History, 24.09.2019 10:30, lulbbyz

Gdp per capita (in u. s. dollars) country gdp per capita united arab emirates $29,100 kuwait $22,800 iran $8,100 jordan $4,800 sudan $2,100 why might there be such a drastic difference in the per capita gdp of these selected countries of southwest asia (the middle east)? a) foreign invasion b) lack of urban areas eliminate c) access to oil fields d) environmental disasters

Answers: 1

Show answers

Answers

With the GDP per capita, this depends on the wealth and the population of a country. For somewhere such as the Arab Emirates, they have a small population, but a fair amount of wealth, so this then increases the GDP. The situation is similar with Kuwait. Iran has also been affected by War, meaning that some of the infrastructure will hav been destroyed, and that people would not be able to work and make money, which is then something that will have a direct impact on the GDP. With countries such as Jordan and Sudan, As far as I'm aware, they are relatively poor countries with a high population, meaning that the GDP will be lower and split between more people,therefore, meaning that it will be low. With regards to A). Iran is a country that has definitely been affected by this, following the war. B) A large majority of the countries that have been mentioned are also predominately desert, so where there is not people that are making money, this is something that is then not contributing to the GDP. Countries such as Kuwait and UAE also have large oil reserves, and this is something that can contribute to wealth hugely, and the smaller the population, the less people the GDP has to be spread between, and therefore, this increases it. With environmental disasters, these can have a huge impact, and the amount of money that is being made is also greatly reduced, and the expenditure is also increased, which is also something that can decrease the GDP. Hope this helps you!

answered: Guest

idk

explanation:

answered: Guest

the articles of confederation only set up the continental congress at the federal level. there were no executive or judicial branches except within the states. the states were allowed to keep every right that was not specifically given to congress. the bonding of the states was through a 'firm league of friendship' that best served as a defense agreement against invasion. states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations.

not many historians today talk about the strengths of the articles of confederation, likely because of how unpopular the document quickly became. the articles did set the legislative body, congress, as the highest power in the nation because of the fear of monarchy. congress had the sole power to declare war, assign treaties, entertain foreign relations, and operate post offices. disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress. the document also stipulated that canada was allowed to enter the union if they desired.

there were more weaknesses than strengths under the articles of confederation. the lack of power given to the continental congress strangled the federal government. the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws. if a state did not support a federal law, that state could simply ignore it. congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade. without a federal court system or executive leader, there would be no way to enforce these laws, either. amending the articles of confederation would also require a unanimous decision, which would be extremely difficult.