What was the focus of the political violence that broke out state of Chiapas in Southern Mexico? ...

Ans. to #1

B

Ans. to #2

The extent to which political institutions provide opportunities for political minorities to participate in government impacts the size of a welfare state. In particular, proportional representation (PR) electoral rules and the distinction between unitarism and federalism may be related to the extent of taxation and redistribution. Scholars have noted that countries with multiparty political systems, such as Belgium and Denmark, tend to tax and spend relatively more than do countries with twoparty systems.
In multiparty systems, to succeed, governments must form multiparty coalitions. Each party in the coalition wants to focus government spending on its own supporters, but this dynamic tends to increase overall pressures for spending. In contrast, in a twoparty system, each of the main parties is a diverse coalition of social groups. This tends to dilute the influence of each particular group in the government process, which limits upward pressures on spending.
Multiparty systems are associated with proportional representation electoral rules, while two-party systems are associated in many cases with plurality electoral rules. The electoral system in the United States and UKsinglemember district pluralityhas worked against the growth of the welfare state by diluting group demands. In contrast, in most continental European states, PR electoral systems facilitate the birth and growth of socialist and labor parties alongside a far broader and more varied constellation of political parties. This fragmentation of the party system has encouraged the growth of the welfare state.
Federalism also seems to be associated with smaller government, while unitarism is associated with bigger government. This is perhaps because federal systems require a second legislative chamber. Bicameral legislatures make passing any legislative proposal more difficultsimply because each proposal requires two separate and potentially non overlapping majorities. Under these circumstances, the passage of welfareenhancing legislation becomes more difficult. All else equal, federal systems should see somewhat smaller states. However, because some federal systems such as that of Germany tax and spend relatively heavily, we can see that political institutions such as federalism and electoral rules provide only partial explanations for crosscountry variation in levels and taxation.

Ans. to #3

Median income is the amount that divides income distribution into two equal
groups: half of the country earns an income above the median, and half earns below
that amount. In contrast, the mean income is the average or the sum of everyone's
income, divided by the number of people in the population. Median and mean incomes
can differ substantially within a country, depending on the degree of economic
inequality. For example, if a country contains a high percentage of unemployed people
and a handful of billionaires like Bill Gates, then median income will be much lower than
mean income, because the billionaires bring up the average. Median income is equal
to mean income only when everyone makes exactly the same amount of money.

Ans. to #4

The following are some reasons for this trend.
1. The wealthy have the means to mobilize and lobby against redistributive policies,
solving their collective action problems more easily than the poor. Thus, even if the poor
wanted higher taxes and more redistribution, their efforts to mobilize for such policies
would be thwarted by the countermobilization efforts of the wealthy.
2. Faced with the threat of higher taxation, the wealthy can choose not to invest or even
save in their home country and move their money elsewhere. The ability of holders of
capital to place their money in offshore banks or to invest in countries with lower tax
rates dampens political pressures for redistribution.
3. In lessestablished democracies, the wealthy can pressure governments to violently
repress political parties or social movements that favor increased redistribution, and
they can even threaten to overthrow the government.
4. The average voter mitigates his or her own demands for redistribution, believing that
upward mobility is possible for themselves or their children. Therefore, individuals may
not vote on what they are earning today, but rather on what they hope to earn in the
future.
5. Poor voters oppose redistribution because they believe one gets what one deserves
in life and should not ask for a handout.
6. Individuals mitigate their demands for redistribution because they believe they are
richer than they are, in the present.

Ans. to #5

TRUE

Ans. to #6

Germany and Sweden provide universal health care coverage, with unlimited benefits. This means that citizens do not worry if they are eligible for coverage because everyone is eligible, and they do not worry about losing their health insurance if they lose or change their job. In both countries, individuals pay a small deductible (about 12 per visit in Germany) for doctor or hospital visits but pay no other outofpocket expenses. Taxes fund the system, and lowerwage workers pay a smaller health insurance tax than do higherwage workers. In Germany, about 85 percent of the population uses the governmentrun healthcare system; in Sweden, this figure reaches about 97 percent. The remainder opts out of the public system and seeks private insurance, for which they must pay separately.