社会政策学essay代写范文—全球社会中的城市结构，本文是一篇留学生管理专业的Essay写作格式参考范文。全球化，就像把欧洲和北美推向全球经济舞台前沿的工业革命一样，已经迫使城市中心的重新开发和组织。一些人，如穆拉特和韦利，支持政府主导的举措，以解决重新定义劳动力市场导致的社会阶层之间的经济差距问题。包括洛根和斯旺斯特罗姆在内的其他人则反对中央计划经济和市场，认为城市不应该在其国家背景的边界之外运作。而海拉等学者则提出了一种将两者结合起来的结合政治意识形态，认为虽然城市之间可能存在差异，但房地产和私人投资是联结所有“全球城市”的共同纽带。以下是管理学essay范例写作的全部内容，是一篇符合国外大学Essay写作格式要求的范文，供参考。
Globalization, much like the Industrial Revolution that propelled Europe and North America to the forefront of the global economic stage, has forced the redevelopment and organization of urban hubs. Some, like Moulaert and Waley, support government-led initiatives addressing the problem of the economic disparities among social classes caused by the redefinition of labor markets. Others, including Logan and Swanstrom, argue against centrally-planned economies and markets, positing that cities should not work outside the boundaries of their national context. Scholars like Haila, on the other hand, present a married political ideology combining the two, arguing that while differences in cities may exist, real estate and private investment is the common link binding all “global cities.”
With globalization overtaking the norms of familiar market economies, contemporary urban hubs face “persistent high levels of unemployment, shortage of job opportunities, homelessness, deteriorating housing and living conditions, widening income gaps, [and] social violence”; these problems have become “an integral part of the new urban context, regardless of prevailing dynamics of economic growth or decline”[1].
随着全球化超越了我们熟悉的市场经济的规范，当代城市中心面临着“持续的高失业率、就业机会短缺、无家可归、住房和生活条件恶化、收入差距扩大以及社会暴力”;这些问题已经成为“新城市环境中不可分割的一部分，与经济增长或衰退的主流动态无关”[1]。
Consequently, Moulaert and his contemporaries suggest government-mandated interventions are necessary, including the coerced transformation of labor markets. According to Moulaert, “the transformation of employment is, doubtless, the key axis of urban socio-economic restructuring and the primary factor shaping increasing inequality and social fragmentation in cities”[2].
Logan and Swanstrom concur, but question the extent to which the government ought to be able to intervene in the restructuring of society. They question “what form these interventions should take,” as reform in the East “is a synonym for raising prices, reducing some types of consumption, and accepting structural unemployment”; the Communist-type failure of urban restructuring (and central planning) is therefore representative of a “political and economic event,” avoidable through the careful, monitored endorsement of free market economies[3].
洛根和斯旺斯特罗姆同意，但质疑政府应该在多大程度上能够干预社会重组。他们质疑“这些干预应该采取什么形式”，因为在东方，改革“是提高价格、减少某些类型的消费和接受结构性失业的同义词”;因此，共产主义式的城市重组(和中央计划)失败是“政治和经济事件”的代表，可以通过对自由市场经济谨慎、受监督的支持来避免[3]。
Waley, like Moulaert and his contemporaries, supports a degree of government intervention in urban restructuring and cites the Japanese post-war example. Waley suggests Japan’s success in urban restructuring can be attributed to “reorganizing urban space in pursuit of economic growth,” which entailed national “relaxation of zoning, disposal of public land, and measures advantageous to private landowners” vis-à-vis the strategies outlined by Haila which will be examined later[4].
The government, Waley argues, is the greatest facilitator of economic growth through its power to enact policies; contrary to the Communist model, however, Waley’s proposition is one of incentive to the private sector.
Logan and Swanstrom directly oppose governmental intervention supported by Moulaert and (to a degree) Waley, specifying that policy cures and the measure of urban restructuring in an ailing economy are better prescribed at the national level; the two stress that “cities cannot be abstracted from their national context”[5].
Logan and Swanstrom’s position endorse Waley’s admonitions to “avoid the dangers of a simplistic cultural-determinist response” to the necessity of urban restructuring[6]. On the other hand, Moulaert concedes the fallibility of his model, surmising that government intervention can be detrimental to a point as federal programs are a de facto means of increasing “the concentration of deprivation in particular urban areas and neighborhoods,” reproducing “the formation of “excluded communities, reproduced by the very initiatives that purportedly aim at eradicating them”[7].
洛根和斯旺斯特罗姆的立场支持了韦利对城市重组必要性的警告，即“避免简单化的文化决定论反应的危险”。另一方面，穆拉特承认他的模型是不可靠的，他推测政府干预可能在一定程度上是有害的，因为联邦项目实际上是增加“贫困在特定城市地区和社区的集中”的一种手段，再现了“被排斥的社区的形成，而这些社区正是通过据称旨在消除它们的倡议而再现的”[7]。
Haila echoes the power of public perception, claiming that the aforementioned factor drives the model of private real estate-powered economies. Pointing out the paradigm shift of Japanese investment in Los Angeles from the 1980s to the 1990s, Haila notes that urban development can be catalyzed or snuffed by a change in public perception; after all, “in the 1980s, Los Angeles was a city favored by Japanese investors,” but the 1992 race riots “changed this situation, as a property market where an asset can be demolished in one night is not a good market”[8].
While Haila does not prescribe uniformity in the application of economic and urban restructuring, she endorses the facet that all cities which aim to restructure themselves into “global cities” have real estate in common, echoing Waley’s sentiments regarding Japanese investment in Los Angeles. Private land ownership lends to the environment necessary for economic rehabilitation per globalization. Cities therein affect cities; the price falls and gains from one city inevitably affect another[9].
虽然海拉没有规定在经济和城市重组的应用上要统一，但她赞同所有旨在重组为“全球城市”的城市都有共同的房地产方面，这与韦利对日本投资洛杉矶的看法相呼应。私有土地所有权为经济复兴提供了全球化所必需的环境。城市影响城市;一个城市的房价下跌和收益不可避免地会影响到另一个城市。
While Logan and Swanstrom support the contention that restructuring carries significant social and political institutions in its wake[10], their views are most applicable to the current global economy due to their calls for uniformity and consistence on a national level. Tied to Haila’s theory of inter-dependent cities, Logan and Swanstrom’s model prevents the cannibalization of intra-national markets.
Moreover, Logan and Swanstrom advocate a laissez-faire attitude within the confines of a national agenda, therein tempering the so-called “free market.” Moulaert’s supposition that global restructuring entails urban development projects, his advocacy for government intervention, finds fault along the lines of market restriction. The workings of bureaucracy prevent the intervention of the individuals Haila perceives as vital to the growth of an economy through land ownership.
此外，洛根和斯旺斯特罗姆主张在国家议程的范围内采取一种自由放任的态度，从而缓和所谓的“自由市场”。穆拉特认为，全球结构调整需要城市发展项目，他主张政府干预，这与市场限制有关。官僚机构的运作阻止了海拉认为对通过土地所有权实现经济增长至关重要的个人的干预。
Though they can be tempered by applicant law and a statute, truncating the involvement of the private sector limits growth and future adaptations to a globalizing world economy where punctuality can mean the difference between prosperity and recession. Waley may concede restructured Tokyo’s disparity between the living conditions of the poor and the profit expansions of business corporations, but in his assertions he glosses over the state’s possible use of higher tax revenues to revive the lower classes, thus leaving the question of self-propagating poverty and economic stagnation unanswered[11].
Perhaps most important to note is the necessity of policy fluidity in the degree of laissez-faire economics and governmental intervention. While all four works prescribed a degree of flexibility, none presented the simple fact that globalization, as a new world market and concept, cannot be approached using a template or a macroeconomic stencil of some sort. Adaptation in the urban sector, like all forms of adaptation, cannot be expected to work within the stricture of obstinate thought.
也许最值得注意的是，在经济自由放任和政府干预的程度上，政策的流动性是必要的。虽然这四部作品都规定了一定程度的灵活性，但都没有提出一个简单的事实，即全球化作为一个新的世界市场和概念，不能使用模板或某种宏观经济模板来处理。城市部门的适应同所有形式的适应一样，不能指望在顽固的思想的限制下发挥作用。
BIBLIOGRAPHY参考文献
留学生Essay相关专业范文素材资料，尽在本网，可以随时查阅参考。本站也提供多国留学生课程作业写作指导服务，如有需要可以咨询本平台。