Which of the following African countries is not land locked? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Which of the following African countries is not land locked?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->G-15; an economic grouping of developing countries of Asian; African and Latin American countries; was formed in?....

QA->In a revered elliot type stub axle, the kingpin is locked to the :....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.The passage seems to emphasize that the outside world has
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. The past quarter of a century has seen several bursts of selling by the world’s governments, mostly but not always in benign market conditions. Those in the OECD, a rich-country club, divested plenty of stuff in the 20 years before the global financial crisis. The first privatisation wave, which built up from the mid-1980s and peaked in 2000, was largely European. The drive to cut state intervention under Margaret Thatcher in Britain soon spread to the continent. The movement gathered pace after 1991, when eastern Europe put thousands of rusting state-owned enterprises (SOEs) on the block. A second wave came in the mid-2000s, as European economies sought to cash in on buoyant markets. But activity in OECD countries slowed sharply as the financial crisis began. In fact, it reversed. Bailouts of failing banks and companies have contributed to a dramatic increase in government purchases of corporate equity during the past five years. A more lasting fea ture is the expansion of the state capitalism practised by China and other emerging economic powers. Governments have actually bought more equity than they have sold in most years since 2007, though sales far exceeded purchases in 2013. Today privatisation is once again “alive and well”, says William Megginson of the Michael Price College of Business at the University of Oklahoma. According to a global tally he recently completed, 2012 was the third-best year ever, and preliminary evidence suggests that 2013 may have been better. However, the geography of sell-offs has changed, with emerging markets now to the fore. China, for instance, has been selling minority stakes in banking, energy, engineering and broadcasting; Brazil is selling airports to help finance a $20 billion investment programme. Eleven of the 20 largest IPOs between 2005 and 2013 were sales of minority stakes by SOEs, mostly in developing countries. By contrast, state-owned assets are now “the forgotten side of the balance-sheet” in many advanced economies, says Dag Detter, managing partner of Whetstone Solutions, an adviser to governments on asset restructuring. They shouldn’t be. Governments of OECD countries still oversee vast piles of assets, from banks and utilities to buildings, land and the riches beneath (see table). Selling some of these holdings could work wonders: reduce debt, finance infrastructure, boost economic efficiency. But governments often barely grasp the value locked up in them. The picture is clearest for companies or company-like entities held by central governments. According to data compiled by the OECD and published on its website, its 34 member countries had 2,111 fully or majority-owned SOEs, with 5.9m employees, at the end of 2012. Their combined value (allowing for some but not all pension-fund liabilities) is estimated at $2.2 trillion, roughly the same size as the global hedge-fund industry. Most are in network industries such as telecoms, electricity and transport. In addition, many countries have large minority stakes in listed firms. Those in which they hold a stake of between 10% and 50% have a combined market value of $890 billion and employ 2.9m people. The data are far from perfect. The quality of reporting varies widely, as do definitions of what counts as a state-owned company: most include only centralgovernment holdings. If all assets held at sub-national level, such as local water companies, were included, the total value could be more than $4 trillion. Reckons Hans Christiansen, an OECD economist. Moreover, his team has had to extrapolate because some QECD members, including America and Japan, provide patchy data. America is apparently so queasy about discussions of public ownership of -commercial assets that the Treasury takes no part in the OECD’s working group on the issue, even though it has vast holdings, from Amtrak and the 520,000-employee Postal Service to power generators and airports. The club’s efforts to calculate the value that SOEs add to, or subtract from, economies were abandoned after several countries, including America, refused to co-operate. Privatisation has begun picking up again recently in the OECD for a variety of reasons. Britain’s Conservative-led coalition is fbcused on (some would say obsessed with) reducing the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Having recently sold the Royal Mail through a public offering, it is hoping to offload other assets, including its stake in URENCO, a uranium enricher, and its student-loan portfolio. From January 8th, under a new Treasury scheme, members of the public and businesses will be allowed to buy government land and buildings on the open market. A website will shortly be set up to help potential buyers see which bits of the government’s /..337 billion-worth of holdings ($527 billion at today’s rate, accounting for 40% of developable sites round Britain) might be surplus. The government, said the chief treasury secretary, Danny Alexander, “should not act as some kind of compulsive hoarder”. Japan has different reasons to revive sell-offs, such as to finance reconstruction after its devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011. Eyes are once again turning to Japan Post, a giant postal-to-financial-services conglomerate whose oftpostponed partial sale could at last happen in 2015 and raise (Yen) 4 trillion ($40 billion) or more. Australia wants to sell financial, postal and aviation assets to offset the fall in revenues caused by the commodities slowdown. In almost all the countries of Europe, privatisation is likely “to surprise on the upside” as long as markets continue to mend, reckons Mr Megginson. Mr Christiansen expects to see three main areas of activity in coming years. First will be the resumption of partial sell-offs in industries such as telecoms, transport and utilities. Many residual stakes in partly privatised firms could be sold down further. France, for instance, still has hefty stakes in GDF SUEZ, Renault, Thales and Orange. The government of Francois Hollande may be ideologically opposed to privatisation, but it is hoping to reduce industrial stakes to raise funds for livelier sectors, such as broadband and health. The second area of growth should be in eastern Europe, where hundreds of large firms, including manufacturers, remain in state hands. Poland will sell down its stakes in listed firms to make up for an expected reduction in EU structural funds. And the third area is the reprivatisation of financial institutions rescued during the crisis. This process is under way: the largest privatisation in 2012 was the $18 billion offering of America’s residual stake in AIG, an insurance company.Which of the following statements is not true in the context of the given passage ?
....

MCQ->Study the text given below and answer the question that follows it:Dense, dirty air laced with grease best describes the atmosphere of most Lagos streets. Drive from one corner of this great west African city to another and in no time you will find surfaces lightly dusted, like a soft sprinkling of icing on cakes. Under the half-moons of fingernails, thick grime settles. It’s a scene taken as typically African: polluted, bedraggled, unhealthy. This has only ever been made possible by the exploitation of Africa’s people. This week five west African countries, Nigeria included, announced plans to end the practice of European oil companies and traders exporting “African quality” diesel. “Dirty fuel” has earned the name because it is imported diesel with sulphur levels as high as 3,000 parts per million when the European maximum is 10ppm. To be clear, “African quality” fuel, is fuel not fit for European humans.Which of the options is not necessarily the underlying assumption of the author in the paragraph above?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Long ago, a Brahmin called Haridatta lived in a little village. He was a farmer but the piece of land he cultivated provided him with so little to survive on that he was very poor. One day, unable to stand the heat of the summer sun, he went to rest for a whilevunder a big tree on his land. Before he could stretch out on the ground, he saw a huge black cobra slithering out of an anthill nearby. The snake then spread hisvhood and swayed gracefully from side to side. Haridatta was astonished tov seevthis and he thought, “This cobra must really be the god of this land. I have nevervseen or worshipped him before, which is probably why I am not able to get anything from the land. From this day onwards, I will worship him.” He hurried back to his home at once and returned with a glass full of milk. He poured it into a bowl and turning to the anthill said, “0 ruler of the land, I did not know you were living in this anthill. That is why I have not paid my tribute to you. Please accept my apologies for this omission and accept this humble offering.” He then placed the bowl of milk at the entrance of the anthill and left the place. The next day when the Brahmin arrived to work on his land before the sun rose, he found a gold coin in the bowl he had left at the anthill. He was very happy indeed and from that day on, he made it a practice to offer the cobra milk in a bowl each day. The next morning he would collect a gold coin and leave. One day Haridatta had to go to a neighbouring village on business. He asked his son to go to the anthill as usual and leave a bowl of milk for the cobra. The son did as he was told, but when he went to the same spot the next day and collected the gold coin he thought, “This anthill must be full of gold. If I kill the cobra, I can collect all the gold in an instant, instead of having to waste my time coming here every day.” He then struck the cobra with a big stick. The cobra deftly dodged the blow but bit Haridatta’s son with his poisonous fangs. The boy soon died. When Haridatta returned to his village the next day, he heard how his son had met his death. He realised at once that his son’s greed would probably have caused him to attack the cobra. The Brahmin went to the anthill the day after his son’s cremation and offered milk to the cobra as usual. This time, the cobra did not even come out of his hole. Instead, he called out to Haridatta, “You have come here for gold, forgetting That you have just lost a precious son and that you are in mourning. The reason for this is pure greed. From today, there is no meaning to our relationship. I am going to give you a diamond as a final gift. But please don’t ever come back again.” He slithered away as the Brahmin watched.Which of the following is TRUE according to the story ?
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the questions. PassageThe founder of the Bhoodan Yapia or the Land Gifts Mission was Acharya Vinoba Bhave. a close associate and follower of Mahatma Gandhi. This movement, which was one of the greatest land reform movements in Independent India. was started in the year 1951 in Pochampalli. Telangana. hi the spring of 1951 there was a meeting of rural workers in Hyderabad. Since Vinoba Bhave never used money, he decided to walk to this meeting which was some 300 miles away from where he lived. On the way, in every village through which he passed, he came face to face with the misery of the poor. landless farmers. He realized that he should leave no stone unturned in his mission to seek justice and land for his poor countrymen. When he reached Hyderabad he went straight to a village and in one of the prayer meetings he appealed to the landlords. He said. If you had five sons and a sixth were born to you. wouldn't you give him a portion of your estate? Treat me as your sixth son and give me one-sixth of your land for redistribution to the poor." His words struck a chord among the landlords. Land was voluntarily donated and within the two months that he spent in Hyderabad. Vinoba received nearly 12.000 acres in trust for the landless. Encouraged by this success, he travelled across India to convince the wealthy landlords to share a small area of their land with their poor, landless neighbours. By 1969, the Bhoodan movement had collected over 4 million acres of land for redistribution.When and where was the Bhoodan movement started?
....