document_title: History of the periodic table

question_text: who arranged the periodic table by increasing atomic number

text: History of the periodic table

text: Antiquity to the 18th century[edit]

text: A number of physical elements (such as platinum, mercury, tin and zinc) have been known from antiquity, as they are found in their native form and are relatively simple to mine with primitive tools.[3]  Around 330 BCE, the Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed that everything is made up of a mixture of one or more roots, an idea that had originally been suggested by the Sicilian philosopher Empedocles. The four roots, which were later renamed as elements by Plato, were earth, water, air and fire. Similar ideas about these four elements also existed in other ancient traditions, such as Indian philosophy. While Aristotle and Plato understood the concept of an element, their ideas did nothing to advance the understanding of the nature of matter.

text: Hennig Brand[edit]

text: The history of the periodic table is also a history of the  discovery of the chemical elements. The first person in history to discover a new element was Hennig Brand, a bankrupt German merchant. Brand tried to discover the Philosopher's Stone — a mythical object that was supposed to turn inexpensive base metals into gold. In 1669 (or later), his experiments with distilled human urine resulted in the production of a glowing white substance, which he called "cold fire" (kaltes Feuer).[4] He kept his discovery secret until 1680, when Robert Boyle rediscovered phosphorus and published his findings. The discovery of phosphorus helped to raise the question of what it meant for a substance to be an element.

text: In 1661, Boyle defined an element as "those primitive and simple Bodies of which the mixt ones are said to be composed, and into which they are ultimately resolved."[5]

text: Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier[edit]

text: Lavoisier's Traité Élémentaire de Chimie (Elementary Treatise of Chemistry), which was written in 1789 and first translated into English by the writer Robert Kerr, is considered to be the first modern textbook about chemistry. Lavoisier defined an element as a substance that cannot be broken down into a simpler substance by a chemical reaction.[6]  This simple definition served for a century and lasted until the discovery of subatomic particles. Lavoisier's book contained a list of "simple substances" that Lavoisier believed could not be broken down further, which included oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, phosphorus, mercury, zinc and sulfur, which formed the basis for the modern list of elements. Lavoisier's list also included 'light' and 'caloric', which at the time were believed to be material substances. He classified these substances into metals and non metals. While many leading chemists refused to believe Lavoisier's new revelations, the Elementary Treatise was written well enough to convince the younger generation. However, Lavoisier's descriptions of his elements lack completeness, as he only classified them as metals and non-metals.

text: 19th century[edit]

text: William Prout[edit]

text: In 1815, the English physician and chemist William Prout noticed that atomic weights seemed to be multiples of that of hydrogen.[7]

text: Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner[edit]

text: In 1817, Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner, a chemist, began to formulate one of the earliest attempts to classify the elements.[8] In 1829, he found that he could form some of the elements into groups of three, with the members of each group having related properties.  He termed these groups triads.[9]

text: Definition of Triad law:-"Chemically analogous elements arranged in increasing order of their atomic weights formed well marked groups of three called Triads in which the atomic weight of the middle element was found to be generally the arithmetic mean of the atomic weight of the other two elements in the triad.

text:
chlorine, bromine, and iodine
calcium, strontium, and barium
sulfur, selenium, and tellurium
lithium, sodium, and potassium

tag: ol

text: Alexandre-Emile Béguyer de Chancourtois[edit]

text: Alexandre-Emile Béguyer de Chancourtois, a French geologist, was the first person to notice the periodicity of the elements — similar elements occurring at regular intervals when they are ordered by their atomic weights.  In 1862 he devised an early form of periodic table, which he named Vis tellurique (the 'telluric helix'), after the element tellurium, which fell near the center of his diagram.[10][11] With the elements arranged in a spiral on a cylinder by order of increasing atomic weight, de Chancourtois saw that elements with similar properties lined up vertically. His 1863 publication included a chart (which contained ions and compounds,[12] in addition to elements), but his original paper in the Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences used geological rather than chemical terms and did not include a diagram. As a result, de Chancourtois' ideas received little attention until after the work of Dmitri Mendeleev had been publicised.[13]

text: John Newlands[edit]

text: In 1864, the English chemist John Newlands classified the sixty-two known elements into eight groups, based on their physical properties.[14][15][16][11]

text: Newlands noted that many pairs of similar elements existed, which differed by some multiple of eight in mass number, and was the first to assign them an atomic number.[1] When his 'law of octaves' was printed in Chemistry News, likening this periodicity of eights to the musical scale, it was ridiculed by some of his contemporaries. His lecture to the Chemistry Society on 1 March 1866 was not published, the Society defending their decision by saying that such 'theoretical' topics might be controversial.[17]

text: The importance of Newlands' analysis was eventually recognised by the Chemistry Society with a Gold Medal five years after they recognised Mendeleev's work. It was not until the following century, with Gilbert N. Lewis's valence bond theory (1916) and Irving Langmuir's octet theory of chemical bonding (1919), that the importance of the periodicity of eight would be accepted.[18][19][20] The Royal Chemistry Society acknowledged Newlands' contribution to science in 2008, when they put a Blue Plaque on the house where he was born, which described him as the "discoverer of the Periodic Law for the chemical elements".[1]

text: He contributed the word 'periodic' in chemistry.

text: Dmitri Mendeleev[edit]

text: The Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was the first scientist to make a periodic table similar to the one used today.[citation needed] Mendeleev arranged the elements by atomic mass, corresponding to relative molar mass. It is sometimes said that he played 'chemical solitaire' on long train journeys, using cards with various facts about the known elements.[21]  On March 6, 1869, Mendeleev gave a formal presentation, The Dependence Between the Properties of the Atomic Weights of the Elements, to the Russian Chemical Society. In 1869, the table was published in an obscure Russian journal and then republished in a German journal, Zeitschrift für Chemie.[22][23]  In it, Mendeleev stated that:

text:
The elements, if arranged according to their atomic mass, exhibit an apparent periodicity of properties.
Elements which are similar as regards to their chemical properties have atomic weights which are either of nearly the same value (e.g., Pt, Ir, Os) or which increase regularly (e.g., K, Rb, Cs).
The arrangement of the elements, or of groups of elements in the order of their atomic masses, corresponds to their so-called valencies, as well as, to some extent, to their distinctive chemical properties; as is apparent among other series in that of Li, Be, B, C, N, O, and F.
The elements which are the most widely diffused have small atomic weights.
The magnitude of the atomic weight determines the character of the element, just as the magnitude of the molecule determines the character of a compound body.
We must expect the discovery of many yet unknown elements – for example, elements analogous to aluminium and silicon – whose atomic weight would be between 65 and 75.
The atomic weight of an element may sometimes be amended by a knowledge of those of its contiguous elements. Thus the atomic weight of tellurium must lie between 123 and 126, and cannot be 128.
Certain characteristic properties of elements can be foretold from their atomic masses.

text: Scientific benefits of Mendeleev's table

text:
It enabled Mendeleev to predict the discovery of new elements and left spaces for them, namely eka-silicon (germanium, discovered in 1885), eka-aluminium (gallium, 1875), and eka-boron (scandium, 1879).[11] Thus, there was no disturbance in the periodic table.
It could be used by Mendeleev to point out that some of the atomic weights being used at the time were incorrect.
It provided for variance from atomic weight order.

text: Lothar Meyer[edit]

text: Unknown to Mendeleev, a German chemist, Lothar Meyer, was also working on a periodic table.[11] Although his work was published in 1864, and was done independently of Mendeleev, few historians regard him as an equal co-creator of the periodic table. Meyer's table only included twenty-eight elements, which were not classified by atomic weight, but by valence, and he never reached the idea of predicting new elements and correcting atomic weights. A few months after Mendeleev published his periodic table of the known elements, predicted new elements to help complete his table and corrected the atomic weights of some of the elements, Meyer published a virtually identical periodic table.

text: Meyer and Mendeleev are considered by some historians of science to be the co-creators of the periodic table, but Mendeleev's accurate prediction of the qualities of undiscovered elements enables him to have the larger share of the credit.

text: William Odling[edit]

text:
In 1864, the English chemist William Odling also drew up a table that was remarkably similar to the table produced by Mendeleev.[24] Odling overcame the tellurium-iodine problem and even managed to get thallium, lead, mercury and platinum into the right groups, which is something that Mendeleev failed to do at his first attempt.
Odling failed to achieve recognition, however, since it is suspected that he, as Secretary of the Chemical Society of London, was instrumental in discrediting Newlands' earlier work on the periodic table.[17]

text: Shortcomings of early versions of the periodic table[edit]

text:
The table was not able to predict the existence of the noble gases, but did, however, leave spaces for yet to be discovered elements to slot into. Time proved this audacious calculation correct. However, when this entire family of elements was discovered, William Ramsay was able to add them to the table as Group 0, without the basic concept of the periodic table being disturbed.
A single position could not be assigned to hydrogen, which could be placed either in the alkali metals group, the halogens group or separately above the table between boron and carbon.[25]
The lanthanides were difficult to fit into the table.[11]
Polonium and radium, discovered by Marie Curie in 1898, also were difficult to fit into the table.[11]

text: 20th century[edit]

text: Frederick Soddy[edit]

text: By 1912 almost 50 different radioactive elements had been found, too many for the periodic table. Frederick Soddy in 1913 found that although they emitted different radiation, many elements were alike in their chemical characteristics so shared the same place on the table.[26] They became known as isotopes, from the Greek eisos topos ("same place").[11][27]

text: Henry Moseley[edit]

text: In 1914, a year before he was killed in action at Gallipoli, the English physicist Henry Moseley found a relationship between the X-ray wavelength of an element and its atomic number.[28]  He was then able to re-sequence the periodic table by nuclear charge, rather than by atomic weight. Before this discovery, atomic numbers were sequential numbers based on an element's atomic weight. Moseley's discovery showed that atomic numbers were in fact based upon experimental measurements.

text: Using information about their X-ray wavelengths, Moseley placed argon (with an atomic number Z=18) before potassium (Z=19), despite the fact that argon's atomic weight of 39.9 is greater than the atomic weight of potassium (39.1). The new order was in agreement with the chemical properties of these elements, since argon is a noble gas and potassium is an alkali metal. Similarly, Moseley placed cobalt before nickel and was able to explain that tellurium occurs before iodine, without revising the experimental atomic weight of tellurium,  as had been proposed by Mendeleev.

text: Moseley's research showed that there were gaps in the periodic table at atomic numbers 43 and 61, which are now known to be occupied by technetium and promethium respectively.

text: Glenn T. Seaborg[edit]

text: During his Manhattan Project research in 1943, Glenn T. Seaborg experienced unexpected difficulties in isolating the elements  americium and curium. Seaborg wondered if these elements belonged to a different series, which would explain why their chemical properties were different from what was expected. In 1945, against the advice of colleagues, he proposed a significant change to Mendeleev's table: the actinide series.

text: Seaborg's actinide concept of heavy element electronic structure, predicting that the actinides form a transition series analogous to the rare earth series of lanthanide elements, is now well accepted and included in the periodic table. The actinide series is the second row of the f-block (5f series). In both the actinide and lanthanide series, an inner electron shell is being filled. The actinide series comprises the elements from actinium to lawrencium. Seaborg's subsequent elaborations of the actinide concept theorized a series of superheavy elements in a transactinide series comprising elements from 104 to 121 and a superactinide series of elements from  122 to 153.


document_title: Competition law

question_text: what is the objective of the anti trust law on market competition

root

text: Competition law

text: Principle[edit]

text: Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:

tag: p

text:
prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of free trade caused by cartels.
banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

tag: ul

text: Substance and practice of competition law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare) and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives. Competition law is closely connected with law on deregulation of access to markets, state aids and subsidies, the privatization of state owned assets and the establishment of independent sector regulators, among other market-oriented supply-side policies. In recent decades, competition law has been viewed as a way to provide better public services.[10] Robert Bork argued that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater than benefits for the consumers.[11]

text: History[edit]

text: Roman legislation[edit]

text: An early example was enacted during the Roman Republic around 50 BC.[12] To protect the grain trade, heavy fines were imposed on anyone directly, deliberately, and insidiously stopping supply ships.[13] Under Diocletian in 301 A.D., an edict imposed the death penalty for anyone violating a tariff system, for example by buying up, concealing, or contriving the scarcity of everyday goods.[13] More legislation came under the constitution of Zeno of 483 A.D., which can be traced into Florentine municipal laws of 1322 and 1325.[14] This provided for confiscation of property and banishment for any trade combination or joint action of monopolies private or granted by the Emperor. Zeno rescinded all previously granted exclusive rights.[15] Justinian I subsequently introduced legislation to pay officials to manage state monopolies.[15]

text: Middle Ages[edit]

text: Legislation in England to control monopolies and restrictive practices was in force well before the Norman Conquest.[15] The Domesday Book recorded that "foresteel" (i.e. forestalling, the practice of buying up goods before they reach market and then inflating the prices) was one of three forfeitures that King Edward the Confessor could carry out through England.[16] But concern for fair prices also led to attempts to directly regulate the market. Under Henry III an act was passed in 1266[17] to fix bread and ale prices in correspondence with grain prices laid down by the assizes. Penalties for breach included amercements, pillory and tumbrel.[18] A 14th century statute labelled forestallers as "oppressors of the poor and the community at large and enemies of the whole country".[19] Under King Edward III the Statute of Labourers of 1349[20] fixed wages of artificers and workmen and decreed that foodstuffs should be sold at reasonable prices. On top of existing penalties, the statute stated that overcharging merchants must pay the injured party double the sum he received, an idea that has been replicated in punitive treble damages under US antitrust law. Also under Edward III, the following statutory provision outlawed trade combination.[21]

text: ... we have ordained and established, that no merchant or other shall make Confederacy, Conspiracy, Coin, Imagination, or Murmur, or Evil Device in any point that may turn to the Impeachment, Disturbance, Defeating or Decay of the said Staples, or of anything that to them pertaineth, or may pertain.

text: In continental Europe, competition principles developed in lex mercatoria. Examples of legislation enshrining competition principles include the constitutiones juris metallici by Wenceslaus II of Bohemia between 1283 and 1305, condemning combination of ore traders increasing prices; the Municipal Statutes of Florence in 1322 and 1325 followed Zeno's legislation against state monopolies; and under Emperor Charles V in the Holy Roman Empire a law was passed "to prevent losses resulting from monopolies and improper contracts which many merchants and artisans made in the Netherlands". In 1553, Henry VIII of England reintroduced tariffs for foodstuffs, designed to stabilize prices, in the face of fluctuations in supply from overseas. So the legislation read here that whereas,

text: it is very hard and difficult to put certain prices to any such things ... [it is necessary because] prices of such victuals be many times enhanced and raised by the Greedy Covetousness and Appetites of the Owners of such Victuals, by occasion of ingrossing and regrating the same, more than upon any reasonable or just ground or cause, to the great damage and impoverishing of the King's subjects.[22]

text: Around this time organizations representing various tradesmen and handicrafts people, known as guilds had been developing, and enjoyed many concessions and exemptions from the laws against monopolies. The privileges conferred were not abolished until the Municipal Corporations Act 1835.

text: Early competition law in Europe[edit]

text: The English common law of restraint of trade is the direct predecessor to modern competition law later developed in the US.[23] It is based on the prohibition of agreements that ran counter to public policy, unless the reasonableness of an agreement could be shown. It effectively prohibited agreements designed to restrain another's trade. The 1414 Dyer's is the first known restrictive trade agreement to be examined under English common law. A dyer had given a bond not to exercise his trade in the same town as the plaintiff for six months but the plaintiff had promised nothing in return. On hearing the plaintiff's attempt to enforce this restraint, Hull J exclaimed, "per Dieu, if the plaintiff were here, he should go to prison until he had paid a fine to the King". The court denied the collection of a bond for the dyer's breach of agreement because the agreement was held to be a restriction on trade.[24] English courts subsequently decided a range of cases which gradually developed competition related case law, which eventually were transformed into statute law.[25]

text: Europe around the 16th century was changing quickly. The new world had just been opened up, overseas trade and plunder was pouring wealth through the international economy and attitudes among businessmen were shifting. In 1561 a system of Industrial Monopoly Licenses, similar to modern patents had been introduced into England. But by the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the system was reputedly much abused and used merely to preserve privileges, encouraging nothing new in the way of innovation or manufacture.[26] In response English courts developed case law on restrictive business practices. The statute followed the unanimous decision in Darcy v. Allein 1602, also known as the Case of Monopolies,[27] of the King's bench to declare void the sole right that Queen Elizabeth I had granted to Darcy to import playing cards into England.[25] Darcy, an officer of the Queen's household, claimed damages for the defendant's infringement of this right. The court found the grant void and that three characteristics of monopoly were (1) price increases, (2) quality decrease, (3) the tendency to reduce artificers to idleness and beggary. This put an end to granted monopolies until King James I began to grant them again. In 1623 Parliament passed the Statute of Monopolies, which for the most part excluded patent rights from its prohibitions, as well as guilds. From King Charles I, through the civil war and to King Charles II, monopolies continued, especially useful for raising revenue.[28] Then in 1684, in East India Company v. Sandys it was decided that exclusive rights to trade only outside the realm were legitimate, on the grounds that only large and powerful concerns could trade in the conditions prevailing overseas.[29]

text: The development of early competition law in England and Europe progressed with the diffusion of writings such as The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, who first established the concept of the market economy. At the same time industrialisation replaced the individual artisan, or group of artisans, with paid labourers and machine-based production. Commercial success increasingly dependent on maximising production while minimising cost. Therefore, the size of a company became increasingly important, and a number of European countries responded by enacting laws to regulate large companies which restricted trade. Following the French Revolution in 1789 the law of 14–17 June 1791 declared agreements by members of the same trade that fixed the price of an industry or labour as void, unconstitutional, and hostile to liberty. Similarly the Austrian Penal Code of 1852 established that "agreements ... to raise the price of a commodity ... to the disadvantage of the public should be punished as misdemeanours". Austria passed a law in 1870 abolishing the penalties, though such agreements remained void. However, in Germany laws clearly validated agreements between firms to raise prices. Throughout the 18th and 19th century, ideas that dominant private companies or legal monopolies could excessively restrict trade were further developed in Europe. However, as in the late 19th century, a depression spread through Europe, known as the Panic of 1873, ideas of competition lost favour, and it was felt that companies had to co-operate by forming cartels to withstand huge pressures on prices and profits.[30]

text: Modern competition law[edit]

text: While the development of competition law stalled in Europe during the late 19th century, in 1889 Canada enacted what is considered the first competition statute of modern times. The Act for the Prevention and Suppression of Combinations formed in restraint of Trade was passed one year before the United States enacted the most famous legal statute on competition law, the Sherman Act of 1890. It was named after Senator John Sherman who argued that the Act "does not announce a new principle of law, but applies old and well recognised principles of common law."[31]

text: United States antitrust[edit]

text: The Sherman Act of 1890 attempted to outlaw the restriction of competition by large companies, who co-operated with rivals to fix outputs, prices and market shares, initially through pools and later through trusts. Trusts first appeared in the US railroads, where the capital requirement of railroad construction precluded competitive services in then scarcely settled territories. This trust allowed railroads to discriminate on rates imposed and services provided to consumers and businesses and to destroy potential competitors. Different trusts could be dominant in different industries. The Standard Oil Company trust in the 1880s controlled a number of markets, including the market in fuel oil, lead and whiskey.[31] Vast numbers of citizens became sufficiently aware and publicly concerned about how the trusts negatively impacted them that the Act became a priority for both major parties. A primary concern of this act is that competitive markets themselves should provide the primary regulation of prices, outputs, interests and profits. Instead, the Act outlawed anticompetitive practices, codifying the common law restraint of trade doctrine.[32] Prof Rudolph Peritz has argued that competition law in the United States has evolved around two sometimes conflicting concepts of competition: first that of individual liberty, free of government intervention, and second a fair competitive environment free of excessive economic power. Since the enactment of the Sherman Act enforcement of competition law has been based on various economic theories adopted by Government.[33]

text: Section 1 of the Sherman Act declared illegal "every contract, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations." Section 2 prohibits monopolies, or attempts and conspiracies to monopolize. Following the enactment in 1890 US court applies these principles to business and markets. Courts applied the Act without consistent economic analysis until 1914, when it was complemented by the Clayton Act which specifically prohibited exclusive dealing agreements, particularly tying agreements and interlocking directorates, and mergers achieved by purchasing stock. From 1915 onwards the rule of reason analysis was frequently applied by courts to competition cases. However, the period was characterized by the lack of competition law enforcement. From 1936 to 1972 courts' application of anti-trust law was dominated by the structure-conduct-performance paradigm of the Harvard School. From 1973 to 1991, the enforcement of anti-trust law was based on efficiency explanations as the Chicago School became dominant, and through legal writings such as Judge Robert Bork's book The Antitrust Paradox. Since 1992 game theory has frequently been used in anti-trust cases.[34]

text: European Union law[edit]

text: Competition law gained new recognition in Europe in the inter-war years, with Germany enacting its first anti-cartel law in 1923 and Sweden and Norway adopting similar laws in 1925 and 1926 respectively. However, with the Great Depression of 1929 competition law disappeared from Europe and was revived following the Second World War when the United Kingdom and Germany, following pressure from the United States, became the first European countries to adopt fully fledged competition laws. At a regional level EU competition law has its origins in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) agreement between France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany in 1951 following the Second World War. The agreement aimed to prevent Germany from re-establishing dominance in the production of coal and steel as it was felt that this dominance had contributed to the outbreak of the war. Article 65 of the agreement banned cartels and article 66 made provisions for concentrations, or mergers, and the abuse of a dominant position by companies.[35] This was the first time that competition law principles were included in a plurilateral regional agreement and established the trans-European model of competition law. In 1957 competition rules were included in the Treaty of Rome, also known as the EC Treaty, which established the European Economic Community (EEC). The Treaty of Rome established the enactment of competition law as one of the main aims of the EEC through the "institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted." The two central provisions on EU competition law on companies were established in article 85, which prohibited anti-competitive agreements, subject to some exemptions, and article 86 prohibiting the abuse of dominant position. The treaty also established principles on competition law for member states, with article 90 covering public undertakings, and article 92 making provisions on state aid. Regulations on mergers were not included as member states could not establish consensus on the issue at the time.[36]

text: Today, the Treaty of Lisbon prohibits anti-competitive agreements in Article 101(1), including price fixing. According to Article 101(2) any such agreements are automatically void. Article 101(3) establishes exemptions, if the collusion is for distributional or technological innovation, gives consumers a "fair share" of the benefit and does not include unreasonable restraints that risk eliminating competition anywhere (or compliant with the general principle of European Union law of proportionality). Article 102 prohibits the abuse of dominant position,[37] such as price discrimination and exclusive dealing. Article 102 allows the European Council regulations to govern mergers between firms (the current regulation is the Regulation 139/2004/EC).[38] The general test is whether a concentration (i.e. merger or acquisition) with a community dimension (i.e. affects a number of EU member states) might significantly impede effective competition. Articles 106 and 107 provide that member state's right to deliver public services may not be obstructed, but that otherwise public enterprises must adhere to the same competition principles as companies. Article 107 lays down a general rule that the state may not aid or subsidize private parties in distortion of free competition and provides exemptions for charities, regional development objectives and in the event of a natural disaster.[citation needed]

text: India[edit]

text: India responded positively by opening up its economy by removing controls during the Economic liberalisation. In quest of increasing the efficiency of the nation's economy, the Government of India acknowledged the Liberalization Privatization Globalization era. As a result, Indian market faces competition from within and outside the country.[39] This led to the need of a strong legislation to dispense justice in commercial matters and the Competition Act, 2002 was passed. The history of competition law in India dates back to the 1960s when the first competition law, namely the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP) was enacted in 1969. But after the economic reforms in 1991, this legislation was found to be obsolete in many aspects and as a result, a new competition law in the form of the Competition Act, 2002 was enacted in 2003. The Competition Commission of India, is the quasi judicial body established for enforcing provisions of the Competition Act.[40]

text: International expansion[edit]

text: By 2008 111 countries had enacted competition laws, which is more than 50 percent of countries with a population exceeding 80,000 people. 81 of the 111 countries had adopted their competition laws in the past 20 years, signaling the spread of competition law following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of the European Union.[41] Currently competition authorities of many states closely co-operate, on everyday basis, with foreign counterparts in their enforcement efforts, also in such key area as information / evidence sharing.[42]

text: In many of Asia's developing countries, including India, Competition law is considered a tool to stimulate economic growth. In Korea and Japan, the competition law prevents certain forms of conglomerates. In addition, competition law has promoted fairness in China and Indonesia as well as international integration in Vietnam.[1] Hong Kong's Competition Ordinance came into force in the year 2015.[43]

text: Enforcement[edit]

text: At a national level competition law is enforced through competition authorities, as well as private enforcement. The United States Supreme Court explained:[44]

text: Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation. In enacting these laws, Congress had many means at its disposal to penalize violators. It could have, for example, required violators to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But, this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to permit all persons to sue to recover three times their actual damages every time they were injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation.

text: In the European Union, the Modernisation Regulation 1/2003[45] means that the European Commission is no longer the only body capable of public enforcement of European Union competition law. This was done to facilitate quicker resolution of competition-related inquiries. In 2005 the Commission issued a Green Paper on Damages actions for the breach of the EC antitrust rules,[46] which suggested ways of making private damages claims against cartels easier.[47]

text: Some EU Member States enforce their competition laws with criminal sanctions. These types of sanctions engender a number of significant theoretical, legal and practical challenges.[48]

text: Antitrust administration and legislation can be seen as a balance between:

text:
guidelines which are clear and specific to the courts, regulators and business but leave little room for discretion that prevents the application of laws from resulting in unintended consequences.
guidelines which are broad, hence allowing administrators to sway between improving economic outcomes versus succumbing to political policies to redistribute wealth.[49]

text: Chapter 5 of the post war Havana Charter contained an Antitrust code[50] but this was never incorporated into the WTO's forerunner, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947. Office of Fair Trading Director and Professor Richard Whish wrote sceptically that it "seems unlikely at the current stage of its development that the WTO will metamorphose into a global competition authority."[51] Despite that, at the ongoing Doha round of trade talks for the World Trade Organization, discussion includes the prospect of competition law enforcement moving up to a global level. While it is incapable of enforcement itself, the newly established International Competition Network[52] (ICN) is a way for national authorities to coordinate their own enforcement activities.

text: Theory[edit]

text: Classical perspective[edit]

text: Under the doctrine of laissez-faire, antitrust is seen as unnecessary as competition is viewed as a long-term dynamic process where firms compete against each other for market dominance. In some markets a firm may successfully dominate, but it is because of superior skill or innovativeness. However, according to laissez-faire theorists, when it tries to raise prices to take advantage of its monopoly position it creates profitable opportunities for others to compete. A process of creative destruction begins which erodes the monopoly. Therefore, government should not try to break up monopoly but should allow the market to work.[53]

text: The classical perspective on competition was that certain agreements and business practice could be an unreasonable restraint on the individual liberty of tradespeople to carry on their livelihoods. Restraints were judged as permissible or not by courts as new cases appeared and in the light of changing business circumstances. Hence the courts found specific categories of agreement, specific clauses, to fall foul of their doctrine on economic fairness, and they did not contrive an overarching conception of market power. Earlier theorists like Adam Smith rejected any monopoly power on this basis.

text: A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate.[54]

text: In The Wealth of Nations (1776) Adam Smith also pointed out the cartel problem, but did not advocate specific legal measures to combat them.

text: People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.[55]

text: By the latter half of the 19th century it had become clear that large firms had become a fact of the market economy. John Stuart Mill's approach was laid down in his treatise On Liberty (1859).

text: Again, trade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any description of goods to the public, does what affects the interest of other persons, and of society in general; and thus his conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society... both the cheapness and the good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers and sellers perfectly free, under the sole check of equal freedom to the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere. This is the so-called doctrine of Free Trade, which rests on grounds different from, though equally solid with, the principle of individual liberty asserted in this Essay. Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, qua restraint, is an evil...[56]

text: Neo-classical synthesis[edit]

text: After Mill, there was a shift in economic theory, which emphasized a more precise and theoretical model of competition. A simple neo-classical model of free markets holds that production and distribution of goods and services in competitive free markets maximizes social welfare. This model assumes that new firms can freely enter markets and compete with existing firms, or to use legal language, there are no barriers to entry. By this term economists mean something very specific, that competitive free markets deliver allocative, productive and dynamic efficiency. Allocative efficiency is also known as Pareto efficiency after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto and means that resources in an economy over the long run will go precisely to those who are willing and able to pay for them. Because rational producers will keep producing and selling, and buyers will keep buying up to the last marginal unit of possible output – or alternatively rational producers will be reduce their output to the margin at which buyers will buy the same amount as produced – there is no waste, the greatest number wants of the greatest number of people become satisfied and utility is perfected because resources can no longer be reallocated to make anyone better off without making someone else worse off; society has achieved allocative efficiency. Productive efficiency simply means that society is making as much as it can. Free markets are meant to reward those who work hard, and therefore those who will put society's resources towards the frontier of its possible production.[57] Dynamic efficiency refers to the idea that business which constantly competes must research, create and innovate to keep its share of consumers. This traces to Austrian-American political scientist Joseph Schumpeter's notion that a "perennial gale of creative destruction" is ever sweeping through capitalist economies, driving enterprise at the market's mercy.[58] This led Schumpeter to argue that monopolies did not need to be broken up (as with Standard Oil) because the next gale of economic innovation would do the same.

text: Contrasting with the allocatively, productively and dynamically efficient market model are monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels. When only one or a few firms exist in the market, and there is no credible threat of the entry of competing firms, prices rise above the competitive level, to either a monopolistic or oligopolistic equilibrium price. Production is also decreased, further decreasing social welfare by creating a deadweight loss. Sources of this market power are said[by whom?] to include the existence of externalities, barriers to entry of the market, and the free rider problem. Markets may fail to be efficient for a variety of reasons, so the exception of competition law's intervention to the rule of laissez faire is justified if government failure can be avoided. Orthodox economists fully acknowledge that perfect competition is seldom observed in the real world, and so aim for what is called "workable competition."[59][60] This follows the theory that if one cannot achieve the ideal, then go for the second best option[61] by using the law to tame market operation where it can.

text: Chicago School[edit]

text: A group of economists and lawyers, who are largely associated with the University of Chicago, advocate an approach to competition law guided by the proposition that some actions that were originally considered to be anticompetitive could actually promote competition.[62] The U.S. Supreme Court has used the Chicago School approach in several recent cases.[63] One view of the Chicago School approach to antitrust is found in United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner's books Antitrust Law[64] and Economic Analysis of Law.[65]

text: Robert Bork was highly critical of court decisions on United States antitrust law in a series of law review articles and his book The Antitrust Paradox.[66] Bork argued that both the original intention of antitrust laws and economic efficiency was the pursuit only of consumer welfare, the protection of competition rather than competitors.[67] Furthermore, only a few acts should be prohibited, namely cartels that fix prices and divide markets, mergers that create monopolies, and dominant firms pricing predatorily, while allowing such practices as vertical agreements and price discrimination on the grounds that it did not harm consumers.[68] Running through the different critiques of US antitrust policy is the common theme that government interference in the operation of free markets does more harm than good.[69] "The only cure for bad theory," writes Bork, "is better theory."[67] The late Harvard Law School Professor Philip Areeda, who favours more aggressive antitrust policy, in at least one Supreme Court case challenged Robert Bork's preference for non-intervention.[70]

text: Practice[edit]

text: Collusion and cartels[edit]

text: Dominance and monopoly[edit]

text: When firms hold large market shares, consumers risk paying higher prices and getting lower quality products than compared to competitive markets. However, the existence of a very high market share does not always mean consumers are paying excessive prices since the threat of new entrants to the market can restrain a high-market-share firm's price increases. Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices.

text: First it is necessary to determine whether a firm is dominant, or whether it behaves "to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumer."[71] Under EU law, very large market shares raise a presumption that a firm is dominant,[72] which may be rebuttable.[73] If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market."[74] Similarly as with collusive conduct, market shares are determined with reference to the particular market in which the firm and product in question is sold. Then although the lists are seldom closed,[75] certain categories of abusive conduct are usually prohibited under the country's legislation. For instance, limiting production at a shipping port by refusing to raise expenditure and update technology could be abusive.[76] Tying one product into the sale of another can be considered abuse too, being restrictive of consumer choice and depriving competitors of outlets. This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission[77] leading to an eventual fine of million for including its Windows Media Player with the Microsoft Windows platform. A refusal to supply a facility which is essential for all businesses attempting to compete to use can constitute an abuse. One example was in a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents.[78] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated.

text: Forms of abuse relating directly to pricing include price exploitation. It is difficult to prove at what point a dominant firm's prices become "exploitative" and this category of abuse is rarely found. In one case however, a French funeral service was found to have demanded exploitative prices, and this was justified on the basis that prices of funeral services outside the region could be compared.[79] A more tricky issue is predatory pricing. This is the practice of dropping prices of a product so much that one's smaller competitors cannot cover their costs and fall out of business. The Chicago School (economics) considers predatory pricing to be unlikely.[80] However, in France Telecom SA v. Commission[81] a broadband internet company was forced to pay million for dropping its prices below its own production costs. It had "no interest in applying such prices except that of eliminating competitors"[82] and was being cross-subsidized to capture the lion's share of a booming market. One last category of pricing abuse is price discrimination.[83] An example of this could be offering rebates to industrial customers who export your company's sugar, but not to customers who are selling their goods in the same market as you are in.[84]

text: Mergers and acquisitions[edit]

text: A merger or acquisition involves, from a competition law perspective, the concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer than before.[85] This usually means that one firm buys out the shares of another. The reasons for oversight of economic concentrations by the state are the same as the reasons to restrict firms who abuse a position of dominance, only that regulation of mergers and acquisitions attempts to deal with the problem before it arises, ex ante prevention of market dominance.[86] In the United States merger regulation began under the Clayton Act, and in the European Union, under the Merger Regulation 139/2004 (known as the "ECMR").[87] Competition law requires that firms proposing to merge gain authorization from the relevant government authority. The theory behind mergers is that transaction costs can be reduced compared to operating on an open market through bilateral contracts.[88] Concentrations can increase economies of scale and scope. However often firms take advantage of their increase in market power, their increased market share and decreased number of competitors, which can adversely affect the deal that consumers get. Merger control is about predicting what the market might be like, not knowing and making a judgment. Hence the central provision under EU law asks whether a concentration would, if it went ahead, "significantly impede effective competition... in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening off a dominant position..."[89] and the corresponding provision under US antitrust states similarly,

text: No person shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital... of the assets of one or more persons engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where... the effect of such acquisition, of such stocks or assets, or of the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.[90]

text: What amounts to a substantial lessening of, or significant impediment to competition is usually answered through empirical study. The market shares of the merging companies can be assessed and added, although this kind of analysis only gives rise to presumptions, not conclusions.[91] The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index is used to calculate the "density" of the market, or what concentration exists. Aside from the maths, it is important to consider the product in question and the rate of technical innovation in the market.[92] A further problem of collective dominance, or oligopoly through "economic links"[93] can arise, whereby the new market becomes more conducive to collusion. It is relevant how transparent a market is, because a more concentrated structure could mean firms can coordinate their behavior more easily, whether firms can deploy deterrents and whether firms are safe from a reaction by their competitors and consumers.[94] The entry of new firms to the market, and any barriers that they might encounter should be considered.[95] If firms are shown to be creating an uncompetitive concentration, in the US they can still argue that they create efficiencies enough to outweigh any detriment, and similar reference to "technical and economic progress" is mentioned in Art. 2 of the ECMR.[96] Another defense might be that a firm which is being taken over is about to fail or go insolvent, and taking it over leaves a no less competitive state than what would happen anyway.[97] Mergers vertically in the market are rarely of concern, although in AOL/Time Warner[98] the European Commission required that a joint venture with a competitor Bertelsmann be ceased beforehand. The EU authorities have also focused lately on the effect of conglomerate mergers, where companies acquire a large portfolio of related products, though without necessarily dominant shares in any individual market.[99]

text: Intellectual property, innovation and competition[edit]

text: Competition law has become increasingly intertwined with intellectual property, such as copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and in some jurisdictions trade secrets.[100] It is believed that promotion of innovation through enforcement of intellectual property rights may promote as well as limit competitiveness. The question rests on whether it is legal to acquire monopoly through accumulation of intellectual property rights. In which case, the judgment needs to decide between giving preference to intellectual property rights or towards promoting competitiveness:

text:
Should antitrust laws accord special treatment to intellectual property.
Should intellectual rights be revoked or not granted when antitrust laws are violated.

text: Concerns also arise over anti-competitive effects and consequences due to:

text:
Intellectual properties that are collaboratively designed with consequence of violating antitrust laws (intentionally or otherwise).
The further effects on competition when such properties are accepted into industry standards.
Cross-licensing of intellectual property.
Bundling of intellectual property rights to long term business transactions or agreements to extend the market exclusiveness of intellectual property rights beyond their statutory duration.
Trade secrets, if they remain a secret, having an eternal length of life.

text: Some scholars suggest that a prize instead of patent would solve the problem of deadweight loss, when innovators got their reward from the prize, provided by the government or non-profit organization, rather than directly selling to the market, see Millennium Prize Problems. However innovators may accept the prize only when it is at least as much as how much they earn from patent, which is a question difficult to determine.[101]


document_title: List of religious populations

question_text: what is the percentage of christian in world

text: List of religious populations

text: Adherent estimates in 2012

text:
Size of Major Religious Groups, 2012

Religion

Percent

Christianity

31.5%

Islam

23.2%

Unaffiliated

16.3%

Hinduism

15.0%

Buddhism

7.1%

Chinese Folk

5.9%

Other

0.8%

Judaism

0.2%

Pew Research Center, 2012[1]

tag: table

text: Adherents.com says "Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number".[2]

text:
Religion
Adherents
Percentage

Christianity
7009240000000000000♠2.4 billion[3]
6999335100000000000♠33.51%

Islam
7009160000000000000♠1.6 billion[4]
6999223200000000000♠22.32%

Secular[a]/Nonreligious[b]/Agnostic/Atheist
7009110000000000000♠≤1.1 billion
6999153500000000000♠15.35%

Hinduism
7009115000000000000♠1.15 billion
6999160600000000000♠16.06%

Chinese traditional religion[c]
7008394000000000000♠394 million
6998550000000000000♠5.50%

Buddhism
7008376000000000000♠376 million
6998525000000000000♠5.25%

Ethnic religions excluding some in separate categories
7008300000000000000♠300 million
6998419000000000000♠4.19%

African traditional religions
7008100000000000000♠100 million
6998139999999999999♠1.40%

Sikhism
7007300000000000000♠30 million
6997320000000000000♠0.32%

Spiritism
7007150000000000000♠15 million
6997210000000000000♠0.21%

Judaism
7007140000000000000♠14 million
6997200000000000000♠0.20%

Bahá'í
7006700000000000000♠7.0 million
6997100000000000000♠0.10%

Jainism
7006420000000000000♠4.2 million
6996600000000000000♠0.06%

Shinto
7006400000000000000♠4.0 million
6996600000000000000♠0.06%

Cao Dai
7006400000000000000♠4.0 million
6996600000000000000♠0.06%

Zoroastrianism
7006260000000000000♠2.6 million
6996400000000000000♠0.04%

Tenrikyo
7006200000000000000♠2.0 million
6996200000000000000♠0.02%

Neo-Paganism
7006100000000000000♠1.0 million
6996100000000000000♠0.01%

Unitarian Universalism
7005800000000000000♠0.8 million
6996100000000000000♠0.01%

Rastafari
7005600000000000000♠0.6 million
6996100000000000000♠0.01%

total
7009716700000000000♠7167 million
7000100000000000000♠100%

text: Notes

text:
Jump up ^ These figures may incorporate populations of secular/nominal adherents as well as syncretist worshipers, although the concept of syncretism is disputed by some.
Jump up ^ Nonreligious includes agnostic, atheist, secular humanist, and people answering 'none' or no religious preference. Half of this group is theistic but nonreligious.[2] According to a 2012 study by Gallup International "59% of the world said that they think of themselves as religious person, 23% think of themselves as not religious whereas 13% think of themselves as convinced atheists".[5]
Jump up ^ Chinese traditional religion is described as "the common religion of the majority Chinese culture: a combination of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, as well as the traditional non-scriptural/local practices and beliefs."

text: By proportion

text: Christians

text: Countries with the greatest proportion of Christians from Christianity by country (as of 2010[update]):

text:
Vatican City 100% (100% Roman Catholic)
 Pitcairn Islands 100% (100% Seventh-day Adventist)[6]
 Samoa ~99% (mostly Protestant)[7]
 Romania 99% (mostly Romanian Orthodox)
 American Samoa 98.3% (mostly Protestant)[8]
 Malta 98.1%[9] (mostly Roman Catholic)
 Venezuela 98%[10] (71% Roman Catholic)
 Greece 98% [11] (95% Greek Orthodox)
 Marshall Islands 97.2% (mostly Protestant)[12]
 Tonga 97.2% (mostly Protestant)[13]
 San Marino 97%[14] (~97% Roman Catholic)
 Paraguay 96.9%[15] (mostly Roman Catholic)
 Peru 96.5%[16] (mostly Roman Catholic)
 El Salvador 96.4% (mostly Roman Catholic)[17]
 Kiribati 96% (mostly Protestant)[18]
 Federated States of Micronesia ~96% (mostly Protestant)[19]
 Barbados 95.1% (mostly Protestant)[20]
 Papua New Guinea 94.8% (mostly Protestant)[21]
 East Timor 94.2%[22][23] (mostly Roman Catholic)
 Armenia 93.5%[24] (mostly Armenian Orthodox)

text: Muslims

text: Countries with the greatest proportion of Muslims from Islam by country (as of 2010[update]) (figures excluding foreign workers in parenthesis):

text:
Maldives 100% (mostly Sunni)[25]
 Mauritania 100% (mostly Sunni)
 Saudi Arabia Reported to be 100%[26] (90–95% Sunni, 5–10% Shi'a[26])
 Turkey 99.8% (75% Sunni, 25% Shi'a)[27]
 Somalia 99.8% (mostly Sunni)[28]
 Afghanistan ~99%[29] (mostly Sunni, 20% Shi'a)[30]
 Yemen 99.1% (99.9%) (53% Sunni, 47% Shi'a[31])
 Morocco 98.7% (mostly Sunni)
 Algeria 98.3%[32] (mostly Sunni)
 Iran 98% (mostly Shi'a)[33]
 Tunisia 98% (mostly Sunni)
 Comoros 98% (mostly Sunni)[34]
 Sudan 97%[35] (mostly Sunni)
 Libya 96.6% (99%)[36] (Sunni)
 Pakistan 96.4%[37] (75% Sunni, 25% Shi'a)[38]
 Iraq 95% (Mostly Shi'a)[39]
 Kuwait 95% (Mostly Sunni)[40]
 Djibouti 94% (mostly Sunni)[41]
 Niger 93% (mostly Sunni)[42]
 Azerbaijan 91.6[43] (mostly Shi'a)[44]
 Bangladesh 89.4% (Sunni)[45]
 Egypt 89.3% (Sunni)[46]
 Indonesia 87.18% (99% Sunni)[47]
 Bahrain 79%[48] (Mostly Shi'a)[31]

text: Remarks: Saudi Arabia does not include other religious beliefs in their census, the figures for these other religious groups could be higher than reported in the nation. While conversion to Islam is among its most supported tenets, conversion from Islam to another religion is considered to be the sin of apostasy[49] and could be subject to the penalty of death in the country.

text: Irreligious and atheist

text: Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including agnostics and atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007[update]):

text:
Czech Republic 70-81% (78%)
 Estonia 71–82% (76%)
 Japan 64–88% (76%)[52]
 Denmark 72%
 Sweden 46–82% (64%)
 Vietnam 44–81% (63%)
 Macau 62%[53]
 Hong Kong 57%[54]
 France 43–64%[55] (54%)
 Norway 31–72% (52%)
 China 47%[56] (details)
 Netherlands 39–55% (47%)
 Finland 28–60% (44%)
 New Zealand 42%[57]
 United Kingdom 31–52% (42%)[55]

 England and  Wales 25% [58]

 South Korea 30–52% (41%)
 Germany 25[59]–55%[60] (40%)
 Hungary 32–46% (39%)
 Belgium 42–43% (39%)
 Bulgaria 34–40% (37%)
 Slovenia 35–38% (37%)
 Russia[61] 13–48% (31%)

text: Remarks: Ranked by mean estimate which is in brackets. Irreligious includes agnostic, atheist, secular believer, and people having no formal religious adherence. It does not necessarily mean that members of this group don′t belong to any religion. Some religions have harmonized with local cultures and can be seen as a cultural background rather than a formal religion. Additionally, the practice of officially associating a family or household with a religious institute while not formally practicing the affiliated religion is common in many countries. Thus, over half of this group is theistic and/or influenced by religious principles, but nonreligious/non-practicing and not true atheists or agnostics.[2] See Spiritual but not religious.

text: Hindus

text: Countries with the greatest proportion of Hindus from Hinduism by country (as of 2010[update]):

text:
Nepal 81.3%[62]
 India 79.8%[63]
 Mauritius 54%[64]
 Fiji 33.7%[65]
 Guyana 28%[66]
 Bhutan 25%[67]
 Suriname 22.3%[68]
 Trinidad and Tobago 18.2%[69]
 United Arab Emirates 15%[70]
 Sri Lanka 12.6%[71]
 Kuwait 12%[72]
 Bangladesh 9.6%[73]
 Bahrain 8.1%[74]
 Réunion 6.7%[75]
 Malaysia 6.3%[76]
 Singapore 5.1%
 Oman 3%
 Seychelles 2.1%[77]
 New Zealand 2.0%[78]
 Pakistan 1.8%
 Indonesia 1.7%[79]
 USA 0.7%[80]

text: Buddhists

text: Countries with the greatest proportion of Buddhists from Buddhism by country (as of 2010[update]):[81]

text:
Cambodia 96.9%
 Thailand 93.2%
 Myanmar 80.1%
 Bhutan 74.70%
 Sri Lanka 69.3%
 Laos 66.0%
 Mongolia 55.1%
 Japan 36.2%
 Taiwan 35.1%
 Singapore 33.2%
 South Korea 22.9%
 Malaysia 19.8%
 China 18.2%
 Macau 17.3%
 Vietnam 16.4%
 Hong Kong 13.2%
   Nepal 10.3%

text: Taoists/Confucianists/Chinese traditional religionists

text: As a spiritual practice, Taoism has made fewer inroads in the West than Buddhism and Hinduism. Despite the popularity of its great classics the I Ching and the Tao Te Ching, the specific practices of Taoism have not been promulgated in America with much success;[82] these religions are not ubiquitous worldwide in the way that adherents of bigger world religions are, and they remain primarily an ethnic religion. Nonetheless, Taoist ideas and symbols such as Taijitu have become popular throughout the world through Tai Chi Chuan, Qigong, and various martial arts.[83]

text:
Taiwan 33–80%[84]
 China 30%[85]
 Hong Kong 28%[54]
 Macau 13.9%[53]
 Singapore 8.5%[86]
 Malaysia 2.6%[87]
 South Korea 0.2–1%[88]
 Vietnam
 Philippines 0.01–0.05%
 Indonesia 0.05%

text: The Chinese traditional religion has 184,000 believers in Latin America, 250,000 believers in Europe, and 839,000 believers in North America as of 1998[update].[89][90]

text: Ethnic and indigenous

text: All of the below come from the U.S Department of State 2009 International Religious Freedom Report,[91] based on the highest estimate of people identified as indigenous or followers of indigenous religions that have been well-defined. Due to the syncretic nature of these religions, the following numbers may not reflect the actual number of practitioners.

text:
Haiti 50%[92]
 Guinea-Bissau 50%
 Cameroon 40%
 Togo 33%[93]
 Côte d'Ivoire 25%
 Sudan 25%[94]
 Benin 23%
 Burundi 20%
 Burkina Faso 15%
 New Zealand 15%[95]
 South Africa 15%[96]
 Democratic Republic of the Congo 12%
 Central African Republic 10%
 Gabon 10%
 Lesotho 10%
 Nigeria 10%
 Sierra Leone 10%[97]
 Indonesia 9%[98]
 Kenya 9%
 Palau 9%[99]
 Ghana 8.5%
 Guinea 5%

text: Sikhism

text: Countries with the greatest proportion of Sikhs:

text:
India 1.9%
 United Kingdom 1.2%[100][101]
 Canada 0.9%[102]
 Malaysia 0.5%[103]
 Fiji 0.3%[104]
 Singapore 0.3%[105]
 United States 0.2%[106][107]
 New Zealand 0.2%[108]
 Australia 0.1%[109][110]
 Italy 0.1%[111]

text: The Sikh homeland is the Punjab state, in India, where today Sikhs make up approximately 61% of the population. This is the only place where Sikhs are in the majority. Sikhs have emigrated to countries all over the world – especially to English-speaking and East Asian nations. In doing so they have retained, to an unusually high degree, their distinctive cultural and religious identity. Sikhs are not ubiquitous worldwide in the way that adherents of larger world religions are, and they remain primarily an ethnic religion. But they can be found in many international cities and have become an especially strong religious presence in the United Kingdom and Canada.[112]

text: Judaism

text: Countries with the greatest proportion of Jews (as of 2010[update]):

text:
Israel 75.4%[113]
 Palestine (West Bank only) 12–14% [114]
 Monaco 2.9%[115]
 United States 2.1%[116]
 Gibraltar 2.1%
 Cayman Islands 1.7%[117]
 Netherlands Antilles^ 1.3%
 Canada 1.1%
 France 0.8%[118]
 Argentina 0.6%[119]
 Uruguay 0.5%[120]
 Australia 0.5%
 Hungary 0.5%[121]
 U.S. Virgin Islands 0.5%[121]
 Latvia 0.3%[121]
 Germany 0.25%[59]
 Netherlands 0.2%[122]
 New Zealand 0.2%[121]
 Ukraine 0.2%[121]
 Russia 0.09%[123]

text: Spiritism

text:
Cuba 10.3%
 Jamaica 10.2%
 Brazil 4.8%
 Suriname 3.6%
 Haiti 2.7%
 Dominican Republic 2.2%
 The Bahamas 1.9%
 Nicaragua 1.5%
 Trinidad and Tobago 1.4%
 Guyana 1.3%
 Venezuela 1.1%
 Colombia 1.0%
 Belize 1.0%
 Honduras 0.9%
 Puerto Rico 0.7%
 Panama 0.5%
 Iceland 0.5%
 Guadeloupe 0.4%
 Argentina 0.2%
 Guatemala 0.2%

text: Note that all these estimates come from a single source. However, this source gives a relative indication of the size of the Spiritist communities within each country.

text: Bahá'ís

text: Countries with the greatest proportion of Bahá'ís (as of 2010[update]) with a national population ≥200,000:

text:
Belize 2.5% (The 2010 Belize Population Census recorded 202 Bahá'ís out of a total population of 304,106,[125][126] yielding a proportion of 0.066%)
 Bolivia 2.2%
 Zambia 1.8%
 Mauritius 1.8% (The 2011 Mauritius census recorded 639 Bahá'ís out of a total population of 1,236,817[127] yielding a proportion of 0.05%)
 Guyana 1.6% (The 2002 Guyana census recorded 500 Bahá'ís out of a total population of 751,223[128] yielding a proportion of 0.067%)
 Vanuatu 1.4%
 Barbados 1.2% (The 2010 Barbados census recorded 178 Bahá'ís out of a total population of 250,010[129] yielding a proportion of 0.07%)
 Trinidad and Tobago 1.2%
 Panama 1.2%
 Kenya 1.0%
 Lesotho 0.9%
 Papua New Guinea 0.9%
 Réunion 0.9%
 Chad 0.9%
 Botswana 0.8%
 Gambia 0.8%
 Suriname 0.8%
 Congo, Republic of the 0.6%
 Solomon Islands 0.6%
 Venezuela 0.6%

text: Remarks & Sources: "Most Baha'i Nations (2010)". QuickLists > Compare Nations > Religions. The Association of Religion Data Archives. 2010. Retrieved 2013-08-20.  which used the "World Christian Database" for adherents estimates based on information provided by the World Christian Encyclopedia and "World Christian Trends". A source whose only systematic flaw was to consistently have a higher estimate of Christians than other cross-national data sets.[130] See "The Largest Baha'i Communities". Largest Religious Communities. Adherents.com. 2013. Retrieved 2013-08-20.  for 2000 estimates among all nations. Various census figures of some of these countries vary significantly. See Bahá'í statistics.

text: Jainism

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
India 0.3%
 Suriname 0.3%
 Fiji 0.2%
 Kenya 0.2%

text: By population

text: Christians

text: Largest Christian populations (as of 2011[update]):

text:
United States 229,157,250[131] (details)
 Brazil 169,213,130[132]
 Russia 114,198,444[133]
 Mexico 106,204,560[134]
 Nigeria 80,510,000[135]
 Philippines 78,790,000[136]
 China 67,070,000[135]
 Democratic Republic of the Congo 63,150,000[135]
 France 55,948,600
 Italy 55,832,000
 Ethiopia 51,477,950
 Germany 50,752,580[137]
 Colombia 44,502,000
 Ukraine 41,973,000
 South Africa 40,243,000
 Spain 38,568,000
 Poland 36,526,000
 Kenya 33,625,790
 Argentina 33,497,100
 United Kingdom 33,200,417
 Uganda 29,943,000
 India 28,436,000
 Venezuela 28,340,790
 Peru 27,365,100
 Indonesia 24,123,000

text: Muslims

text: Largest Muslim populations (as of 2013):

text:
Indonesia 206,986,560[79]
 Pakistan 180,608,292
 India 172,000,000
 Bangladesh 132,937,800
 Nigeria 80,000,000
 Iran 73,238,340
 Egypt 70,056,000
 Turkey 70,036,838
 Algeria 36,092,810
 Morocco 31,351,800
 Afghanistan 30,112,680
 Sudan 30,064,180
 Iraq 29,767,300
 Ethiopia 28,120,050
 Saudi Arabia 26,624,560
 Uzbekistan 25,628,240
 Yemen 23,836,523
 China 20,095,870
 Syria 19,601,750
 Malaysia 17,085,402

text: Buddhists

text: Largest Buddhist populations

text:
China 244,130,000
 Thailand 64,420,000
 Japan 45,820,000
 Burma 38,410,000
 South Korea 10,500,000
 Sri Lanka 4,450,000
 Vietnam 4,380,000
 Cambodia 3,690,000
 India 9,250,000
 Malaysia 5,010,000
 Indonesia 1,710,000

text: Hindus

text: Largest Hindu populations (as of 2010):

text:
India 957,636,314
   Nepal 21,354,570
 Bangladesh 14,274,430
 Indonesia 4,012,470[79]
 Pakistan 2,603,895
 Sri Lanka 2,554,606
 Malaysia 1,700,100
 United States 1,543,730
 United Arab Emirates 1,239,610
 South Africa 749,870
 Mauritius 665,820
 United Kingdom 630,000
 Canada 497,960
 Tanzania 403,570
 Kuwait 328,440
 Australia 275,500
 Singapore 264,370
 Fiji 261,097[65]
 Trinidad and Tobago 240,100[69]
 Myanmar 203,000[138]
 Bhutan 177,100
 Germany 120,000

text: Jews

text: Largest Jewish populations (as of 2011[update]):

text:
United States 6,588,065[139]
 Israel 5,907,500[140]
 France 493,600
 Canada 375,000[121]
 United Kingdom 291,000[121]
 Russia 194,000[121]
 Argentina 181,800[121]
 Germany 119,000[121]
 Australia 97,300[141]
 Brazil 95,300[121]
 Ukraine 70,200[121]
 South Africa 67,000[121]
 Hungary 48,200[121]
 Mexico 39,200[121]
 Belgium 30,000[121]
 Italy 28,200[121]
 Chile 18,500[121]
 Turkey 17,400[121]
 Uruguay 17,300[121]
 Belarus 12,000[121]

text: Sikhs

text: Largest Sikh populations

text:
India 22,892,600
 UK 853,000
 Canada 620,200
 USA 500,010
 Malaysia 120,000
 Bangladesh 100,000[142]
 Australia 72,300
 Italy 70,000
 Thailand 70,000
 Myanmar 70,000
 United Arab Emirates 50,000
 Germany 40,000
 Mauritius 37,700
 Australia 72,300
 Pakistan 50,000
 Kenya 20,000
 Kuwait 20,000
 Philippines 20,000
 New Zealand 17,400
 Indonesia 15,000
 Singapore 14,500

text: Bahá'ís

text: Largest Bahá'í populations (as of 2010[update]) in countries with a national population ≥200,000:[143]

text:
India 1,897,651 (The 2011 Census of India recorded 4,572 Bahá'ís[144][145])
 United States 512,864
 Kenya 422,782
 Vietnam 388,802
 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 282,916
 Philippines 275,069
 Iran 251,127
 Zambia 241,112
 South Africa 238,532
 Bolivia 215,359
 Tanzania 190,419
 Venezuela 169,811
 Uganda 95,098
 Chad 94,499
 Pakistan 87,259
 Burma (Myanmar) 78,915
 Colombia 70,504
 Malaysia 67,549
 Thailand 65,096
 Papua New Guinea 59,898

text: Jainism

text: As of 2005[update]:[146]

text:
India 5,146,697
 United States 79,459
 Kenya 68,848
 United Kingdom 16,869
 Canada 12,101
 Tanzania 9,002
   Nepal 6,800
 Uganda 2,663
 Burma 2,398
 Malaysia 2,052
 South Africa 1,918
 Fiji 1,573
 Japan 1,535
 Australia 1,449
 Suriname 1,217
 Réunion 981
 Belgium 815
 Yemen 229


document_title: Parliament of the World's Religions

question_text: in 1993 the parliament of the world’s religions gathered in chicago and created what document

question_tokens: in 1993 the parliament of the world 's religions gathered in chicago and created what document

text: Parliament of the World's Religions

text: Organization[edit]

text: An organization was incorporated in 1988 to carry out the tradition of the Parliament of the World's Religions by marking the centennial of the first Parliament. Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions[1] is headquartered in Chicago. Its board of trustees are elected from various faith communities. The Parliament it is chaired by Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid.[2] Rev. Dr. Larry Greenfield serves as its Vice Chair and Interim Executive Director.[3]

text: History[edit]

text: 1893 Parliament[edit]

text: In 1893, the city of Chicago hosted the World Columbian Exposition, an early world's fair. So many people were coming to Chicago from all over the world that many smaller conferences, called Congresses and Parliaments, were scheduled to take advantage of this unprecedented gathering. One of these was the World's Parliament of Religions, an initiative of the Swedenborgian layman (and judge) Charles Carroll Bonney.[5][6] The Parliament of Religions was by far the largest of the congresses held in conjunction with the Exposition.[7] John Henry Barrows, a clergyman, was appointed as the first chairman of the General Committee of the 1893 Parliament by Charles Bonney.[8]

text: The Parliament of Religions opened on 11 September 1893 at the World's Congress Auxiliary Building which is now The Art Institute of Chicago, and ran from 11 to 27 September, marking it the first organized interfaith gathering.[9] Today it is recognized as the occasion of the birth of formal interreligious dialogue worldwide, with representatives of a wide variety of religions and new religious movements, including:

text:
The Jain preacher Virchand Gandhi was invited as a representative of Jainism.[10]
The Buddhist preacher Anagarika Dharmapala was invited as a representative of "Southern Buddhism," the term applied at that time to the Theravada.[citation needed]
Soyen Shaku, the "First American Ancestor" of Zen, made the trip.[11]
An essay by the Japanese Pure Land master Kiyozawa Manshi, "Skeleton of the philosophy of religion" was read in his absence.
Swami Vivekananda represented Hinduism as a delegate, introducing Hinduism at the opening session of the Parliament on 11 September.[12] Though initially nervous, he bowed to Saraswati, then began his speech with salutation, "Sisters and brothers of America!". To these words he got a standing ovation from a crowd of seven thousand, which lasted for two minutes. When silence was restored he began his address. He greeted the youngest of the nations on behalf of "the most ancient order of monks in the world, the Vedic order of sannyasins, a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance.!"
Islam was represented by Mohammed Alexander Russell Webb, an Anglo-American convert to Islam and the former US ambassador to Philippine.
Rev. Henry Jessup addressing the World Parliament of Religions was the first to publicly discuss the Bahá'í Faith in the United States (it had previously been known in Europe.)[13] Since then Bahá'ís have become active participants.[14]
Theism or the Brahmo Samaj was represented by Pratap Chandra Majumdar
New religious movements of the time, such as Spiritualism and Christian Science. The latter was represented by Septimus J. Hanna, who read an address written by its founder Mary Baker Eddy.[15]

text: Absent from this event were Native American religious figures, Sikhs and other Indigenous and Earth centered religionists; it would not be until the 1993 Parliament that these religions and spiritual traditions would be represented.

text: From March to May 1930, Kyoto, Japan hosted a Great Religious Exposition (宗教大博覧会, Shūkyō Dai-hakurankai). Religious groups from across Japan and China exhibited at the fair.[16] All of Japan's traditional Buddhist sects had an exhibit, as well as Christianity.[17]

text: 1993 Parliament[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
External video

 opening Ceremony 1993

text: In 1993, the Parliament convened at the Palmer House hotel in Chicago. Over 8,000 people from all over the world, from many diverse religions, gathered to celebrate, discuss and explore how religious traditions can work together on the critical issues which confront the world. A document, "Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration", mainly drafted by Hans Küng, set the tone for the subsequent ten days of discussion. This global ethic was endorsed by many of the attending religious and spiritual leaders who were part of the parliament assembly.

text: Also created for the 1993 parliament was a book, A Sourcebook for the Community of Religions, by the late Joel Beversluis, which has become a standard textbook in religion classes. Unlike most textbooks of religion, each entry was written by members of the religion in question.

text: The keynote address was given by the Dalai Lama on the closing day of the assembly. Cardinal Joseph Bernardin also participated.

text: 1999 Parliament[edit]

text: More than 7,000 individuals from over 80 countries attended 1999 Parliament in Cape Town, South Africa. The Parliament began with a showing of the international AIDS Memorial Quilt to highlight the epidemic of AIDS in South Africa, and of the role that religious and spiritual traditions play in facing the critical issues that face the world. The event continued with hundreds of panels, symposia and workshops, offerings of prayer and meditation, plenaries and performances. The programs emphasized issues of religious, spiritual, and cultural identity, approaches to interreligious dialogue, and the role of religion in response to the critical issues facing the world today.

text: The Parliament Assembly considered a document called A Call to Our Guiding Institutions, addressed to religion, government, business, education, and media inviting these institutions to reflect on and transform their roles at the threshold of the next century.

text: In addition to the Call, the Parliament staff had created a book, Gifts of Service to the World, showcasing over 300 projects considered to be making a difference in the world. The Assembly members also deliberated about Gifts of Service which they could offer or could pledge to support among those projects gathered in the Gifts document.

text: 2004 Parliament[edit]

text:
External video

 opening Ceremony 2004

text: It was celebrated in the Universal Forum of Cultures.[18] More than 8,900 individuals attended the 2004 Parliament in Barcelona, Spain. Having created the declaration Towards a Global Ethic [19] at the 1993 Parliament and attempted to engage guiding institutions at the 1999 Parliament, the 2004 Parliament concentrated on four pressing issues: mitigating religiously motivated violence, access to safe water, the fate of refugees worldwide, and the elimination of external debt in developing countries. Those attending were asked to make a commitment to a "simple and profound act" to work on one of these issues.

text: 2007 Monterrey Forum of Cultures[edit]

text: Forum Monterrey 2007 was an international event which included Parliament-style events and dialogues.[20] It was held as part of the 2007 Universal Forum of Cultures, which featured international congresses, dialogues, exhibitions, and spectacles on the themes of peace, diversity, sustainability and knowledge. Special emphasis was placed on the eight objectives of the Millennium Development goals for eradicating abject poverty around the world.

text: 2009 Parliament[edit]

text: Melbourne, Australia, hosted the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions. The 2009 parliament took place from 3 to 9 December. Over 6,000 people attended the parliament.[21]

text: The Melbourne parliament addressed issues of Aboriginal reconciliation. The issues of sustainability and global climate change were explored through the lens of indigenous spiritualities. Environmental issues and the spirituality of youth were also key areas of dialogue.

text: The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions suggested that the Melbourne parliament would "educate participants for global peace and justice" through exploring religious conflict and globalization, creating community and cross-cultural networks and addressing issues of religious violence. It supported "strengthening religious and spiritual communities" by providing a special focus on indigenous and Aboriginal spiritualities; facilitating cooperation between Pagan, Jewish, Christian, Bahá'í, Jain, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh and Hindu communities; crafting new responses to religious extremism and confronting homegrown terrorism and violence.[22]

text: The Rev. Dirk Ficca served as the Executive Director at the time of the 2009 Parliament of Religions. Ms. Zabrina Santiago served as Deputy Director and Partner Cities Director.

text: 2014 Parliament[edit]

text: In 2011, The Parliament of World's Religions announced that the 2014 Parliament would take place in Brussels, Belgium.[23] In November 2012, a joint statement from Brussels and CPWR announced that because of the financial crisis in Europe, Brussels was unable to raise the funds required for a Parliament.[24]

text: 2015 Parliament[edit]

text: On 15–19 October, the 2015 Parliament took place at the Salt Palace Convention Center in Salt Lake City, Utah.[25] 9,806 attendees, performers, and volunteers from 73 countries, 30 Major Religions and 548 Sub-Traditions participated in the Parliament.[26] During the closing ceremony, Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid announced that the Parliament would now be held every two years, with the next gathering scheduled for 2017.[27]

text: 2016 Central European Interfaith Forum (CEIF 2016)[edit]

text: On 25 July 2016 the Parliament of the World’s Religions–Slovakia and the Slovak Esperanto Federation in collaboration with other partners organized in Nitra, Slovakia, the Central European Interfaith Forum.[28][29][30]

text:
External video

 Video/ of Fahad Abualnasr, Director General of KAICIID Dialog Center, who addressed the Central European Interfaith Forum 2016 held in Nitra, Slovakia.

text: Besides Elisabeth Ziegler-Duregger, Ambassador of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, there were also more than 150 participants representing 20 nations, three continents, seven world religions as well as other religious, spiritual or humanist traditions convened for interfaith and civic exchanges in the search for solutions to the growing ethnic, cultural and religious tension in Europe and to jointly address some of humanity’s most vexing problems such as the alarming trends of nationalism, extremism and xenophobia in societies.[30][31] The event resulted in a statement (the Nitra statement).[31]


document_title: Escape to Witch Mountain (1975 film)

question_text: where was the original escape to witch mountain filmed

text: Escape to Witch Mountain (1975 film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: The movie centers upon the brother and sister pair Tony and Tia, whose surname they initially know only as that of their deceased adoptive parents, Malone. The children are placed in an orphanage, where they face difficulties stemming from their strange psychic/psionic abilities:  Tony can psychokinetically move and control inanimate objects with the aid of his harmonica, while Tia can communicate telepathically to Tony, commune empathically with animals, and experience premonitions. Tia also possesses minor telekinetic abilities. She carries a "star case" with her at all times, which eventually reveals a strange map.

text: Tia has fragmented memories of her early childhood, including an accident at sea and a man she later remembers as the children's Uncle Bené (/bɛˈneɪ/ ( listen)), whom they believe drowned during their rescue.

text: During a field trip to see a movie, Tia experiences a premonition and warns wealthy attorney Lucas Deranian against a potentially dangerous accident. Deranian informs his employer, millionaire Aristotle Bolt, of the children's unique abilities. Bolt, obsessed with the paranormal, demands that Deranian retrieve the children at all costs. Deranian's detective work leads him to the orphanage, where he poses as Tia and Tony's uncle, though not under the name Bené, and takes them to Bolt's mansion.

text: Though initially suspicious of Bolt's motives, Tia and Tony are lured in by the wealthy trappings of Bolt's home. Bolt eventually reveals that he has been monitoring the children via a closed-circuit television system and that he and Deranian are fully aware of their unusually strong powers. The night of this revelation, Tia and Tony make an escape, using their abilities to psionically control a wild mustang, guard dogs, and the security fence, as well as using Winkie, Tia's cat, to make the allergic security guard let them pass.

text: Bolt sends Deranian and a thug, Ubermann, after the children. Tia and Tony hide out in a green-and-white Winnebago motor home owned by a crotchety widower named Jason O'Day (Eddie Albert). Initially negative toward the children, Jason gradually begins to recognize their powers and the truth of their story; Tia's vague memories of a disaster at sea intrigue him. He agrees to take the children on the route indicated by Tia's star case, which leads them to a mountain known as Witch Mountain, home to unexplainable phenomena. Avoiding Bolt, the law, and an incited mob convinced the children are witches, they eventually make their way up Witch Mountain, pursued by Deranian and Ubermann, as well as by Bolt in a helicopter.

text: As their memories begin to fully return, the children realize their accident at sea did not involve a boat but a spacecraft. Tony and Tia are actually of extraterrestrial origin; the double star emblem on the star case stands for a binary star system where their home planet was located.

text: Having come to Earth because their own planet was dying, survivors of the journey made their way to Witch Mountain and formed a community to await the surviving children, each pair in possession of a star case to help them find their way to their new home. Tony and Tia are the first to reach their destination. The children are reunited with their Uncle Bené (who survived after all, thanks to an "accommodating" shark whom he'd telepathically asked for help) and board another spacecraft. When Bolt and the others leave in defeat, Jason witnesses the spaceship's return as it flies over him to say a final goodbye.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Eddie Albert as Jason O'Day, an embittered widower who decides to travel across the country in his motor home.
Ray Milland as Aristotle Bolt, a ruthless and greedy multi-millionaire obsessed with the paranormal and occult who intends to exploit Tony and Tia's powers to increase his wealth.
Donald Pleasence as Lucas Deranian, a well-to-do attorney who works for Mr. Bolt.
Kim Richards as Tia Malone, a nine-year-old orphan with psychic powers.
Kyle Richards as young Tia Malone (in "elder Tia's" memories) (uncredited)
Ike Eisenmann as Tony Malone, older brother to Tia, orphan with telekinetic powers.
Walter Barnes as Sheriff Purdey, a sheriff bribed by Bolt to pursue the children.
Reta Shaw as Mrs. Grindley, owner of the orphanage Tia and Tony are sent to after the death of their foster parents, the Malones.
Denver Pyle as Uncle Bené, the children's true uncle.
Alfred Ryder as Astrologer.
Lawrence Montaigne as Ubermann, a henchman who assists Deranian in his pursuit of the siblings.
Terry Wilson as Biff Jenkins.
George Chandler as Grocer.
Dermott Downs as Truck, a child from the orphanage who bullies Tony to the point that Tony reveals his powers.
Don Brodie as Gasoline Attendant.
Paul Sorenson as Sergeant Foss.
Harry Holcombe as Captain Malone.
Sam Edwards as Mate.
Dan Seymour as Psychic.
Eugene Daniels as Cort.

text: Differences from novel[edit]

text: Escape to Witch Mountain is based on the novel by Alexander Key. Significant differences from the book include its tone and plot elements. For example, in the book, the children are befriended by Father O'Day, an athletic, young Catholic priest, rather than crusty widower Jason O'Day.  The children's ship is shot down, rather than crashed, and the children are olive-skinned, though with light-colored hair, rather than fair-skinned and blond. In the book, Deranian is the main antagonist, and he is working for a shadowy European cabal who are trying to capture the children for their special powers, instead of for Aristotle Bolt.[2]  The novel is set along or near the Atlantic coast of the United States, whereas the film was shot along the Pacific coast in California.

text: Filming locations[edit]

text:
Carmel, Monterey[3]
Felton, Santa Cruz County[4]
Menlo Park, Peninsula School (formerly the Coleman Mansion)[5]
Pebble Beach, California[6]
Palo Alto, California Avenue[7]

text: Reception[edit]

text: The film earned a Total Lifetime Gross at the Domestic North American Box Office of $20,000,000. The film charted on the All time Domestic North American Box Office at Rank No. 145 for 'Rated G' films under the MPAA.[8]

text: The film earned $8,500,000 in rentals at the North American Box Office.[9]

text: Sequels and remakes[edit]

text: Escape to Witch Mountain (1975), is the first film in the franchise of the Witch Mountain films. The second and sequel film, Return from Witch Mountain, recast the child lead actors Ike Eisenmann as Tony, and Kim Richards, as Tia. In September 1978, Return from Witch Mountain was released to theaters on a double bill with Escape to Witch Mountain (1975). In 1982, Beyond Witch Mountain was produced as a television movie and broadcast on CBS through Walt Disney, which serves as the third and final film in the series. In 1995, Escape to Witch Mountain was produced as a remake television movie, with a different cast and several details changed or omitted, and released as part of The Wonderful World of Disney. A reworked Race to Witch Mountain Disney live-action feature film, with a new telling, directed by Andy Fickman was theatrically released in March, 2009.

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text: Composer Johnny Mandel's score for the film was a limited edition CD release by the Intrada label in 2016.