Changes in UK Labour Productivity: Analysis

Changes in UK Labour Productivity: Analysis Introduction The Agents’ scores for capacity constraints: The series of scores inside the Agents’ Summary of Business Conditions, which is generated by 12 regional officies (Agencies), is a tool for Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) to track the underlying trend in economic factors. The Agents in each region gather the information on economic conditions from their contacts, then judge what value to score subjectively. The scores are the simple way that Agents alter the intelligence they gathered before into a quantitative assessment of the economy over time (Colin Ellis, Tim Pike, 2005). Figure 1: Capacity Constraints Scores in Agents Summary of Business Conditions from Jan, 1998 to Sept, 2014 (Source: Bank of England) Most of the scores are based on a comparison of recent months with the same period a year earlier, however, there are some exceptions like employment intentions or capacity constraints, which are looking forward. The scores range from -5 to +5 with -5 is denoted that rapidly decreasing level and +5 is rapidly growth. In this case, a positive score in Capacity Constraints means that companies face with a little or no pressure on capacity demand and vice versa. In the chart above, it can be seen that there are two downward sloping periods between 2009 and 2013 when were the double-dip recession occurred in the UK. The trend also illustrates an improving progress within a year recently, with a rise of 0.6 points on both sectors. The UK productivity puzzle Productivity experience in cross-country and historical views: The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2007-2008 has caused a significant damage to the economy of most developed countries in the world, including the UK. The decline in output has led to a considerable decline in labor productivity in the UK. Labor productivity has been improving from 2013, but it still be less than its pre-crisis level of around 16% (see Figure 2 below). This shortfall can be referred as the â€Å"UK productivity puzzle and it has took a great effort from economists in order to explain the situations, however, it has yet to be answered completely so far. Figure 2: The UK Labour Productivity (1998-2013). Sources: Moneymovesmarket.com It can be seen from figure 3 that a weaker performance in labour productivity during the latest recession than all previous post-war recessions. In all recessions before, the first fall in productivity was usually short-lived and the productivity began to increase and regained its peak level after just only almost a year and a half. Figure 3: Productivity per person after UK recessions (Source: Office for National Statistics) However, this latest episode did not see the same stories as its two previous. Between early 2009 and mid-2010, the productivity made a rise of of approximately one percent and continually levelled off and it did not rise further over the next year as both output and employment saw really slow recoveries.At the time of Q3/2011, the employment was rising sharply while the growth of GDP has shrinked (see Appendix), therefore creating a renew decrease in labour productivity. As a result, the UK productivity still be underneath its pre-recession peak around 4 percent. One remarkable point is that the increasing employment and the weak labour productivity seem to be an odd thing to see among the GFC. If the business is expected to stay weak typical companies will shed labour to boost productivity up. The productivity weakness of the UK is also unusual when comparing with some international stories for recent years. Despite their increasing growth before the GFC, it has been significantly weaker than some high-income countries’ economy. Looking at figure 4, it is easily seen that the UK productivity performance was consistent with that of other countries suggests that some common factors might be involved.Nevertheless, as mentioned above, there has been a downward slope in UK productivity in mid-2011 which was not encountered to the same level elsewhere.The weak productivity of Germany is due to the unusual strong employment referred to the past. One additional point is that only Italy has the similar trend with the UK, showing the impact of GFC on their labour productivity. There are some reasons why these comparison might exaggerate the productivity puzzle’s size. Measurement inaccuracy could take account for a very small piece of productivity weakness. Moreover, expenditure on research and development (RD) is considered as a part of GDP, therefore GDP can be lifted by around 1.5% points. Another reason here is that the decrease in North Sea oil and gas output (see Appendix) slowed trend growth in labour productivity in this sector. In total, although the measurement issues can explain up to 4% point of the shortfall in productivity there are lots of things to research the remaining. Figure 4: Labour productivity per person across countries between 1999 and 2013 Source: Thomson Reuters Datastream, Eurostat and ONS Cyclical explanations on productivity shortfall Lower factor utilisation as a result of weak demand conditions The first hypothesis suggests that weakness in productivity is cyclical in nature, driven by weak demand conditions. Firms are unable or unwilling to shed labour or dispose of capital but sometimes, they are not as productive as they might have been. The difference between the lower utilisation level and more normal levels of capacity utilisation is called â€Å"spare capacity within firms†. The first reason for this hypothesis is that they need to keep business going by holding a minimum level of staffs, so-called ‘overhead labour’. Therefore, some firms might not have been able to cut employment below the minimum base, like the guards for the construction until it is sold, for example. Anothing reason should be remarked here is that companies believe the weak demand is temporary. In past experiences, companies made decisions to having fired workers in the early stages of the recession. Conversely, they found it hard to find workers with the appropriate, firm-specific skills. Thus, they missed the opportunities to make a breakthrough on the market. Recently, companies might desire to ‘hoard’ underutilised workers to avoid those lessons from the past. From 2007 to 2012, the proportion of reduced output companies but holding employment rose from about 20 percent than the pre-crisis period (see figure 5). It also suggests that these holding action of firms contributed to the decrease in productivity measured, shown by the diamonds in the chart. Figure 5: Proportion of reduced output firms but holding labour (from 2005-2012). Source: ONS and Bank calculations Spare capacity is measured in the business survey that provide a significant degree of idle capacity within companies in the initial stages of the crisis. However, this business survey just uses the qualitative methods, thus it did not capture the amount of spare capacity in each firm. One additional thing is all answers are subjective so it can be changed over time. It might take no effect on the size of the UK productivity puzzle. Other cyclical factors Some sectors had diverted the resources toward activities which is not immediately counted as output. Consequently, it cannot tribute to the total productivity. In contrast, there are some point which indicated that the cyclical hypothesis alone cannot fully explain the productivity puzzle. Effect of persistent factors on productivity puzzle Tangible and intangible capital investment effects on the shortfall The consequences of the GFC made the firms’ desire in investment in physical capital more difficult because the tighter credit conditions may lead to a higher cost to obtain finance. The stagnated situation in this period also made investments become less efficient, causing directly the material deterioration in the capital stock of worker. Moreover, a considerable fall in real wages during the crisis (see Appendix) while the cost of capital went up have led the relative cost of labour to capital to be decreasing. Hence, it have provided a motivation to switch to use labor-intensive business and companies decided to increase the labour working hours. However, the production output did not go up due to the low demand conditions, therefore the productivity has been decreased. Firms also invest in ‘intangible capital’ which include some types like intellectual property rights or brand names, etc. One main point here is the strong relationship between two types of capital investment mentioned above. For example, the innovated implementation can be processed alongside the introduction of plants and machinery. However, RD expense is considered as the innovation input; that means even though firms have invest a huge amount of money but without new valuable output, which are some types of product or process innovation, there will be an inverse impact on the productivity. According to the data of the UK Innovation Survey, there has been a fall of about 30% in both product and process innovation among the crisis despite an increasing trend in spending budget on RD (see figure †¦). These capital channels have explained a considerable proportion, about 3 to 4 percentage points, of the shortfall in the UK. Impaired resource allocation and the higher firm survival Figure 6: Decomposition of the UK Labour Productivity (2004-2012). Source: ONS and Bank calculations. Looking at the graph above, it is seen that there is a downward sloping trend in the contribution from reallocation, as a result of higher insolvencies or firing behavior (Riley et al, 2014), and its contribution decreased even further, becoming minor between 2010 and 2012. As mentioned above, uncertainty have made firms more wary when investing and labour reallocation. Moreover, the financial system have played a role to have impaired the movement of resources through two channels: impaired capital allocation and higher firm survival. Broadbent (2012, 2013) declares that considerable changes in rates of return on capital across sectors might not be associated with the following movements of capital stocks. In addition, Barnett et al (2014b) highlight an economic model with multiple firms and sectors to analyse that a high price dispersion might be used to explain the productivity loss with around 3 to 4 percentage point. According to Arrowsmith et al (2013), there has been a bank forbearance which provide the measures of support to firms struggling to meet its debt obligations. Although the direct impact have been a little at around one percentage point, the overall impact might have been greater because the widespread effect of the forbearance in the whole sector. Moreover, Arrowsmith et al (2013) indicated that the low level of Bank rate has supported to retain the borrowing costs for firms fairly low. The unusually low rate of firm collapse is to have lowered labour productivity by up to 5 percentage points. Relationship between the labour productivity and monetary policy decision The outlook for inflation in the medium-term depends on the balance of demand and supply in the economy. In theory, if supply is greater than the goods and services that people demand, prices will tend to fall and vice versa. Hence, the MPC should make an assessment about up-to-date indicators and prediction in supply, as well as demand. In recessions, demand typically falls by more than supply. An output gap opens up – the economy can supply more than is currently demanded. And unless that gap is closed, it will push down on costs and prices. But assessing the size of the output gap is very difficult, for exactly the reasons we have been discussing today. Early estimates of economic activity can be revised substantially, so it is hard to know just how weak demand and output really are. And it is equally difficult to know the extent to which the supply potential of the economy has been affected by the recession. 1 | Page

An Era of Inhumanity :: American America History

An Era of Inhumanity Writers differ in the purpose for which they write. Some aim to entertain, but the more serious and skilled writers usually have the goal of expressing a serious idea. Writers such as Hariet Beecher Stowe and Alex Haley are writers who write for more than mere entertainment. Uncle Tom's Cabin, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe, had a political purpose. Stowe intended to help America realize the inhumanity of slavery and the pain it brought upon African-Americans by writing a melodramatic novel. She despised the South for practicing slavery and the North as well for their prejudice against blacks. Roots was written by Alex Haley in search of his origin. His hunger for knowledge of who he was and who his ancestors were inspired him to carry out numerous years of research and countless interviews in order to finish his book. Although Alex Haley wrote Roots in search of his origin and Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin for a political purpose, both authors lead readers to sympa thize with the predicaments of African-Americans by putting a human face, as well as a racial one on the tragedy of slavery, thus involving all readers in the inhumanity of the institution. In Uncle Tom's Cabin we are cordially introduced to Uncle Tom. He is a "large, broad-chested, powerfully-made man, of a full glossy black, and a face whose truly African feature [are] characterized by and expression of grave and steady good sense, united with much kindliness and benevolence"(Stowe 24). By her description of Tom, Stowe contradicts the common stereotype that blacks are savages and inhumane by giving Uncle Tom the characteristics of an ideal, honest man. He is described as being "kind" and "benevolent" as well as having an "expression of good sense". Stowe also portrays Uncle Tom as a perfect being. It seems as if his personality is without a flaw and seems too good to be true. By giving Uncle Tom this flawless characteristic, Stowe is able to show that he too is human although his difference in skin color. As one is introduced to the setting of Uncle Tom's cabin, one feels at home and very relaxed. Aunt Chloe's cooking of various tasty dishes adds to the serene environ ment of the cabin and as we see Uncle Tom learning how to read and write from his young "Mas'r George," it seems as though there are no worries, hardships are unknown, and an utopia exists within the walls of the cabin.

How and to what extend has sociological theorising enhanced my understanding of ’deviance’ and social control

Reflective Summary In may own thinking, I found out that human beings are social individuals and therefore, more often than not, their behaviour raises certain critical concerns. These issues need to be handled with utmost care in order to achieve social harmony. Social harmony implies healthy relationships and to a great extent, it is essential for any productive society. However, issues of deviance are a common feature that the society has grappled with since time immemorial. In this regard, I deduced that there is a relationship between society and deviance.Becker (1991), states that deviance is such activities or mannerisms that contravene the societal norms and customs. These norms include both formally established rules as well as informal rules that are socially respected. The formal rules are recognized on a wider scale and are usually referred to as law. They are also more elaborate and known to different communities. In addition, they are usually enforced by a governing bod y that has some level of authority over the rest. Hence, contravening those amounts to a crime (Anderson, 1997).Informal norms on the other hand are recognized by specific parts of the society and are more localized. Basically, each community has its established customs that act as checks to the behaviour of its individuals. They are adhered to by the members of the specific community that has its own way of punishing the people breaking them. These norms, both formal and informal are very dynamic and contextual in nature. To this effect, they are defined by the society that an individual belongs. Hence, Eugene and Muncie (2003) explain that some actions can be perceived deviant in some communities and not deviant in others.However, irrespective of the context, the societal customs are fundamental in enhancing social cohesion. This formed the basis of my thinking on the subject and developed an argument that deviance is socially constructed and correlates to the kind of adopted soci al control mechanism. In this regard, sociological theorizing has helped understand well the concept of how is deviance socially constructed and how to control it based on sociological perspective. Therefore, the identified literature and the foundation of my thoughts shall closely examine social construction of deviance and social control in line with criminological theorizing.Social Construction of Deviance Anderson (1997) indicates that deviance is a relative component of societies that largely manifests itself through behaviour. According to him, it is a normal aspect of any social relationships and it comes about as a result of the different relationships that human beings enjoy. Behaviour is a vital element of relationships that largely contributes to the manifestation of deviance in the society. According to Eugene and Muncie (2003), it entirely influences the health of relationships because if unsound, it leads to incidences of conflict.Conflicts, being a healthy aspect of s ocial relationships help the manifestation of deviance to come to the fore, either as causative agents or as measures used to solve them (Downes and Rock 2003:78). Notably, deviance creates disorder in a given society by affecting in many ways the functions of the same. It is known to have an impact on the existing societal principles. However, Anderson (1997) explains that not all deviant behaviour has negative implications on the existing norms. According to him, some deviance can bring about positive change in the society and help the society adapt to modernization.For instance, most traditional communities used to prescribe jobs depending on the sex of an individual. However, deviance to this has seen people take up any type of job and today, qualifications as opposed to sex determines which jobs different people take up. To this respect, it is notable that deviance helps individuals embrace change accordingly by adjusting the present rules to be in line with the societal expect ations. Deviance forms a significant part of human behaviour and therefore seemingly, it can not be completely eliminated from the society.The role it plays in the shaping human behaviour makes it one of the key determinants of the frequency of deviance in the society (Becker 1991:48). It should be appreciated that behaviour is a basic element of social relationships and thus deviance, through its incorporation in behaviour, is largely a component of social relationships. Deviance is a process that takes time to develop as well as manifest basically through acts of opposition (Becker, 1991: 108). As a result, it also takes the authorities’ time to address it accordingly and satisfactorily.Time is an essential aspect of social events as it is through this that they are manifested. Arguably, deviance, being the sole event here, is a social event. Downes and Rock (2007) acknowledge that deviance is an aspect that undergoes a series of phases before it can have an impact on the g iven society. They explain that before it begins to develop in the mind of an individual, societies often tend to be in harmony. At this stage, individuals therein have some common knowledge and perception of the norms that govern them.In addition, the individuals in the society at this level hold ‘their’ norms in high regard (Downes and Rock, 2007: 89). The first trigger of this process is the introduction of an external aspect from elsewhere that initiates differences with regard to perception. However, manifestations of deviance take time and therefore at this level, societal order is still maintained. The second stage is when individuals try to justify whether the aspect should be accepted or not. Usually, this stage attracts a body of knowledge and the aspect is wholly defined, as well as related to the normal life (Becker 1991: 59).In addition, an effort is made to make the society acknowledge that knowledge is a continuous process that should be mainstreamed in t he normal way of life. The next step is the internalization of the aspect. Here, the aspect is learned by the society and entrenched into its system. It is accepted by all stakeholders and institutionalized as a normal aspect of the way of life in that particular society. According to Anderson (1997), both the authorities and the locals uphold the basic elements of the aspect. At this level, social order is still enjoyed because manifestations of deviance are yet to begin.In addition, on a larger scale, this aspect is considered as a norm upheld by the society. It should be appreciated that despite this, there exists individual perceptions that are varied and that that counter this general view. These varied views are the key aspects of deviance and with time, they manifest. The final step is when the workability of the aspect is disputed by the individuals whose initial perception was contrary to the rest. At this stage, individuals develop opposing opinions and behaviour (Downes a nd Rock 2007: 84).This is the final stage of deviance and it is what leads to the disruption of the societal operations. This comes about as a result of the individuals with varied perceptions to the aspect, also referred to as moral entrepreneurs, openly manifesting their views. This then initiates change in the society after a series of consultative and informative sessions by all stakeholders. Social Control Social control as formed by the rich literature refers to the tools that are used to make human behaviour in a given society be consistent to the norms and regulations of the given society (Keel, 2008: 201).These tools are basically acknowledged and employed by the specific society to enhance social relationships. However, according to Keel (2008), some tools are cross societal and are internationally recognized and appreciated by all cultures and societies. According to Keel (2008), I have identified two dimensions of social control mechanisms: informal and formal. Informal social controls refer to certain principles that are defined by a society and those that check the behaviour of individuals at a personal level (Anderson, 1997: 296).According to Anderson (1997), they are usually part of a person’s personality and have proven to be more effective in controlling behaviour than the formal ones. These include aspects like religion. Religion usually prescribes some kind of behaviour that is usually socially and morally acceptable. It aims at upholding the values and virtues that are morally upright. By adhering to the propositions of religion, individuals are able to relate well and therefore achieve social cohesion. Those that do not uphold the teachings of religion are looked down upon by the entire society.This act encourages people to act in accordance to the teachings of religion and thereby enhance socially acceptable relationships. Another most common mechanism that is widely employed across cultures to shun unacceptable behaviour is ridic ule. Keel (2008) considers it a shameful act that most individuals can not bear. It is usually unlikely that a person who is ridiculed will at any time repeat the act as this has a negative impact on the guilt of a person. Customs are also often used in regulating deviant behaviour (Anderson 1997).It is because they prescribe a standard code of conduct that should be followed by the society. Persons who break these rules face various punishments administered by the societal leaders on behalf of the entire society. For instance, in some societies, individuals whose behaviour contravenes the provisions of the customs are usually sent away, given physical punishments or asked to pay fines. Discrimination is also widely employed in regulating conduct. To this effect, most people find it difficult to associate with individuals who have socially unacceptable behaviour (Eugene and Muncie 2003:45).This is due to the fear of picking up the same or the fear of being caught on the wrong side o f the law. Increasingly, social misfits are being isolated and more often, they do not freely interact with the rest of the society. Discrimination makes such individuals feel victimized and as such, they are able to correct their behaviour accordingly (Becker 1991: 69). The society also highly criticizes unacceptable behaviour. Criticism can have a very negative impact on the personality of a person because it highly damages the confidence of a person and not so many people are usually ready to experience this (Keel, 2008).Therefore, it is a measure that is widely employed by different societies to control the behaviour of their people. In addition, the society can directly disapprove any socially unacceptable behaviour. Persons contravening social norms can be directly forewarned by for instance parents and other relatives. This move makes the people to change accordingly and adapt behaviour that is in line with societal expectations. There are formal measures that are also adopte d to check the behaviour of individuals and groups in the society. In states that value social equity, Eugene and Muncie (2003, p.52) argue that all the individuals of the respective society are given equal chances to contribute to the establishment of the laws. These laws either directly or indirectly reward individuals whose behaviour corresponds with the societal rules and expectations. They also rebuke the kind of behaviour that is not in line with the expectations of the society. These measures are usually created by the law enforcement agencies in consultation with other major stakeholders. They are always in form of laws that are official and legal.However, Keel (2008) points out that these laws may require a certain kind of force while enforcing them especially in instances where consultation was not done. Individuals who violate these are called criminals and are often punished according to the provisions of the laws (Eugene and Muncie: 2003: 54). Specifically, they are tak en to prisons from where they face their punishment. Erich and Angus (2008) explain that the level of punishment depends on the gravity of the crime that the individuals committed. On the contrary, their counterparts are always rewarded by the body that established the rules.Hence individuals in most instances work towards maintaining socially acceptable relationships and adhere to the rules and laws provided by the governing body. It should be appreciated that not all individuals who break the law are taken to prisons. According to Keel (2008), some are usually punished by making them pay fines to compensate for the damage caused. Further, not all individuals who commit crimes are arrested. At this juncture, it is worth noting that in many ways every individual is deviant. It is just that the level and type of deviance differs and it is this that differentiates crime from other forms of deviance.Social deviance and social controls have different implications on deviant behaviour. B y explicitly exploring the patterns of deviance in the society, Keel (2008) explains that one can be able to understand why some individuals are more deviant than others. The social controls are very important because through them one is able to indentify deviance and its root in a given society (Anderson 1997). This can certainly be achieved because the social controls aim at screening different types of behaviour. Consequently, deviant behaviour can easily be identified and regulated accordingly.Becker (1991) state that studying the realms of deviance helps one to understand that the behaviour is recurrent. As such, we are able to come up with people friendly measures that can help regulate this conduct as well as ensure that we benefit from it. Conclusion In conclusion, as opposed to my views before the study of perceiving deviance negatively, I realise that social deviance is an aspect that should be appreciated by the society and especially those in authority because of the rol e it plays in the growth of the society.In deed, without this, we could still be dwelling in the ancient eras. It is basic in highlighting aspects of change in the society and if well controlled, it should not pose any threats to the wellbeing of the same. Contrary to my knowledge that individuals who constantly experience deviance exhibit anomaly in their behaviour, is not really correct. In fact, I have discovered that social deviance is a very vital aspect of behavioural growth and it should be appreciated.

Spanish Short-Form Possessive Determiners or Adjectives

Possessive adjectives of Spanish, like those of English, are a way of indicating who owns or is in possession of something. Their use is straightforward, although they (like other adjectives) must match the nouns they modify in both number and gender. Basics About the Short-Form Possessives Unlike English, Spanish has two forms of possessive adjectives, a short form that is used before nouns, and a long-form possessive adjective that is used after nouns. They are often known as the possessive determiners. Here are the short-form possessive adjectives (sometimes known as possessive determiners): mi, mis — my — Compra mi piano. (She is buying my piano.)tu, tus — your (singular familiar) — Quiero comprar tu coche. (I want to buy your car.)su, sus — your (singular or plural formal), its, his, her, their — Voy a su oficina. (I am going to his/her/your/their office.)nuestro, nuestra, nuestros, nuestras — our — Es nuestra casa. (It is our house.)vuestro, vuestra, vuestros, vuestras — your (plural familiar) —  ¿Dà ³nde està ¡n vuestros hijos? (Where are your children?) Note that the possessive adjectives vary by number and gender. The change is with the nouns they modify, not with the person(s) who own or possess the object. Thus you would say his book and her book in the same way: su libro. Some examples: Es nuestro coche. (It is our car.)Es nuestra casa. (It is our house.)Son nuestros coches. (They are our cars.)Son nuestras casas. (They are our houses.) As you might imagine, su and sus can be ambiguous, since they can mean his, her, its, your, or their. If the use of su or sus doesnt make the sentence clear, you can use de followed by a prepositional pronoun instead: Quiero comprar su casa. (I want to buy his/her/your/their house.)Quiero comprar la casa de à ©l. (I want to buy his house.)Quiero comprar la casa de ella. (I want to buy her house.)Quiero comprar la casa de usted. (I want to buy your house.)Quiero comprar la casa de ellos. (I want to buy their house.) In some areas, de à ©l, de ella, and de ellos are preferred over su and sus for saying his, her, and their, even where no ambiguity is present. Different Forms of ‘Your’ One source of confusion for Spanish students is that there are eight words that can be translated as your, and they arent interchangeable. The come in only three groups, however, because of the distinctions Spanish makes for number and gender: tu/tus, su/sus, and vuestro/vuestra/vuestros/vuestras. The main rule here is that possessives can be classified as either familiar or formal in the same way the pronouns for you are. So tu and tus correspond in usage to tà º (not the written accent on the pronoun), vuestro and its numbered and gendered forms correspond with vosotros, and su corresponds with usted and ustedes. So if you were talking with someone about her car, you might use tu coche if she is a friend or relative but su coche if she is a stranger. Grammar Involving the Possessive Forms There are two common problems that English speakers often encounter with these adjectives: Overuse of the Possessive Adjectives The possessive adjectives are used in most cases in the same way as they are used in English. However, you should be aware that in many instances—especially when speaking of body parts, clothing and items intimately associated with an individual—Spanish uses the definite article (el, la, los or las), the equivalent of the, instead of possessive adjectives. Sam arregla el pelo. (Sam is combing his hair.)Ella juntà ³ las manos para orar. (She joined her hands to pray.)Ricardo rompià ³ los anteojos. (Ricardo broke his glasses.) Repetition of Possessive Adjectives: In English, it is common to use a single possessive adjective to refer to more than one noun. In Spanish, a single possessive adjective can refer to only one noun, unless the multiple nouns refer to the same persons or objects. For example, son mis amigos y hermanos would mean they are my friends and siblings (with the friends and the siblings being identical persons), while son mis amigos y mis hermanos would mean they are my friends and siblings (the friends not being the same people as the siblings). Similarly, my cats and dogs would be translated as mis gatos y mis perros. Key Takeaways The possessive adjectives (also known as possessive determiners) are used to indicate who owns or is in possession of something.The possessive adjectives are distinguished in number and sometimes gender of what is possessed.The possessive forms su and sus can mean his, hers, its, or your, so you must rely on context when translating.