Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Changes in the Egyptian Economy. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 5 page paper discusses the Egyptian economy since Nasser, and speculates on the reasons why an authoritarian government has remained in power. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVEgtEcn.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
pace of the transition. This paper discusses what is special about the Egyptian economy that it has maintained an authoritarian government for the past 50 years, how that is changing,
and whether or not the change will help or hinder the move to democratization. Discussion One source gives us a fairly complete history of the Egyptian economy from 1952-1965; lets
look at it and then see what we can say about what in the economy has kept the authoritarian government in power. In 1952, Nassar was in power in Egypt,
and he was determined that "the state play a major role in the economy, promising to build the infrastructure and mobilize capital but without discouraging either the private sector or
foreign investment" (Rivlin, 1997). There was a "major land reform" instituted to encourage landowners "to invest in industry" (Rivlin, 1997). They would be forced to sell their land and use
those earnings to invest, or at least that was the thinking (Rivlin, 1997). In actuality, agricultural reform was only partially successful, and "tensions between the regime and civilian political parties
damaged private sector investment" (Rivlin, 1997). Parliament was disbanded in 1953; the constitution was suspended; political parties were banned (Rivlin, 1997). Not surprisingly, in this hostile climate, "private industrial investment
declined" (Rivlin, 1997). Then in 1956 the Suez Canal company was nationalized, along with "other foreign assets--including banks and insurance companies," and this move raised "assets and income to fund
the public sector and government programs" (Rivlin, 1997). But the growing power of the public sector made the private sector uneasy (Rivlin, 1997). The government devised a Five-Year Plan for
the period 1960-1965, but it was "seriously at odds with the actual situation in the country" (Rivlin, 1997). For instance, the Plan projected that 55% of "locally funded investment" would
...