Matching Items (2)
Description
The intent of this paper is to first demonstrate the consistency of a U.S. based poultry technology incentive program regarding Nigeria, with current United States State Department and related United States Agency for International Development mission, and present day programs. By implementing the proposed incentive strategy, Nigeria in the midst of a devastating famine will become more food secure, and as a result the country as a whole will gain political stability. The correlation between food security and political stability will be discussed in greater detail further in the essay. The basis of an incentive strategy stems from the lack of poultry companies entering the current Nigerian market, due to risk factors and lucrative alternatives, however there are increasing benefits to companies willing to partner with or supply Nigerian domestic producers. The proposed incentive strategy is limited to U.S. poultry technology companies for the efficiencies inherent in poultry production. Limiting the incentives to U.S. poultry technology companies only entering the Nigerian domestic markets as partners or suppliers has its pros and cons, but will have a positive effect on Nigeria. Most importantly, the economic benefits, strengthening of U.S. and Nigerian diplomatic relations and promotion of stable democracies in the region are all compelling reasons for the United States to implement the proposed strategy. Nigeria is in the grips of a devastating famine threatening millions of its citizens with malnutrition and starvation. While there are ongoing humanitarian efforts that stem this tragedy, most focus solely on short term needs. The United States has an established diplomatic relationship with Nigeria, which supports key trade dependencies, both inbound and outbound from the US. The frailty of the present political and human conditions, while presently friendly to the US, presents risks to subversion to this important relationship. This proposal seeks to deploy strategies in the local food production, specifically the poultry segment, which; address frailties in the current environment, can be implemented within intermediate timeframes, are sustainable in the long term, and create synergistic outcomes for both the US and Nigerian interests.
ContributorsMoreno, Nathaniel Arnold (Author) / Iheduru, Okechukwu (Thesis director) / Herrera, Richard (Committee member) / W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Morrison School of Agribusiness (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
Campaign finance regulation has drastically changed since the founding of the Republic. Originally, few laws regulated how much could be contributed to political campaigns and who could make contributions. One by one, Congress passed laws to limit the possibility of corruption, for example by banning the solicitation of federal workers and banning contributions from corporations. As the United States moved into the 20th Century, regulations became more robust with more accountability. The modern structure of campaign finance regulation was established in the 1970's with legislation like the Federal Election Campaign Act and with Supreme Court rulings like in Buckley v. Valeo. Since then, the Court has moved increasingly to strike down campaign finance laws they see as limiting to First Amendment free speech. However, Arizona is one of a handful of states that established a system of publicly financed campaigns at the state-wide and legislative level. Passed in 1998, Proposition 200 attempted to limit the influence of money politics. For my research I hypothesized that a public financing system like the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC) would lead to Democrats running with public funds more than Republicans, women running clean more than men, and rural candidates running clean more than urban ones, and that Democrats, women, and rural candidates would win in higher proportions than than if they ran a traditional campaign. After compiling data from the CCEC and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, I found that Democrats do run with public funds in statistically higher proportions than Republicans, but when they do they lose in higher proportions than Democrats who run traditionally. Female candidates only ran at a statistically higher proportion from 2002 to 2008, after which the difference was not statistically significant. For all year ranges women who ran with public money lost in higher proportions than women who ran traditionally. Similarly, rural candidates only ran at a statistically higher proportion from 2002 to 2008. However, they only lost at higher proportions from 2002 to 2008 instead of the whole range like with women and Democratic candidates.
ContributorsMarshall, Austin Tyler (Author) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis director) / Jones, Ruth (Committee member) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12