What are the causes of new imperialism and why was western imperialism so successful

They hoped for new markets to sell to and wanted easy access to natural resources. Why was western Imperialism so successful? Europeans had strong economies, powerful militaries, improved medical technologies, well organized governments. They also wanted easy access to manufacturing resources.

the industrial development of cities in the ruhr area in the nineteenth century is described. the research was based on english and german language sources. several factors that shaped growth and paths of the cities were categorized and analyzed. they are locations, resources, traditions, entrepreneurs, and technological developments. locations and resources were the most important among them; other factors may be regarded as consequences from locations and resources. among the cities, bochum, essen, gelsenkirchen, and dortmund had the richest resources and most favorable locations in the transportation network and grew to be the largest cities in the ruhr area near the end of the nineteenth century. riverside location was also a favorable factor for the development, as shown in the development of duisburg on the confluence of rhine and ruhr. resource distribution can explain the rise of textile industry, metallurgical industry, and coal and iron industries, and the northward progression of the mining industry. tradition was an important factor for cities such as krefeld, barmen, elberfeld, solingen, and remscheid, which experienced development based on their traditions through the nineteenth century. various entrepreneurs exerted influences within and beyond the local level over the ruhr area. technological development stimulated the northward progression of the mining industry and the deep connection between the coal and the iron industries.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is