American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) and Violence Against Literature review

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) and Violence Against Women in US - Literature review Example In this paper, therefore, the dynamics of violence against women will be judged with reference to socio-economic pattern of the USA. In Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the United Nations (1993) defined violence as â€Å"any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life† (Article 1). Decoding this definition reveals the fact that violence against women includes all types of physical, verbal and sexual assaults that can cause harm to the physical body, sense of trust, of liberty and that of private life of women (Runyan & Peterson, 2013; Alhabib, Nur & Jones, 2010). In the USA, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was established in 1994 in order to create a protective shield, restricting rise in violence against women in the country. The VAWA (1994) defined violence as the exertion of any physical force intended to cause an injury or abuse to women. Such definitions ar e applicable regardless of nationality, age, racial orientation and ethnicity of women. In the USA, more than 2 million women are either physically assaulted or raped by their intimate partners (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Matthews, 2004; Grovert, 2008). Alhabib, Nur, and Jones (2010) found that â€Å"the lifetime prevalence of domestic violence† changes significantly with that of geographic locations across the USA. For example, â€Å"the lifetime prevalence of domestic violence† is just 1.9% in Washington, while it is more than 68% in case of countryside in the USA. In the context of the USA, physical violence is probably the most common type of violence that is committed against women (Turner, 2002). In case of physical violence, one person intentionally hurts physical parts of woman that can cause outcomes such as, murder, femicide

Criteria For The Project Success Management Essay

Criteria For The Project Success Management Essay Lundin and Soderholm (1995) illustrates the project as a temporary organization and assert the time conception as one of the four distinguishing features of temporary organizations from permanent organizations (task, team and transition are other three distinguishing features). Cleland and King in 1983 (cited in Cooke-Davies, T. J. 2001) adopted a similar approach by the following project definition: A complex effort to achieve a specific objective within a schedule and budget target, which typically cuts across organisational lines, is unique, and is usually not repetitive within the organisation. Moreover, recent definitions expanded the project definition to include the product and /or service as the project outcomes. For example Duncan (1996) defines project as A temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product or service. Temporary means that the project has a definite ending point and unique means that the product or service differs in some distinguishing way from all similar products or services. However, as expectations from projects increase, the definitions for project evolved to reflect this. Thus, Turner and Mà ¼ller (2003) incorporate the idea of beneficial change that product of the project is expected to deliver, to the project definition. Thus, they define a project as a temporary organisation that aims to create a unique service or product that brings added value or delivers beneficial change (Turner and Muller, 2003). Eventhough, there are various project definitions that have been accumulated for almost 50 years, the review of literature revealed that defined start and end, a common objective and complex set of activities are the three most common features that are shared by every project and thus present in almost every project definition. 2.2 Project Success: Although project success is a core project management concept, a review of the project management literature reveals that there is no standardized definition of a project success in the project management literature (Baccarini, 1999). The success of a project is perceived differently by different success assessors (Shenhar et al., 2001). Therefore, as Prabhakar (2008, p. 3) noted the only agreement seems to be the disagreement on what constitutes project success. According to Pinto Slevin (1988) based on their study conducted with over 650 project managers, the project success is not only meeting cost, schedule, and performance requirements rather it requires satisfaction of more complex specifications, such as client satisfaction. Baker, Murphy and Fisher (1983, 1988 as cited in Prabhakar, 2008 and Cooke-Davies, 2001) discuss that client satisfaction has been achieved together with the end result has a vital influence on the perceived success or failure of projects (Prabhakar, 2008 ). In a similar fashion, Baker, Murphy and Fisher (1983, 1988 as cited in Prabhakar, 2008, p.4) states that In the long run, what really matters is whether the parties associated with, and affected by, a project are satisfied. Good schedule and cost performance means very little in the face of a poor performing end product De Wit (1988), on the contrary, defines project success as the assessment of project outcomes against cost, time and quality (as cited in Cooke-Davies, 2001 and Prabhakar, 2008). However, he points out to a distinction between the project success and project management success, which he defines as measurement of project outcomes against the overall project objectives that will be discussed by most of the researchers interested in this subject area. Furthermore, another attempt at developing a viable foundation for project success definition was by Baccarini (1999), who attempts to contribute to this gap in the literature by his logical framework method (LFM). The LFM model distinguishes between four levels of project objectives, namely goal, purpose, output, and input, provides a comprehensive framework for defining, as well as, comprehending the project success concept. Baccarini (1999), just as some of his colleagues, based his work on De Wits (1988) a decade old research. Similarl y, Baccarini (1999) differentiates between project management success and the product success, instead of project success. Product success is related with goals and objective, while project management success is related with the project outputs and inputs. On the other hand, another stream of researchers, including Pinto and Slevin (1987), Belassi and Tukel (1996), Lim and Mohamed (1999) prefer not to distinguish between project management success and project success as two distinct concepts rather consider project management success as being part of and contributing to project success. Lim and Mohamed (1999) took a further step and conducted a study to determine criteria for assessing project success by different stakeholders. Since as Baccarini (1999) notes that criteria for assessing project success has vital importance in preventing the project and its team members from holding different views on project success which contributes to project failure. Therefore, it is fundamental to determine and agree upon the criteria satisfying various stakeholders, who have different perceptions of project success. 2.3 Criteria for the Project Success: According to Lim and Mohamed (1999, p.243), Success criteria is defined as the set of principles or standards by which project success can be judged. Early research on project success criteria adopted the so-called Iron Triangle of time, budget and quality as the set of principles for evaluating the success of a project. Almost 40 years ago, Oisen (1971) proposed budget, time and quality as the project success criteria. Many scholars accepted this set of success criteria but also noted the necessity to take into consideration other criteria for the project Success (Turner, 1993; de Witt, 1998; Pinto and Slevin, 1988). More recently, this set of criteria has been evaluated as being insufficient for assessing the project success comprehensively (Turner, 1993; Jugdev and Mà ¼ller, 2005). To illustrate this point, according to Jugdev and Mà ¼ller (2005), assessing project outcomes only with respect to time, cost and, quality is to consider only operational level project management as o pposed to anything of strategic value. Jugdev and Mà ¼ller (2005) focussed on evaluating project success based on the organizational aspects that are internal to the project, leaving out external ones as being too complicated. Nevertheless, there are researchers, such as Pinto and Mantel (1990), who tend to include both internal and external aspects of a project organization, as well as, complex criteria in assessing project success such as, stakeholder satisfaction, stakeholder community benefits, organization benefits, etc. (Pinto and Mantel, 1990; Atkinson, 1999; Wateridge, 1998). Pinto and Mantel (1990) proposed two additional success criteria, namely, the quality of the project as it is perceived by the project team and an external performance indicator of both project and its team performance (e.g. client satisfaction) in addition to the efficiency of implementation phase criterion that assesses the project success in relation to internal performance indicators, and the Iron Triangle. Similarly, in a subsequent study, Andersen and Jessen (2000), who attempt to assess project success with respect to the task- and people-oriented aspects, defined project success criteria further into 10 elements. These elements, besides the traditional Iron Triangle components of time, budget, and quality, include the degree of importance of the products to the base organization, the results as perceived by all stakeholders, the learning experience, motivation for future work, knowledge acquisition, the final report preparation method, and the way of project termination (Andersen Jessen, 2000). Andersen and Jessen (2000) thus provided a more holistic picture for assessing the success of a project. Lim and Mohamed (1999), on the other hand, in their study attempted to justify this diversity in perception of project success criteria. They concluded different stakeholders perspectives on project success criteria, such as those of the project manager, the project team, the client, and the general public, as being the reason for different perspectives on project success criteria. In addition, Lim Mohamed (1999) note success criteria as one of two constituents of the project success. The other constituent of the project success are Critical Success Factors (CSFs), which will be reviewed in the following section. 2.4 Critical Success Factors: It was Daniel in 1961 (as cited in Amberg et al, 2005), who first coined the term success factors in management literature. In his study, he came up with a set of industry-related CSFs that are claimed to be relevant for any company in a particular industry. Anthony, on the other hand, in 1972 (cited in Amberg et al, 2005), discussed the need for adaptation of CSFs to a companys and its managers specific strategic objectives. Then, based on the both perspectives by Daniel (1961, cited in Amberg et al, 2005) and Anthony et al. (1972, cited in Amberg et al, 2005), Rockart (1979, cited in Amberg et al, 2005) conducted a study that involved three organizations. He found out that organizations despite operating in the same industry may have different CSFs due to differences in geographic locations, strategies etc. Then on, studies on identifying CSFs for different industry projects proliferated in the project management literature. According to Cooke-Davis (2002) researchers have been trying to find out those factors that are critical to project success since the late 1960s. Therefore, the review of literature on CSFs reveals several definitions. The following CSF definition by Rockart (1979, cited in Amberg et al, 2005) is one of the most cited: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the organization. In subsequent studies CSFs are defined as: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ characteristics, conditions or variables that, when properly sustained, maintained, or managed, can have a significant impact on the success of a firm competing in particular industry by Bruno and Leidecker (1984, p. 24). Whereas, as factors which, if addressed, significantly improve project implementation chances by Pinto and Slevin in 1987 (p.22). Lim and Mohamed (1999, p. 243) define critical success factors (CSFs) as the set of circumstances, facts, or influences which contribute to the project outcomes. 2.5 Critical Success Factors and the Projects: During the 1970s-1980s, critical success factor requirements had been addressed rather as a response to the indicators of project success at the implementation phase, focussing on time, cost, and quality, as well as, stakeholder satisfaction (Jugdev and Mà ¼ller, 2005). It was Pinto and Slevin (1987), who first attempted to develop a comprehensive set of CSFs related to project implementation success. In their work, they propose a project implementation profile (PIP) model, which consists of 10 CSFs, namely, project mission, top management support, project schedule/plan, client consultation, personnel, communication, technical tasks, client acceptance, monitoring and feedback, troubleshooting, determining project success. Additionally, the PIP model of 10 CSFs, is claimed to be suitable as an instrument for project managers to measure those factors (Pinto and Slevin, 1987). Later, Pinto and Prescott (1988), take a further step by determining the relative importance of 10 CSFs over the life of a project and discover that the relative importance of several CSFs vary at different phases of the project life cycle. The generalized 10 CSFs of the project implementation process (PIP) have also been employed as a model for many project types in several studies (Pinto and Prescott, 1988, Finch 2003, and Hyvari, 2006). However, the factors identified by Pinto and Slevin are not likely to cover every aspect involved in project management. Finch (2003) indicates that the PIP model does not take into consideration a number of significant external factors that affect the success of a project, such as, competence of the project manager, political activities within the organization, external organizational and environmental factors, and responsiveness to the perceived need of project implementation. Nevertheless, subsequent research, conducted during the 1990s-2000s, i ncorporate the stakeholder issue, as well as, interactions between internal and receiving organizations as factors that are critical for a project success (Jugdev and Mà ¼ller, 2005). Moreover, in pursuit of providing a comprehensive CSF framework, there have also been attempts that integrate CSFs categorizations and frameworks with project success criteria. Belassi and Tukel in their study conducted in 1996, criticize previous studies, whose critical success factors are mainly focused on the project manager and project organization. They incorporate characteristics of the project and team members, as well as external factors, into their framework. Their framework, thus, provides a classification of project CSFs into four groups; namely, project manager, team members, organization, and external environment. Additionally, the framework by Belassi and Tukel (1996) provides an explicit and systematic way for examining the intra-relationships between factors in different groups. This scheme provides grouping of project success factors, however it is generic rather than industry specific. Another interesting study is by Cooke-Davies (2002, p.185), in which he introduce s a set of questions for the purpose of grouping of CSFs, such as; What factors are critical to project management success?; What factors are critical to success of an individual project?; and What factors lead to consistently successful projects? Moreover, he distinguishes between project management success and project success by claiming that project management success is the satisfaction of traditional criteria of time, cost and quality, whereas, project success is the satisfaction of the overall project objectives. Then, he proposes 12 CSFs, which he extracts from multi-national organizations activities and practical actions. Additionally, although his proposed CSFs are not directly related to human factors, he points out that people have intrinsic importance to all project processes. On the other hand, CSFs introduced by Clarke (1999) involve effective communication, clear projects objectives and scope, decomposing project into manageable size, using project plans as working documents, whereas, Nicholas (2004) proposes a set of CSFs, which are grouped into three categories: project participants, communication and information sharing and exchange, and the project management/systems development process. Based on an analysis of the literature it can be concluded that there is not a consistent CSF framework. Rather there are different perspectives of what constitute CSFs, depending on how the authors identify and classify them. Moreover, although early literature on project management does not consider project success criteria, containing the focus to CSFs, subsequent studies attempt to close the gap between CSFs and project success criteria, both of which impact on project success. In addition to this, recently developed CSFs are more complex than those of the previ ous decade as more recent CSFs cover both hard and soft aspects of project management such as the competence of the project manager and the project team members and leadership. The challenge to determine relevant CSFs over the full life of a project has been attracting growing interest in recent publications. 2.6 Critical Success Factors and the Project Life Cycle: According to Mintzberg (Mintzberg et al, 1998) many academicians, especially in the strategy development field have stated the necessity for better project implementation. Nevertheless, Walker and Rowlinson (2008) argue that mainstream literature in the project management and strategy field fails to address these issues because it views implementation: As a lesser form of intellectual pursuit than strategy and planning (Walker and Rowlinson, 2008, p.32). Furthermore, Belassi and Tukel (1996) contribute to this issue by claiming that when it comes to project implementation issues, project management literature focuses more on improving tools and techniques such as scheduling, or project failure, rather than on success. However, such position is understandable, as to identify the success factors of a project is a more complex task than identifying failure factors, mainly because of the following reasons. First, parties involved in a project tend to see project success differently and therefore, each party may allocate different success criteria to each phase (Pinto and Slevin, 1987; Pinto and Prescott 1988; Baker et al 1983; Belout and Gauvreau, 2004; Fowler and Walsh, 1999). Several academicians have proposed models in attempts to capture the processes which a project undergoes during its life. Adams and Barndt (1998), King and Cleland (1983) and Westland (2006) support the model which consists of the following four stages: initiation/conceptualisation, planning, execution / implementation and closure / termination. Pinto and Prescott (1988) propose empirically derived CSFs for each of the phases over the project life-cycle and CSFs proposed for implementation phase are mission, trouble-shooting, schedule/plan, technical tasks, and client consultation. Their work was later criticized unsuccessfully by some authors, including Belout (1998) and Belout and Gauvreau (2004), whose result s were found to support those of Pinto and Prescott (1988). Third, Belassi and Tukel (1996), Clarke (1999) and King (1996) argue that the CSFs may not directly affect the project outcome. It is the combination of these factors at different project life-cycle stages that influences the success of the project. They also add that due to uniqueness of a project, some CSFs may be missing or become irrelevant for some projects and therefore covering as many factors as possible that could influence the project would be of little or no help to project manager. Moreover, Adams and Brandt (1988) remind us that projects are not static entities; rather they change significantly as they progress through their life-cycle stages. Finally, as Belout and Gauvreau (2004), Bellasi and Tukel (1998), Fryer, Antony and Douglas (2007) argue that the relevance of the CSFs vary across different industries. For example, Belout and Gauvreau (2004) found that in the IT industry, with the exception of client ac ceptance, all other factors proposed by Pinto and Prescott (1988) are critical to success. In construction and engineering industries, on the other hand, client acceptance is critical. 2.7 Non Profit Projects: According to Ba Khang Lin Moe (2008), Non Profit Projects plays a significant role in the socio economic development process of both developed and developing countries. In business literature, indicators of success of the business organization are typically assessed against the profit it gains. But what makes NGOs become effective and efficient, as their work is not driven by the profit motive? It is widely accepted that the non-profit sector has not yet developed its own theoretical framework of management, because of the fact that they do not possess a bottom line against which to measure success; organizational standards of performance simply do not exist. Contrary to the corporate sector, NGOs often promote vague and non-quantifiable objectives such as improving human rights, protecting the environment, or advocating democracy. To be more specific, the primary objective of non-profit organizations is to change the quality aspects of the human life or transform societies, thus ma king assessment of effectiveness extremely difficult. As Fowler (1997, p172 ¼Ã¢â‚¬ °points out, Establishing performance criteria for non-profits and then using them for comparative purposes is a conceptual and practical headache. NGO capacity-building is tied up with indicators of organizational effectiveness or project success (Eade, 1997 ¼Ã¢â‚¬ °. In other words, capacity of an NGO should be constructed against indicators the NGO lacks or is weak in. Since NGOs greatly vary within themselves and within different development contexts, as stated above there is no formal consensus on standardized determinants of organizational effectiveness or project success, particularly of NGO development activities with grassroots people. Therefore, assessing the NGO capacity or project performance should be done based on the particular context of individual NGOs and their project activities ¼Ã‹â€ Kanter, 1979; Drucker, 1993) 2.8 Characteristics of Non Profit Projects compared to For- Profit Projects: Non profit projects have distinctive characteristics compared to the For-profit projects and Youker (1999) states the differences between International development projects; one of the important types of non-profit projects and the other for-profit projects. First of all, compared to hard type industrial and infrastructure projects, Development projects as soft type projects with their less tangible social objectives and deliverables pose a special challenge in managing and evaluating of Development projects (Do and Tun, 2008). In addition to their less tangible objectives and deliverables, the complex web of the many stakeholders is an IDP characteristic that results in another management challenge (Youker, 1999). To illustrate, compared with industrial and commercial projects, which involve the client, who pays for and receives the deliverables of the project, and the contractor, who manages and obtains the desired result (Do and Tun, 2008). Development projects involve a web of st akeholders, including the coordinator as the head of the project management unit; the task manager as the supervisor of the project implementation in the multilateral development agency; the national supervisor, to whom the coordinator reports; the project team; the steering committee as an interface with the local institutional system; the beneficiaries as those actually benefit from the project outputs without paying for it; the population at large. In addition, ensuring accountability of the project manager is more troublesome within this complex web of stakeholders (Diallo and Thuillier, 2004) as opposed to traditional projects. Youker (1999) based on his study of evaluations of World Bank IDP post- project reports, outlines a number of IDP management challenges in addition to the above mentioned. He states that the lack of shared perception and agreement on the objectives of the projects by staff and stakeholders, as well as, the lack of commitment by the team, management and stakeholders as the problems that had been most persistent during implementing Development projects. Also, Youker (1999) counts the lack of detailed, realistic, and current project plans, unclear lines of authority and responsibility, the lack of adequate resources, poor feedback and control mechanisms for early detection of problems, poor or no analysis of major risk factors, delays caused by bureaucratic administration systems as other challenges that had occurred frequently during IDP implementations in past. 2.8 Conceptualising Critical Success Factors for Non-Profit Projects: Eventhough, identifying critical success factors is one of the most popular topics among researchers and practitioners; there are very few research conducted on Non-profit projects. One of the studies that identified in the literatures was the research conducted by Do Tun (2008). Do and Tun (2008) studied on critical success factors of International Development Projects (IDP), a kind of non profit projects followed by Diallo and Thuiller (2004; 2005) have developed a framework based on an adaptation of the Logical Framework Approach (LFA), which is a general methodology commonly used by the development community to design, plan, manage and communicate their projects, for IDP context. Their proposed framework focuses on project life cycle, and then assesses the success of each phase based on the outputs produced by the previous phase. As a consequence, these partial successes are integrated into an assessment of the overall success of the IDP according to the Life-Cycle-Based framewo rk.

Essay --

Jane Eyre-- Life at Lowood In â€Å"Jane Eyre†, a classic by Charlotte Bronte, the little girl Jane lost her parents and was adopted by her uncle Mr. Reed who also died soon after. Poor Jane was left to be taken care of by her selfish and cruel aunt who viewed her as a burdensome and wicked child. At Gateshead, none of her cousins were nice to her, and therefore getting bullied was usual. As a result of their conflicts Jane was sent to Lowood, an institution for orphan girls where they could receive strict education and be trained to become disciplined young women. The bad conditions there did not let Jane lose faith as she made a genuine friend whose name was Helen, and met a kind teacher called Mrs. Temple. They gave Jane love and hope in such a cold world, which made her harsh life endurable. By the end of the essay it will be proven that Jane’s life at Lowood has shaped her development as a young woman and bildungsroman. At first, Jane’s life at Lowood was no better than her life at Gateshead. According to the author, â€Å"Many a time I shared between two claimants the precious morsel of ...

A class performance Essay

magine you are going to direct act 3 scene 4 for a class performance what advice would you give to your actors to make this scene interesting and tense? Hello, with the performance creeping closer all the time we need to look at act 3 scene 4 so today we will be concentrating on that, I will be giving you all some advice to made the scene tense and interesting for your audience who will be watching you all I will first go thought the basis plot of this scene telling you in detail of a few important features. So here we go Macbeth and his wife lady Macbeth are hosting a banquet at their castle the other lords attending are Ross, Lennox and other lord that are un-named. Macbeth and Lady macbeth enter and sit on the thrones provide for them there is some dialog greeting the lords and thanking them for them for coming before this scene macbeth has ordered two murders to go and kill his loyal friend Banquo and his son Flence because they are a threat to Macbeth as Banquo is the only other one except lady macbeth that knows about the witches and their predictions in the predictions the witches tell Banquo he will not be king himself but he will father a line of kings so Macbeth feels that if Flence is dead then there is no way that will happen and no one will take over from Macbeth as king, but the murder bring bad news he has successfully killed banquo but his son escaped. Macbeth is not too worried because he does not feel he is too much of a threat at the moment but will grow up to be trouble. Lady macbeth still knows nothing and is carry on with the banquet while Lady macbeth is talking to the lords Banquos ghost enters and sit in Macbeths place no one else can see this because it is in Macbeth mind the lords start to ask Macbeth to take a seat on the table to join in with the feast but Banquo ghost is sat there. The other lords can’t work out why Macbeth won’t sit down and join them. Macbeth then starts to talk about Banquo to the lords and says that he could not make it tonight. Inside Macbeth mind the ghost is talking over. Macbeth starts to talk to the ghost Lady Macbeth and the lords are very puzzled by this. One of the lords Ross say the king is unwell Lady macbeth reassures the lords that everything is fine then talks to Macbeth on her own Macbeth tells her what he sees Lady macbeth tells him to behave and act like a man and it is all in your head. They both resume back to the lords, as Macbeth can no longer see the ghost. But the he comes back. In angry Macbeth starts shouting at Banquos ghost. Ross asks him what he sees but Lady macbeth steps in so that he doesn’t say anything she asks them all to leave which they do they are very puzzled as to the way the king has acted. But noting is said. After they have all left Macbeth and Lady macbeth talk Macbeth is going on about how Banquo and he is dead and his blood is on his hands, At the end of the scene Lady macbeth says â€Å"you lack the seasons of all natures, sleep. He is lacking this sleep because thought out the play sleep is one of the main themes and it is only for innocent people which he is not because he has killed Duncan he was killing god too because they though that the king was god so they had gone against god and killed him. So they were now evil and they would have no sleep. Well that is a round up of this sence as you can see it is one that needs a lot of effort put into to keep the audience concentrating on the play. Paul as Macbeth you have a big role to play in this scene also do you Pam Lady macbeth is trying very hard to take control over the situation and stop Macbeth spilling the beans on the bad deeds that he has done. You need to make sure that you look like you are in control of the matter and know how to handle it. When you are telling Macbeth to act like a man you need to be very harsh with him knock him back into the real world and make him see sense. Paul when you are talking to Banquos ghost at first you are very scared but then you could out of your shell slowly and face up to him, you will need to speak as if you are angry so talk in a low husky voice. Pam your voice needs to be firm and stern both of you need to act tired as you can as both of you are getting no sleep as I have already explained so if you take all this information I have told you today and work on it you will have them all hanging off the edge of their seat thank you for you all coming today I hope this advice has been help to you all.

Economic Status of The United States in 1950 Essay

Emerging victorious from World War II five years earlier, the United States in 1950 was reaping the benefits of a growing economy – benefits that were actually derived out of the country’s participation in the War. The destruction and mayhem brought by the global conflict also brought with it several positive contributions to the economy. Some would even argue that the country’s participation in World War II actually saved it from the Great Depression. To understand the economic boom of the 1950s it is necessary to appreciate the positive impacts that were borne out of World War II. The foundation for the economic expansion and growth experienced in 1950 and several years after that were laid during World War II. To fund and support the country’s war time efforts, it had to recruit millions of American soldiers to be sent to the war front as well as to be stationed at home. Factories had to be built to produce war materiel – guns and ammunitions, military transport, tanks, fighter planes and bombers, etc. To man the factories women and older people had to be recruited as most of the able-bodied men were at war. WWII created jobs and gave life to many industries and energized a nation. Among the industries that prospered during and immediately after the war were the newspaper industry, the agriculture industry and even Hollywood. Industries that produced transport and plant machineries also prospered. Throughout the War, women, for the first time, were given the opportunity to work outside their homes and participate in nation building. The participation of the women in the labor force started to increase during this time. The War also provided opportunities that would later be manifested in the 1950s. Take for example many of America’s products went overseas – introducing themselves to new markets. Many had actually feared that the end of the War would lead the country back to depression. With production of military supplies coming to an end, this fear had its basis – for the entire economy was propped up by all that had to do with the global conflict. Fortunately, this was not the case. The victory relished by the nation brought about confidence in the government and the economy. The common consumer best exhibited this confidence as the strong consumer demand spurred economic growth after the War. Leading towards the 1950s, industries that experienced a surge in growth included the automobile industry and the housing industry, and new industries experienced fantastic births – industries such as aviation and electronics. There was also another outcome of WWII that contributed to post War growth – the Cold War between U. S. and the U. S. S. R. Many of the military industries that sprouted during the war continued to do big business after it. As communist block emerged as a military power in Europe, America had to arm itself against what it considered as a threat. Huge investments were made in the defense of the country. Such investments meant jobs, factories, huge spending – all contributed to the boom of the 1950s. The economic success of the country probably influenced its leaders to advocate the replication of an open economy at the international level. This is best evidenced by the country’s spearheading the establishment of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Gross Domestic Product and Per Capita GDP  In 1950, the country’s GDP was at $293. 8 Billion (in current dollars). At that time, Per Capita GDP was $9,573. 00 – making the United States the number one country world wide in this aspect. By 1996, GDP was at $13. 194 Trillion. Per Capita GDP was at $43,800. 00 – however, the country ranked only at 10th place world wide in this respect. Post World War II scenario showed that too few economies survive the war while a great majority, especially in Europe, was greatly affected. Many developments starting in the late 1970s toward the early 2000s enabled other countries to overtake the U.  S. in terms of Per Capita GDP. As Per Capita GDP is influenced by population, countries that had significant economic growth coupled with low birth rate were able to surpass the U. S. in this indicator. However, the U. S. remains the most powerful economy in 2007 taking into consideration other indicators. Employment and Unemployment In 1950, the civilian labor force was about 58 million strong. Only 5. 3 percent of the labor force was unemployed. 41. 6 million of the labor force at that time were males, while only 17. 34 million were females. By 1996, the labor force grew to about 142 million while unemployment rate as at 5 percent. 76 million were males while 66 million were females in the labor force. In the 1950s, the number of workers in the services sector caught up with workers in goods production industries. The same time also saw the rise of white-collar jobs and the strengthening of labor unions. Awareness on labor rights was on a rise. The biggest impact experienced by the labor force was the increase in women’s participation in employment activities. Accordingly, women have literally poured nto the labor force starting in 1950. By 1990, women’s participation in the labor force would nearly double. On the other hand, men’s participation would drop over time. Per Capita Personal Income In 1950 the Per Capita Personal Income was pegged at $1,501. 00. By 2006 this rose to about $36,600. 00. Though marked by huge difference in amount, it can be noted that $1,501. 00 in 1950 could by more goods and services than the $36,600 in 2006 as illustrated by the CPI rates for both years. Consumer Price Index and Inflation With 1967 as base year, CPI in 1950 was registered at 72. – meaning that a basket of goods and services bought in 1950 were 72. 1 percent of the price of the same goods and services bought in 1967. By 2006, the CPI was at 603. 5. This meant that the same basket of goods and services bought in 1967 would cost 603. 5 percent more in 2006. Inflation rate in 1950 was at a steady 1. 09 percent. In 2006 the rate was at 3. 24 percent. Emerging Industries 1950 saw the emergence of new industries that were anchored on new technologies. Among these is the aerospace industry. The great success of the heavy bombers during the war emphasized importance on innovation. Improvements in engine design, metallurgy, and arms technology helped advance the industry as well as improve manufacturing procedures. The onset of the Cold War ensured that the industry was there to stay. At its peak, the industry hired hundreds of thousands of workers in four major factories. The industry was also fueled by a $3 billion government spending. Other industries that grew during this time were boosted by other industries. Take for instance the housing boom experienced after war. New homes meant additional furniture and appliances as well as new cars. The consumer-led growth likewise spread to other areas. The introduction of television to the masses spurred the growth in electronics. There were also after effects in the growth of industries. As the demand for homes and cars increased, many Americans were lured out of central cities to the suburbs. The construction of better highways also contributed to these phenomena. Farmers though were facing tough times. As people left farm lands, lesser people were left behind to do farm work. This led to a drop in the productivity of the farm sector. Innovations and the Transformation of Business  At a personal level, 1950 saw the introduction of the first hand held T. V. remote control – a device that would be seen as a necessity in many households for years to come. Color TV also emerged thru the issuance of a license to CBS Network. Another innovation is the introduction of the first credit card – Diners – also an item that would come across as a necessity in modern times. The first pagers were also developed in 1950. In the business front, 1950 would usher in an era marked by consolidation of large companies. Businesses would combine to create bigger, greater businesses. Example, International Telephone and Telegraph bought Sheraton Hotels, Continental Banking, Hartford Fire Insurance, Avis Rent-a-Car, and other companies. Notable Events and Personalities Notable events of 1950 included the following: Start of the Korean War – influenced greatly by the U. S. and USSR at opposite sides, North and South Korea would tangle in a three-year war that highlighted the tension during Cold War regime. Development of the Hydrogen Bomb – raged by the atomic bomb testing by USSR, the government pursued the development of a hydrogen bomb. Senator Joseph McArthy – started the Red Scare in halls of the U. S. Senate – making accusations that the State Department was filled with Communists or their sympathizers. The Senator’s actions led to the adoption of the term McCarthyism – describing intense anti-Communists sentiments. This period coincided with and fueled the onset of the Cold War between America and the USSR. Thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or sympathizers during this time – Americans in various sectors of the society. History would later judge these accusations as reckless and baseless. While Senator McArthy gained considerable media mileage at the start of his â€Å"campaigns,† he would be later unmasked as a grandstanding antic who had little or no evidence to back up his accusations. Many of the people Senator McArthy accussed suffered greatly. Many loss their jobs, had their careers ruined while some were even unjustly imprisoned. Conclusion The end of World War II led to the end of the Great Depression and the start of a long period of economic expansion through the 1950s. It is quite ironical that the most destructive war in history would contribute to the emergence of the strongest and biggest economy in the world. The confidence on the economy was obviously brought about by the country’s victory in the War. Tempered by strong collaboration between the government, businesses and the consumers, the U. S. emerged from the War a lot stronger and economically strengthened. Industrial expansion during wartime brought economic impetus that would be carried on even after WWII. The fact that most of the major economies were slow to recover from the after effects of the conflict placed the United States at absolute and relative advantage over both its allies and its enemies.