Request a Callback
The assessment will take the form of a commentary (i.e., a written explanation, criticism and/or discussion) of an article that will be provided with follow up discussive questions. The assessment is designed to test your ability to put the reading back into the wider context of the literature and show your ability to evaluate effectively.
A maximum word count of 1500 words for each section of the assessment must be adhered to (i.e., a global maximum of 3000 words for the whole coursework). The penalty for exceeding this limit is a five-mark deduction. Everything beyond the word count will not be read or marked. The actual word count of each section of the assignment must be stated on the first page (cover sheet) of the assignment. The overall word count does include citations and quotations in the text. Appendices are included in the word count. The overall word count does not include the references or bibliography at the end of the coursework. The word count does not include figures and tables.
Students should prepare and submit their coursework assessments in the following format:
Font: Verdana 11 point
Spacing: 1.5 spaced
Margins: Normal (2.5 cm)
Referencing: Harvard citation style
As well as the textbooks and journals listed as key reading it is suggested you engage with the further references provided in the reading list and within lectures to deepen your knowledge in key areas. According to University guidance, a first-class piece of work must suggest engagement with materials beyond those covered during the taught sessions.
A full marking framework has been provided on Moodle detailing the assessment criteria.
Part 1 (750 words) – Please provide a commentary of the following article:
Fredriksson, P.G., Neumayer, E. and Ujhelyi, G., 2007. Kyoto Protocol cooperation: Does government corruption facilitate environmental lobbying?. Public Choice, 133(1-2), pp.231-251.
The commentary requires you to summarise and assess the content of the papers and put them into the context of the material discussed in the module. In particular you are to determine and present the main issue(s)/phenomenon(a)/argument(s) presented, as well as providing a thorough critical analysis of the pieces. Hence your reading of the article will require you assess the quality of the arguments and the evidence. A successful commentary will demand that you discuss the subject matter of the article using arguments, theories, or evidence you will have studied beforehand, during the lecture or independently.
Part 2 (750 words) – To what extent would an effective media presence help to resolve the issues found in Fredriksson et al. (2007)?
You can use a maximum of 1500 words in this Section. Read the following media articles:
For each case, identify the main economic problem and discuss the rationale for regulation. Critically discuss similarities and differences among the three cases. Use the following questions as a guidance:
Which are the goals of ex ante regulation in each of these cases?
Could that rationale be affected by technological change?
Is ex-ante regulation the most cost-efficient way of achieving those goals? Why? Why not?
If ex-ante regulation is efficient, should the regulator go for high or low powered incentives?
Which relevant elements from the institutional environment are relevant in each case and why?
DISCLAIMER : The dissertation help samples showcased on our website are meant for your review, offering a glimpse into the outstanding work produced by our skilled dissertation writers. These samples serve to underscore the exceptional proficiency and expertise demonstrated by our team in creating high-quality dissertations. Utilise these dissertation samples as valuable resources to enrich your understanding and enhance your learning experience.