Developments in the West End Musical Scene

Developments in the West End Musical Scene DISCUSS THE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WEST END MUSICAL SCENE; THIS SHOULD INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE MEGA-MUSICAL MANIA, THE TREND TO CREATE NEW MUSICALS BASED ON EXISTING SONGS (SONG MIGRATION) AND STAGE TRANSFERS OF SUCCESSFUL FILMS. From Sophocles through William Shakespeare to Eminem, writers have sought to use the rhythms of language to accentuate the story they are seeking to share. The pre-Caxton[1] society relied on an oral tradition to deliver stories of fact and fiction. Cultures spanning the entire globe and all ages of civilization have instinctively adopted musical storytelling; it is prominent in various forms even now – be it around a camp fire, at a tribal ceremony, an inner city playground or on a West End stage. In todays world, language and music are at our fingertips. They are both instantaneous. And they can be married in a second. Technically, music is intricate. Most writers will say the same about language. But in an inspired moment they can conjoin and express something wonderful both sonically and linguistically. The act of constructing such a moment can be the end result of many less fruitful moments – but there is always the chance that it could just happen instantaneously. Our logistical minds tell us that it just is not possible; that we would never be able to express ourselves beautifully and eloquently in musical form. And yet the compulsion to try and do so has arrested most people, even if only for a quickly aborted solitary moment. So perhaps here lies the fascination with musicals. They show life as we know it happily residing in an alternate reality – where music and language are easy bed partners and everything goes to extremes. Or does it? The West End is one of Londons most popular tourist attractions. It has built its reputation, in tandem with New Yorks Broadway, as the commercial mecca of musical theatre. Las Vegas has the showgirls but Broadway and the West End share the showtunes. Indeed, while their identities are undeniably distinct, the relationship between them is close; same sex twins rather than identical ones. Each has their own nuances of behaviour – the younger twin Broadway hunts that bit more keenly for the next off-beat musical whirlwind; the older West End plays percentages but plays them with palpable success. The term West End was originally coined as a geographical short cut – a way of describing a part of London synonymous with theatre. Since its inception into London vernacular the phrase West End has mutated to describe something meta-geographical. While once upon a time it merely represented an actual place, now it also describes the gateway to an invented world of glitz, glamour and show. The West End may still be the home of theatre, but the kind of theatre that it houses has become very easily classifiable. The listings do not lie. And neither do they try to. The West End is a haven for small ideas done big; big names, big shows, big spectacles, big budgets, big risks. The social and artistic significance of theatre as an art form has not suffered in the time since the West End theatres were constructed. But the immediacy of rival entertainments, chiefly television and film, has undoubtedly provided so comfortable an alternative for the borderline theatregoing public that its popularity has. Ultimately, the publics relationship with theatre has somewhat inverted itself; once the entertainment of the people, theatre has become high-brow, elitist, exclusive even. Or so we are led to believe. Every year the people entrusted with running the countrys theatres are ensconced in attempts to make theatre more accessible. Nicholas Hytner at the National Theatre has incorporated a sponsorship deal with Travelex with the express purpose of enabling its shows to be available to people for as little as  £10 a ticket. Theatrical output is continuing to diversify in new directions. The National Theatre still produces the time-honoured classics that will appease their traditional supporters. But they also invited outside companies including Theatre de Complicite, Improbable, Shunt and Kneehigh to co-develop their new work. Arts Council funding dictates a certain amount of programming for in-house producing theatres throughout the country. It is impossible to equate the artistic worth of a proposed project while it exists solely as an outline on a piece of paper. But it is easier to quantify the greater social import of the same project. Therefore the involvement in various local outreach initiatives including young peoples theatre and new writing programmes serves duplicate purposes. But in doing so it runs the risk of wrestling a certain amount of control from the artistic directors, or at least diluting the intent of their work. But the West End is not really concerned with any of this. The theatres are privately owned and have little social obligation. West End theatre is a notoriously unpredictable money market. Make a big success of yourself and you can eventually buy it up – which is exactly what Andrew Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh have ended up doing. Lloyd Webbers Really Useful Group are the proprietors of twelve of the capitals larger theatres. By January 2006 Delfont Mackintosh will control another seven, and will have begun constructing the Sondheim Theatre – the first theatre to be built on Shaftesbury Avenue since 1931. The long-term plan of Delfont Mackintosh is to refurbish and modernise theatreland. But one cannot help but think that their extreme makeover will be restricted to the facilities and layout – and that the entertainment will remain as traditional as ever. The musical-as-we-know-it grew out of the 19th Century tradition of music hall, which itself was the bastard son of drink and rowdiness. After removing the alcohol from drunken singalongs, and relocating from the pub to theatres, the 1860s saw the popularity of the newly-arrived music hall go from good idea to massively popular entertainment. The humbling beginnings of the musical cannot help but reveal the nucleus of the idea; it was born of accident – of people seeking to have pure, unadulterated entertainment. In that respect, it has no one form; no one philosophy; indeed no real sense of philosophy; no real sense of purpose other than fun, fun, fun! As the musical was developing it was the bastion of popular music of the time. Through Gilbert and Sullivan, Irving Berlin, Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill and Cole Porter, the men and women behind musical were the most revered song writers at work in the Western world. Ten years into the post-war era there was a marked shift. The musical standards that made dry, wry and witty observations about upper middle class were about to be trumped by rock and roll. And John Osbournes 1956 kitchen-sink-drama Look Back In Anger was going to have repercussions outside the world of the well-made play[2]. The birth of transmittable media was only going to swell the amount of music being produced. In the early days of the wireless radio, families gathered to listen to the songs of Ivor Novello or Noel Coward. By the mid-1960s many families had television sets in their front rooms; radio broadcasts were a competitive business; and air transport links had made the world traversable for all those who could afford it. Music was a commodity that could be sent from one side of the world to the other. And in the slipstream of the music were the musicians themselves. Through television and radio, songwriters and musicians had an identity. They became icons – the most celebrated people on the planet. And their music was nowhere near the West End stage. For the first time since their inception musicals were not using the popular music of the time. Rocknroll was being held in musical purgatory by traditionalists unhappy at its low-brow ideals. While cinema was running as fast and far as it could with the concept of the film musical, the stage was seeking to deliver variations on earlier themes. Elvis Presley made numerous musical films – as did The Beatles. In the 1960s the West End was awash with Broadway imports – the influence of Leonard Bernstein, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Loewe and other transatlantic success stories was diluting the integrity of the West End as the older brother of the musical. But the psychedelic overtones of that time were to create musical anomalies; while some composers flirted with the conce pt of rock, others werent afraid to dive headlong into its bottomless pit. After its anti-Vietnam stance and inclusion of group nudity caused outrage on Broadway, Hair opened in the West End in 1968. From being the chosen playground of mild-mannered conservatives, the musical was being politicised – and modernised. Within five years, the Age of Aquarius[3] had been further capitalized upon by Godspell, Oh Calcutta and even Jesus Christ Superstar – which proved to be the foundation on which the new dawn of the musical would be built. Todays twin Godfathers of musical composition for Broadway and the West End carry the bright torch of yesteryear; Stephen Sondheim represents his forefathers fascination with the off-beat, with Andrew Lloyd Webber never straying from the musically conservative beat. There are various factors that dictate the recent successes and failures in West End theatre. But the starting point for every West End production is money – a fact beautifully demonstrated by the plot of one of the West Ends most popular current productions The Producers. Essentially, the capitalist dawn that swallowed up free love has made currency the new leading man in musical theatre. Producers need big ideas and big songs to legislate for big budgets. So instead of trying to predict what people may like and creating a musical story around it, the West End decided to reduce the risk and simply take the music that people already like and create a story around that. In some ways the origin of song migration is old revue style shows – popular hits belted out with no real desire to create an accompanying piece of drama or comedy. Coupled with the screen to stage success of musical films like The Lion King, a producer was now able to weigh up potential West End shows safe in the knowledge that a stable of worldwide smash hits could enable a musical to run for years, even with a bad review. Suddenly the sheer bankability of Lloyd Webber was looking like an outlandish risk alongside the music of Abba[4], Queen[5] or even (the critically lauded but never supergroup status) of Madness[6]. Negotiations are in process for the trend to continue, with Bob Marley, The Beatles and Elton John just some of the musical legends in line to have their songs shoe-horned into some money-spinning stage extravaganza that makes almost no sense at all. Not that the public really care. They want to go and sing-a-long like the pub dwellers of the 1840s that unknowi ngly helped begin the process of musical theatre. And who shall we choose to lead the sing-song? Well, preferably someone famous off the telly, of course. The West End is a remarkably lucrative place. For his unscheduled stint in the opening cast run of The Producers at the end of 2004, Nathan Lane was being paid  £42,000 a week for the lead role as Max Bialystock. It is a clear indication of the simple transaction between moneymen and talent; the star name guarantees the box office receipts. The West End has been flooded with stars – some of whom have no musical pedigree – because celebrity is deemed to have finally overridden talent. The good, bad and ugly (in no particular order) of recent years include David Hasselhoff[7], Martine McCutcheon[8] and Denise Van Outen[9]. And if you dont want to spend money on star names, then youd better be sure to have some seriously impressive stage gimmicks; Miss Saigon famously had a helicopter, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang got in to hot water when the eponymous flying car failed to take off in previews, and Phantom of the Opera has a plunging chandelier moment that will wake up anyone snoozing in the stalls. So with standard tickets averaging out at around  £40, the theatregoer demands a truly amazing experience. But amazing and original are poles apart – and thats why when the formula is right, all you need to do is repeat it. There are exceptions. The Bombitty of Errors was a rap interpretation of Shakespeares Comedy of Errors, and was a small but perfectly-formed global success. Stomp became a phenomenon through gradual word of mouth and because it is a different kind of spectacle. Jerry Springer: The Opera began life as an idea at a scratch night at the Battersea Arts Centre and grabbed the attention of every newspaper and fundamentalist Christian in the Western World. But such shows grow from humble beginnings and are swept away on public curiosity. As in any art form, there are people willing to take risks because they believe their work has a market. Bombay Dreams and The Far Pavilions identify a recently developed appreciation of Asian music and culture. The off-Broadway hit Batboy continues in the tradition of earlier pacesetters The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Hedwig and the Angry Inch for kitsch rock operas. But some of these are accidental intruders in the world of the West End. They werent sure if they were really invited but came anyway. One group that certainly were invited are blockbuster films; whether they have songs in them or not. Seemingly the films dont even have to have been that successful. The Witches of Eastwick had a successful run in the West End. But more than likely, the film will have a readymade audience. The Full Monty was relocated to middle America from Sheffield to make it a Broadway success. Billy Elliott is well into previews, but the advance word is that it will be a significant hit. Or better still, just take a film with songs already in them – you dont stand to make as much money, but the guarantee of an audience is that much stronger. Mary Poppins has been well-received by most, and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is in its third year. There are currently 36 theatres in the West End of Londons theatreland[10]. As of Monday 2 May 2005, 27 are currently housing a production. 17 of those are musicals. This ratio is fairly consistent – and shows no signs of relenting. Essentially a hit West End musical needs a hook; star name, hit songs, hit movie, famous composer, popular revival. Something that can be reduced to a two-word phrase. If you havent got any of those, then heaven help you. Because the West End public certainly wont. BIBLIOGRAPHY In-yer-face Theatre: British Drama TodayAleks Sierz Faber Faber2001 Scene Unseen: Londons West End TheatresBarson, Kendall, Longman, SmithEnglish Heritage Publications 2003 Brewers Theatre: Phrase Fable DictionaryCassell Market House Books1994 MusicalsKurt Ganzl Carlton Books2004 Time Out (London) Issue No. 1810 April 27-May 4 2005 Musicals 101.com 1 Footnotes [1] William Caxton, inventor of the printing press (1474), which enabled literature to be mass-produced and readily available to the public. [2] A term coined by Terrence Rattigan for the four-act structure of a play that had been the norm for successful playwrights in the first half of the Twentieth Century. [3] A term synonymous with late 60s flower power and liberal ideologies – derived from a song from the musical Hair. [4] Mamma Mia. [5] We Will Rock You. [6] Our House. [7] Chicago, Adelphi Theatre, 2004 [8] My Fair Lady, Theatre Royal Drury Lane, 2001 [9] Chicago, Adelphi, 2001, Tell Me On A Sunday, Gielgud, 2003 [10] They are the Adelphi, Albery, Aldwych, Apollo, Arts, Cambridge, Comedy, Criterion, Dominion, Theatre Royal Drury Lane, Duchess, Duke of Yorks, Fortune, Garrick, Gielgud, Haymarket, Her Majestys, London Palladium, Lyceum, Lyric, New Ambassadors, New London, Palace, Phoenix, Piccadilly, Playhouse, Prince Edward, Prince of Wales, Queens, Savoy, Shaftesbury, St Martins, Strand, Trafalgar Studios, Vaudeville, Wyndhams. Other central theatres not classified as West End include the Donmar Warehouse, National Theatre, Old Vic, Victoria Palace, Apollo Victoria, Lilian Baylis Saddlers Wells, Peacock, Almeida and the Royal Court.

The Rational Choice Approach

Whilst people all around the world debate over which political system is the most effective, social scientists are still in debate over which is the best way to analyse politics. Without the correct analysis of political objects how is one supposed to decide which political system or party is the most effective? It is for this reason that the way in which we analyse political objects is so important. There are many different ways to go about analysing politics. One main distinction to be noted is how in America the subject is called political science, whereas many European universities just call it politics.European scholars would suggest that the name political science is flawed in the sense that you cannot conduct certain political experiments. Rational choice theorists would suggest otherwise as I will explain later on in the essay. In a lecture delivered by Professor Mark Franklin at the European University Institute, he stated; â€Å"We cannot take a random sample of people and give them a new political system to see what happens† (Franklin, 2006). Debates such as these go far further than just cross-national. In this essay I intend to give a brief background to the various approaches to studying politics.I will then go on to outline the strengths and weaknesses of the rational choice approach to understanding the political, paying close attention to the definition of self-interest, using various scholars work to form a critique of the rational choice theory. The studying of politics can be dated back to the ‘Platonic era’ of ancient Greece, as early as 420 B. C. However, the departments of politics came much later. Within these departments one of the earliest forms of analysing politics was through the method of institutionalism. This involved the studying of institutions.Institutionalists looked at how institutions were formed, what they did and how they were structured. Rather than looking at philosophical questions, institutionalist s concentrated on normative questions. Institutionalism was criticised for its lack of rigour as it was mainly a descriptive process. Others called it elitist and described it as â€Å"clever people telling others about their own system† (Parvin, 2013). The 1930s saw the American way of thinking revised as a result of the increasing numbers of European scholars entering America.As a result of this, and with the growing criticisms of the conventional approach, analysis took a behavioural standpoint. At the same time of behaviouralism, rational choice theorists were in writing. However, it only flourished in the 1980s. Rational choice theory involves more questioning of peoples decisions and political objectives and was a lot less descriptive. Rational choice theory, first used in the field of economics, suggests individuals are rational and therefore act in their own self-interest. They do this by weighing up the costs and benefits of a situation.It also assumes individuals ar e rational meaning they do not act outside the norm. Another assumption is that individuals make their decisions whilst taking into account what other individuals do, or what they believe the other individuals will do. The first weakness of the rational choice theory I wish to analyse is the assumption that all individuals are self-interested. To tackle this it is important to define being self-interested. It is often defined as one gaining pleasure from an act. However, is an act still self-interested if the person gains pleasure from helping others?If your answer is no, then what if an act pleasures one’s self whilst helping others, but also putting others at a disadvantage. Is this now self-interested again? For example, when a pressure group member of ‘fathers 4 justice’ climbs a building to encourage politicians to allow him to see his child he would be seen as self-interested. On the other hand, he is doing it in order to care for his child and give him the correct up-bringing he needs. In this instance he may not be considered self-interested. On a further note, by climbing up said building police and other services would be called out to resolve the situation.This could lead to a delayed call-out for police to attend another crime scene, putting others at a disadvantage. Does this now make the act self-interested again? From this series example it is evident that there are usually several parties affected by a particular political movement or decision. It is also evident that upon making political decisions people often have multiple incentives which may involve benefiting ones self and benefiting others, making it extremely difficult to give determine if an act is self-interested or not.Furthermore, assuming it was possible to narrow down an act to being self-interested or not, it is  impossible to say every single person is self-interested. This is outlined by the ‘black swan theory’. This theory suggests that no ma tter how many white swans you see, you can never rule out the possibility of there being a black swan. One strength of the rational choice theory is that it offers an explanation as to why there has been a a dramatic decrease in political participation since the middle of the 20th century, as outlined in Colin Hay’s book ‘Why we hate politics’. For example, between 1950 and 2001 electoral turnout in the UK has decreased by 24.2% (Hay, 2008: 49).Decreases in electoral turnout doesn’t stop at the UK, since the middle of the 20th century lots of countries including of the OECD countries, bar two. This decrease in political participation may be as a result of voters weighing up the costs and benefits of voting and then coming to the conclusion the costs outweigh the benefits. People feel as if their vote would count for nothing and that one vote is highly unlikely to change who forms the government. Hay goes on to deliver this point of view in the equation of [Uchosen – Uother] p > Cvoting.In this equation [Uchosen – Uother] p represents the utility the voter receives if the party they vote for goes into power minus the utility received if the other party goes into power. Cvoting represents the cost of voting and the cost is always greater than the benefits to a rational individual (Hay, 2008: 50). This is further examined by Mancur Oslon in his book ‘The logic of Collective Action’. Oslon highlights how individuals do not participate, letting others put in the work and then reaping the rewards of having a strong government (Oslon, 1971).This has also been linked to the power of the minority and how they can choose to opt out of a trade union but still get the benefits, for example; an increasing wage rate. Both theories presented are easy to accept as they suggest strong explanations as to why there has been a decrease in participation. However, on a closer examination to the voting system, it may appear that there are more benefits to be earned from voting. Many people experience a feeling of pleasure from participating as they feel as if they have done a good deed.Which arguably, they have. Moreover, some people may experience a sense of pride as a result of doing something to help their country. Another point to take into account when weighing up the benefits of voting is that some people may genuinely enjoy the process. On the contrary, when weighing the costs it must be noted that the effort and inconvenience of voting isn’t the only cost in certain cases. Some individuals choose not to vote as they believe by voting they are accepting a certain party’s policies, whereas some people do not agree with any party.Others are anarchists who do not believe governments should exist. In this instance the cost would be far greater, providing further support for the rational choice theory. The rational choice theory has also allowed us to predict behaviour through its vigorous m ethodology. In the introduction I briefly mentioned the various views on whether or not politics can be viewed as a science. Although we may not be able to conduct experiments which involve observing people in different political systems, we can put them in situations to observe their decision making and relate it to the political.One experiment involving offering two bank robbers the opportunity to either stay quiet or hand over their accomplice saw individuals being rational. The best outcome was if they both stayed quiet and saw them both have reduced sentences, whilst if one stays quiet and the other hands the accomplice over, the accomplice will be sentenced with the one who handed him over going free. However, if they both handed each other over they would both have an increased sentence. This is part of game theory and is known as the prisoner’s dilemma. Being rational, the prisoners near enough always handed over their partner.Rational choice theorists would suggest t his can be transferred to the political arena by explaining that they would act with this level of self-interest in all situations, including within the political arena. Nonetheless, it is important to note that choosing between imprisonment and who governs are two completely different scenarios. To say that individuals would act the same in both situations with little evidence to show this is somewhat illogical. For example when confronted by a woman asking you for your wallet you may decide to refuse, but when she is holding a gun to your head your answer may change.The game show whereby similar outcomes are offered to two people but instead of prison sentences, the outcome is how much money they receive is evidence of how the answer depends on what is at stake. Within this show there were always different combinations of answers with both self-interested people and people willing to share. From this essay it is clear that there are many weaknesses. However, it should not go un-no ticed that one of the most influential factors that caused the increasing use of the rational choice approach was its vigour. Whilst other approaches offer mere descriptions, rational choice theory goes into deep questioning.Furthermore, the methodology is greater than any other with the use of experiments to allow for more precise, qualitative data to be recorded. On the other hand it could be argued that the use of rational choice approach ignores the study of institutions by focusing solely on the individual. All theories possess strengths and weaknesses. It is also apparent that different approaches may offer more concise measurements in different areas so it is important not to rely on one particular approach, but instead use a variety to allow for a more reliable analysis.Despite the outlined weaknesses, it has had much success in the field of economics. Some may argue that this means we should stick with it as a way of analysing politics. However, I fear that it is not plausi ble to simply transfer a theory from one subject to another, despite both being social sciences. This is due to the nature of politics being focused on equal distribution and fairness (in the vast majority of countries due to the democratic values resulting in a government for all the people).If people were as self-interested as the rational choice approach suggests then there would be a lot more extreme right-wing and left-wing parties present where the rich want to keep all of their money and the poor want as many benefits as possible. Instead we find a middle ground such as the liberal democrats in England. For this reason, it appears that the methodology does not compliment the ontology as no matter what experiments are carried out, none can be related to the political, as the European University Institute outlined. The Rational Choice Approach Whilst people all around the world debate over which political system is the most effective, social scientists are still in debate over which is the best way to analyse politics. Without the correct analysis of political objects how is one supposed to decide which political system or party is the most effective? It is for this reason that the way in which we analyse political objects is so important. There are many different ways to go about analysing politics. One main distinction to be noted is how in America the subject is called political science, whereas many European universities just call it politics.European scholars would suggest that the name political science is flawed in the sense that you cannot conduct certain political experiments. Rational choice theorists would suggest otherwise as I will explain later on in the essay. In a lecture delivered by Professor Mark Franklin at the European University Institute, he stated; â€Å"We cannot take a random sample of people and give them a new political system to see what happens† (Franklin, 2006). Debates such as these go far further than just cross-national. In this essay I intend to give a brief background to the various approaches to studying politics.I will then go on to outline the strengths and weaknesses of the rational choice approach to understanding the political, paying close attention to the definition of self-interest, using various scholars work to form a critique of the rational choice theory. The studying of politics can be dated back to the ‘Platonic era’ of ancient Greece, as early as 420 B. C. However, the departments of politics came much later. Within these departments one of the earliest forms of analysing politics was through the method of institutionalism. This involved the studying of institutions.Institutionalists looked at how institutions were formed, what they did and how they were structured. Rather than looking at philosophical questions, institutionalist s concentrated on normative questions. Institutionalism was criticised for its lack of rigour as it was mainly a descriptive process. Others called it elitist and described it as â€Å"clever people telling others about their own system† (Parvin, 2013). The 1930s saw the American way of thinking revised as a result of the increasing numbers of European scholars entering America.As a result of this, and with the growing criticisms of the conventional approach, analysis took a behavioural standpoint. At the same time of behaviouralism, rational choice theorists were in writing. However, it only flourished in the 1980s. Rational choice theory involves more questioning of peoples decisions and political objectives and was a lot less descriptive. Rational choice theory, first used in the field of economics, suggests individuals are rational and therefore act in their own self-interest. They do this by weighing up the costs and benefits of a situation.It also assumes individuals ar e rational meaning they do not act outside the norm. Another assumption is that individuals make their decisions whilst taking into account what other individuals do, or what they believe the other individuals will do. The first weakness of the rational choice theory I wish to analyse is the assumption that all individuals are self-interested. To tackle this it is important to define being self-interested. It is often defined as one gaining pleasure from an act. However, is an act still self-interested if the person gains pleasure from helping others?If your answer is no, then what if an act pleasures one’s self whilst helping others, but also putting others at a disadvantage. Is this now self-interested again? For example, when a pressure group member of ‘fathers 4 justice’ climbs a building to encourage politicians to allow him to see his child he would be seen as self-interested. On the other hand, he is doing it in order to care for his child and give him the correct up-bringing he needs. In this instance he may not be considered self-interested. On a further note, by climbing up said building police and other services would be called out to resolve the situation.This could lead to a delayed call-out for police to attend another crime scene, putting others at a disadvantage. Does this now make the act self-interested again? From this series example it is evident that there are usually several parties affected by a particular political movement or decision. It is also evident that upon making political decisions people often have multiple incentives which may involve benefiting ones self and benefiting others, making it extremely difficult to give determine if an act is self-interested or not.Furthermore, assuming it was possible to narrow down an act to being self-interested or not, it is  impossible to say every single person is self-interested. This is outlined by the ‘black swan theory’. This theory suggests that no ma tter how many white swans you see, you can never rule out the possibility of there being a black swan. One strength of the rational choice theory is that it offers an explanation as to why there has been a a dramatic decrease in political participation since the middle of the 20th century, as outlined in Colin Hay’s book ‘Why we hate politics’.For example, between 1950 and 2001 electoral turnout in the UK has decreased by 24.2% (Hay, 2008: 49). Decreases in electoral turnout doesn’t stop at the UK, since the middle of the 20th century lots of countries including of the OECD countries, bar two. This decrease in political participation may be as a result of voters weighing up the costs and benefits of voting and then coming to the conclusion the costs outweigh the benefits. People feel as if their vote would count for nothing and that one vote is highly unlikely to change who forms the government. Hay goes on to deliver this point of view in the equation of [Uchosen – Uother] p > Cvoting.In this equation [Uchosen – Uother] p represents the utility the voter receives if the party they vote for goes into power minus the utility received if the other party goes into power. Cvoting represents the cost of voting and the cost is always greater than the benefits to a rational individual (Hay, 2008: 50). This is further examined by Mancur Oslon in his book ‘The logic of Collective Action’. Oslon highlights how individuals do not participate, letting others put in the work and then reaping the rewards of having a strong government (Oslon, 1971).This has also been linked to the power of the minority and how they can choose to opt out of a trade union but still get the benefits, for example; an increasing wage rate. Both theories presented are easy to accept as they suggest strong explanations as to why there has been a decrease in participation. However, on a closer examination to the voting system, it may appear that there are more benefits to be earned from voting. Many people experience a feeling of pleasure from participating as they feel as if they have done a good deed.Which arguably, they have. Moreover, some people may experience a sense of pride as a result of doing something to help their country. Another point to take into account when weighing up the benefits of voting is that some people may genuinely enjoy the process. On the contrary, when weighing the costs it must be noted that the effort and inconvenience of voting isn’t the only cost in certain cases. Some individuals choose not to vote as they believe by voting they are accepting a certain party’s policies, whereas some people do not agree with any party.Others are anarchists who do not believe governments should exist. In this instance the cost would be far greater, providing further support for the rational choice theory. The rational choice theory has also allowed us to predict behaviour through its vigorous m ethodology. In the introduction I briefly mentioned the various views on whether or not politics can be viewed as a science. Although we may not be able to conduct experiments which involve observing people in different political systems, we can put them in situations to observe their decision making and relate it to the political.One experiment involving offering two bank robbers the opportunity to either stay quiet or hand over their accomplice saw individuals being rational. The best outcome was if they both stayed quiet and saw them both have reduced sentences, whilst if one stays quiet and the other hands the accomplice over, the accomplice will be sentenced with the one who handed him over going free. However, if they both handed each other over they would both have an increased sentence. This is part of game theory and is known as the prisoner’s dilemma. Being rational, the prisoners near enough always handed over their partner.Rational choice theorists would suggest t his can be transferred to the political arena by explaining that they would act with this level of self-interest in all situations, including within the political arena. Nonetheless, it is important to note that choosing between imprisonment and who governs are two completely different scenarios. To say that individuals would act the same in both situations with little evidence to show this is somewhat illogical. For example when confronted by a woman asking you for your wallet you may decide to refuse, but when she is holding a gun to your head your answer may change.The game show whereby similar outcomes are offered to two people but instead of prison sentences, the outcome is how much money they receive is evidence of how the answer depends on what is at stake. Within this show there were always different combinations of answers with both self-interested people and people willing to share. From this essay it is clear that there are many weaknesses. However, it should not go un-no ticed that one of the most influential factors that caused the increasing use of the rational choice approach was its vigour. Whilst other approaches offer mere descriptions, rational choice theory goes into deep questioning.Furthermore, the methodology is greater than any other with the use of experiments to allow for more precise, qualitative data to be recorded. On the other hand it could be argued that the use of rational choice approach ignores the study of institutions by focusing solely on the individual. All theories possess strengths and weaknesses. It is also apparent that different approaches may offer more concise measurements in different areas so it is important not to rely on one particular approach, but instead use a variety to allow for a more reliable analysis.Despite the outlined weaknesses, it has had much success in the field of economics. Some may argue that this means we should stick with it as a way of analysing politics. However, I fear that it is not plausi ble to simply transfer a theory from one subject to another, despite both being social sciences. This is due to the nature of politics being focused on equal distribution and fairness (in the vast majority of countries due to the democratic values resulting in a government for all the people).If people were as self-interested as the rational choice approach suggests then there would be a lot more extreme right-wing and left-wing parties present where the rich want to keep all of their money and the poor want as many benefits as possible. Instead we find a middle ground such as the liberal democrats in England. For this reason, it appears that the methodology does not compliment the ontology as no matter what experiments are carried out, none can be related to the political, as the European University Institute outlined.

Is Cloning Not Ethical - 1425 Words

All organisms on this planet evolved from a single cell. That single cell eventually developed into complex organisms with a billion cells. Insects, birds, apes, and the person that sits next to you on the bus every morning, are all very closely related†¦ to you, but what makes a human distinctive from all the other organisms on this planet? Humans are unique in their own way because they have evolved to perform extraordinary and assorted tasks. Humans are meant to have flaws, and they are meant to be diverse, but a relatively new advancement contradicts the definition of being human. For many years the world has had to deal with a controversial topic of cloning. Cloning is an exact, precise copy of an organism (â€Å"Cloning†). Even though cloning provides many benefits, human cloning is not ethical because it will cost a tremendous amount of money and time. Cloning will also destroy evolution, and finally each and every human, even a clone, deserves a sense of individua lity. As mentioned earlier, cloning is the copying of an organism that results in identical offspring (â€Å"Cloning†). Scientists have tried cloning many times on frogs and other organisms (â€Å"Cloning†), but when the first mammal to be cloned was successful in 1997, scientists jumped into pools of thoughts to clone humans. The first mammal to be cloned was a sheep named Dolly. The process of cloning Dolly was called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. The nucleus of a somatic stem cell is taken out of the eggs of theShow MoreRelatedThe Ethical Implications Of Cloning1265 Words   |  6 PagesCloning is the process of making copies of individuals that occur in nature such as bacteria, insects, plants, invertebrates or vertebrates. The copy is called clones. Clones are genetically identical to their original parent. Development of cloned animals, which have been genetically engineered to produce valuable proteins in their milk. These have uses in medicine, cloning can also save animals from extinction. Cloning would open doors to even more powerful technologies of human genetic informationRead MoreThe Ethical Implications Of Cloning997 Words   |  4 Pages Artificial Cloning Cloning is a number of different processes that can be used to produce genetically identical copies of a biological entity; in short it is an identical duplicate of something living. Cloning does occur naturally by single celled organism through asexual reproduction, they make a new individual from themselves not having to use a partner, so if cloning is already done by these single celled organisms; why is artificial cloning portrayed so badly in movies and media? MostRead More Cloning: Is It Ethical? Essay1574 Words   |  7 PagesCloning: Is It Ethical? Science today is developing at warp speed. We have the capability to do many things, which include the cloning of actual humans! First you may ask what a clone is? A clone is a group of cells or organisms, which are genetically identical, and have all been produced from the same original cell. There are three main types of cloning, two of which aim to produce live cloned offspring and one, which simply aims to produce stem cells and then human organs. These three are:Read MoreThe Ethical Implications Of Cloning Essay1989 Words   |  8 Pagesfragments of DNA or genetic information. The developments of cloning over time has opened up many doors for scientists. This has lead to animals such as sheep and primates become fully developed, or have come close to fully developing into clones. Primates are essentially humans closest genetic relative and so the cloning of the monkey reinforced the possibility of the cloning of humans. Although there are many other ways that cloning can be us eful in terms of being a therapeutic resource for humansRead MoreIs Cloning Ethical Or Moral?1617 Words   |  7 PagesCloning is one of the most controversial topics in all of science in the current day. Technology has come miles from where it has been, and we still have yet to perfect how it is used. When I chose this topic as one of the two I had to pick from the list, I didn’t really know how cloning worked or how I actually felt about the on-going conversation of whether or not cloning is ethical or moral, much less legal. What I have come to conclude after the various articles I have read, and the differentRead MoreIs Human Cloning Ethical or Not?551 Words   |  2 Pagesanother person. What is Cloning? Although there have been no confirmed cases of cloned human beings, cloning in theory allows scientists to create a genetic copy of another human individual. The clone would not be an exact physical copy and he/she would have his/her own individual personality and unique fingers prints and toe prints in spite of sharing DNA with the person from whom he/she was cloned. The issue of human cloning can be seen as either ethical or un-ethical, depending on who is beingRead MoreHuman Cloning And Its Ethical Issues1194 Words   |  5 PagesThere have been many arguments in the world about human cloning and its ethical issues. In an issue there will always be pros and cons, but the question is, is this experiment right for humanity? This paper will give in detail about what is cloning, human cloning and how it is done. It will provide my point of view in this topic and two other different arguments from both sides of the issue and finally determine which ones are great arguments. I present my argument with we all are humans andRead MoreThe Ethical Implications Of Human Cloning1305 Words   |  6 Pagesbe duplicated. Cloning sheep and other nonhuman animals seemed more ethically benign to some than potentially cloning people. In response to such concerns in the United States, President Clinton signed a five-year moratorium on federal funding for human cloning the same year of Dolly s arrival [source: Lamb]. Human cloning has become one of the most debated topics among people in the world regarding the ethical implications. In past polls by TIME magazine (The Ethics of Cloning, 1998), it was shownRead MoreCloning Ethical And Moral Dilemma3147 Words   |  13 Pages Cloning an Ethical and Moral Dilemma Scott Blakley Jr. YC English 101, Period 3 Dr. Palm 1 December 2014 Cloning an Ethical and Moral Dilemma Science has been plagued with the limits of ethics and morals of the people that fail to see the bigger picture that research can help to bring great things to the world. Cloning is one of the major fields that are affected by closed minded beliefs and laws that prohibit research. Should the search for finding medicine that could save lives andRead MoreWhat Are the Ethical Issues of Human Cloning1463 Words   |  6 Pagesregarding the issue of human cloning in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia which have made attempts or have done research in reproductive cloning. Countries like Australia have prohibited human cloning in 2006. (NHMRC, 2007) Advocates who involve congress members, editorial writers, fertility specialists...and so on gave benefits of human cloning, yet not enough to justify the moral and ethical issues underlying the controversy. Human cloning refers to the creation of

Restoring the American Chestnut Tree