There will always be significant differences in how different governments conduct business and the policies they champion for or against, in response to the conditions in the country, or the culture of the nationals. Such differences explain the relevance of territorial boundaries, and the reason why some counties would be in a position to conduct business with much more ease than others would. However, in some cases, some countries appear to have model policies, which if emulated by others across the world, would lead to a better international society. Abolishing the death penalty is one such policy whose adoption by the larger world would imply increase sensitivity to the basic human right to life. On the other hand, some policies are not as straightforward and would require a deeper analysis of the situation in the different countries to determine their applicability in the two communities.
In his documentary “Where to invade next,” Michael Moore sought to bring the reality of such differences in policies to the screens of different viewers. The primary intention of the film was to provide a real-life analysis of possible differences in policies promoted by the United States and those enacted in other countries across the world. The documentary was sure to leave an impression among many viewers that several aspects in the American policies whose change could help make the country better than it currently is. Such ideas form the initial thought that would cross an audience’s mind upon seeing the success experienced by the different countries to which Moore visited and made subject of his documentary. However, following such an idea, the next question one would ask would be the practicality of the policy in the American Context .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the most important goals of any policy is addressing a situation in the society, by providing a clear guidance to approaching issues, or giving a solution to a problem in the society (Newman, 2001). According to the documentary, Norway’s low levels of crime rates could be attributed to the correction system in the country. Notably, going to prison in the country, maximum security or not, is no different from renting an isolated house somewhere and getting completely cut off from the world. The documentary makes it clear that the correction system is highly inclined to rehabilitation of the offenders and not their punishment. It follows that there cannot be more than a 21-year jail sentence in the country. Notably, Moore attributes the low levels of crime in the country to the soft approach, something that an American audience would be quick to view as more appropriate compared to the correction facility goals in the contemporary American Society.
On the other hand, Moore made an interesting observation on the work conditions of employees in Italy, which could significantly contribute to many hoping to access employment in the country. Notably, according to Italian standards, every lunch break should take an approximate of two hours, while the employees receive paid leaves of seven and eight weeks depending on an individual’s marital status. In addition, the on-leave employees also get a mandatory salary, and the entire workforce receives a “13th month” salary at the end of the year. These positive approaches to human resource management are cited as some of the reason for the country’s higher labor productivity compared to the rest of the world.
However interesting the two policies may appear, their applicability to the American context would vary. For instance, introduction of such comfort in American correctional facilities could get people to committing crime so they can receive such care and access to basic needs. It would be important to analyze the population in the facilities, and determine their susceptibility to crime. The results would then inform on the applicability of a Norwegian model into the American system. However the high number of homeless individuals, with no access to basic needs in the United States may just create a problem with the implementation of such a policy.
On the other hand, the work culture in the United States varies significantly from that in the Italian market. The work culture in Italy differs from that in the American market and organizations would be unwilling to pay their employees for less productivity during their holidays (Guiso, Sapienza, & Zingales, 2006). The American market is more competitive with a high supply of labor which leaves the employees with no option but agree with the set standards in their respective organizations. However, there are chances that there could be a compromise in the American market to increase the lunch break period to two hours. Such an environment in the workplace would contribute to increased job satisfaction.
In conclusion, the discussion makes clear some of the most distinct policy differences between the American society and the rest of the world. However, despite being attractive to the American society, their applicability is subject to the environment in the United States. Therefore, one cannot simply borrow a policy from one region and apply it to another. It takes understanding of the different environments to be in a position to tailor a policy according to the needs of a particular market appropriately.
References
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2006). Does culture affect economic outcomes? The Journal of Economic Perspectives , 20 (2), 23-48.
Newman, J. (2001). Modernizing governance: New Labour, policy and society . London: Sage.
