Kurt and mitch visit an amish village on a class trip. "let's see if we can round up some old radios and appliances and drop them off for them later this week. i think they'll appreciate it. they just don't understand what they're missing." mitch rolls his eyes. kurt's perspective is an example of

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )

every society, in order to meet the needs of it's people, has to answer three basic questions:

- what should we produce?

- how should we produce it?

- for whom should we produce it?

this questions must be answered in order to, option b, aid in production decisions.

every country can't produce everything, no matter how rich their land is. it may be a matter of technology, resources or geographical conditions. so, these three questions must be resolved in order to get the most of the production of each land.

hope this !