Why does Canada have universal health care but US does not? Write a comparative research design report by following the steps below. (This is a Most Similar Systems Design
PSCI 202 –Research Design Report Instructions Details: · Due Date March 25th – papers due by 6:00 pm, Vancouver Time. · Worth 10% of the final grade · Late Assignments · 5% per day · No submissions accepted after April 2. · Extensions granted with proper documentation. · Paper Length: 6 double spaced pages (1500 words, excluding citations and bibliography). · Typed, 12-point Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1” (2.5 cm) margins. · Do not include your name or student number as it will be submitted to Turnitin. · Clearly number all your pages in the upper right corner. Research Question: 1) Why does Canada have universal health care but US does not? Write a comparative research design report by following the steps below. (This is a Most Similar Systems Design) Requirements: · The report should be written in a proper essay format with proper research. · Citations are required. Please use APA or MLA citation style. · You are only allowed to use academic sources. This means books and journal articles. If you use online websites, newspapers etc. they will not count towards your academic sources. At least 5 Scholarly/Academic sources must be used, but you can use more if you want. · Include a proper Reference List/Bibliography at the end. · The paper should follow the following steps in paragraph form: Original title 1. Introduction 2. Research question: ______________? 3. Research design: (MSS or MDS: select and state the design used below here) [Insert the initial table here – only include the two cases that you are comparing] Make sure to fill in entire research design table with SIX or more control variables (excluding independent and dependent variables) 4. Hypothesis: ___________________ (as a written sentence) ___________________ (as an arrow diagram: X Y) 5. Justify variable and case selection in research design (one or two paragraphs). Why did you pick these specific cases and these specific Independent and Dependent Variables? 6. Hypothesis test: Describe how you are testing your hypothesis with evidence? What kind of evidence you will be using, quantitative, qualitative etc.? Explain everything clearly with proper logic and all your evidence and research should be cited properly. 7. Explain hypothesis test results and how they affect initial hypothesis (one paragraph). Do your test results support or oppose your initial hypothesis? 8. Initial theory: Based on the results of your hypothesis, what is your theory regarding the relationship between your IV and DV? Basically, in this paragraph, explain the causal logic of how your X and Y are connected? 9. Bibliography. Cite all the sources that you have used in the document at the end as well. Separate the sources for your variables and the sources used in other paragraphs as follows: Sources for Control variables #1-6 (or more): Sources for Dependent variable: Sources for Independent variable: Any other sources consulted for remaining steps: Plagiarism: · DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. · DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY OF THE OFFENCE, PENALTY RANGES FROM 0 ON THE ASSIGNMENT, AN F ON THE COURSE, TO COMPLETE EXPULSION FROM COLLEGE. A NOTATION WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED ON YOUR ACADEMIC RECORD. · IF IN DOUBT REGARDING WHAT CONSTITUTES PLAGIARISM, IT’S ALWAYS BETTER TO CITE. Authoritarianism, Democracy and Their Relation to the Societal Response 2 Authoritarianism, Democracy and Their Relation to the Societal Response Why can some societies produce changes withing their countries faster than others? Is it mentality of a particular country that causes it, or a system of the state structure? To figure this out I decided to investigate behavior of nations living withing two very similar countries – Russia and Ukraine – in the environment of governmental suppression. The societies of these two states appear to act surprisingly different withing analogous situations: response of Russian public seems to be less effective than the response of Ukrainian public. Therefore, a question follows: why cannot Russian society effectively respond to the governmental suppression, but Ukrainian society can? In the first place, I would like to present the research that I completed in a most similar systems design. Variable Russia Ukraine Language Russian (Old East Slavic roots) (“Ukrainian Language”). Ukrainian (Old East Slavic roots) (“Ukrainian Language”). Historical Background Was a part of USSR & Kyivan Rus (“Russia”). Was a part of USSR & Kyivan Rus (“Ukraine”). Independence 1991(“Russia”). 1991 (“Ukraine”). Dominant religion 53.1% Orthodoxy (“Russia”). 46% Orthodoxy (“Ukraine”). Legal system Supreme Court, Constitutional Court (“Russia”). Supreme Court, Constitutional Court (“Ukraine”). Postseparation political reformation process Communist Party of the Soviet Union dominated the political process until early 1990s, after a number of constitutional reforms a lot of new parties emerged taking over the political competition (“Russia”). Communist Party of the Soviet Union dominated the political process until early 1990s, after a constitutional reform a lot of new parties emerged taking over the political competition (“Ukraine”). DV = Reaction to governmental suppression Ineffective response Effective response IV = Regime type Authoritarian Democratic From my point of view, the main reason for such a different effect in the case of these two states is their regime types. Correspondingly, my hypothesis is: authoritarian regime in Russia leads to Russian society being unable to effectively respond to governmental suppression, whereas democratic regime in Ukraine leads to Ukrainian society being able to effectively respond to governmental suppression (X Y). This particular case attracted my attention due to a commonly held belief that Russia and Ukraine are very similar states. They share a country border and, therefore, historical past. Indeed, this key factor gave rise to a lot of alikeness between the two states to develop. In the first place, Ukrainian and Russian languages belong to a group of East Slavic languages (“Ukrainian Language”). In addition, these two states became officially independent from USSR in 1991 (“Ukraine”, “Russia”) and they both have Orthodoxy as a dominant religion (“Ukraine”, “Russia”). Keeping in mind the assumption about that Ukraine and Russia are similar, I did not notice many people questioning why with all the similarities these two states have such different fates in terms of bringing changes of a country-wide significance into action. There was something special about their cases that made such situation to occur and I decided to dive into the topic more. Equally important is that comparison of Ukrainian and Russian societies is even more prevalent than the analogy of the states themselves. Thereafter, if we are saying that these two societies are similar, it logically follows that their response to governmental suppression withing their countries should be similar too. However, it is not. One reason to claim so is the fact that Russia has the same president ever since 2012, which is one of the possible forms of suppression (“Russia”). At the same time, Ukraine already had 4 different politicians on that position (“Ukraine”). Nevertheless, similar structure of the legal system in both countries as well as common early post-USSR political reformation period gave Ukrainian and Russian citizens alike environment for its further civic development and growth (“Ukraine”, “Russia”). Withal, their paths went in completely different directions: Russia followed the example of USSR and adopted authoritarianism, whereas Ukraine became a democratic country. In order to test my hypothesis, I picked two waves of protests against the governmental suppression happening in the previously mentioned states during the same decade. Following the results of my research, democratic regime in Ukraine allowed a wave of demonstrations, called Euromaidan, that emerged in Ukraine in years 2013-2014 to achieve a successful change of the government. In contrast, authoritarian regime in Russia did not allow protests against frauded election results in Russia in 2011-2013 years to reach its goal. They were supressed by the government. To start with, protests, as a form of community’s reaction, emerged in both countries due to attempts of their governments to ignore the opinion of its citizens - which is a form of legislative abolition. In Russia the protests were mainly caused by the rigged election results – Vladimir Putin was going on his third term (Sakwa 196). The new government was trying to hide the truths from the citizens, they were blaming the foreigners in financing the results, yet, unsuccessful: “A Pew Global Attitudes survey in Spring 2012 found that 58% of Russians believed that the election protests were domestically generated, with only 25% believing that Western governments sponsored the protests” (Sakwa 197). The community demanded fair elections. However, “new” Russian authoritarian government did not allow that to happen. In response to the popular movement a half-artificial counter-mobilization was raised: “This sort of rally mobilised voter support in favour of Putin, but the degree to which it represented genuine or 'constructed' support remains contested (Smith et al.32). Police brutality and provocations, mass arrests and raids for key activists, manipulations with constitution and adoption of new repressive laws, resulted into depressing the opposition: “The poor turnout for the ‘March of Millions’ on 15 June 2012 revealed the degree to which the protest wave had declined” (Sakwa 196). As a result, regardless all the resistance, Putin’s regime was renewed. On the other hand, in Ukraine similar events had an absolutely different ending. Although everything started as a peaceful demonstration, it evolved into a violent confrontation after the Ukraine’s Special Forces (Berkut) tried to clear up the square, where the assembly took place (Krasynska and Martin 426). The initial cause for the protest was the refusal of Victor Yanukovich, a president of Ukraine at that time, to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union (Krasynska and Martin 426). However, the violent actions of Berkut “prompted the next wave of protests, now with a different agenda—protesting the brutality and demanding changes in government (Marples 2015, p. 10), including the president’s resignation. From then on, mass demonstrations gathered on Maidan “every Sunday attracting hundreds of thousands of people” (Krasynska and Martin 426). Following the Russian example, Ukrainian government tried to organize a paid counter-protest called “anti-Maidan”, where “angry and dull people came to earn a little money not really aware of where and why they had been brought there” (Kowal et al.). However, after multiple attempts of the government to stop the protest with the use of force or a bribe, negotiations began. Ultimately, the movement achieved its goal: “In the morning of February 23, the Ukrainian Parliament, Verkhovna Rada, voted for the president’s removal and declared early presidential elections to be held in May” (Krasynska and Martin 426). Even though Ukrainian democratic regime shouldn’t have allowed the violence to happen, it provided the key to the effective conflict solvation - dialogue between the authorities and the citizens. This is what the situation with Russian conflict lacked. Due to its nature, Russian authoritarian government did not attempt on negotiating the issue with the protestors. Instead, it decided to limit their rights through manipulating laws and the constitution, as well as arresting the leaders of the movement (Sakwa 201). Knowing that the authority of the country Russians live in is able to adjust the laws and use the legal system how ever they want, people got no choice – the opposition had to be stopped. An unpredictable and unsafe environment made the citizens follow the main human instinct: save yourself first. Withal, results of the hypothesis test supported the initial hypothesis. To summarize, a country’s regime type has a significant impact of the effectiveness of people’s response to the governmental abolition in case of it taking place. Main reason for that is the nature of regimes themselves. Therefore, people living withing the countries with authoritarian regime tend to respond ineffectively to the governmental suppression, since such regime leaves no space for freedom of expression. The government in such countries is controlling to the extend that it can even manipulate laws and constitution, rig the election results, kill and imprison those out of favor: “Authoritarian leaders often exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law, and they usually cannot be replaced by citizens choosing freely among various competitors in elections. The freedom to create opposition political parties or other alternative political groupings with which to compete for power with the ruling group is either limited or nonexistent in authoritarian regimes” (“Authoritarianism”). The example of Russia is not the only one out there. To illustrate, in the second half of the year 2020 Belarus faced a similar problem that Russia did in 2011-2013: “Belarus is gripped by mass protests, triggered by an election widely believed to have been rigged in favour of the long-time leader Alexander Lukashenko” (“What's happening in Belarus?”). The government of Belarus acted just as violently, aggressively and uncompromisingly as Russian government did. Police brutality, mass arrests, intimidation of the population and other forms of oppression were used to stop mass demonstrations: “Earlier an estimated 100,000 demonstrators marched for the 11th successive Sunday of protests. […] According to Russian news agencies, citing their correspondents at the scene, at least 10 stun grenades went off. There were also reports that riot police had fired rubber bullets. […] It is common for masked men with batons to grab protesters, drag them into unmarked vans and drive off” (“Belarus protests”). By year 2021 the protests scaled down significantly without achieving any important changes. Simultaneously, governmental suppression in countries with democratic regime gets more effective response, since this regime allows more freedom of expression, favors discussion and negotiation over violence and manipulation with laws: “States with democratic governments prevent rule by autocrats, guarantee fundamental individual rights, allow for a relatively high level of political equality, and rarely make war on each other. As