ATHE STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL APPROACH

The structural-functional approach is derived from earlier uses of

functionalism and systems models in anthropology, sociology, biology, and
political science. Structural functionalism became popular around 1960
when it became clear that ways of studying U.S. and European politics were
not useful in studying newly independent countries, and that a new approach
was needed. Structural-functionalism assumes that a bounded (nation-state)
system exists, and studies structures in terms of their function(s) within the
system. For structural functionalists the question to be answered is what
does a structure (guerrilla movement, political party, election, etc.)
do within the political system (of country x)? The goal is to find out what
something actually does in a political system, as opposed to what it is
supposed to do. Thus, structural functionalists would not waste time
studying constitutions in Third World countries if they found that the
constitutions [structures] had little impact on political reality.
Almond claimed that certain political functions existed in all political
systems. On the input side he listed these functions as: political
socialization, political interest articulation, political interest
aggregation, and political communication. Listed as outputs were rule-
making, rule implementation, and rule adjudication. Other basic
functions of all political systems included the conversion process, basic
pattern maintenance, and various capabilities (distributive, symbolic, etc.).
Structural functionalists argued that all political systems, including Third
World systems, could most fruitfully be studied and compared on the basis
of how differing structures performed these functions in the various political
system.
Structural functionalism is based on a systems model. Conceptually,
the political process can be depicted as follows:
 For analytical purposes the political system is considered to be the
nation-state, and the environment is composed of the interactions of
economic, social, and political variables and events, both domestic and
external. The idea is that there are a number of actors in the national political
system (political parties, bureaucracies, the military, etc.) and that the
actions of all these actors affect each other as well as the system. The
political analyst must determine the importance of these actors in a
particular political system. This is done by analyzing the functions
performed by the various actors. Any changes in the system also affect all
the actors. The feedback mechanisms allow for constantly changing inputs,
as actors react to outputs.
Structural functionalists, like systems analysts, have a bias toward
systemic equilibrium, (i.e. toward stability). Such a bias tends to make this
approach conservative, as stability, or evolutionary change, is preferred
[and more easily analyzed], to radical, or revolutionary change. A problem
which arises with this system-based model is that the nation-state's
boundaries are often permeable in the real world, rather than being the
neatly bounded nation-state conceptualized by structural functionalists. In
other words, in the real world it is usually difficult to state exactly what the
boundaries are, leading to some conceptual difficulties. For example, some
international actors are only intermittent, such as the U.S. when it intervenes
directly in Haitian or Panamanian politics. Should U.S. military forces be
considered a part of the Panamanian or Haitian political systems?
STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM AND HISTORICAL
SEQUENCES OF CRISES
The structural functional approach provides a useful framework for
categorizing and comparing data, but has been criticized as being essentially
static. It was not very useful for analyzing or predicting change; the issue of
why, how, when, and in what direction, political development occurs. This
issue of development, or change, is, of course, crucial for the Third World.
In response to criticisms, structural functionalists looked at history and
concluded that political development takes place when an existing political
system is unable to cope with problems or challenges confronting it without
further structural differentiation or cultural secularization. Success at
meeting such challenges constitutes political development. By challenges,
Almond meant changes in the size, content, and frequency of inputs
(especially demands) for the system. For structural functionalists:
Political Development is defined as increased structural differentiation
and increased cultural secularization.
Structural functionalists argued that, historically, there have been four
major challenges to political systems, and that the challenges have
occurred in the following sequence (in the West).
1. penetration and integration (state-building)
2. loyalty and commitment (nation-building)
3. participation
4. distribution
(Perhaps a fifth, international penetration, should be added to the list. The
agents of international penetration would include: other nations,
international organizations, multinational corporations, prominent
individuals, ideological movements, guerrillas, militaries, and
technological sources such as radio broadcasts.)
In Europe the challenges occurred separately, and were handled one at
a time. Thus, the problem of state-building (road construction, tax system,
boundaries)) was usually solved before the problem of nation-building
(transferring of primary political loyalty to the national ruler, and away from
the local or regional leader) became acute. The challenge of participation
was solved by the gradual extension of the vote and political rights to non-
propertied people, trade unionists, all males, and finally, to women. The
problem of distribution is still a challenge. The question of how to divide
up the goods of society has not yet been fully solved, although there seems
to be a movement in the direction of more equality in distribution.
The Third World is experiencing a fundamentally different pattern of
challenge occurrence. In the Third World the challenges are occurring
simultaneously.
In many cases "solutions" to historic systemic challenges in the West
have been accompanied by violence and strong systemic resistance.
(Extension of participation rights to workers; U.S. Civil Rights movement
of 1960s) In Third World nations all the challenges are occurring
simultaneously, and demands for solutions are putting severe pressure on
national political systems. From a structural functionalist point of view, the
amount of violence and instability sometimes observed in Third World
politics should, therefore, come as no surprise.
Structural Functional Approach to Public Administration
The structural functional approach to public administration is a term
adapted from sociology and anthropology which interprets society as
a structure with interrelated parts. This approach was developed by
the celebrated anthropologist Malinowski and Radcliff
Brown. So, according to them, a society has a structure and
functions. These functions are norms, customs, traditions and
institutions and can be analogized as organs of a body, as explained
by Herbert Spencer. All these functions need to work together to
make the body function as a whole.
Having explained the broader meaning of the term; it makes more
sense for us to understand it from the perspective of public
administration which would guide our further analysis of the topic.
During his stint as a Researcher at the Foreign Policy Association in
USA, Fred Riggs came across an interesting phenomenon regarding
the American Public Administration. He found them to be extremely
narcissistic in their approach which believed that the American way
of administration was unique without any counterparts elsewhere in
the world and that it was capable of answering all the administrative
problems emerging in the new developing countries.
To explore the consequences of intermingling of contrasting systems
in the developing countries, he looked at the structural functional
approach of the social sciences. This approach provides a
mechanism to understand social processes. The function is the
consequence of patterns of actions while the structure is the
resultant institution and the pattern of action itself. It reads
complicated but the theory in itself is not that difficult to understand.
Social structures can be concrete (like Government department and
Bureaus or even specific societies held together by shared beliefs,
customs and morals) and also analytic like structure of power or
authority.
These structures perform certain functions and in terms of structural
functional approach, these functions have an interdependent pattern
between structures. So as a public administration student, if one
would want to study bureaucracy, the first step would be to view
bureaucracy as a structure which has administrative system with
characteristics like hierarchy, specialization, rules and roles. The
behavioral characteristics can be rationality, neutrality,
professionalism and rule orientation. Subsequently, one can proceed
to analyze the functions of bureaucracy.
Now, we come to an interesting and relevant question pertaining to
the above explanation. Do the similar kinds of structures perform the
same functions? The structural functionalists say a big Nay to that,
which means that a structure can perform multiple functions and vice
versa i.e. one function can be performed by multiple structures.
According to Riggs, there are five functional requisites of a society:
 Economic
 Socio-communicational

 Symbolic

 Political

While talking about Riggs explanation of the concept and

contribution to this approach, we cannot proceed further
without mentioning his Prismatic Model. This model uses a
common phenomenon as an analogy, when white light passes
through a prism it breaks into seven colors of different
wavelength. As per Riggs, the white light is the fused structure of
traditional society. The rainbow represents the diffracted (or
refracted) structures of an industrialized society. Inside the prism the
society was in transition.Riggs challenged the traditional approaches
of public administration implying that basic principles of
administration have universal application. It also contributed to the
comparative study of public administration by providing a more
relevant perspective; that not all systems work the same in all places,
so one can take what one likes and leave the rest.
A glimpse of the post-development approach
Development is often accepted as an unquestioned goal of our societies. We
just want to be developed. Critical discussion on this topic is almost entirely
absent from the public debate in the Czech Republic. Global Politics hopes
to draw your attention to an approach that does not fit the mainstream
thinking. Promising young scholars from the Vienna University treat topics
such as sustainable development, colonial continuities, microfinance or the
Zapatista movement in Chiapas. Their unorthodox ideas are worth a thought
for students who seek more than just the usual „aid or trade“question.
„The last 40 years can be called the age of development. This epoch is
coming to an end. The time is to write its obituary… The idea stands like a
ruin in the intellectual landscape. Nevertheless, the ruin stands there and
still dominates the scenery like a landmark“ (Sachs 1992, 1). Wolfgang
Sachs’ famous dictum has become the basis for what was later to be known
as the post-development approach. He identified four founding premises
that should have led to abandonment of this mainframe, which took hold of
us long before Truman’s famous speech on 20 January 1949. First, the
planet runs towards its ecological limits and the reproduction of the
industrial (or imperial) mode of living is impossible. Secondly, with the end
of the Cold war, ‘development’ lost its political impetus. As we may see
today the East-West confrontation has disappeared, but ‘development’ lost
nothing of its attraction. Thirdly, the ever growing gap between the rich and
poor defined in terms of monetary income makes the concept seem less
persuasive. One look at the Millennium Development Goals shows how
‘development’ switched from modernization to poverty reduction. The
neoliberal economic panacea ruling the world at least since the beginning
of the 1980s remains nonetheless. Fourthly, the single ‘development’ track
indeed seems to be obsolete in the postmodern age of cultural relativism.
Twenty years later, in the preface to the new edition of The Development
Dictionary, Sachs did not change too much of his analysis. He admitted that
the ‘development’ has been replaced by ‘globalization’ and stressed how
the pursuit of ‘development’ has become part of the desire for universal
justice. It is the South today that is the staunchest defender of development.
Even if the ‘development’ agenda has been changing throughout the last
60 years in an ever accelerating pace, we still may agree with James
Ferguson that “[i]t seems to us today almost non-sensical to deny that there
is such a thing as ‘development,’ or to dismiss it as a meaningless concept,
just as it must have been virtually impossible to reject the concept
‘civilization’ in the nineteenth century, or the concept ‘God’ in the twelfth”
(Ferguson 1994, xiii). This “interpretive grid” (ibid) stays with us regardless
of whether we speak of emerging markets, good governance or failed states.
Ferguson brings one more and much more serious insight into the usual
evolutionary thinking of ‘development’ (Ferguson 2006, 176–193). The
racist theories that culminated during the Second World War have been
discredited by the horrors of Nazism. The cultural centrism that allowed for
the colonial constellation of forces to continue after the war made other
cultures capable of achieving the same status as those considered
‘developed’. The nodal point of the ‘development’ discourse changed from
the white man to the nation of white men. Inferior cultures only needed to
work hard enough like those Asians whom supposedly helped the Asian
values, but these too were to become a problem as soon as the financial
crisis in 1997 set in only to be the source of success for renewed growth.
However, we are in a very different situation today than we were in the
1950s. The emerging markets are much unlike the so called fourth world
and as globalization picks its enclaves full of resources or people with
purchasing power, the rest is abandoned to its own fate of destitution.
Culture does not play the role in the broken promise of ‘development’
anymore. We are back to good old racism (which we never really
abandoned) with the hierarchical axis of modernity remaining and the
temporal axis disappearing from the usual evolutionary diagram. There are
people on this planet who are not ‘less developed’ anymore, they are just
‘less’. The difficult connection between racism and cultural centrism easily
visible in an everyday practice of ‘development’, but the more difficult to
decipher within the reports of the governmental and non-governmental
‘development’ institutions is replaced by an outright racism of the
humanitarian zeal for those who naturally cannot catch up if they have not
done so until now.
‘Development’ thus not only contains authoritarian implications as Cowen
and Shenton have shown for the era long before Truman (Cowen and
Shenton 1996), but its lack results in an equally if not more dangerous forms
of disdain.
What is to be made of this ‘development’ era with all its transformations,
(slowly) shifting power relations and human misery? While on the one
hand, there are scholars such as David Simon or Stuart Corbridge who
caution us against post-structuralist, postmodern and post-colonial
disengagement from practising ‘development’ at all, on the other hand there
are scholars such as James Ferguson, Lakshman Yapa and Gilbert Rist who
do not dismiss any engagement entirely, but try to rethink thoroughly
various concepts connected to ‘development’ (Matthews 2008). Ferguson
warns that there might be no need for what we do or know.
It is strange that Sally Matthews stresses the intellectual work, we ‘the
privileged’ can engage in and reserves only one sentence for the change of
our consumer practices. But this is a very important part of the misery on a
planet that makes our game to be zero-sum. While trying to highlight the
importance of our consuming habits I try to engage in the intellectual work
praised by Matthews as well. This is the case when I am teaching and this
is the case when the students publish their papers.
The set of six texts written for the seminar Post-Development Theory and
Practice are just a tiny bit of the intellectual solidarity with distant others
here at home. The first paper by Katrin Köhler engages with the continuities
between the colonial and ‘development’ discourses. It demonstrates how
basic colonial concepts prevail despite changes at the rhetorical level.
The second paper by Eric Pfeifer deals with the discourse of ‘sustainable
development’ and shows how the consumption in the North is excluded
from the picture this discourse depicts. Additionally, only those solution
that are “imaginable” in Žižekian sense, i.e. those de-politicized ones, are
suggested preventing radical post-politics from taking place.
The third article by Andrea Visotchnig treats the practice of ‘development’
in the form of microfinance. While it is possible to criticize microfinance
on its own merits, as well as from a discursive perspective, it is also possible
to consider it to be part of an alternative, post-capitalist, diverse economy.
The goal then should not be to call for its complete abolishment but to
embed it in non-capitalist relations.
Post-development has been fiercely criticized from various
perspectives. Christiane Löper tries to define what could be understood
under the term and offers answers to the main points of the critique. In her
concluding section she offers an interesting insight into her personal view
on post-development which she considers to be a “summary of [her] whole
study of International Development.”
The fifth paper by Josefine Bingemer tries to answer whether the Zapatista
movement in Chiapas could be considered a case of post-development.
Using secondary sources, concrete practices in politics, education,
healthcare, truth and knowledge are analyzed in relation to the post-
development body of theory.
Lastly, another personal encounter is presented by Alexandra Heis, a young
mother, in relation to her study and experience with the vaccination here in
Europe. Not part of ‘development’ at first sight, the article shows how the
notions of citizenship, trust and knowledge are treated in a very similar way
by the proponents and opponents of vaccination. The layman is thus
excluded from this particular knowledge-power nexus, just as is so often the
case in the ‘development’ practice.These six articles may serve yet another
purpose. Their quality puts the seminar papers of students in Brno into a
different perspective. I can only hope that the readers of Politics will use the
insights offered by these talented young authors to inform their own papers
and consumer practices.

Public Policy Approach to Public Administration

We remember reading about the Wilsonian philosophy of public
administration and the famous dichotomy of politics and
administration. After Wilson, there were many authors like Frank J
Goodnow, L D White and F. W. Willoughby who elaborated on the
topic and reaffirmed the need to separate the political functions and
administrative functions of the government. Willoughby went to the
extent of calling public administration as the fourth branch of
Government after legislative, executive and judiciary.
However, this politic-administration dichotomy theory lost it
relevance after the Second World War. The writers, authors,
academicians and subject matter experts finally awakened to the fact
that administration of a government can never be free of political
elements. They started protesting and writing against the separation
of politics and administration as they could clearly see that both were
horribly intertwined with one another and impossible to separate both
in spirit and action.
After the Second World War, there was a renewed interest in the
aspects of administration because of the practical encounters
and alliances formed during the war, creation of international
organizations and emergence of the developing countries. Also,
after the war, the Government reinvented itself from a peace keeper
and provider of services to become a Welfare State. The public
expenditure in most parts of the world increased greatly after 1945
as the Governments started taking more and more initiatives for the
welfare of the society. A lot of reforms were carried out in areas not
just regarding the content of public policy but also the ways in which
they were formulated.
This new approach gained momentum after 1970s when a lot of
analysis started happening around the way the government policies
affected the people. The Vietnam War and Watergate scandal in US,
the Administrative Reforms Commission established in India in 1966,
the initiative to reduce public expenditure in order to reduce direct
taxation under Margaret Thatcher in 1979, the creation of the
Malaysian Administrative and Management Planning Unit in 1977 in
Malaysia were to name a few.
With changing times, the needs of the society have also changed
and so has the role of the government and nature of its policies. The
increase in the average age of the population has made the
Government to look into the pension policies in the developed
countries while the young illiterate population of the developing
countries has forced their governments to come up with policies like
Right to Education in India.
The irony of this public policy approach is that it encompasses
many aspects of government functioning. The spectrum has
become so broad that; to a student of public administration, it
appears confused and spread all over. The other approaches that
have clear segregation between the politics and administration were
clearly distinguishable and easy to understand.
Many readers may also get dissuaded to realize that politics
influence the policy making as well as the administration aspects of
the way a Government functions. However with increasing number
of stakeholders and pressure groups, the politics can be kept in
check and the role of politician comes under scanner to dissuade any
kind of strategic policy making to benefit only a few.

ररररररर रररररररररर र रररररर ररररररर

ई. ईईईईईईईईई ईईईई

रररररररर, रररररररररर, रररररररररररर, रररररर ररररररररर, ररररररर

ररररर, ररररर र ररररररररर ररररररर ररररररररर ररररररर ररररररर
रररररररर रररररररररर रररर रर ररररर र रररररररर ररररररर रररर
रररररर ररररररर ररररररररर ररररररर रररर रररररर रर रररर
ररररररर ररररररर ररररररर रररररर रररर र रररररररररररर ररर
ररररररररररर रररररर ररररररर रररररररररररर रररर रररररर रर
रररररररर रररररर ररर रररररररर रररररर रररर रररर रररररररर रर
रररररररररररर रररररररररररररर ररररररररर रररररर ररर रररररर
रररररर रररररररर ररररर र र रररररररर रररर ररररररर ररररर
ररररररररर ररररररर रररररररररररर ररररर ररररर रररर ररररररर
रररर रररररररर रररररर ररररररररर ररररररर ररररर ररर रररररर
ररररर रररर र र
रररर रररररर ररररररर रररररररररर, रररर रर रररररर ररररररररर
रररररररररर रररररर रररररर “रररररर ररररर, रररर ररररररर ररररर
रररररर ररररर ररर रररररर, रररर रररररर ररररर ररररररररर
ररररररर, रररररर ररररररर, रररर रररररर ररररर रररररर ररररररर,
रररर रररररररर रररर र ररररररररर, रररर रररररर ररर रररररर
रररररररर ररररररर ररररररररर रररर ररररर रररररररररररर
ररररररररर रररर रररर ररररररर ररररररर रररररररर ररररररररर
रररररररर रररररर ररररररर रररररर” रररररर र र
ररररररररररररररररररर रररररर ररर रररररररररर रररर रररररररररर
ररररररर रररररररररर रररर रर रररररर रररररररर रररररर
ररररररररर ररररररर रररररररररर रररररर ररररररर ररररररररररर
रररररररर ररररर ररररर रररर र र रररररर (रररररररररर ररर
ररररररर) रर, रररर रर ररर रर (र) रररररर ररररररररररररर रररर
रररररर ररररर रर ररररररररर रररर ररररर रररररररर रररररर
रररररररररर ररररर रररररर रररररर ररररर रररररर रररररर
ररररररर रररररररररररर ररर रररररररर रररर र र
रररररर रररररर (रररररररररर ररर ररररररर) रररररररर, रररर रर
रररर रर रररररर रररररररररर रररररररररर ररररर रररररर ररररररर
रररररर रररररर ररररररर ररररररररररर रररररररर ररररर र र
रररररर (रररररररररर ररर ररररररर) रर, रररर ररर रर(र) रररररर
ररररररर ररररर ररररररररर ररररररररररर रररररररररर ररररररर र
रर रररररर ररररर ररररररर ररर रररर रररररर ररररर ररररररररर
रररररररर रररररर र रररररररररर ररररररर ररररर ररर रररररर रररर
र र रररर रररर ररर रर(र) रररररर रररर रररर ररर ररर रररररर
ररररररररर रररररररररर रररररर ररर रररर ररररररररर
ररररररररररर ररररररर ररररररर रररररररर ररर ररर रर(र) रर
रररररर रररररररर ररररररररररररर रररर रररररररर ररर रररर
ररररर रररररर ररररररररररर ररररररररर रररररर र र रररररर
रररररर ररररररर ररररररररररररर रररर ररररररररर रररररर
(रररररररररर ररर ररररररर) रररररररर, रररर रर रररररर
ररररररररर रररररर ररररररररर रररररररर ररररररर र र रररररररर
ररररररररर रररररररररर रररर रररर र रररररर ररररररर,
रररररररररररर रररर ररररररर रररर ररररर रररररररररर ररररररररर,
रररर रररररर रररर रररररर ररररररर, रररर रररररर ररररर
ररररररररर र ररररर ररररररररररर ररररर, रररर ररररररर रररर रररर
रररररर ररर रररर ररर रररररर रर रर रर ररररररर रररर ररररर
रररररररर रररर रररर रररररर रररर ररररररररर ररररररर र र रर
रररररररर रररररर रररर ररररररर ररररर रररररररररर रररररररर
ररररर रररररर ररररररररररर रररररर ररररर र रररर रररररररर
रररररर ररररररररर रररर ररररररर ररररर रररररररररररर ररर
रररररररररर रररररर, रररररररररररर रर ररररररररर ररररर रररररर
रररररर ररररररररर रर र ररर, रररर ररररररर ररररररर ररररर
रररररररर र ररररररर ररररर, रररर रररररररर रररररररररर,
ररररररररररर ररररररर रररर र ररररर रररररर ररररररररर
ररररररररररर रररररररर रररररर र र
रररररर ररररररररर ररररररररर
ररररररररर ररररररररर रररररररर ररररररररर ररररररर रररर ररररर
रररररररर रररररररररर रर¥ररररर रररररर ररररररर ररररर,
रररररररररररर रररररररर र ररररर रररररर रररर रररररर रररर ररर
रररर ररररर रर रर ररररररर ररररररररररररर ररर रररररर रररररर
ररररररररर रररररर ररररर रररर र रररररर ररररररर ररररररररर
रररररररररर ररर, रररर, रररर, ररररर, रररररररररररर र रररररररररर
ररररर र ररर ररररररररररर रररररररर रररररर रररर र रररर रररररर
ररररररर ररररर, ररररर रररररररर रररररर ररर, ररररररर
रररररररररर, रररररररर रररररर ररररर, ररररररररर ररर रररररररर
ररररररर रररररररररररर रररररररररर र
रररर÷ररररररररर÷ररररर÷रररररररर ररररररररर रररररररररर
रररररररररररर रररररररर रररररर ररररर ररररररर रररररर रर र
रररर रररररररररर रररररररररररररर रररर रररररररर ररररररर ररर
रररर ररररररर र ररररररर रररररर रररररर र ररर रररर रर
रररररररर, ररररररर र ररररररर, ररर रररर रर ररररररर र
रररररररररर, ररर रररर रर ररररररर, ररर रररर रर ररररररररर, ररर
रररर ररर रररररर रररररर ररररररररर ररररररर रररर ररररर ररर
र
रररर ररररर ररररर ररररररर
ररररर ररररररर ररररररररररररर रररर रररररररर रररररर ररररररर
ररररररररर ररररररर रररररररररर ररररररर ररर रररर ररररर ररररर
ररररररर ररररर ररर ररर रररर रर ररररररररर ररररर रररर
रररररररर रर ररररररररररर रररररररर ररर – र) रररररर ररररररर
रररर रर, र) रररर रर र रररर ररररर रररररर रररर, र) ररररररर र
रररररररर, र) ररररररर रररर रररररररररर रर र रररररर रररर, र)
रररररररर ररररररर, र) ररररर ररर ररर, ररर रर रररररर, र) ररररररर
रररररररररर रररररर रर, र) ररररर ररररररर र ररररर रर र) ररर
रररररररररर ररर रर र
ररररररर रररररर
ररररररररररररर रररररररररर ररररररररर रररर रररररररर
ररररररररर रररररररररर रररररररर रररर ररर ररररररर ररररर
ररररर रर र रररर रर रररररररर ररररर, ररर र ररररररररररर
रररररररर ररररर ररररररररररररर ररर रररर रररररर रररर ररर रररर
ररर रररररररररर रररर ररररररररररर रररररररररर ररर ररररररर
रररररररर रररररररररर ररररररररर रररररररर रररररररररर ररररररर
रररररररर रररर रररररररर रररररर ररररर ररर रररररररररर रररर
रररर रररररररर ररररररर रररर रर ररररररररररर रररर र रररर
ररररररररर ररररररर रररर र रररररररर ररर रररररर ररररररररर
ररर रररररररर ररररररररर रररर ररररररररररररर रर ररररररररर
रररररर रररर रररर रररररररर रररर र ररर ररररररररर रररररररर
ररर रर.रर. रररर रर रररररर रररर रररररररररर रररररर
रररररररररर रररररर रररर र रररररररररर रररर रररररररर
ररररररररर रररररररररररर रररररररररर ररररर रररररर रर.रर.
रररर रर ररररररररर ररररररर ररररररररररररररररर ररररररररररर
रररररर ररररररर रररररर रररररररर रर, रररर ररररररर ररर रररररर
रररररररररर ररररररररररर ररररररर रररररररर ररररर रर र ररररर
ररररररर रररररररररर रर, रररर, ररररररर रररररररररर रररररररर,
रररर र रररर रररररर ररररररर रररररररररर, रररर रर रररर रररर
रररररररर रररररररररररर, ररररररररर रररररररररर र
ररररररररररररर ररर ररररर ररर र
रररररर ररररररररर ररररररररररर ररररररर ररर रररररर रर रररररर
ररररररररर रररर ररररररर रररर रररररर रररर रररर ररररर ररररररर
रररररररर रररर ररररररररररररर रररररर ररररर र र ररररररर ररररर
ररर रररर ररररररररर ररररररर ररररररररररररर रररर रररर
रररररररर रररर रररर ररररररररररर रररर रररररर ररर
ररररररररररररररररर रररररर ररररररररर रररररररररर रररर
रररररररर रररर रररररर र र
ररररररर रररररर ररररररररर रररररर रररर रररर रररररर रररर ररर
रररर रररररररररररर ररर रररररररररर रररररर ररररररर रररररर
रररररर ररररर ररररर ररर र ररर ररर ररररररर रररर ररररररर
ररररररर रररररर ररररररररर रररररर ररररर रर ररर ररररर
रररररररररररर ररररररररररर रररररररररररर रररर ररररररररर रररर
ररररर ररररररररर ररररर ररररर र रररररररररररर रररर रररररर
ररररररररर रररररर रर रररररर रररर रररररर ररररर ररररर ररर
ररररररर ररररररररर ररररररर ररररर रर रररर ररररर रररररर रर
र रररररर ररररररररररररररर रररर, ररररररररर, रररररर ररररर
ररररररर रररर रररररर रर ररर रररर ररररररर ररररररर ररररर रररर
रररररर ररररर, ररररर ररररररररर ररररर, रररररर रर ररररररर
ररररररर रररररररर, रर ररर रररररर ररररररर र ररररररर ररररर
ररररररर ररर रररररर ररर रररररररररररर रररररररर रररररर रररर
रररर ररररररर ररररर ररररर रररर ररररर ररररररररररररर रररररर
र रररररर र
रररररर ररररररररर रररररर ररररररररर रररररर रररररर¥रर ररर
ररररररररर ररररररर रर रररररररर रररररर ररररर ररररर रररररर
ररररर रररररररररर ररर ररररररर रररररररर रररर ररररर ररररर र
ररर ररररररर रररररर ररररररररररर रररररररररर रररररररर ररर र
ररररररररररररर ररररर, रररररररररररर ररर रररररररररर र
रररररररररर रररररर रररररर रररररर र ररररररररररर ररररर रररर
ररररररर ररर र रररररररररर ररररर रररररर र ररररर ररररररर ररर
रररररररररर ररररररररररररर ररर रररर रररररर रररर ररररर
रररररररर ररररर र