TBS905 Main Assignment:  Assignment Criteria

The objectives of the assignment are to compare and contrast two national economies in an economic sense.  That is, they are to be compared not in a general descriptive sense, but in largely intensive variables which are reflective of (or indicative of) economic conditions within the countries.  This would include for example GDP/capita, average hours worked per year, productivity growth, average levels of educational attainment.  The task requires students to

• briefly describe the two economies in broad terms
• select descriptive economic variables which are relevant to a comparison of the particular economies.  Having regard to the length of the assignment, the main comparison needs to be made on the basis of a maximum three to five economic variables – with fewer variables being used where ‘high-level’ variables are used, as these require greater explanation.
• for each economy, research appropriate data to describe these variables, presenting five-year data to provide a meaningful comparison
• for each economy, having numerically described these variables, research commentary material to discuss how/why the variables were of the nature shown
• compare the results from the two economies to draw out similarities and differences, and the reasons for these.

The overall length of the assignment is 3,000 words.  Its presentation needs to be of a mixed format, with numerical material presented in a report form, (generally graphical rather than data tables) while discussion should follow standard essay style.  The assignment is intended to test students’ ability to

• identify the major variables describing relevant elements of similarity or difference between national economies.
• find, interpret and concisely present broad-brush national economic data
• research and interpret explanatory material on how the economies came to be in the position in which they are
• draw broad economic lessons from the comparison which emerges.
• write clearly, logically and concisely on national economic issues.

Marking criteria

The assignment will be broadly marked against its content (35%), analysis and explanation (45%) and presentation (20%).  The components contributing to each of these are as follows:

1. Content:

1. Variables: identifying relevant variables
2. Data: researching and collating appropriate and comparable five year data
3. Explanation: researching qualitative/analytical explanatory comment to explain the data in 1.

 

2. Analysis

1. Explaining: giving reasons why economic variables have values they show.
2. Linking: relating variables to broader indicators such as standard of living, economic growth prospects etc.
3. Difference: comparing data and explanations for two economies, and drawing conclusions as to reasons for difference.
4. Future: using data and explanations to suggest likely future development paths.

 

3. Presentation

1. Data: presenting data in simple, clear, comparable and relevant terms using appropriate graphical means where possible.
2. Comparison: combining data and commentary into single, clear and coherent comparison.
3. Writing: quality of written expression.
4. Citation: adequacy and correctness of citation of sources.  (Note: this assumes that citation is appropriately provided, and relates to the quality of citation.  Failure to appropriately cite quantitative or qualitative material may lead to a separate penalty mark.)

Indicators

As an indication of the nature of grading, general criteria for the factors listed above are given in Table 1 below.

 

Factor	Marginal/average	Good	Very good/excellent
A1 Variables	Chosen for ease or convenience. Not strongly relevant.	Reasonably relevant variables, considered individually	Very relevant variables, linked in analysis.
A2 Data	‘Second-hand’ data, not 5 year coverage	Quality data, not completely parallel	Quality data, fully comparable
A3 Explanation	Descriptive only, no in-depth explanation	Critical comment, few or one source.	Variety of quality/ critical sources
B1. Explaining	Descriptive, no critical comment, doesn’t fully explain data	Some critical comment, not much analysis	Logical analysis of causes for data outcomes.
B2. Linking	Variables treated in isolation	Some variables linked to each other	Variables related together and to broad macro indicators.
B3 Differences	Differences noted but not explained	Some critical comparison of outcomes.	Differences used to generate further insights on variables.
B4. Future	Projections based on current situation	Projections based on present, some use of underlying factors	Projections based on country’s trajectory and underlying factors.
C1. Data	Correct data but using copied presentation from others.  Numerical data used where should be graph.	Appropriate presentation means but not fully consistent between variables, countries.	Data presented consistently and fully comparably using graphical means to best advantage.
C2. Comparison	Data and commentary separate, reader must compile ‘picture’	Data and commentary largely linked but not completely	Integrating data and commentary into seamless comparison.
C3. Writing	Generally conveys info but sometimes obscures or blocks its meaning.	Straightforward language, conveys info, relatively few errors.	‘An interesting read’ – writing conveys info in manner as to engage reader.