Critique of an article using the Scientific Method Essay

The paper governing and Inequality in Latin the States and the Caribbean is a investigate paper authored by Evelyne Huber, Francois Nielsen, Jenny Pribble, and John D. Stephens. This paper is a epoch series analysis of the doctor that politics and policy bring approximately on inconsistency in the kitchen stove of Latin the States and the Caribbean. This look for is base on versatile models consisting of sociological and economical vari equal to(p)s, plus the strong point of the democratic tradition, as hale as the dispersal of semipermanent legislative partisan semi policy- do big businessman and the kind spending to explain discrimination variations.As a study that aims to lease social factors and its way out on the inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean, this research was open to con pains to the Scientific mode, patronage some instances where there argon some unsupported arguments. Basing on the Scientific Method of research, well first know what these researchers wanted to chance out. What do these people want to learn just about? The researchers primary concern was to patch up what factors argon contributing to the inequality levels in Latin America and the Caribbean.Their initial expectations were political vari up to(p)s such as partisan legislative power, strength of democratic tradition, and the nature of social expenditures were the iodins initially determining these inequality levels. an new(prenominal)(prenominal) assumption regarding this matter is that these varicap satisfactorys maintain weights contrasting from the ones in advanced modern/industrial societies. unmatched of their innovation for this assumption is that close advanced industrial countries have invari qualified records of democracy as compared to that of Latin America. These countries were able to establish welfare states that redistribute the in trace.Theyre basing their assumption on introductory records the identical the overall siz e of welfare states and the coordinate of taxation expenditures. Closely looking at this matter, we keep secernate that what these researchers wanted to get word out was somehow in course of study with the exercising of scientific method acting. They came up with an doubtfulness which is based on previous info. They to a fault gave their hypothesis as to what they expect about their assumption. In relation to this, their assumptions were given as an answer to their inquiry, and that will be the basis of how theyll go about with this research.They came up with a set of selective information joined from previous cultivation from other studies and published articles. One of the bases that they use was studies which utilized multiple reverse analyses of inequality in developing countries. They used this randomness as a human body or guide in conducting their sustain study. One study made by Morley is about the determinants of differences in inequality of income distributio n among countries in Latin America. Here, he unite multiple regression analysis with campaign studies of nine countries.Because of this, he came up with variables which mutation an important role in his research. These variables overwhelm national income, inflation, education, economic reform indices and cut back distribution. These variables are essential because it can also be used for other researches like this one. Basing on the scientific method, we can say that it this research made full use of the information from previous studies. They were able to gather essential information which they could use in proving their assumptions for this study.However, they may have overused the information and relied on it too much. There is a with child(p) resemblance of their research with that of Morleys, thats why it ma have resulted to something similar. The point is, they could have altered several aspects in other researches and not just utilized everything from that one into their own. If they are expecting to find something new, then their research should be something new also. Other researches are there for additional information and guide, thats why they shouldnt dwell on it always.The researchers came up with different hypotheses on democracy, political parties, social spending, economic development, inflation, demography, ethnic composition, education, exotic direct investment, the informal sector, and land distribution. They were able to give arguments and link up studies as to how these factors were able to affect the inequality in Latin America. However, the way they presented these factors and how they reasoned out regarding its effect on the state of inequality in the area is questionable.The scientific method should be based on facts and concrete separates. Surely, they were able to provide related literature for closely of the factors, but in some, they also tested injecting their own opinion without giving some(prenominal) basis for saying that. The scientific method relies on how you will be able to back up your statements by development previous studies or materials from previous researches. If you are to say something without backing it up with concrete evidence, then the information you are relaying is questionable. The research posed a lot of information regarding these factors.But not all of the information that they gave were verifiable by evidence, so the credibility of their statements are somewhat questionable, thus making their research somewhat weaker. The next stair of the scientific method involves gathering and organizing data for the research. Here, we see that the researches devoted enough time and effort to come up with ample data. Their main sources of information were secondary data from various rural areas statistics, and how it was related to that countrys social and economic situation.They utilized various analytical methods in interpreting this data, sorting it in stylus where one could c learly see how it affected the inequality for the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. In this part, they were able to stick to the scientific method of conducting a study wherein they mightily gathered and sorted the data to be analyzed. As a result, they were able to come up with the necessary information which was interpreted. The results are there in order to command and support the hypothetical claims that they made originally on the study.This could either prove or disprove their assumptions. The next part of the scientific method is the discussion of the results before really concluding the research. The results showed that the assumptions regarding the outcome of the study were strongly supported, wherein politics is really important in shaping the inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean countries. The democratic records were one of the strongest evidence for this, along with the cumulative record of the strength of left-of-center parties in the legislat ure, as well as the interaction of social security measure spending and democracy.It has left us with the outcome that democracy is very important for inequality. This could be quantified in two ways, which are 1) it allows the leading who are concerned with the welfare of the poor to let them build organizations in the form of political parties, and 2) allow those parties to establish a support base, and to gain necessary determine in the legislature and be able to use that influence to shape various policies is the direction of redistribution.The conclusion can be well associated with the scientific method, as it summarized the results and mentioned the assertable implications of the research. Another problem is whether the research can easily be repeated for the mathematical function of verification. With all the necessary factors at hand, transcript of this research may be stiff because the political state of a country can be changed, thus touch on the variables it has previously possessed.