•Separated the activities of banks and securities firms (prohibited commercial banks from owning brokerages)•Introduced FDIC insurance•Regulation Q which prohibited paying interest on commercial demand deposits and capped the interest rate on savings depositsOf all the important changes to the banking laws in these acts, perhaps the most significant was the first one mentioned above. Before the first Glass-Steagall Act was passed, Federal Reserve notes (i.e., U.S. dollars) could only be issued by the government if they were backed with gold. This restricted the amount of dollars the government could issue. By allowing collateralization of dollars on government debt, the treasury gained the authority to create dollars in any amount it desired.Note that the Banking Act of 1933 should not be confused with the "Emergency Banking Act" of March 9, 1933, which officially took the United States off the gold standard, barred Americans from possessing gold and gave the president wide latitude to dictate monetary rules and policy.Both bills were sponsored by Democratic Senator Carter Glass of Virginia, a former Secretary of the Treasury, and Democratic Congressman Henry B. Steagall of Alabama, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency.On November 12, 1999, President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. One impact of this repeal is that certain advisory activities of the banks are now regulated by the Investment Advisor Act of 1940.。
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson06 Quality of work life
Quality of work lifeThe defining of quality of work life involves three major parts: occupational health care, suitable working time and appropriate salary.The safe work environment provides the basis for the person to enjoy working. The work should not pose a health hazard for the person. The employer and employee, aware of their risks and rights, could achieve a lot in their mutually beneficial dialogue.The working time has been established by the state according to legislation which is a 40- hour working week in Estonia. The standard limits on overtime, time of vacation and taking of free days before national holidays have been separately stipulated. The differences regarding the working time have been established for the persons under 18 years of age, pregnant women, breast-feeding mothers and the person raising the disabled child.The appropriate salary is agreed upon by the employee and the employer. The Government of the Republic establishes each year the rate of minimum salary, the employer should not pay less than that to the employee.Work represents such a role in life which has been designated to it by the person himself.On the one hand work is an earning of one’s living for the family, on the other hand it could be a self-realisation providing enjoyment and satisfaction.。
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson09 Leverage
Leverage is related to torque; leverage is a factor by which lever multiplies a force. The useful work done is the energy applied, which is force times distance. Therefore a small force applied over a long distance is the same amount of work as a large force applied over a small distance. The trick is converting the one into the other.The simplest device for creating leverage is the lever. A lever is a stick which rests on a fulcrum () near one end. When you push the long end of the stick down a long ways, the short end moves a small distance up with great force. With this device a man can easily lift several times his own weight.Other common devices that achieve leverage include the wrench, various pulley arrangements, a jack, and hydraulic brakes.For instance, in finance people think of money as "force." Given a relatively small initial amount of force (money), you can use that as collateral for a much larger loan, which gives you a larger amount of money (force) to throw around. Therefore in finance it is common to call debt "leverage."In accounting and finance, the amount of long-term debt that a company has in relation to its equity. The higher the ratio, the greater is the leverage. Leverage is generally measured by a variation of the debt-to-equity ratio, which is calculated as follows: Long-term liabilities/Total stockholders’ equity. A company’s optimal leverage depends on the stability of its earnings. A company with consistently high earnings can be more leveraged than a company with variable earnings, because it will consistently be more likely to make the required interest and principal payments.BusinessA profitable business with good credit and cash flow may be able to borrow at rates well below the rate at which they can earn money in their core business or other projects by utilizing the borrowed capital. Several methods are used to look at what rate of return a corporation can earn money. See return on assets and return on equity. Any time a business can earn more money than what they can borrow at, the corporation will be more profitable over the period of time in which they can do so.FinanceIn finance leverage takes the form of borrowing money and reinvesting it with the hope to earn a greater rate of return than the cost of interest. Leverage allows greater potential return to the investor than otherwise would have been available. The potential for loss is greater because if the investment becomes worthless, not only is that money lost, but the loan still needs to be repaid. A margin account is a common way of utilizing the concept of leverage in investing.Another form of creating leverage using financial instruments is through the use of options. The purchase of a call option on a security gives the buyer the right to purchase the underlying security at a given price in the future. If the price of the underlying security rises, the value of the call option will rise at a rate much greater than the value of the underlying security. However if the rate of the call option falls or does not rise, the call option may be worthless, involving a much greater loss than if the same money had been invested in the underlying instrument.Leverage and riskUtilizing leverage amplifies the potential gain from an investment or project, but also increases the potential loss. This increased risk may be perfectly acceptable or even necessary to reach the goals of the entity or person making the investment. In fact, precisely managing risk utilizing strategies including leverage and securities purchases, is the subject of a discipline known as financial engineering"Slippage"In a rising market, the compounding associated with a leveraged portfolio leads to greater gains; in a declining market, the compounding of a leveraged portfolio may lead to larger losses. However, in a flat market with volatility, the compounding of a leveraged portfolio will cause the portfolio to under perform an identical unleveraged portfolio. Because the percentage increase in a leveraged portfolio is higher by the same ratio as the decrease is higher.ExampleA 100 index going to 110 is a 10% increase. A 110 index going to 100 is a % decrease. In a 200% leveraged index it's a 20% increase, to 120, and a 18.17% (9.09*2) decrease to 98.2.If a target index gains 10% on one day before returning to the original level the next day, a 2.0 beta portfolio will lose 1.8% of its value, and a 1.25 beta portfolio will lose 0.3% of its value.Real worldDuring the 1970s the stock market were "flat". On 31-Dec-79 the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 838.74, on 19-Nov-69 it closed at 839.96 ([1] (/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=00&b=15&c=1969&d= 00&e=15&f=1980&g=d)). An unleveraged portfolio of DJIA would have ended with the same price as it began the decade (and would have lost value through inflation). A 200% leveraged portfolio holding the DJIA during that period would have lost all of its value.。
旅游管理专业英语（第二版）-JackF.Welch,Jr.
Jack F. W elch, Jr.John Francis "Jack" Welch Jr. (born November 19, 1935) was CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001.Jack Welch, a native of Salem, Massachusetts, received his B.S. degree in chemical engineering from the University of Massachusetts in 1957 and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in chemical engineering from the University of Illinois in 1958 and 1960.Mr. Welch joined GE in 1960 and was elected V ice President in 1972 and V ice Chairman in 1979. In 1981, he became the eighth Chairman and CEO in GE's 118-year history.Since Mr. Welch became Chairman, GE's market capitalization has grown from $12 billion in 1981 to more than $280 billion in 1998 — the largest in the world.Mr. Welch pioneered high-involvement workforce ideas such as Work Out and promoted speed, simplicity and self-confidence throughout GE. Coupled with Six Sigma quality and an emphasis on boundaryless behavior, these values enabled GE to harness the intellectual benefits of a multi-business enterprise, thus making the whole company greater than the sum of its parts. His early insistence that all GE businesses be first or second in their markets was instrumental in making GE a leading global competitor in industries ranging from jet engines to plastics and from locomotives to financial services and broadcasting (NBC). Today, GE is the world's largest diversified manufacturing, technology and services company, with 1997 revenues of more than $90.84 billion.Mr. Welch is a former chairman and a member of both the Business Council and the National Academy of Engineering and is a member of the Business Roundtable.Whisked by chopper from New Y ork City, Jack Welch arrives early at the General Electric Co. (GE) training center at Croton-on-Hudson. He scoots down to The Pit — the well of a bright, multi-tiered lecture hall — peels off his blue suit jacket, and drapes it over one of the swivel seats. This is face-to-face with Jack, not so much as the celebrated chairman and chief executive of GE, the company he has made the most valuable in the world, but rather as Professor Welch, coach and teacher to 71 high-potential managers attending a three-week development course. The class sits transfixed as Welch's laser-blue eyes scan the auditorium. He hardly appears professorial. With his squat, muscular, five-foot, eight-inch frame, pasty complexion, and Boston accent, the 62-year-old balding man looks and sounds more like the guy behind the wheel of a bus on Beacon Hill. And he isn't there to deliver a monologue to a polite group.For nearly four hours, he listens, lectures, cajoles, and questions. The managers push rightback, too. They grouse that despite the rhetoric about managing for the long term at GE, they are under too much pressure to produce short-term results. They say that for all the Welch talk about ''sharing best practices'' and ''boundaryless behavior,'' they are missing many opportunities to learn and sell services across the vast network of GE companies. Some worry that the company's gargantuan Six Sigma program, the largest quality initiative ever mounted in Corporate America, is allowing bureaucracy to creep back into GE.Pacing the floor with a bottle of water in hand, Welch passionately attacks each question.''Y ou can't grow long-term if you can't eat short-term,'' he states flatly. ''Anybody can manage short. Anybody can manage long. Balanc ing those two things is what management is.'' ''I think someone is smoking pot here,'' he quips about the complaint over the lack of synergy among GE units. ''We've got enormous sharing going on.''As for the concern over Six Sigma, Welch retorts: ''I don't give a damn if we get a little bureaucracy as long as we get the results. If it bothers you, yell at it. Kick it. Scream at it. Break it!''In this classroom, where Welch has appeared more than 250 times in the past 17 years to engage some 15,000 GE managers and executives, something extraordinary happens. The legendary chairman of GE, the take-no-prisoners tough guy who gets results at any cost, becomes human. His slight stutter, a handicap that has bedeviled him since childhood, makes him oddly vulnerable. The students see all of Jack here: the management theorist, strategic thinker, business teacher, and corporate icon who made it to the top despite his working-class background. No one leaves the room untouched.If leadership is an art, then surely Welch has proved himself a master painter. Few have personified corporate leadership more dramatically. Fewer still have so consistently delivered on the results of that leadership. For 17 years, while big companies and their chieftains tumbled like dominoes in an unforgiving global economy, Welch has led GE to one revenue and earnings record after another.''The two greatest corporate leaders of this century are Alfred Sloan of General Motors (GM) and Jack Welch of GE,'' says Noel Tichy, a longtime GE observer and University of Michigan management professor. '' And Welch would be the greater of the two because he set a new, contemporary paradigm for the corporation that is the model for the 21st century.'' It is a model that has delivered extraordinary growth, increasing the market value of GE from just $12 billion in 1981 to about $280 billion today. No one, not Microsoft's William H. Gates III or Intel's Andrew S. Grove, not Walt Disney's Michael D. Eisner or Berkshire Hathaway's Warren E. Buffett, not even the late Coca-Cola chieftain Roberto C. Goizueta or the late Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton has created more shareholder value than Jack Welch. So giddy are some Wall Street analysts at GE's prospects that they believe that when Welch leaves at the end of the year 2000, GE's stock could trade at $150 to $200 a share, up from $82 now, and the company could be worth $490 billion to $650 billion. ''This guy's legacy will be to create more shareholder value on the face of the planet than ever —forever,'' says Nicholas P. Heymann, a onetime GE auditor who follows the company for Prudential Securities.Of course, GE's success is hardly Welch's alone. The company boasts what most headhunters believe to be the most talent-rich management bench in the world. Gary C. Wendt has led GE Capital Corp. to extraordinary heights, where it contributes nearly 40% of the company's total earnings. Robert C. Wright has managed an astonishing turnaround at NBC, leading it to a fifthstraight year of double-digit earnings gains in 1997 and a No.1 position in prime-time ratings. Nor does Welch's magic work everywhere in GE. The huge appliance operation, for instance, saw operating earnings fall 39% last year, to $458 million, largely due to restructuring charges. Nonetheless, Welch has led and managed GE to nearly unprecedented prosperity.Much has been said and written about how Welch has transformed what was an old-line American industrial giant into a keenly competitive global growth engine, how he has astutely moved the once-Establishment maker of things into services. Welch has reshaped the company through more than 600 acquisitions and a forceful push abroad into newly emerging markets.Less well understood, however, is how Jack Welch is able to wield so much influence and power over the most far-flung, complex organization in all of American business. Many managers struggle daily to lead and motivate mere handfuls of people. Many CEOs wrestle to squeeze just average performance from companies a fraction of GE's size. How does Welch, who sits atop a business empire with $304 billion in assets, $89.3 billion in sales, and 276,000 employees scattered in more than 100 countries around the globe, do it?He does it through sheer force of personality, coupled with an unbridled passion for winning the game of business and a keen attention to details many chieftains would simply overlook. He does it because he encourages near-brutal candor in the meetings he holds to guide the company through each work year. And he does it because, above all else, he's a fierce believer in the power of his people.Welch's profound grasp on General Electric stems from knowing the company and those who work for it like no other. First off, there are the thousands of ''students'' he has encountered in his classes at the Croton-on-Hudson campus, which everyone at GE just calls Crotonville. Then there's the way he spends his time: More than half is devoted to ''people'' issues. But most important, he has created something unique at a big company: informality.Welch likes to call General Electric the ''grocery store.'' The metaphor, however quirky for such a colossus, allows Welch to mentally roll up his sleeves, slip into an apron, and get behind the counter. There, he can get to know every employee and serve every customer. ''What's important at the grocery store is just as important in engines or medical systems,'' says Welch. ''If the customer isn't satisfied, if the stuff is getting stale, if the shelf isn't right, or if the offerings aren't right, it's the same thing. Y ou manage it like a small organization. Y ou don't get hung up on zeros.''Y ou don't get hung up on formalities, either. If the hierarchy that Welch inherited, with its nine layers of management, hasn't been completely nuked, it has been severely damaged. Everyone, from secretaries to chauffeurs to factory workers, calls him Jack. Everyone can expect — at one time or another — to see him scurry down an aisle to pick through the merchandise on a bottom shelf or to reach into his pocket and surprise with an unexpected bonus. ''The story about GE that hasn't been told is the value of an informal place,'' says Welch. ''I think it's a big thought. I don't think people have ever figured out that being informal is a big deal.''Making the company ''informal'' means violating the chain of command, communicating across layers, paying people as if they worked not for a big company but for a demanding entrepreneur where nearly everyone knows the boss. It has as much to do with Welch's charisma as it has to do with the less visible rhythms of the company — its meetings and review sessions —and how he uses them to great advantage.When he became CEO, he inherited a series of obligatory corporate events that he has sincetransformed into meaningful levers of leadership. These get-togethers — from the meeting in early January with GE's top 500 executives in Boca Raton, Fl, to the monthly sessions in Croton-on-Hudson — allow him to set and abruptly change the corporation's agenda, to challenge and test the strategies and the people that populate each of GE's dozen divisions, and to make his formidable presence and opinions known to all.Welch also understands better than most the value of surprise. Every week, there are unexpected visits to plants and offices, hurriedly scheduled luncheons with managers several layers below him, and countless handwritten notes to GE people that suddenly churn off their fax machines, revealing his bold yet neat handwriting. All of it is meant to lead, guide, and influence the behavior of a complex organization.''We're pebbles in an ocean, but he knows about us,'' says Brian Nailor, a forty-something marketing manager of industrial products who was at the Croton-on-Hudson session. ''He's able to get people to give more of themselves because of who he is. He lives the American dream. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He got himself out of the pile. He didn't just show up.''In 2 1/2 years, Welch will lose that kick when he steps down as chairman and CEO of General Electric after nearly 20 years at the top, as he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 65. No one, not even Welch, knows who his successor will be. Nonetheless, Welch's leadership style has become so embedded in the organization that even his retirement is unlikely to erode his impact.As for what Welch will do next, he doesn't hesitate to answer the question. While he will consider teaching an occasional business course, he has no intention of amassing corporate directorships. Instead, he intends to play golf with his second wife, Jane. Clearly, he will miss the job, the action, and the fun. ''A lot,'' he says, ''a lot. But succession is part of the rebirth of an organization. I'm not going to be around. I am not going to be near the board. It's a free swing for a new team.'' But can anyone ever run this company with the power and influence of a Jack Welch? Don't count on it。
段开成-旅游管理英语Lesson-05
n. Strong attractiveness or appeal. • This
definition may be accurate, but it fails to capture the excitement and intrigue that devoted followers and (especially in the USA) it they students of leadership feel when refers to a building or room see a great leadercontaining in action. it small Also, statues or similar memorials of people gives us few clues about what who have become famous in a particular organizational leaders doactivity. or what it really takes to gain entry into Fortune’s Hall of Fame for U. S. Business Leadership.
2
The definition of Leadership
Five importance potential sources of power Traditional approaches to studying leadership Three general categories of leadership behavior
• Leadership seems to be the marshaling of skills possessed by a majority but used by a minority.
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson11 Privatization
PrivatizationPrivatization (sometimes privatisation, denationalization, or, especially in India, disinvestment) is the process of transferring property, from public ownership to private ownership and/or transferring the management of a service or activity from the government to the private sector. The opposite process is nationalization or municipalization.OverviewPrivatization is frequently associated with industrial or service-oriented enterprises, such as mining, manufacturing or power generation, but it can also apply to any asset, such as land, roads, or even rights to water. In recent years, government services such as health, sanitation, and education have been particularly targeted for privatization in many countries.In theory, privatization helps establish a "free market", as well as fostering capitalist competition, which its supporters argue will give the public greater choice at a competitive price. Conversely, socialists view privatization negatively, arguing that entrusting private businesses with control of essential services reduces the public's control over them and leads to excessive cost cutting in order to achieve profit and a resulting poor quality service.In general, nationalization was common during the immediate post-World War 2period, but privatization became a more dominant economic trend (especially within the United States and the United Kingdom) during the 1980s and '90s. This trend of privatization has often been characterized as part of a "global wave" of neoliberal policies, and some observers argue that this was greatly influenced by the policies of Reagan and Thatcher. The term "privatization" was coined in 1948 and is thought to have been popularized by The Economist during the '80s.Arguments for and againstSee also: arguments for and against public ownership and the welfare stateForAdvocates of privatization argue that governments run businesses poorly for the following reasons:•Performance. The government may only be interested in improving a company in cases when the performance of the company becomes politically sensitive.•Improvements. Conversely, the government may put off improvements due to political sensitivity — even in cases of companies that are run well.•Corruption. The company may become prone to corruption; company employees may be selected for political reasons rather than business ones.•Goals. The government may seek to run a company for social goals rather than business ones (this is conversely seen as a negative effect by critics of privatization).•Capital. It is claimed by supporters of privatization, that privately-held companies can more easily raise capital in the financial markets than publicly-owned ones.•Unprofitable companies survive. Governments may "bail out" poorly run businesses with money when, economically, it may be better to let the business fold.•Unprofitable units survive. Parts of a business which persistently lose money are more likely to be shut down in a private business.•Political influence. Nationalized industries can be prone to interference from politicians for political or populist reasons. Such as, for example, making an industry buy supplies from local producers, when that may be more expensive than buying from abroad, forcing an industry to freeze its prices/fares to satisfy the electorate or control inflation, increasing its staffing to reduce unemployment, or moving its operations to marginal constituencies; it is argued that such measures can cause nationalized industries to become uneconomic and uncompetitive.In particular, the Performance, Goals, and Unprofitable companies survive reasons are held to be the most important because money is a scarce resource: if government-run companies are losing money, or if they are not as profitable as possible, this money is unavailable to other, more efficient firms. Thus, the efficient firms will have a harder time finding capital, which makes it difficult for them to raise production and create more employment.The basic argument given for privatization is that governments have few incentives to ensure that the enterprises they own are well run. On the other hand, private owners, it is said, do have such an incentive: they will lose money if businesses are poorly run. The theory holds that, not only will the enterprise's clients see benefits, but as the privatized enterprise becomes more efficient, the whole economy will benefit. Ideally, privatization propels the establishment of social, organizational and legal infrastructures and institutions that are essential for an effective market economy.Another argument for privatization is, that to privatize a company which was non-profitable (or even generated severe losses) when state-owned means taking the burden of financing it off the shoulders and pockets of taxpayers, as well as free some national budget resources which may be subsequently used for something else. Especially, proponents of the laissez-faire capitalism will argue, that it is both unethical and inefficient for the state to force taxpayers to fund the business that can't work for itself. Also, they hold that even if the privatized company happens to be worse off, it is due to the normal market process of penalizing businesses that fail to cope with the market reality or that simply are not preferred by the customers.Many privatization plans are organized as auctions where bidders compete to offer the state the highest price, creating monetary income that can be used by the state.AgainstOpponents of privatization dispute the claims made by proponents of privatization, especially the ones concerning the alleged lack of incentive for governments to ensure that the enterprises they own are well run, on the basis of the idea that governments must answer to the people. It is arguedthat a government which runs nationalized enterprises poorly will lose public support and votes, while a government which runs those enterprises well will gain public support and votes. Thus, democratic governments, under this argument, do have an incentive to maximize efficiency in nationalized companies, due to the pressure of future elections.Furthermore, opponents of privatization argue that it is undesirable to let private entrepreneurs own public institutions for the following reasons:•Profiteering. Private companies do not have any goal other than to maximize profit.•Corruption. Buyers of public property have often, most notably in Russia, used insider positions to enrich themselves - and civil servants in the selling positions - grossly.•No public accountability. The public does not have any control or oversight of private companies.•Cuts in essential services. If a government-owned company providing an essential service (such as water supply) to all citizens is privatized, its new owner(s) could stop providing this service to those who are too poor to pay, or to regions where this service is unprofitable.•Inefficiency. A centralized enterprise is generally more cost effective than multiple smaller ones. Therefore splitting up a public company into smaller private chunks will reduce efficiency.•Natural monopolies. Privatization will not result in true competition if a natural monopoly exists.•Concentration of wealth. Profits from successful enterprises end up in private pockets instead of being available for the common good.•Insecurity. Nationalized industries are usually guaranteed against bankruptcy by the state.They can therefore borrow money at a lower interest rate to reflect the lower risk of loan default to the lender. This does not apply to private industries.•Downsizing. In cases where public services or utilities are privatized, this can create a conflict of interest between profit and maintaining a sufficient service. A private company may be tempted to cut back on maintenance or staff training etc, to maximize profits.•Waste of risk capital. Public services are per definition low-risk ventures that don't need scarce risk capital that is needed better elsewhere.•Not all good things are profitable. A public service may provide public goods that, while important, are of little market value, such as the cultural goods produced by public television and radio.In practical terms, there are many pitfalls to privatization. Privatization has rarely worked out ideally because it is so intertwined with political concerns, especially in post-communist economies or in developing nations where corruption is endemic. Even in nations with advanced market economies like Britain, where privatization has been popular with governments (if not all of the public) since the Thatcher era, problems center on the fact that privatization programs are very politically sensitive, raising many legitimate political debates. Who decides how to set values on state enterprises? Does the state accept cash or for government-provided coupons? Should the state allow the workers or managers of the enterprise to gain control over their own workplace?Should the state allow foreigners to buy privatized enterprises? Which levels of government can privatize which assets and in what quantities?In the short-term, privatization can potentially cause tremendous social upheaval, as privatizations are often always accompanied by large layoffs. If a small firm is privatized in a large economy, the effect may be negligible. If a single large firm or many small firms are privatized at once and upheaval results, particularly if the state mishandles the privatization process, a whole nation's economy may plunge into despair. For example, in the Soviet Union, many state industries were not profitable under the new system, with the cost of inputs exceeding the cost of outputs. After privatization, sixteen percent of the workforce became unemployed in both East Germany and Poland. The social consequences of this process have been staggering, impoverishing millions, but to little social benefit in many post-Communist countries. In the process, Russia has gone from having one of the world's most equal distributions of wealth in the Soviet era to one of the least today. There has been a dearth of large-scale investment to modernize Soviet industries and businesses still trade with each other by means of barter.In speaking about the transformations in the post-communist countries, however, one must take into account the specifics of the communist and socialist regime which ruled those countries for decades. There are no easy answers regarding those issues. Some argue that it was the cumulation of mismanagement and inattention to the market realities that lead to such fatal consequences, given that most of the assets of those companies had not renovated for decades and their technology was outdated. Further, opening of the markets for import of the products which, in many cases, offered higher quality or lower prices, has given the consumers new array of choices to compete with the old national industries.Privatization in the absence of a transparent market system may lead to assets being held by a few very wealthy people, a so-called oligarchy, at the expense of the general population. This may discredit the process of economic reform in the opinion of the public and outside observers. This has occurred notably in Russia, Mexico, and Brazil.Moreover, where free-market economics are rapidly imposed, a country may not have the bureaucratic tools necessary to regulate it. This has been a pertinent problem in Russia and in many South American countries, although some other Eastern European countries, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, fared better in this respect, partly through the support of the European Union. Paradoxically, while Britain has long had a market economy, it also faced this issue after it privatized utilities in the Thatcher era; Britain's utilities regulator was often criticized as being ineffective.Most economists argue that if a privatized company is a natural monopoly, or exists in a market which is prone to serious market failures, consumers may be worse off when the company is in private hands. This seems to have been the case with rail privatization in the UK and in New Zealand; in both countries, public disaffection has led to government intervention. In cases where privatization has been successful, it is because genuine competition has arisen. A good example of this is long-distance telecommunications in Europe, where the former state-owned enterprises losttheir monopolies, competitors entered the market, and tariffs for international calls fell dramatically.British Rail is an example of privatization program that has been deemed a failure and largely abandoned. The track-owning company has been effectively repossessed by the British government, and many of the train-running companies are at risk of having their concession removed on the grounds that they fail to provide adequate services. One of them, Connex, actually had its franchise cut short in June 2003 by the government for what the Strategic Rail Authority called "poor financial management." However, in other cases, particularly in poor countries, privatized enterprises cannot be renationalized so easily. These governments do not have the political will to do it, and there is strong pressure exerted by international lending agencies to maintain the privatization.If the privatization does not fully transfer property rights to the newly private firm, there may be disincentives for the firm to make capital investments. This was a particular problem in the case of the privatized rail track-leasing company in the United Kingdom.Many have argued that the strategy of privatization in Russia differed from those seen in more successful post-communist economies such as Hungary and Poland. The defects of the process in Russia, combined with capital market liberalization and failure to establish institutional infrastructure, have led to incentives for capital flight, contributing to post-communist economic contraction in Russia.Likewise, countries such as Argentina, which embarked upon far-reaching privatization programs, selling off valuable, profitable industries such as energy companies, have seen the rapid impoverishment of their governments. Revenue streams which could previously be directed towards public spending suddenly dried up, resulting in a severe drop in government services.Privatization can also have a ripple effect on local economies. State-owned enterprises are often required by law to patronize national or local suppliers. Privatized companies, in general, do not have that restriction, and hence will shift purchasing elsewhere. Bolivia underwent a rigorous privatization program in the mid 1990s, with disastrous impact on the local economy.The Wall Street Journal has reported that the World Bank, historically a supporter of denationalization in developing countries, has also begun to voice concerns over privatization. It no longer believes that privatization should be recommended in all cases. Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has written a book on the subject called Globalization and its Discontents. Mexico's President Vicente Fox has come under criticism for his plans to privatize Mexico's electrical power generating industry.Finally, it has been argued that the Chinese economic reform has illustrated that economic reform can take place in the absence of large-scale privatization.The above arguments have centered on whether or not it is practical to apply privatization in the real world, but some reject the profit incentive, the theoretical basis for privatization, itself. Someopponents of privatization argue that because the driving motive of a private company is profit, not public service, the public welfare may be sacrificed to the demands of profitability. There is no definitive answer, but it is very often argued that essential services, such as water, electricity, health, primary education, and so forth, should be left in public hands. This argument, of course, relies on the view on state one holds, regarding what it should or should not be obligated to do. What is seen as desirable by a socialist may not be by a supporter of capitalism, and vice versa.OutcomesAcademic studies show that in competitive industries with well-informed consumers, privatization consistently improves efficiency. Such efficiency gains mean a one-off increase in GDP, but through improved incentives to innovate and reduce costs also tend to raise the rate of economic growth. The type of industries to which this generally applies include manufacturing and retailing. Although typically there are social costs associated with these efficiency gains, these can be dealt with by appropriate government support through redistribution and perhaps retraining.In sectors that are natural monopolies or public services, the results of privatization are much more mixed. In general, if the performance of the existing public sector operation is sufficiently bad, privatization will tend to improve matters. However, much of this may be due to the imposition of related reforms such as improved accounting systems, regulatory systems, and increased financing, rather than privatization itself. Indeed, some studies show that the greatest gains from privatization are achieved in the pre-privatization period as reforms are made to prepare for the transfer to private hands. In economic theory, a private monopoly behaves much the same as a public one.Alternatives to privatizationCorporatizationMain article: corporatizationNew Zealand has experienced the privatization of its telecommunication industry, its railway system and part of its electricity market. The process of privatization was halted in 1999 when the New Zealand Labour Party won the election. Although most of the electricity generation and the electricity transmission system remain state owned, the government has corporatized this sector as well as New Zealand Post, the Airways Corporation and other smaller state-owned enterprises (SOEs).The effect of corporatization has been to convert the state departments into public companies and interpose commercial boards of directors between the shareholding ministers and the management of the enterprises. To some extent, this model has enabled efficiencies to be gained without ownership of strategic organizations being transferred. This has been the policy of the People's Republic of China.Notable privatizationsSee also: List of privatizationsPrivatization programmes have been undertaken in many countries across the world, falling into three major groups. The first is privatization programmes conducted by transition economies in eastern Europe after 1989in the process of instituting a market economy. The second is privatization programmes carried out in developing countries under the influence of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. The third is privatization programmes carried out by developed country governments, the most comprehensive probably being those of New Zealand and the United Kingdom in the 1980s and 1990s.Anti-privatization campaignsPrivatization proposals in key public service sectors such as water and electricity are in many cases strongly opposed by opposition political parties and civil society groups. Usually campaigns involve demonstrations and political means; sometimes they may become violent (eg Cochabamba Riots of 2000 in Bolivia; Arequipa, Peru, June 2002). Opposition is often strongly supported by trade unions. Opposition is usually strongest to water privatization- as well as Cochabamba (2000), recent examples include Ghana and Uruguay(2004). In the latter case a civil-society-initiated referendum banning water privatization was passed in October 2004.See also。
《旅游管理专业英语》(第二版) 讲义 Lesson11 Enron Corporation
Enron CorporationEnron CorporationEnron Corporation is an American corporation based in Houston, Texas, that traded in energy and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December 2001. Enron's collapse stunned most investors and analysts because Enron, the seventh largest corporation in the United States, had long reported huge earnings. Subsequent investigations revealed that Enron had inflated its earnings by hiding its debt and losses in subsidiary partnerships. Although some of the company's top executives made huge profits as Enron fell apart, many of its employees saw their retirement savings in Enron's 401(k) plan wiped out by the collapse of Enron's share price.Fraudulent accounting techniques allowed it to be listed as the seventh largest company in the United States, and it was expected to dominate the trading it had virtually invented in communications, power and weather securities. Instead it became the largest corporate failure in history, and became emblematic of institutionalized and well-planned corporate fraud.Its European operations filed for bankruptcy on November 30, 2001and it sought Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. on December 2.GrowthEnron was formed in 1985 by the merger of Houston Natural Gas and InterNorth, engineered by Houston Natural Gas CEO Kenneth Lay. It was originally involved in the transmission and distribution of electricity and gas throughout the United States and the development, construction and operation of power plants, pipelines, etc. worldwide.Enron grew wealthy through its pioneering marketing and promotion of power and communications bandwidth commodities, and related risk management derivatives as tradable securities, including exotic items such as weather derivatives.As a result Enron was named "America's Most Innovative Company" by Fortune magazine for five consecutive years, from 1996 to 2000. It was on Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work for in America" list of 2000, and was legendary even amongst the elite workers of the financial world for the opulence of its offices.FallIts global reputation was undermined, however, by persistent rumours of bribery and political pressure to secure contracts in Central and South America, in Africa and in the Philippines. Especially controversial was the $30 billion contract with the Indian MSEB (Maharashtra State Electricity Board), where it is alleged that Enron officials used political connections within the Bush administration to exert pressure on the board. On January 9, 2002the United States Department of Justice announced it was going to pursue a criminal investigation of Enron and Congressional hearings began on January 24.After a series of scandals involving irregular accounting procedures bordering on fraud involving it and its accounting firm Arthur Andersen, Enron stood at the verge of undergoing the largest bankruptcy in history by mid-November 2001. A white knight rescue attempt by a similiar, smaller energy company, Dynegy, was not viable.The fall of the value of investors' equity per share in Enron during 2001 was from US$85 to 30 US cents. As Enron was considered a blue chip stock, this was an unprecedented and disastrous event in the financial world. Enron's plunge in value occurred after it was revealed that many of its profits and revenue were the result of deals with Special Purpose Entity(limited partnerships which it controlled). The result of this is that many of the losses that Enron encountered were not reported in its financial statements.FalloutThe long term implications of Enron's collapse are unclear, but there is considerable political fall-out both in the US and in the UK relating to the monies Enron gave to political figures (around US$6m since 1990). The fallout from the scandal quickly extended beyond Enron and all those formerly associated with it. The trial of Arthur Andersen on obstruction of justice charges related to Enron also helped to expose its accounting fraud at WorldCom. The subsequent bankruptcy of that telecommunications firm quickly set off a wave of other accounting scandals. This wave engulfed many companies, exposing high-level corruption, accounting errors, and insider trading. Though at the time of its collapse Enron was the largest bankruptcy in history, since then it has been eclipsed in terms of scale by the collapse of Worldcom.Former Enron CFO Andy Fastow, alleged mastermind behind Enron's complex network of offshore partnerships and questionable accounting practices, was indicted on November 1, 2002 by a Federal grand jury in Houston on 78 counts including fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy. He and his wife Lea Fastow, former Assistant Treasurer, accepted a plea agreement on January 14, 2004. Andrew Fastow will serve a ten-year prison sentence and forfeit $23.8 million, while Lea Fastow will serve a five-month prison sentence and a year of supervised release, including five months of house arrest; in return, both will provide testimony against other Enron corporate officers.John Formey, former energy trader who invented various strategies such as the "Death Star", was indicted in December, 2002 on 11 counts of conspiracy and wire fraud. His trial is scheduled for October 12, 2004. His supervisors, Timothy Belden and Jeffrey Richmond both have pleadedguilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud and currently are aiding prosecutors in investigating this scandal.Jeff Skilling was arrested on February 11, 2004by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection to the fraud charges against Enron.On July 7, 2004, Kenneth Lay was indicted by a Federal Grand jury for his involvement in the scandal. He pled not guilty in court on July 9.This event also lead to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, signed into law on 30 July 2002, which is considered the most significant change to federal securities laws in the United States since the New Deal.VariousThe baseball stadium Enron Field of Houston, Texas, which was named after the company, was renamed to "Astros Field" to avoid negative publicity. The park's name was later changed to Minute Maid Park. The Houston Astros had to pay Enron $5 million to get out of the deal.David Tonsall, a former Enron employee, became a rapper under the name N Run, which is a play on the name "Enron" and also stands for "never run". He released his CD Corporate America on December 3, 2003.The "Women of Enron" were the subject of a pictorial in the August 2002issue of Playboy magazine.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Definition of power (sociology)Sociologists usually define power as the ability to impose one's will on others, even if those others resist in some way."By power is meant that opportunity existing within a social relationship which permitsone to carry out one's own will even against resistance and regardless of the basis onwhich this opportunity rests."Max Weber, Basic Concepts in SociologyThe imposition need not involve coercion (force or threat of force). Thus "power" in the sociological sense subsumes both physical power and political power, including many of the types listed at power. In some ways it more closely resembles what everyday English-speakers call "influence".More generally, one could define "power" as the more or less unilateral ability (real or perceived) or potential to bring about significant change, usua lly in people’s lives, through the actions of oneself or of others.The exercise of power seems endemic to humans as social and gregarious beings.Analysis and operation of powerPower manifests itself in a relational manner: one cannot meaningfully say (pace advocates of empowerment) that a particular social actor "has power" without also specifying the other parties to the social relationship.Power almost always operates reciprocally, but usually not equally reciprocally. To control others, one must have control over things that they desire or need, but one can rarely exercise that control without a measure of reverse control - larger, smaller or equal - also existing. For example, an employer usually wields considerable power over his workers because he has control over wages, working conditions, hiring and firing. The workers, however, hold some reciprocal power: they may leave, work more or less diligently, group together to form a union, and so on.Because power operates both relationally and reciprocally, sociologists speak of the balance of power between parties to a relationship: all parties to all relationships have some power: the sociological examination of power concerns itself with discovering and describing the relative strengths: equal or unequal, stable or subject to periodic change. Sociologists usually analyse relationships in which the parties have relatively equal or nearly equal power in terms of constraint rather than of power. Thus 'power' has a connotation of unilateralism. If this were not so, then all relationships could be described in terms of 'power', and its meaning would be lost.Even in structuralist social theory, power appears as a process, an aspect to an ongoing social relationship, not as a fixed part of social structure.One can sometimes distinguish primary power: the direct and personal use of force for coercion; and secondary power, which may involve the threat of force or social constraint, most likely involving third-party exercisers of delegated power.Types and sources of powerPower may be held through:•Delegated authority (for example in the democratic process)•Personal or group charisma•Ascribed power (acting on perceived or assumed abilities, whether these bear testing or not)•Expertise (Ability, Skills) (the power of medicine to bring about health, another famous example would be "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king) •Persuasion•Knowledge (granted or withheld, shared or kept secret)•Money (financial influence, control of labour, control through ownership, etc)•Force (violence, military might, coercion).•Moral suasion•Application of non-violence•Operation of group dynamics•Social influence of tradition (compare ascribed power)Theories of powerThe thought of Friedrich Nietzsche underlies much 20th century analysis of power. Nietzsche disseminated ideas on the "will to power," which he saw as the domination of other humans as much as the exercise of control over one's environment.Some schools of psychology, notably that associated with Alfred Adler, place power dynamics at the core of their theory (where orthodox Freudians might place sexuality).MarxismIn the Marxist tradition, Antonio Gramsci elaborated the role of cultural hegemony in ideology as a means of bolstering the power of capitalism and of the nation-state. Gramsci saw power as something exercised in a direct, overt manner, and the power of the bourgeois as keeping the proletariat in their place.FeminismFeminist analysis of the patriarchy often concentrates on issues of power: note the "Rape Mantra": Rape is about power, not sex.Some feminists distinguish "power-over" (influence on other people) from "power-to" (ability to perform).FoucaultOne of the broader modern views of the importance of power in human activity comes from the work of Michel Foucault, who has said, "Power is everywhere...because it comes from everywhere." (Aldrich, Robert and Wotherspoon, Gary (Eds.), 2001)Foucault's works analyze the link between power and knowledge. He outlines a form of covert power that works through people rather than only on them. Foucault claims belief systems gain momentum (and hence power) as more people come to accept the particular views associated with that belief system as common knowledge. Such belief systems define their figures of authority, such as medical doctors or priests in a church. Within such a belief system -- or discourse -- ideas crystallize as to what is right and what is wrong, what is normal and what is deviant. Within a particular belief system certain views, thoughts or actions become unthinkable. These ideas, being considered undeniable "truths", come to define a particular way of seeing the world, and the particular way of life associated with such "truths" becomes normalized. This subtle form of power lacks rigidity, and other discourses can contest it. Indeed, power itself lacks any concrete form, occurring as a locus of struggle. Resistance, through defiance, defines power and hence becomes possible through power. Without resistance, power is absent. This view 'grants' individuality to people and other agencies, even if it is assumed a given agency is part of what power works in or upon. Still, in practice Foucault often seems to deny individuals this agency, which is contrasted with sovereignty (the old model of power as efficacious and rigid).Deconstruction often works to reveal hidden power structures and relationships."One needs to be nominalistic, no doubt: power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society." (History of Sexuality, p.93)"Domination" is not "that solid and global kind of domination that one person exercises over others, or one group over another, but the manifold forms of domination that can be exercised within society." (ibid, p.96)"One should try to locate power at the extreme of its exercise, where it is always less legal in character." (ibid, p.97)"The analysis [of power] should not attempt to consider power from its internal point of view and...should refrain from posing the labyrinthine and unanswerable question: 'Who then has power and what has he in mind? What is the aim of someone who possesses power?' Instead, it is a case of studying power at the point where its intention, if it has one, is completely invested in its real and effective practices." (ibid, p.97)"Let us ask...how things work at the level of on-going subjugation, at the level of those continous and uninterrupted processes which subject our bodies, govern our gestures, dictate our behaviours, etc....we should try to discover how it is that subjects are gradually, progressively, really and materially constituted through a multiplicity of organisms, forces, energies, materials, desires, thoughts, etc. We should try to grasp subjection in its material instance as a constitution of subjects." (ibid, p.97)TofflerAlvin Toffler's Powershift argues that the three main kinds of power are violence, wealth, and knowledge with other kinds of power being variations of these three (typically knowledge).Each successive kind of power represents a more flexible kind of power. Violence can only be used negatively, to punish. Wealth can be used both negatively (by withholding money) and positively (by advancing/spending money). Knowledge can be used in these ways but, additionally, can be used in a transformative way. For example, one can share knowledge on agriculture to ensure that everyone is capable of supplying himself and his family of food. Also, allied nations with a shared identity form with the spread of religious or political philosophies.Toffler argues that the very nature of power is currently shifting. Throughout history, power has often shifted from one group to another; however, at this time, the dominant form of power is changing. During the Industrial Revolution, power shifted from a nobility acting primarily through violence to industrialists and financiers acting through wealth. Of course, the nobility used wealth just as the industrial elite used violence, but the dominant form of power shifted from violence to wealth. Today, a Third Wave of shifting power is taking place with wealth being overtaken by knowledge.Unmarked CategoriesThe idea of unmarked categories originated in feminism. The theory analyses the culture of the powerful. The powerful comprise those people in society with easy access to resources, those who can exercise power without considering their actions. For the powerful, their culture seems obvious; for the powerless, on the other hand, it remains out of reach, élite and expensive.The unmarked category can form the identifying mark of the powerful. The unmarked category becomes the standard against which to measure everything else. For most American readers, it is posited that if a protagonist's race is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is Caucasian; if a sexual identity is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is heterosexual; if the gender of a body is not indicated, will be assumed by the reader that it is male; if a disability is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is able bodied, just as a set of examples.One can often overlook unmarked categories. Whiteness forms an unmarked category not commonly visible to the powerful, as they often fall within this category. The unmarked category becomes the norm, with the other categories relegated to deviant status. Social groups can applythis view of power to race, gender, and disability without modification: the able body is the neutral body; the man is the normal status.Representation/CounterpowerGilles Deleuze, a French theorist, compared voting for political representation with being taken hostage. A representational government assumes that people can be divided into categories with distinct shared interests. The representative is regarded as embodying the interests of the group. Many social movements have been successful in gaining access to governments: the working class, women, young people and ethnic minorities are part of the government in many nation-states. However, there is no government where the government represents the population along the characteristics of the categories.The problem of finding suitable representatives relates to an individual's membership of different categories at the same time. The only truly representative government for a population is the population itself. These ideas have become popular in social movements for global justice. The logic of government open to all underpins the social forums (such as the World Social Forum) that have developed in contradistinction to the forums of the powerful. These alternative forms are sometimes called counter-power.Participation/LiberationThis view appears in many projects of social change, but its founder Paulo Freire is largely unknown. Freire assumes that people carry archives of knowledge within them. In particular he rejects the idea that people remain ignorant unless they have learned to communicate using the culture of the powerful. The person is seen as part of a culture circle with its own view of reality, based on the circumstances of everyday living.Dialogue can bring about social change. Such dialogue directly opposes the monologue of the culture of the powerful. Dialogue expands the understanding of the world rather than teaching a correct understanding. The process of social change starts with action, on which the group then reflects. Commonly, more action of some kind then results...See also•authority•charisma and charismatic authority•domination•oppression and hierarchy of oppression•power (international)•social class•social statusSource•Aldrich, Robert and Wotherspoon, Gary (Eds.) (2001). Who's Who in Contemporary Gay & Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day. New York: Routledge. ISBN 041522974X.。