Category: Questions

Managerial Economics Case Study

Managerial Economics Case Study

Executive Summary

A leading manufacturer, producer, and distributor of oil, gas, and petrochemical products, ExxonMobil has established its operations in different parts of the world, including the United Kingdom and India. Conducting business in these countries necessitates adherence to the monetary, fiscal, political, and market requirements and further complying with governmental rules and policies that regulate the organization’s operations. As will be portrayed herein, ExxonMobil’s operations are characterized by various components shaping or influencing its sustainability within the nation and its surrounding neighbours. The depiction of these components will necessitate a thorough review of its economic activities’ monetary, fiscal, and political aspects. These will be coupled with an in-depth analysis and comparison of the countries in terms of their market structure, the effects of the major macroeconomic indicators, and local and foreign trade policies.

Introduction

Exxon Mobil Corporation entails an international oil and gas company based in Irving, Texas. Originated from Standard Oil, owned by John D. Rockefeller, ExxonMobil was formulated and established on November 30, 1999, through a merger between Exxon (formerly Standard Oil Company of New Jersey) and Mobil (the former Standard Oil Company of New York). The primary commodities associated with the company include Exxon, Mobil, Esso, and ExxonMobil Chemical (ExxonMobil, 2019). Throughout the years, its operations have contributed to ExxonMobil being ranked one of the leading firms globally in terms of revenue.

Most fundamentally, between 2016 and 2017, ExxonMobil ranged between the first position to sixth in terms of market capitalization and public trading. In 2016, the company was position three in the Forbes Global 2000 list, while in 2017, ExxonMobil was number ten among the companies that made the most profits, as per Fortune 500. Subsequently, in 2018, ExxonMobil position two out of the largest organizations in America, as stipulated by 500 rankings based on total revenue (ExxonMobil, 2019). These accomplishments have been characterized by company shares distributed across various local and international institutions. For instance, a large portion (55.56%) of ExxonMobil’s shares is owned by institutions such as The Vanguard Group with 8.15%, BlackRock with 6.61%, and State Street Corporation with 4.83%, as of 2019.

As one of the Big Oil companies globally, ranked 14^th, ExxonMobil produced 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) as of 2016. Besides, ExxonMobil owns 37 refineries in more than 21 nations, which constitute a cumulative refining capacity of approximately 6.3 million barrels (1,000,000 m³) daily, pushing the company to position seven among the most significant global refiners. Despite these accomplishments, ExxonMobil has enjoyed its fair share of criticism based on its slow response to cleaning up efforts following the 1989 Alaskan oil spill that brought immeasurable damage to the world’s environment (Chart Industries, 2020). Additionally, ExxonMobil has been associated with a long history of lobbying activities and efforts to deny climate change and objection to the global warming consensus. Thus, ExxonMobil has employed various measures in minimising the environmental impact of its global operations. Still, the company remains the target of accusations related to inadequately addressing human rights issues, American’s foreign policy influence, and its effect on other countries’ future.

Nonetheless, ExxonMobil remains the most significant company not owned by the government in the energy sector that produces an average of 3% of the oil and an estimated 2% of the world’s energy. (ExxonMobil, 2019) Therefore, this case’s essence entails an in-depth overview and analysis of ExxonMobil’s operations by focusing on two countries, the United Kingdom and India. The analysis will delve into the market structure in which ExxonMobil operates for and within the two countries. These elements will be followed closely by a comparative analysis and analysis of the major macroeconomic indicators between the two countries and their potential effect on the company’s economic activities. Ultimately, this case study will analyse the foreign trade policy instruments applied in both countries.

Research Problem/Question

A nation’s economy is shaped by the macroeconomic activities that bring in foreign investors and foster trade with different countries and regions. In this case, this report highlights ExxonMobil’s operations in two different countries, India and the United Kingdom, by focusing on their market structure and other macroeconomic indicators that influence the company’s economic activities. It will analyse the countries’ suitability for the company operations by epitomising the various indicators that affect the economy and trade activities.

Analysis

ExxonMobil’s operations are organized into different global divisions categorised into three groups: stand-alone and ancillary divisions such as Coals and Minerals (ExxonMobil, 2019). Today, ExxonMobil’s global operations are renowned for their popular brand names, Exxon, Esso, and Mobil. The company manufactures products that facilitate transportation in the modern world, powering cities, lubricating industries, and further providing petrochemical building blocks that foster numerous consumer goods (Chart Industries, 2020).

ExxonMobil focuses on exploring oil, extracting, shipping, and wholesale operations within its upstream division. The downstream division specializes in marketing, refining, and retail operations for the company’s products. Lastly, the chemical businesses division is a merger between Exxon’s and Mobil’s chemical industries with main products that include olefins and aromatics, synthetic lubricant base stocks and additives, catalysts, and polyethylene, among others (ExxonMobil, 2019). These operations foster the identification, capturing, and evaluation of new oil and gas resources in operation countries. However, most of the production fields in which ExxonMobil is interested, especially in the North Sea, are operated by other companies as part of a joint venture. As a result, working in various locations around the world, ExxonMobil has, over the years, powered the economy of the neighbouring countries with significant investments in economic growth (ExxonMobil, 2019). These elements have facilitated the exemplification of the company’s commitment to supporting the communities within which it operates through education and economic empowerment, the provision of infrastructure, human capacity development, and health.

 

ExxonMobil’s Operations in the United Kingdom and Market Structure Analysis

Under the upstream division, ExxonMobil’s operations in the United Kingdom have involved activities such as the exploration and production of petroleum. Specifically, ExxonMobil holds or owns an average of 0.6 million acres (2,400 km2) of the land on the United Kingdom’s offshore. ExxonMobil exploration activities have emphasized the identification, acquisition, and evaluation of new oil and gas resources (ExxonMobil, 2019). As of 2019, ExxonMobil’s production activities entailed targeting approximately 40 production offshore oil and gas fields along the North Sea. The majority of the areas in which the company had targeted were operated by Shell U.K., boosting explorative and production operations as part of a collaborative effort (ExxonMobil, 2019). The code of practice applied in access the oil and gas infrastructure within the United Kingdom entails a voluntary agreement put in place by Oil & Gas UK in consultation with the Depart of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).

ExxonMobil’s operations in the United Kingdom have facilitated its rise in rankings as the largest oil pipeline distribution network, with approximately 700 kilometres of pipeline. Most of the United Kingdom’s refinery products are transported by pipeline to distribution terminals at Avonmouth, Birmingham, Hythe, Purfleet, and West London. The remaining products are transported by road or sea (ExxonMobil, 2019). In 2015, ExxonMobil invested £254 million in the United Kingdom North Sea, boosting its responsibility to an average of 5% of the oil and gas produced in the country. This investment and production activities further supplied the United Kingdom and other global markets with approximately 80,000 barrels of oil and about 441 million cubic feet of gas daily. Best known for its famous brands, Esso and Mobil, ExxonMobil remains the largest retailer in petrol across the United Kingdom. Thus, it serves around 800,000 customers daily through its retail network that comprises 1,100 Esso-branded service stations. Through its principal subsidiary in the United Kingdom, Esso, ExxonMobil is one of the largest offshore industry investors (FocusEconomics, 2021). However, investments in the North Sea are managed through 50/50 joint operations with Shell.

ExxonMobil in India and Market Structure Analysis

Incorporated and registered in May 1996, ExxonMobil has its presence in India through its upstream, downstream, and chemical businesses. Its offices are located in Bengaluru, Gurgaon, Mumbai, New Delhi, and the National Capital Region.  The upstream division focuses on providing consultancy and support services ranging from LNG business development and marketing, natural gas and support exploration and production services. On the other hand, the downstream division distributes, sells, and markets Mobil-branded lubricants and specialties (Chart Industries, 2020). Specifically, the downstream business sector has marketed fuel and lubricants in India since 1995 under the Mobil brand through operations such as importation of base oils, lubricant oil branding, packaging, and distribution and marketing. The chemical business is carried out as a service provider to other marketing agents for other ExxonMobil affiliates, facilitating imports and inland sales through distributors and directly to consumers and business analysis since 1986 (The Economic Times, 2021). For instance, in Bengaluru, ExxonMobil has a Technology Center that delivers development support. The business and the technical support centres provide various services for ExxonMobil’s operations worldwide.

ExxonMobil, operating as ExxonMobil Company India Private Limited, entails an Indian non-government firm with a private unlisted firm and a company listed by share. Specifically, ExxonMobil’s authorized capital in India stands at Rs 3500 lakhs and a 55.14429% paid-up capital (Rs 1930.05 lakhs). The last annual general meeting (AGM) for ExxonMobil Company India Private Limited was held on 29 September 2017. The company’s previous financial updates were done on 31 March 2017 as per the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (The Economic Times, 2021).

Comparative Analysis in the Major Macroeconomic Indicators

Indeed, a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) serves as a significant indicator of the national economy’s shape. In the United Kingdom, the gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate has portrayed levelling prospects in recent years after a lengthy period of the effects following the 2008 financial collapse (Monetary Policy Committee, 2020). The average GDP growth rate in the United Kingdom has averaged at 0.58 percent since 1955 and an all-time high of 16.10 percent in the third quarter of 2020, and a record low of -19% in the second quarter of 2020. The country’s GDP’s annual growth rate at market prices has been based on constant local currency. At the same time, the aggregates are determined through factors such as the sum of the gross value added by all resident producers in the economy and product taxes minus any subsidies excluded in the value of the products.

Based on the constant increase in the population from 62.51 million to 67.88 million between 2010 and 2020, the nation’s GDP growth rate has significantly fluctuated from 1.95% to 1.46% in the same period, with an all-time high of 2.61% in 2014. Specifically, the GDP growth rate in 2010 was 1.95%, which declined to 1.54% in 2011, a -0.41% fluctuation. In 2012, the growth rate in the GDP further declined to 1.48%, a -0.06% decline. In 2013, Britain’s economy grew by 2.14%, a 0.66% annual change, marking the fastest pace in approximately three years. During this year, the country’s output increased across industrial sectors such as agriculture (1.4%), production (0.5%), construction (2.5%), and service (0.7%). These rates were followed closely by a substantial growth in the GDP by 2.61%, a 0.47% annual change in 2014; 2.36% growth rate in 2013 (-0.25% in 2015); 1.92% in 2016 (-0.44% annual change); 1.89% in 2017 (-0.03% annual change); 1.34% in 2018 (-055% annual change); and a slight increase of 1.46% in 2019 (0.12% annual change).

However, projections indicate that the economy should recover this year following the potential easement of the Covid-19 pandemic and other monetary or fiscal boosts. The decline in the UK’s GDP growth rate has been associated with numerous factors that include the Brexit disruption that continues to subject the nation to limitations in access to the EU market and further indicates constraints over the growth momentum (Qiang & Kusek, 2020). The catastrophic events associated with the EU’s exit, coupled with the prolonged social distancing measures brought along the Covid-19 pandemic, have posed, and continue to pose, downside risks. Nonetheless, the economy is expected to expand by approximately 6.0% in 2021. Following this trend, the GDP per capita at constant prices between 2010 and 2019 was USD 39,436 and USD 42 330, respectively. Though the trend portrays an increase, the rate has fluctuated exponentially, and similar patterns have been observed between 2020 and 2021 (Trading Economics, 2020).

As portrayed in the table below, UK’s GDP per capita at constant prices increased significantly from 2010 to the subsequent years from $39.436 to $42,039 in 2011 (6.60% annual change). This increase was followed closely by a constant rise to $42,463 (1.01% annual growth rate) in 2012, $43,445 (2.31% growth rate) in 2013, and $47,426 (9.16% growth) in 2014. From 2015 through to 2017, the GDP growth rate per capita at constant prices slightly declined to $44,975 (-5.17% annual change), $41,064 (-8.70% annual change) in 2016, and $40,361 (-1.71% annual decline) in 2017 (Macrotrends, 2021). However, the GDP per capita at constant prices started levelling up in 2018 at $43,043 (6.64% annual change) but later declined in 2019. Between 2020 and 2021, the UK’s GDP growth rate stands at a moderate rate of 1.0% from 16.1% in the third quarter.

Similarly, based on an annual variation of the consumer price index (CPI), the United Kingdom’s inflation rate was approximately 1.74% as of 2019 compared to 2.49% in 2010. (See the table below) (FocusEconomics, 2021). Following this trend, the unemployment rate, based on the active population percentage, stood at 3.8% in 2019, a decline from 5.4% in 2015 and 4.1% in 2018 (Macrotrends, 2021). Similar to the facts that contributed to changes in the country’s GDP growth, the UK’s inflation rate has fluctuated significantly from 2010 to 2020. For instance, since 2011, the UK’s inflation rate was 3.86% with an annual change of 1.36%, but in 2012, the rate declined to 2.57% (-1.28% annual change). This trend continued through the subsequent years with a rate of 2.29% (-0.28%) in 2013, 1,45% (-0.84%) in 2014, and 0.37% (-1.08%) in 2015. In the subsequent years, the inflation rate in the UK portrayed increment prospects from 1.01% (0.64% annual change) in 2016 and 2.56% (1.55% annual change) in 2017 (Macrotrends, 2021). This rate was later characterized by a slight decline to 2.29% (-0.27% annual change) in 2018 and further by 1.74% (0.55% annual decline) in 2019.

Nevertheless, the policy interest rate applied in the United Kingdom averaged 0.75% between 2018 and 2020. Following the 2008 financial crisis, people in the UK reduced their expenditure when the majority lost their jobs, which led to the government cutting interest rates to relatively low levels to support employment opportunities and the people’s income. As a result, the UK government has made it necessary to keep policy interests relatively low over the past few years (Macrotrends, 2021). For instance, between 2010 and the third quarter of 2016, the policy interest rate was regulated to an average of 0.5%, which later declined to 0.25% until the last quarter in 2017. Between the last quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2020, the policy interest rate was averaged at 0.75%, which drastically declined to 0.25% and later to 0.1% in the first and last quarters of 2020, respectively. During the same period, the general government’s balance (fiscal balance calculated as a percentage of the GDP) in the UK entailed a deficit of 1.8% of the GDP in the 2018-2019 fiscal year (Macrotrends, 2021).  During the period between 2010 and 2019, the United Kingdom’s unemployment rate fluctuated between 7.79% to 3.85%. Although the rate portrayed a potential increase in 2011 at 8.04% (0.25% annual change), the trend has followed a downward pattern until 2019 (see the table below). Between 2010 and 2012, the general balance declined from -8.7% to -7.3%, which stagnated through to 2013, and continued to decline from -5.8% in 2014, -5.2% in 2015, -4.2% in 2016, -2.8% and -2.7% in 2017 and 2018, and -1.8% in 2019 (US Department of State, 2020). During this period, the balance of payments stood at -172.09 USD billion in 2010, which slightly increased to -170.564 USD billion in 2012, followed by a significant decline to -224.06 USD in 2012. The figures have fluctuated from -115.41 USD billion in 2013 to -222.98 USD billion in 2019 (See table below).  Based on an average period (aop), the UK’s exchange rate has portrayed volatility in recent years amid political turmoil regarding Brexit and debate over when formal negotiations should be initiated with the European Union (Macrotrends, 2021). In 2010, the exchange rate averaged 1.33 GBP per USD, which continued to fluctuate to 1.28 GBP per USD in 2018 (FocusEconomics, 2021).

Macroeconomic Indicator	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
GDP growth Rate	1.95%	1.54%	1.48%	2.14%	2.61%	2.36%	1.92%	1.89%	1.34%	1.46%
GDP per capita at constant prices (in $)	39,436	42,039	42,463	43,445	47,426	44,975	41,064	40,361	43,043	42,330
Inflation rate	2.49%	3.86%	2.57%	2.29%	1.45%	0.37%	1.01%	2.56%	2.29%	1.74%
Unemployment rate	7.79%	8.04%	7.89%	7.53%	6.11%	5.30%	4.81%	4.34%	4.0%	3.85%
Policy Interest rate	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.25%	0.75%	0.75%
General government balances	-8.7%	–	-7.3%	-7.3%	-5.2%	-4.2%	-2.8%	-2.7%	-2.7%	-1.8%
Balance of payments in USD Billion	-172.09	–	-170.564	-224.06	-115.41	–	–	–	–	-222.98
Exchange rate (% of GDP per USD)	1.33									1.28

In India, the GDP growth rate was at its peak in 2010 at 16.1%, but over the years, it had declined from 6.3% in 2018 to approximately 4.5% in 2020. This slowed growth depicted a significant reduction in consumption across the private sector, manufacturing, construction, and agriculture activity. Moreover, the stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) in India experienced a decline since 2010, mirroring a similar reduction in India’s private investment (Shroff, Pandey, & Nijhawan, 2021). During this period, the substantial increase in demographics indicated that India should have generated millions of job opportunities annually. According to Guruswamy (2019), the plunge in India’s economic growth since 2010 is based on the change in the economy’s composition. For instance, in 2010, agriculture contributed 17.5% of the GDP, industrial activities brought along 30.2%, while services contributed to 45.4%. Contrastingly, in 2019, agriculture declined to 15.6%, industrial activities fell to 26.5%, and services to 48.5%.

However, based on the informal economy’s large size, India’s unemployment rate rose exponentially to 5.36%, a 0.03% increase from 2018 at 5.33%. This downward trend has averaged at approximately 5% since, in 2010, India’s unemployment rate was 5.64%, which increased to 5.65% and 5.67% between 2011 and 2013 (Macrotrends, 2021). In 2014, the rate continued to decline to 5.61% in 2014, 5.57% in 2015, 5.51% in 2016, and 5.42% in 2017.  Contrary to this pattern, the GDP per capita at constant prices has continually increased from $1,358 in 2010 to $ 2,113 in 2019. This increase has followed an upward trend as in 2012 the GDP per capita at constant prices was $1,444, $1,450 in 2013, $1,574 in 2014, $1,606 in 2015, $1,1,733 in 2016, $1,982 in 2017, and $2,006 in 2018 (FocusEconomics, 2021). During the same period, India’s inflation rate has drastically fluctuated from 11.99% in 2010 to 7.66% in 2019, considering the increase in price across commonly consumed commodities.

Simultaneously, India’s monetary policy interest rate since 2010 has averaged at approximately 4.0%. Still, in 2019 it declined to a 4.40% decline from 6.25% in the previous year, while general government balances during this period have fluctuated from $- 74.62 billion in 2010 to $-78.07 billion in 2019 (Macrotrends, 2021). Similarly, the balance of payments widened significantly to $ 130.5 billion (7.5% of the GDP) between 2010 and 2011 stood at USD -153.5 billion, while the exchange rates in India has continually grown from 44.7125 INR vs. USD in 2010 to 70.91 vs. USD in 2019 on an average period (aop) and as a percentage of the GDP (US Department of State, 2020).

Macroeconomic Indicator	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
GDP growth Rate	8.50%	5.24%	5.46%	6.39%	7.41%	8.00%	8.26%	7.04%	6.3%	4.5%
GDP per capita at constant prices (in $)	1,358	1,458	1,444	1,450	1,574	1,606	1,733	1,982	2,006	2,100
Inflation rate	11.99%	8.86%	9.31%	10.91%	6.35%	5.87%	4.94%	2.49%	4.86%	7.66%
Unemployment rate	5.64%	5.64%	5.65%	5.67%	5.61%	5.57%	5.51%	5.42%	5.33%	5.36%
Policy Interest rate	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	6.25%	4.40%
General government balances	-8.7%	–	-7.3%	-7.3%	-5.2%	-4.2%	-2.8%	-2.7%	-2.7%	-1.8%
Balance of payments in USD Billion	130.5	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	-153.5
Exchange rate (% of INR per USD)	44.7125									70.91

Monetary and Fiscal Policy Analysis and their Impact on ExxonMobil’s Economic Activity

ExxonMobil’s results in each country’s economy are vulnerable to various threats embedded in the global oil, gas, and petrochemical businesses. Most of these threats extend beyond the company’s ability or control and pose adverse effects to its business operations and financial condition. Specifically, the country’s economic conditions in which ExxonMobil operates may lead to its operations’ undesired impacts due to various factors. Among the top factors include the increase in demand for energy and petrochemicals, directly associated with expansive activities and prosperity levels (World Bank Group, 2020). However, when recessions occur or other instances characterized by negative or low economic growth, ExxonMobil’s financial activities and operations directly. Additional components that adversely impact the company’s economic conditions and activities and the country of operation include changes in the rate of population growth, civil upheaval, austerity programs put forth by the government, trade tariffs, public health or security concerns, or fluctuations in the exchange rate on the currency (Shroff, Pandey, Nijhawan, 2021). Their impact occurs due to changes in the demand for energy and petrochemicals.

Thus, these factors are coupled with other aspects that include downgrading debt within the sovereign nation, limitations to accessing debt markets following legal constraints, and restructuring of monetary, fiscal, or political systems such as the European Union.  These components impair the functionality of the financial markets and the nation, in general (Qiang & Kusek, 2020). They collectively pose various threats to ExxonMobil, including predisposing the company to the security risks to its financial assets and its customers and partners in terms of their ability to fulfill their dedication to the firm. For instance, due to the Brexit movement in the United Kingdom, the policy interest rate has since 2018 stagnated at 0.75% due to the ongoing debate and the uncertainty of its monetary, fiscal, and political restructuring economy. Moreover, the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic has brought along unforeseen effects to the world by limiting movements, requiring social distancing measures, and locking down businesses within countries. These events have contributed to a continuous decline in the country’s inflation rate (-1.79% by 2019) and an unemployment rate at 76.6% (Trading Economics, 2020).

Similarly, the Indian market is characterized by various factors that may affect ExxonMobil’s economic activities. For instance, when the World Bank anticipates that the rate of inflation may fall below the government’s targeted level (2%), the economy’s growth tends to be slow down. At the same time, the economy faces a recession. As a result, interest rates are strategically reduced (loose monetary policy effect) (World Bank Group, 2020). Alternatively, suppose the world bank anticipates rapid growth in the economy and inflation may exceed the government’s targeted level, increase interest rates to regulate economic growth and further minimize pressure related to inflation, the tight monetary policy effect. In the latter case, an increase in the interest rate leads to a decline in consumer expenditure and investment, resulting in inflation. As of 2019, India’s policy interest rate stood at 4..40%, an increase from 3.4% in the previous year.

Akin to India’s case, the UK has faced similar interest rates, leading to potential threats to ExxonMobil’s economic activities. An increase in the interest rate hinders consumer spending, and investment lowers the inflation rate (US Department of State, 2020). The company’s performance in the economy is predisposed to adverse effects due to inflation and interest rate changes, fluctuations in the currency exchange rate, and other market condition at the local and regional levels.

 

Analysis of the Foreign Trade Policy Instruments and their impact on ExxonMobil’s Economic Activity

Undoubtedly, political and governmental activities can adversely affect ExxonMobil’s economic activities through limitations in the accessibility of its oil and gas resources. For instance, limiting foreign investments in the oil and gas sector leads to a significant boost in the commodities’ price, especially when national governments do not portray any need for capital from external sources (Monetary Policy Committee, 2020). Specifically, a decrease in the aggregate demand leads to the government cutting expenditure (G) and increasing taxes. The increase in taxes reduces consumer spending, and the fiscal policy’s rigidity will cause an improvement in the government budget deficit. However, when faced with situations that lead to an increase in the aggregate demand, the government tends to increase its expenditure and further cut taxes. By lowering taxes, consumer expenditure increases exponentially due to the rise in their disposable income, which, in turn, worsens the government budget deficit and the need to increasing borrowing (Qiang & Kusek, 2020).

Following the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK and India have pursued expansionary fiscal policies to stabilize and sustain operations. As a result, both governments have been forced to cut VAT to boost consumer spending, translating into a significant increase in government borrowing (Trading Economics, 2020). The increased borrowing has lowered the countries’ currency value, leading to fluctuations in the currency exchange rate. For instance, by the end of 2019, the UK’s exchange rate averaged at 1.33 GBP per USD, while India was 70.91 per USD on an average period (FocusEconomics, 2021).

 

Limitations in the Case Study and Recommendations

Although much of the information is available on various sources, it is quite challenging to determine their validity and reliability. Besides, verifying the data presented in these sources is a cumbersome and time-consuming task that requires in-depth analysis and comparison of the information from the country’s or company’s website and physical records. Another limitation arises when these companies fail to voluntarily produce their data in fear that such disclosure may expose competitively sensitive commercial information, leading to violation of non-disclosure laws. To address these challenges, it would be essential to seek the relevant information from the recommended sources that range from government sites, publicly released data from the company, and publications on the recent activities.

By regulating the policy interest and exchange rates, India would serve as a favorable market for ExxonMobil’s operations. It would encourage consumer expenditure based on an increase in foreign direct investment by corporations seeking to tap the firm’s opportunities. Besides, a partnership between the Indian government and ExxonMobil would boost the economy by providing employment opportunities across manufacturing, services, and logistics platforms. This way, both ExxonMobil and India, in general, would benefit from profits reaped, hence making it a hub for increased opportunities within the region and a leading producer and supplier of ExxonMobil products. Similarly, the Brexit initiative could boost ExxonMobil’s operations in the North Sea. The nations within this region, including the United Kingdom, would make independent decisions on the products, foreign investors, and trade partnerships. Consequently, partnering with ExxonMobil would boost its economic activities by increasing its presence within the region, hence increasing profits and productivity.

Conclusion

Despite its success in different countries, ExxonMobil, akin to other international organizations, is faced with numerous challenges characterized by monetary, fiscal, and political changes or restructuring within the country of operation. These changes bring along limitations to the local and foreign expenditure that further culminate in changes in the interest and exchange rates based on the people and businesses’ ability to spend their income on various products. Most fundamentally, government and political factors significantly affect ExxonMobil’s economic activities. They lead to adverse effects that affect operations, limit access to various commodities and services, and put laws and sanctions that prohibit the company from doing business in some countries.

References

Chart Industries. (2020, February 24). ExxonMobil, Indian oil, and chart industries pioneer virtual gas pipelines for India. GlobeNewswire News Room. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/02/24/1989074/0/en/ExxonMobil-Indian-Oil-and-Chart-Industries-to-Pioneer-Virtual-Gas-Pipelines-for-India.html

The Economic Times. (2021, January 16). Information – Company profile: ExxonMobil Company India Private Limited. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/company/exxonmobil-company-india-private-limited-/U45303MH1996PTC099555

ExxonMobil. (2019, May 9). UK operations | ExxonMobil United Kingdom. https://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/Company/Overview/UK-operations

ExxonMobil. (2019, May 9). Operations overview. https://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/Company/Overview/UK-operations/Operations-overview

FocusEconomics. (2021). United Kingdom economy – GDP, inflation, CPI, and interest rate. FocusEconomics | Economic Forecasts from the World’s Leading Economists. https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/united-kingdom

FocusEconomics. (2021). India’s economy – GDP, inflation, CPI, and interest rate. FocusEconomics | Economic Forecasts from the World’s Leading Economists. https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/india

Guruswamy, M. (2019). India’s plunging economy: Why 2010-2020 will be remembered as the lost decade. Scroll.In- Economic Growth. https://scroll.in/article/946864/indias-plunging-economy-why-2010-2020-will-be-remembered-as-the-lost-decade#:~:text=speak%20for%20themselves.-,India’s%20real%20GDP%20growth%20was%20at%20its%20peak%20in%20March,that%20point%20was%20over%2016.1%25.&text=In%202010%2C%20agriculture%20contributed%2017.5,%25%20and%20services%20to%2048.5%25

Macrotrends. (2021). India GDP growth rate 1961-2020. Macrotrends LLC. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/gdp-growth-rate

Macrotrends. (2021). U.K. GDP growth rate 1961-2021. Macrotrends | The Long Term Perspective on Markets. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-rate

Monetary Policy Committee. (2020, August). Monetary Policy at the Bank of England. Bank of England. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/monetary-policy-report/2020/august/monetary-policy-report-august-2020

Press Trust of India. (n.d.). Exxon Mobil in talks to buy a stake in Indian oil, gas fields: Pradhan. Business News, Finance News, India News, BSE/NSE News, Stock Markets News, Sensex NIFTY, Latest Breaking News Headlines. https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/exxon-mobil-in-talks-to-buy-stake-in-indian-oil-gas-fields-pradhan-120120200539_1.html

Rogers, S. (2013, October 25). UK GDP since 1955. the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy

Qiang, C. Z., & Kusek, P. (2020). Global Investment Competitiveness Report 2019/2020. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1536-2

Shroff, S. S., Pandey, R. K., & Nijhawan, V. (2021). Investing in India. Thomson Reuters. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-596-0585?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

Trading Economics. (2020). United Kingdom GDP growth rate | 1955-2020 data | 2021-2022 forecast | Calendar. TRADING ECONOMICS | 20 million INDICATORS FROM 196 COUNTRIES. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

US Department of State. (2020, December 4). Custom Report Excerpts: United Kingdom Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/report/custom/9617a81391-16/

US Department of State. (2020, September 4). 2020 Investment Climate Statements: India. United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-investment-climate-statements/india/

World Bank Group. (2020). Rebuilding Investor Confidence in Times of Uncertainty- Global Investment Competitiveness Report 2019/2020. 2020 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/33808/9781464815362.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

Appendices

Psychiatric stress

Question 1

The case has to establish the compensation for traumatic stress as a result of death caused by negligence of a careless driver. The rules are very clear pertaining to this case. The question is whether the driver of the car is answerable to problem of traumatic stress that is being experienced by the three individuals. The other issue is whether the driver owed the victims the duty of care. The tort principles of negligence can therefore be applied in this case since the drivers conduct was that of negligence hence generated traumatic stress and that the illness was not farfetched when we apply the Wagon Mound test.

The rules therefore requires the complainants to have suffered traumatic stress that is easily recognized and if the victim is a secondary complainant, then should have suffered from shock, the traumatic stress should have been foreseen that the complainant would eventually suffer from traumatic stress as a result of the negligence and that the stress can heal if it was as a result of fear of physical injury to himself. The victim ought to prove that the suffering is as a result of traumatic stress. Very minor stresses like grief are not accepted in the court. In most cases the cases that have been listened to include reactive stresses and also stresses after a trauma. The evidence from the expert is also important in order to prove that the complainant has really been affected.

Damages are in general only recoverable where the recognized psychiatric illness was shock-induced. What is required is “a sudden assault on the nervous system or “the sudden appreciation  of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind .The law does not in general provide recovery for psychiatric illness brought about by an accumulation of more gradual assaults upon the nervous system. A person who has had to cope with the deprivation consequent upon a bereavement,20 a spouse who has been worn down by caring for an injured husband or wife, and a parent made distraught by the wayward conduct of a brain-damaged child are not able to claim for psychiatric illness suffered as a result.

In the case of Hinz and Berry, the court of appeal entertained a case in the award of 40000 Euros as a compensation for psychiatric stresses. Lord Pearson came up with five reasons why he thought the victim was stressed up. One is sorrow and mourning the loss of the husband, worry about the wellbeing of the children, stresses about money due to the death of the sole bread winner, adjusting to a new way of life and also shock as a result of watching the accident happen. Lord stated that only the issue of witnessing the accident take place qualifies to be compensated since the stresses could not have taken place if the victim did not witness the accident happen.

Those who come to rescue the individuals involved in an accident are also protected under the law incas eof any injury as a result of drivers negligence. As with the case of Cardozo J in Wagner v International Railway Co. It is stated that when an accident occurs, automatically rescuers have to come.  The law therefore protects this type of reaction which is natural. The law states that this form of reaction is very normal. The law therefore protects them so as not to discourage their actions.

In the case of Chadwick v British railway’s the principle equally applied to the traumatic stresses that came after. This application was eventually approved by Lord Wilberforce in Mcloughlin. The extent to which this law applies is illustrated in Rapley V P 6.10 European Ferries.

The victims therefore ought to receive compensation since their lives have completely changed as a result of the traumatic stress. The rescues is well protected under the law. Further, the family member is also considered as a beneficiary since they witnessed the accident taking place hence traumatic stress.

Question 2a

            The moment one agrees to offer advice to another party, a special relationship is established since he is relied upon for special guidance. The person therefore assumes the responsibility of advice. When a court is determining special relationship, the court will look at whether the complainant relied on the experts opinion, whether the professional knew that the complainant was relying on him for the advice In the case of Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. –v- Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC465 2 it was okay for the victim to rely on the professional for advice. Under the proximity test the Supreme Court ruled that it is reasonable for the party affected to get compensation

Question 2b

In the case of Berg v. General Motors Corp.,57 which was a case touching on the changes in the a pre-tort reform case, the supreme court in the US the Washington Supreme accepted the payment of damages as a result of negligence. In this case, Berg purchased a vessel which eventually did not give him the service. He sued the company thus general motors for selling him a machine which did not work and caused him a lot of economic losses. Berg sued the company for negligence. The court ruled that the manufacturer was not exposed to further law suits since he was protected by the warranty.

The other case involves Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group who sued builder of Condominium units so as to compensate for the economic losses for causing economic losses.  The builder was accused of negligence. The damages were therefore direct thus the cost of repairing the machine. The judges ruled that when negligence results into risky conditions, the purchaser of the product should be compensated in tort even though the buyer only lost money. The decision in Stuart case does not concur with the Tort changes of 1981. However, it goes against the previous court’s decision in Berg v General Motors Corp. thus the court allowed the victim to be paid the profits as a result of the manufacturer’s negligence.

Question 2c

            The case of voluntarily accepting responsibility outside a formal contract was first heard in the courts in the UK when there was claim for the compensation of an economic loss and also in the decision of  the House of Lords in Hedley Byrne v Heller. In this case, a court decided that a bank can be found responsible for the information it provided without bearing in mind its usual clients.where it was decided that a Bank can be

liable for a negligent information supplied without consideration to a regular client. In the more

recent case of Henderson v Merrett Syndicate Ltd12, Lord Goff, in looking for the principle which

underlay the decision in Hedley Byrne, referred to passages in the speeches of Lord Morris and Lord

Devlin in that case including a passage in the speech of Lord Devlin where he considered the sort of

relationship which gave rise to a responsibility towards those who act upon information or advice,

and thus created a Duty of Care towards the person so acting. Lord Devlin had said:
“From these statements, and from their application in Hedley Byrne, we can derive some understanding of the breadth of the principle underlying the case. We can see that it rests upon a relationship between the parties, which may be general or specific to the particular transaction, and which may or may not be contractual in nature. All of their Lordships spoke in terms of one party having assumed or undertaken a responsibility towards the other.”

In White v Jones13 (see infra) Lord Goff stated again that the Hedley Byrne principle was “founded upon an assumption of responsibility.” In Galoo Ltd (In liq) & Others v Bright Grahame Murray (a firm) and another14 the Court of Appeal set out to identify the difference between the facts there and those in its previous decision in Morgan Crucible Co Plc v Hill Samuel Bank Ltd15, that allowed the recovery of an economic loss. The question was when is an adviser, e.g. in this case, an auditor, in close proximity with a person suffering loss by relying on his negligently false advice or information? The answer given by the Court of Appeal in Galoo was, when the auditor ‘intends’ that the third party, a particular identified person, will rely on it16. Thus the bidder relying on the auditor’s accounts of the target company in Galoo had his claim dismissed, because, although he was personally known to the auditor, it was not ‘intended’ by the latter that he should rely on his accounts. The leading judgment of Glidewell L. J. relied on Lord Denning’s so-called ‘classic statement’ in Chandler v Crane Christmas & Co. 17. The auditor’s ‘intention’ was meant as referring to his knowledge, and willingness, of the reliance of the plaintiff, not any willingness to inflict on him financial injury through such false information. It must be noted here that a professional making a false statement in the course of doing his every day job, on the subject-matter of his expertise, will find it hard to shift a presumption of negligence in the error. The idea of a ‘voluntary assumption of responsibility’ was used to explain the importance of ‘intended reliance’, and in Galoo it was turned into a new concept of a ‘voluntary inter-personal’ relationship, said to fall short of being a contract only because of lack of consideration proceeding from the plaintiff to the defendant in return for the advice or information18. In Coulthard and others v Neville Russell (a firm)19 , the Court of Appeal, in another case concerning the civil liability

Managerial Economics Case Study

Executive Summary

A leading manufacturer, producer, and distributor of oil, gas, and petrochemical products, ExxonMobil has established its operations in different parts of the world, including the United Kingdom and India. Conducting business in these countries necessitates adherence to the monetary, fiscal, political, and market requirements and further complying with governmental rules and policies that regulate the organization’s operations. As will be portrayed herein, ExxonMobil’s operations are characterized by various components shaping or influencing its sustainability within the nation and its surrounding neighbours. The depiction of these components will necessitate a thorough review of its economic activities’ monetary, fiscal, and political aspects. These will be coupled with an in-depth analysis and comparison of the countries in terms of their market structure, the effects of the major macroeconomic indicators, and local and foreign trade policies.

Introduction

Exxon Mobil Corporation entails an international oil and gas company based in Irving, Texas. Originated from Standard Oil, owned by John D. Rockefeller, ExxonMobil was formulated and established on November 30, 1999, through a merger between Exxon (formerly Standard Oil Company of New Jersey) and Mobil (the former Standard Oil Company of New York). The primary commodities associated with the company include Exxon, Mobil, Esso, and ExxonMobil Chemical (ExxonMobil, 2019). Throughout the years, its operations have contributed to ExxonMobil being ranked one of the leading firms globally in terms of revenue.

Most fundamentally, between 2016 and 2017, ExxonMobil ranged between the first position to sixth in terms of market capitalization and public trading. In 2016, the company was position three in the Forbes Global 2000 list, while in 2017, ExxonMobil was number ten among the companies that made the most profits, as per Fortune 500. Subsequently, in 2018, ExxonMobil position two out of the largest organizations in America, as stipulated by 500 rankings based on total revenue (ExxonMobil, 2019). These accomplishments have been characterized by company shares distributed across various local and international institutions. For instance, a large portion (55.56%) of ExxonMobil’s shares is owned by institutions such as The Vanguard Group with 8.15%, BlackRock with 6.61%, and State Street Corporation with 4.83%, as of 2019.

As one of the Big Oil companies globally, ranked 14^th, ExxonMobil produced 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) as of 2016. Besides, ExxonMobil owns 37 refineries in more than 21 nations, which constitute a cumulative refining capacity of approximately 6.3 million barrels (1,000,000 m³) daily, pushing the company to position seven among the most significant global refiners. Despite these accomplishments, ExxonMobil has enjoyed its fair share of criticism based on its slow response to cleaning up efforts following the 1989 Alaskan oil spill that brought immeasurable damage to the world’s environment (Chart Industries, 2020). Additionally, ExxonMobil has been associated with a long history of lobbying activities and efforts to deny climate change and objection to the global warming consensus. Thus, ExxonMobil has employed various measures in minimising the environmental impact of its global operations. Still, the company remains the target of accusations related to inadequately addressing human rights issues, American’s foreign policy influence, and its effect on other countries’ future.

Nonetheless, ExxonMobil remains the most significant company not owned by the government in the energy sector that produces an average of 3% of the oil and an estimated 2% of the world’s energy. (ExxonMobil, 2019) Therefore, this case’s essence entails an in-depth overview and analysis of ExxonMobil’s operations by focusing on two countries, the United Kingdom and India. The analysis will delve into the market structure in which ExxonMobil operates for and within the two countries. These elements will be followed closely by a comparative analysis and analysis of the major macroeconomic indicators between the two countries and their potential effect on the company’s economic activities. Ultimately, this case study will analyse the foreign trade policy instruments applied in both countries.

Research Problem/Question

A nation’s economy is shaped by the macroeconomic activities that bring in foreign investors and foster trade with different countries and regions. In this case, this report highlights ExxonMobil’s operations in two different countries, India and the United Kingdom, by focusing on their market structure and other macroeconomic indicators that influence the company’s economic activities. It will analyse the countries’ suitability for the company operations by epitomising the various indicators that affect the economy and trade activities.

Analysis

ExxonMobil’s operations are organized into different global divisions categorised into three groups: stand-alone and ancillary divisions such as Coals and Minerals (ExxonMobil, 2019). Today, ExxonMobil’s global operations are renowned for their popular brand names, Exxon, Esso, and Mobil. The company manufactures products that facilitate transportation in the modern world, powering cities, lubricating industries, and further providing petrochemical building blocks that foster numerous consumer goods (Chart Industries, 2020).

ExxonMobil focuses on exploring oil, extracting, shipping, and wholesale operations within its upstream division. The downstream division specializes in marketing, refining, and retail operations for the company’s products. Lastly, the chemical businesses division is a merger between Exxon’s and Mobil’s chemical industries with main products that include olefins and aromatics, synthetic lubricant base stocks and additives, catalysts, and polyethylene, among others (ExxonMobil, 2019). These operations foster the identification, capturing, and evaluation of new oil and gas resources in operation countries. However, most of the production fields in which ExxonMobil is interested, especially in the North Sea, are operated by other companies as part of a joint venture. As a result, working in various locations around the world, ExxonMobil has, over the years, powered the economy of the neighbouring countries with significant investments in economic growth (ExxonMobil, 2019). These elements have facilitated the exemplification of the company’s commitment to supporting the communities within which it operates through education and economic empowerment, the provision of infrastructure, human capacity development, and health.

 

ExxonMobil’s Operations in the United Kingdom and Market Structure Analysis

Under the upstream division, ExxonMobil’s operations in the United Kingdom have involved activities such as the exploration and production of petroleum. Specifically, ExxonMobil holds or owns an average of 0.6 million acres (2,400 km2) of the land on the United Kingdom’s offshore. ExxonMobil exploration activities have emphasized the identification, acquisition, and evaluation of new oil and gas resources (ExxonMobil, 2019). As of 2019, ExxonMobil’s production activities entailed targeting approximately 40 production offshore oil and gas fields along the North Sea. The majority of the areas in which the company had targeted were operated by Shell U.K., boosting explorative and production operations as part of a collaborative effort (ExxonMobil, 2019). The code of practice applied in access the oil and gas infrastructure within the United Kingdom entails a voluntary agreement put in place by Oil & Gas UK in consultation with the Depart of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).

ExxonMobil’s operations in the United Kingdom have facilitated its rise in rankings as the largest oil pipeline distribution network, with approximately 700 kilometres of pipeline. Most of the United Kingdom’s refinery products are transported by pipeline to distribution terminals at Avonmouth, Birmingham, Hythe, Purfleet, and West London. The remaining products are transported by road or sea (ExxonMobil, 2019). In 2015, ExxonMobil invested £254 million in the United Kingdom North Sea, boosting its responsibility to an average of 5% of the oil and gas produced in the country. This investment and production activities further supplied the United Kingdom and other global markets with approximately 80,000 barrels of oil and about 441 million cubic feet of gas daily. Best known for its famous brands, Esso and Mobil, ExxonMobil remains the largest retailer in petrol across the United Kingdom. Thus, it serves around 800,000 customers daily through its retail network that comprises 1,100 Esso-branded service stations. Through its principal subsidiary in the United Kingdom, Esso, ExxonMobil is one of the largest offshore industry investors (FocusEconomics, 2021). However, investments in the North Sea are managed through 50/50 joint operations with Shell.

ExxonMobil in India and Market Structure Analysis

Incorporated and registered in May 1996, ExxonMobil has its presence in India through its upstream, downstream, and chemical businesses. Its offices are located in Bengaluru, Gurgaon, Mumbai, New Delhi, and the National Capital Region.  The upstream division focuses on providing consultancy and support services ranging from LNG business development and marketing, natural gas and support exploration and production services. On the other hand, the downstream division distributes, sells, and markets Mobil-branded lubricants and specialties (Chart Industries, 2020). Specifically, the downstream business sector has marketed fuel and lubricants in India since 1995 under the Mobil brand through operations such as importation of base oils, lubricant oil branding, packaging, and distribution and marketing. The chemical business is carried out as a service provider to other marketing agents for other ExxonMobil affiliates, facilitating imports and inland sales through distributors and directly to consumers and business analysis since 1986 (The Economic Times, 2021). For instance, in Bengaluru, ExxonMobil has a Technology Center that delivers development support. The business and the technical support centres provide various services for ExxonMobil’s operations worldwide.

ExxonMobil, operating as ExxonMobil Company India Private Limited, entails an Indian non-government firm with a private unlisted firm and a company listed by share. Specifically, ExxonMobil’s authorized capital in India stands at Rs 3500 lakhs and a 55.14429% paid-up capital (Rs 1930.05 lakhs). The last annual general meeting (AGM) for ExxonMobil Company India Private Limited was held on 29 September 2017. The company’s previous financial updates were done on 31 March 2017 as per the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (The Economic Times, 2021).

Comparative Analysis in the Major Macroeconomic Indicators

Indeed, a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) serves as a significant indicator of the national economy’s shape. In the United Kingdom, the gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate has portrayed levelling prospects in recent years after a lengthy period of the effects following the 2008 financial collapse (Monetary Policy Committee, 2020). The average GDP growth rate in the United Kingdom has averaged at 0.58 percent since 1955 and an all-time high of 16.10 percent in the third quarter of 2020, and a record low of -19% in the second quarter of 2020. The country’s GDP’s annual growth rate at market prices has been based on constant local currency. At the same time, the aggregates are determined through factors such as the sum of the gross value added by all resident producers in the economy and product taxes minus any subsidies excluded in the value of the products.

Based on the constant increase in the population from 62.51 million to 67.88 million between 2010 and 2020, the nation’s GDP growth rate has significantly fluctuated from 1.95% to 1.46% in the same period, with an all-time high of 2.61% in 2014. Specifically, the GDP growth rate in 2010 was 1.95%, which declined to 1.54% in 2011, a -0.41% fluctuation. In 2012, the growth rate in the GDP further declined to 1.48%, a -0.06% decline. In 2013, Britain’s economy grew by 2.14%, a 0.66% annual change, marking the fastest pace in approximately three years. During this year, the country’s output increased across industrial sectors such as agriculture (1.4%), production (0.5%), construction (2.5%), and service (0.7%). These rates were followed closely by a substantial growth in the GDP by 2.61%, a 0.47% annual change in 2014; 2.36% growth rate in 2013 (-0.25% in 2015); 1.92% in 2016 (-0.44% annual change); 1.89% in 2017 (-0.03% annual change); 1.34% in 2018 (-055% annual change); and a slight increase of 1.46% in 2019 (0.12% annual change).

However, projections indicate that the economy should recover this year following the potential easement of the Covid-19 pandemic and other monetary or fiscal boosts. The decline in the UK’s GDP growth rate has been associated with numerous factors that include the Brexit disruption that continues to subject the nation to limitations in access to the EU market and further indicates constraints over the growth momentum (Qiang & Kusek, 2020). The catastrophic events associated with the EU’s exit, coupled with the prolonged social distancing measures brought along the Covid-19 pandemic, have posed, and continue to pose, downside risks. Nonetheless, the economy is expected to expand by approximately 6.0% in 2021. Following this trend, the GDP per capita at constant prices between 2010 and 2019 was USD 39,436 and USD 42 330, respectively. Though the trend portrays an increase, the rate has fluctuated exponentially, and similar patterns have been observed between 2020 and 2021 (Trading Economics, 2020).

As portrayed in the table below, UK’s GDP per capita at constant prices increased significantly from 2010 to the subsequent years from $39.436 to $42,039 in 2011 (6.60% annual change). This increase was followed closely by a constant rise to $42,463 (1.01% annual growth rate) in 2012, $43,445 (2.31% growth rate) in 2013, and $47,426 (9.16% growth) in 2014. From 2015 through to 2017, the GDP growth rate per capita at constant prices slightly declined to $44,975 (-5.17% annual change), $41,064 (-8.70% annual change) in 2016, and $40,361 (-1.71% annual decline) in 2017 (Macrotrends, 2021). However, the GDP per capita at constant prices started levelling up in 2018 at $43,043 (6.64% annual change) but later declined in 2019. Between 2020 and 2021, the UK’s GDP growth rate stands at a moderate rate of 1.0% from 16.1% in the third quarter.

Similarly, based on an annual variation of the consumer price index (CPI), the United Kingdom’s inflation rate was approximately 1.74% as of 2019 compared to 2.49% in 2010. (See the table below) (FocusEconomics, 2021). Following this trend, the unemployment rate, based on the active population percentage, stood at 3.8% in 2019, a decline from 5.4% in 2015 and 4.1% in 2018 (Macrotrends, 2021). Similar to the facts that contributed to changes in the country’s GDP growth, the UK’s inflation rate has fluctuated significantly from 2010 to 2020. For instance, since 2011, the UK’s inflation rate was 3.86% with an annual change of 1.36%, but in 2012, the rate declined to 2.57% (-1.28% annual change). This trend continued through the subsequent years with a rate of 2.29% (-0.28%) in 2013, 1,45% (-0.84%) in 2014, and 0.37% (-1.08%) in 2015. In the subsequent years, the inflation rate in the UK portrayed increment prospects from 1.01% (0.64% annual change) in 2016 and 2.56% (1.55% annual change) in 2017 (Macrotrends, 2021). This rate was later characterized by a slight decline to 2.29% (-0.27% annual change) in 2018 and further by 1.74% (0.55% annual decline) in 2019.

Nevertheless, the policy interest rate applied in the United Kingdom averaged 0.75% between 2018 and 2020. Following the 2008 financial crisis, people in the UK reduced their expenditure when the majority lost their jobs, which led to the government cutting interest rates to relatively low levels to support employment opportunities and the people’s income. As a result, the UK government has made it necessary to keep policy interests relatively low over the past few years (Macrotrends, 2021). For instance, between 2010 and the third quarter of 2016, the policy interest rate was regulated to an average of 0.5%, which later declined to 0.25% until the last quarter in 2017. Between the last quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2020, the policy interest rate was averaged at 0.75%, which drastically declined to 0.25% and later to 0.1% in the first and last quarters of 2020, respectively. During the same period, the general government’s balance (fiscal balance calculated as a percentage of the GDP) in the UK entailed a deficit of 1.8% of the GDP in the 2018-2019 fiscal year (Macrotrends, 2021).  During the period between 2010 and 2019, the United Kingdom’s unemployment rate fluctuated between 7.79% to 3.85%. Although the rate portrayed a potential increase in 2011 at 8.04% (0.25% annual change), the trend has followed a downward pattern until 2019 (see the table below). Between 2010 and 2012, the general balance declined from -8.7% to -7.3%, which stagnated through to 2013, and continued to decline from -5.8% in 2014, -5.2% in 2015, -4.2% in 2016, -2.8% and -2.7% in 2017 and 2018, and -1.8% in 2019 (US Department of State, 2020). During this period, the balance of payments stood at -172.09 USD billion in 2010, which slightly increased to -170.564 USD billion in 2012, followed by a significant decline to -224.06 USD in 2012. The figures have fluctuated from -115.41 USD billion in 2013 to -222.98 USD billion in 2019 (See table below).  Based on an average period (aop), the UK’s exchange rate has portrayed volatility in recent years amid political turmoil regarding Brexit and debate over when formal negotiations should be initiated with the European Union (Macrotrends, 2021). In 2010, the exchange rate averaged 1.33 GBP per USD, which continued to fluctuate to 1.28 GBP per USD in 2018 (FocusEconomics, 2021).

Macroeconomic Indicator	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
GDP growth Rate	1.95%	1.54%	1.48%	2.14%	2.61%	2.36%	1.92%	1.89%	1.34%	1.46%
GDP per capita at constant prices (in $)	39,436	42,039	42,463	43,445	47,426	44,975	41,064	40,361	43,043	42,330
Inflation rate	2.49%	3.86%	2.57%	2.29%	1.45%	0.37%	1.01%	2.56%	2.29%	1.74%
Unemployment rate	7.79%	8.04%	7.89%	7.53%	6.11%	5.30%	4.81%	4.34%	4.0%	3.85%
Policy Interest rate	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%	0.25%	0.75%	0.75%
General government balances	-8.7%	–	-7.3%	-7.3%	-5.2%	-4.2%	-2.8%	-2.7%	-2.7%	-1.8%
Balance of payments in USD Billion	-172.09	–	-170.564	-224.06	-115.41	–	–	–	–	-222.98
Exchange rate (% of GDP per USD)	1.33									1.28

In India, the GDP growth rate was at its peak in 2010 at 16.1%, but over the years, it had declined from 6.3% in 2018 to approximately 4.5% in 2020. This slowed growth depicted a significant reduction in consumption across the private sector, manufacturing, construction, and agriculture activity. Moreover, the stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) in India experienced a decline since 2010, mirroring a similar reduction in India’s private investment (Shroff, Pandey, & Nijhawan, 2021). During this period, the substantial increase in demographics indicated that India should have generated millions of job opportunities annually. According to Guruswamy (2019), the plunge in India’s economic growth since 2010 is based on the change in the economy’s composition. For instance, in 2010, agriculture contributed 17.5% of the GDP, industrial activities brought along 30.2%, while services contributed to 45.4%. Contrastingly, in 2019, agriculture declined to 15.6%, industrial activities fell to 26.5%, and services to 48.5%.

However, based on the informal economy’s large size, India’s unemployment rate rose exponentially to 5.36%, a 0.03% increase from 2018 at 5.33%. This downward trend has averaged at approximately 5% since, in 2010, India’s unemployment rate was 5.64%, which increased to 5.65% and 5.67% between 2011 and 2013 (Macrotrends, 2021). In 2014, the rate continued to decline to 5.61% in 2014, 5.57% in 2015, 5.51% in 2016, and 5.42% in 2017.  Contrary to this pattern, the GDP per capita at constant prices has continually increased from $1,358 in 2010 to $ 2,113 in 2019. This increase has followed an upward trend as in 2012 the GDP per capita at constant prices was $1,444, $1,450 in 2013, $1,574 in 2014, $1,606 in 2015, $1,1,733 in 2016, $1,982 in 2017, and $2,006 in 2018 (FocusEconomics, 2021). During the same period, India’s inflation rate has drastically fluctuated from 11.99% in 2010 to 7.66% in 2019, considering the increase in price across commonly consumed commodities.

Simultaneously, India’s monetary policy interest rate since 2010 has averaged at approximately 4.0%. Still, in 2019 it declined to a 4.40% decline from 6.25% in the previous year, while general government balances during this period have fluctuated from $- 74.62 billion in 2010 to $-78.07 billion in 2019 (Macrotrends, 2021). Similarly, the balance of payments widened significantly to $ 130.5 billion (7.5% of the GDP) between 2010 and 2011 stood at USD -153.5 billion, while the exchange rates in India has continually grown from 44.7125 INR vs. USD in 2010 to 70.91 vs. USD in 2019 on an average period (aop) and as a percentage of the GDP (US Department of State, 2020).

Macroeconomic Indicator	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
GDP growth Rate	8.50%	5.24%	5.46%	6.39%	7.41%	8.00%	8.26%	7.04%	6.3%	4.5%
GDP per capita at constant prices (in $)	1,358	1,458	1,444	1,450	1,574	1,606	1,733	1,982	2,006	2,100
Inflation rate	11.99%	8.86%	9.31%	10.91%	6.35%	5.87%	4.94%	2.49%	4.86%	7.66%
Unemployment rate	5.64%	5.64%	5.65%	5.67%	5.61%	5.57%	5.51%	5.42%	5.33%	5.36%
Policy Interest rate	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%	6.25%	4.40%
General government balances	-8.7%	–	-7.3%	-7.3%	-5.2%	-4.2%	-2.8%	-2.7%	-2.7%	-1.8%
Balance of payments in USD Billion	130.5	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	-153.5
Exchange rate (% of INR per USD)	44.7125									70.91

Monetary and Fiscal Policy Analysis and their Impact on ExxonMobil’s Economic Activity

ExxonMobil’s results in each country’s economy are vulnerable to various threats embedded in the global oil, gas, and petrochemical businesses. Most of these threats extend beyond the company’s ability or control and pose adverse effects to its business operations and financial condition. Specifically, the country’s economic conditions in which ExxonMobil operates may lead to its operations’ undesired impacts due to various factors. Among the top factors include the increase in demand for energy and petrochemicals, directly associated with expansive activities and prosperity levels (World Bank Group, 2020). However, when recessions occur or other instances characterized by negative or low economic growth, ExxonMobil’s financial activities and operations directly. Additional components that adversely impact the company’s economic conditions and activities and the country of operation include changes in the rate of population growth, civil upheaval, austerity programs put forth by the government, trade tariffs, public health or security concerns, or fluctuations in the exchange rate on the currency (Shroff, Pandey, Nijhawan, 2021). Their impact occurs due to changes in the demand for energy and petrochemicals.

Thus, these factors are coupled with other aspects that include downgrading debt within the sovereign nation, limitations to accessing debt markets following legal constraints, and restructuring of monetary, fiscal, or political systems such as the European Union.  These components impair the functionality of the financial markets and the nation, in general (Qiang & Kusek, 2020). They collectively pose various threats to ExxonMobil, including predisposing the company to the security risks to its financial assets and its customers and partners in terms of their ability to fulfill their dedication to the firm. For instance, due to the Brexit movement in the United Kingdom, the policy interest rate has since 2018 stagnated at 0.75% due to the ongoing debate and the uncertainty of its monetary, fiscal, and political restructuring economy. Moreover, the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic has brought along unforeseen effects to the world by limiting movements, requiring social distancing measures, and locking down businesses within countries. These events have contributed to a continuous decline in the country’s inflation rate (-1.79% by 2019) and an unemployment rate at 76.6% (Trading Economics, 2020).

Similarly, the Indian market is characterized by various factors that may affect ExxonMobil’s economic activities. For instance, when the World Bank anticipates that the rate of inflation may fall below the government’s targeted level (2%), the economy’s growth tends to be slow down. At the same time, the economy faces a recession. As a result, interest rates are strategically reduced (loose monetary policy effect) (World Bank Group, 2020). Alternatively, suppose the world bank anticipates rapid growth in the economy and inflation may exceed the government’s targeted level, increase interest rates to regulate economic growth and further minimize pressure related to inflation, the tight monetary policy effect. In the latter case, an increase in the interest rate leads to a decline in consumer expenditure and investment, resulting in inflation. As of 2019, India’s policy interest rate stood at 4..40%, an increase from 3.4% in the previous year.

Akin to India’s case, the UK has faced similar interest rates, leading to potential threats to ExxonMobil’s economic activities. An increase in the interest rate hinders consumer spending, and investment lowers the inflation rate (US Department of State, 2020). The company’s performance in the economy is predisposed to adverse effects due to inflation and interest rate changes, fluctuations in the currency exchange rate, and other market condition at the local and regional levels.

 

Analysis of the Foreign Trade Policy Instruments and their impact on ExxonMobil’s Economic Activity

Undoubtedly, political and governmental activities can adversely affect ExxonMobil’s economic activities through limitations in the accessibility of its oil and gas resources. For instance, limiting foreign investments in the oil and gas sector leads to a significant boost in the commodities’ price, especially when national governments do not portray any need for capital from external sources (Monetary Policy Committee, 2020). Specifically, a decrease in the aggregate demand leads to the government cutting expenditure (G) and increasing taxes. The increase in taxes reduces consumer spending, and the fiscal policy’s rigidity will cause an improvement in the government budget deficit. However, when faced with situations that lead to an increase in the aggregate demand, the government tends to increase its expenditure and further cut taxes. By lowering taxes, consumer expenditure increases exponentially due to the rise in their disposable income, which, in turn, worsens the government budget deficit and the need to increasing borrowing (Qiang & Kusek, 2020).

Following the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK and India have pursued expansionary fiscal policies to stabilize and sustain operations. As a result, both governments have been forced to cut VAT to boost consumer spending, translating into a significant increase in government borrowing (Trading Economics, 2020). The increased borrowing has lowered the countries’ currency value, leading to fluctuations in the currency exchange rate. For instance, by the end of 2019, the UK’s exchange rate averaged at 1.33 GBP per USD, while India was 70.91 per USD on an average period (FocusEconomics, 2021).

 

Limitations in the Case Study and Recommendations

Although much of the information is available on various sources, it is quite challenging to determine their validity and reliability. Besides, verifying the data presented in these sources is a cumbersome and time-consuming task that requires in-depth analysis and comparison of the information from the country’s or company’s website and physical records. Another limitation arises when these companies fail to voluntarily produce their data in fear that such disclosure may expose competitively sensitive commercial information, leading to violation of non-disclosure laws. To address these challenges, it would be essential to seek the relevant information from the recommended sources that range from government sites, publicly released data from the company, and publications on the recent activities.

By regulating the policy interest and exchange rates, India would serve as a favorable market for ExxonMobil’s operations. It would encourage consumer expenditure based on an increase in foreign direct investment by corporations seeking to tap the firm’s opportunities. Besides, a partnership between the Indian government and ExxonMobil would boost the economy by providing employment opportunities across manufacturing, services, and logistics platforms. This way, both ExxonMobil and India, in general, would benefit from profits reaped, hence making it a hub for increased opportunities within the region and a leading producer and supplier of ExxonMobil products. Similarly, the Brexit initiative could boost ExxonMobil’s operations in the North Sea. The nations within this region, including the United Kingdom, would make independent decisions on the products, foreign investors, and trade partnerships. Consequently, partnering with ExxonMobil would boost its economic activities by increasing its presence within the region, hence increasing profits and productivity.

Conclusion

Despite its success in different countries, ExxonMobil, akin to other international organizations, is faced with numerous challenges characterized by monetary, fiscal, and political changes or restructuring within the country of operation. These changes bring along limitations to the local and foreign expenditure that further culminate in changes in the interest and exchange rates based on the people and businesses’ ability to spend their income on various products. Most fundamentally, government and political factors significantly affect ExxonMobil’s economic activities. They lead to adverse effects that affect operations, limit access to various commodities and services, and put laws and sanctions that prohibit the company from doing business in some countries.

References

Chart Industries. (2020, February 24). ExxonMobil, Indian oil, and chart industries pioneer virtual gas pipelines for India. GlobeNewswire News Room. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/02/24/1989074/0/en/ExxonMobil-Indian-Oil-and-Chart-Industries-to-Pioneer-Virtual-Gas-Pipelines-for-India.html

The Economic Times. (2021, January 16). Information – Company profile: ExxonMobil Company India Private Limited. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/company/exxonmobil-company-india-private-limited-/U45303MH1996PTC099555

ExxonMobil. (2019, May 9). UK operations | ExxonMobil United Kingdom. https://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/Company/Overview/UK-operations

ExxonMobil. (2019, May 9). Operations overview. https://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/Company/Overview/UK-operations/Operations-overview

FocusEconomics. (2021). United Kingdom economy – GDP, inflation, CPI, and interest rate. FocusEconomics | Economic Forecasts from the World’s Leading Economists. https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/united-kingdom

FocusEconomics. (2021). India’s economy – GDP, inflation, CPI, and interest rate. FocusEconomics | Economic Forecasts from the World’s Leading Economists. https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/india

Guruswamy, M. (2019). India’s plunging economy: Why 2010-2020 will be remembered as the lost decade. Scroll.In- Economic Growth. https://scroll.in/article/946864/indias-plunging-economy-why-2010-2020-will-be-remembered-as-the-lost-decade#:~:text=speak%20for%20themselves.-,India’s%20real%20GDP%20growth%20was%20at%20its%20peak%20in%20March,that%20point%20was%20over%2016.1%25.&text=In%202010%2C%20agriculture%20contributed%2017.5,%25%20and%20services%20to%2048.5%25

Macrotrends. (2021). India GDP growth rate 1961-2020. Macrotrends LLC. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/gdp-growth-rate

Macrotrends. (2021). U.K. GDP growth rate 1961-2021. Macrotrends | The Long Term Perspective on Markets. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-rate

Monetary Policy Committee. (2020, August). Monetary Policy at the Bank of England. Bank of England. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/monetary-policy-report/2020/august/monetary-policy-report-august-2020

Press Trust of India. (n.d.). Exxon Mobil in talks to buy a stake in Indian oil, gas fields: Pradhan. Business News, Finance News, India News, BSE/NSE News, Stock Markets News, Sensex NIFTY, Latest Breaking News Headlines. https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/exxon-mobil-in-talks-to-buy-stake-in-indian-oil-gas-fields-pradhan-120120200539_1.html

Rogers, S. (2013, October 25). UK GDP since 1955. the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy

Qiang, C. Z., & Kusek, P. (2020). Global Investment Competitiveness Report 2019/2020. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1536-2

Shroff, S. S., Pandey, R. K., & Nijhawan, V. (2021). Investing in India. Thomson Reuters. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-596-0585?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

Trading Economics. (2020). United Kingdom GDP growth rate | 1955-2020 data | 2021-2022 forecast | Calendar. TRADING ECONOMICS | 20 million INDICATORS FROM 196 COUNTRIES. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

US Department of State. (2020, December 4). Custom Report Excerpts: United Kingdom Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/report/custom/9617a81391-16/

US Department of State. (2020, September 4). 2020 Investment Climate Statements: India. United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-investment-climate-statements/india/

World Bank Group. (2020). Rebuilding Investor Confidence in Times of Uncertainty- Global Investment Competitiveness Report 2019/2020. 2020 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/33808/9781464815362.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

Appendices

Care practices related to fall incidents

Care practices related to fall incidents

Evidence Translation and Change Responses

Undeniably, care practices related to fall incidents among adult or elderly patients necessitate adherence to guidelines based on evidence or preexisting interventions applied within a facility to manage pr mitigate similar occurrences. Specifically, continuous determination and evaluation of various chronic illnesses foster identifying the areas in which improvement in the health condition’s management can be effectively achieved (Bridenbaugh & Kressig, 2019). It further facilitates developing different ways under which the knowledge and factual gaps may be addressed in the nursing practices to minimize fall incidents. As such, the common barriers to translating evidence in addressing fall incidences include the patients’ ability to self-manage and the nurses’ inadequacy in terms of knowledge. Along with other healthcare professionals, nurses require adequate knowledge to identify, assess, and manage/address their patients’ health needs and further teach them about their treatment plans (Ge et al. 2020).

The strategies adopted to remain aware of new evidence include continually reviewing the current research on patient falls and the recommended approaches developed by various organizations. It may further involve working alongside other professionals across multiple care settings to determine their knowledge base and understanding of the different ways of managing patient falls (Ge et al. 2020). This way, interprofessional collaboration would foster effectiveness and efficiency in addressing various issues. However, determining the evidence that should be implemented necessitates the emphasis on relevance, accuracy, and significance to patient falls among the adult and elderly population. Similarly, continuation and sustainability of the changes proposed would involve alignment of the organization’s goals with those of the employees and the factors that will be adjusted throughout the firm (Woolf et al. 2015).

References

Bridenbaugh, S. A., & Kressig, R. W. (2019). Epidemiology and falls risk factors in cognitively impaired older adults. Falls and Cognition in Older Persons, 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24233-6_3

Ge, L., Yap, C. W., Heng, B. H., & Tan, W. S. (2020). Frailty and healthcare utilisation across care settings among community-dwelling older adults in Singapore. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-27446/v1

Woolf, S. H., Purnell, J. Q., Simon, S. M., Zimmerman, E. B., Camberos, G. J., Haley, A., & Fields, R. P. (2015). Translating evidence into population health improvement: Strategies and barriers. Annual Review of Public Health, 36(1), 463-482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-082214-110901

Microbiology Quizz

SECTION I CASE STUDIES

1. A missionary couple, living in West Africa bought their 4-year old son to the Emergency room as he had fever and a pinkish rash has been developing on his hands and feet at first then it spread to both arms and legs. There are no other symptoms that the child feeling very fatigued.
2. This disease is most likely caused by what bacteria? Name the disease.
3. How would epidemiology assist you in finding the sources of this illness?
4. The boy had all of his vaccines so why does he have such a disease?
5. What course of treatment would you order and why? What type of antibiotic would you use and why?
6. What are the virulence factors for the causative agent? Explain the mode of action of these factors.
7. 7 weeks baby girl was brought into the hospital with a rash on the palms of her hands and soles of her feet only with fever, cough and high WBC count. The baby was premature 35 weeks at a weight of 2.97kg. She was treated with Penicillin G for 14 days & testing after that showed the treatment was successful. The parents were treated too.
8. What infection does she have and how would you identify the sources and why?
9. Name the causative agent and what are the virulence factors for it?
10. What type of testing would you use to make sure of your diagnosis?
11. At what stage of the infection is she, and why? Explain the microbial and the immune response.
12. Why penicillin like antibiotics is effective and how does that relate to the virulence factors for the pathogen?

III. A patient came into the office suffering from flu like symptoms, accompanied by Fever, Abdominal pain, Back pain, Chills, Excessive sweating, Fatigue with joints pain. The fever has been an up and down fever. The patient said he had visited a farm a week ago and had drunk milk. He did not know if the milk or the yoghurt he had caused this.

1. What infection does he have? Name the causative agent.
2. How did he become infected with this microbe? Explain the pathogenesis of this disease.
3. What are the virulence factors for this pathogen? What would be the treatment based on the virulence factors and why? Why is it considered as a food borne illness yet there are no symptoms that indicating it is?
4. Name another agent that also causes infection but in pasteurized dairy products? What are the virulence factors for this pathogen? How would you treat it based on that?
5. The patient does not have diarrhea, however how would the type of diarrhea assist in the identification of diseases. Give at least 3 examples stating the agent its disease, type of diarrhea, virulence factors and treatment.
6. A male student that attends a 4-year College majoring in Arts and music felt sick for a day with diarrhea he took some medication and felt fine. 8 days later he had a second round of diarrhea this time it was much worse and lasted most of the day. Again with somewhat more medication he was fine. 5 days later he had a 3rd round of diarrhea that was much worse and included vomiting. He was bed ridden the next day his symptoms continued with fever.
7. What disease does he have? Name the causative agent.
8. How did he become infected with this microbe? Explain the pathogenesis of this disease.
9. What is the virulence factor and how would you treat this disease? 4. How would the immune system deal with this case and why?
10. Why Doctors could only treat the symptoms before and not the disease and why death may result from it?
11. A female patient has been suffering from continuous diarrhea for a week. The stool had a metal like smell. The patient is a nurse at an Assisted living home. She felt sick a week ago and her symptoms resembled that of one of her own patients. Her symptoms have been worsening to the point she is very sick and had to take time off.
12. What disease does she have? Name the causative agent.
13. How did she become infected with this microbe? Explain the pathogenesis of this disease.
14. What is the virulence factor and how would you treat this disease?
15. What would you advise the patient to do in the future to avoid such illness in particular in her line of work.

These are the pathogens that are part of the final exam. The case study answers could be one of them and Only one of them.

No other pathogens should be considered.

Campylobacter jejuni

Shigella sp

Salmonella sp,

Vibrio cholerae:

Botulism

Listeriosis

Brucellosis

Clostiridium difficle.

Neisseria meningitidis

Syphilis

Gonorrhea

Plus immunity questions.

Topic: Moral Criticisms of the Market

This assignment requires you to read “Moral Criticisms of the Market” by Ken S. Ewert (found in the Learn section, Read: Moral Criticisms of the Market). Note that in his article, Ewert is defending the free market from “Christian Socialists.” He states their position and then gives a rebuttal.

Do you agree with the critique of the market in Ewert’s article? Why or why not? Read carefully and offer cogent reasons.

Consider the context of the article; the Berlin Wall fell months after the article was published. The USSR followed shortly thereafter.

Topic: The Fall of the House Of California

OVERVIEW:

You are required to write a 3–5-page critique for each of three case studies in the course. The cases must be selected from readings in the Shafritz and Borick text that are assigned in the week the case is due. Discuss the major facts of the case and tell whether or not you believe the right decision(s) was/were made and why. Use the following format:

Identify the important facts in the case study.

What decision(s) were made in the case study?

Do you believe the decisions were appropriate?

Discuss any alternative solution(s) to the problem and support those solutions with

additional research. (In other words, support your solution with similar cases.)

Topic: How can an understanding of motivation and emotions be applied to enhance employee engagement and job satisfaction in the workplace?

Qns: How can an understanding of motivation and emotions be applied to enhance employee engagement and job satisfaction in the workplace?

Provide examples of specific strategies organisations can use to foster employee motivation and positive emotions. Support your discussion with relevant literature and research studies.

Texas Public Policy Foundation

Heritage Foundation

Patriot Academy

Leadership Institute

Liberty Counsel

Live Action

State specific organization such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation

What was the role of religion in shaping English foreign relations with Spain under Queen Elizabeth I?