代写 economic ECON 1401 assignment
ECON 1401 Semester 1, 2016
Written Assignment 2
Aim
The written assignments included in the assessment for ECON 1401 are aimed at helping you develop your ability to
apply particular perspectives and abstract ideas to concrete, real-world situations, and to express yourself in clear,
thoughtful prose. The application of abstractions to particular concrete scenarios is one of the most difficult challenges
for many undergraduate students, and some students also find it difficult to construct an engaging written narrative that
is appropriate for an intellectually-inclined audience.
Successfully adopting a particular conceptual frame requires a good understanding of the dimensions, limits, strengths
and weaknesses of that frame. This means that preparing your written assignments will also help you to develop in-
depth knowledge of particular perspectives explored in this course, and to hone your skills in critical analysis.
What to do
In your assignment, you will apply the conceptual frame of TWO different economic thinkers to ONE of the following
topics:
1. European Migrant Crisis: Over the last two years more than one million people from the Middle East and North
Africa have migrated to Europe. In the short run, this poses many economic and political problems for Europe
such as where to find suitable housing, how to integrate migrants into the labour force, and various concerns
over security. In the long run, however, this influx of people could be an economic advantage because Europe’s
population is ageing quickly and population growth rates have fallen dramatically compared to the past.
Using the conceptual frame of your two chosen economists and what you learned in class with respect to
demographics and growth analyse the long run economic consequences of this large migration on the European
economy. Would your chosen thinkers see this influx of people as an opportunity or a burden? What policies, if
any, would your chosen thinkers recommend to integrate the migrants into the labour market? Would they
agree or disagree on the problems and possible solutions?
2. Affordable Housing: House prices have risen substantially relative to incomes in most Australian capital cities
over the last decade making affordable housing a key concern among many Australians. There is no consensus
over the cause of the increase in prices in Australia. In fact, housing prices throughout most of the world
experienced large appreciations over this time period. Although, many markets also experienced major declines
before, during, and after the GFC. Governments both local and national play a large role in the housing market.
They often have a large influence on where and how much housing is built, which affects the supply of available
housing. They also have influence in credit markets that determines the availability of mortgages, which affects
the demand for housing.
Using the conceptual frame of your two chosen economists analyse the state of the housing market in Australia
and the policies, both in effect and proposed, on the state of housing affordability. Would your chosen
economists approve of the large interventions into the market on both supply and demand side? What policies,
if any, would your chosen economists want to see enacted to alleviate the problem? Do your economists agree
or disagree?
The first task of the assignment is to decide which of the above topics you would like to analyse. The second task is to
select TWO economic thinkers we have studied in the course to serve as the frames of reference for your analysis of the
issue. A complete list of economists is provided at the end of this document. To select your two economists, visit the
Moodle site and sign up using the “Select a Thinker – Written Assignment 2” link under Course Assessments and
General Resources. There are two separate links, one for each thinker. Please sign up for one thinker using each link.
Only 20 students will be allowed to adopt each economic thinker. You may not choose the same economic thinker
chosen for your first assignment. Prompt selection of your economists is rewarded in the course’s marking scheme (see
the course outline for more details).
The paper is a compare and contrast essay, where the views of both economists are analysed and evaluated. The best
way to start this type of essay is to create an independent list of each economist’s views on the topic and then to look
for similarities and differences in their views. Once the key similarities and differences are found, a narrative can be
structured around why the economists agree or disagree about the topic. It is expected that you will conduct some
outside research on the topic and on your chosen economic thinkers to supplement the information you have gained
from class readings and lectures. Please include a reference list with your paper. The quality of your sources will be a
factor in assigning marks.
The essay should be between 6 and 8 pages, and should attempt to balance the amount of information presented on
each economist’s view. One suitable structure for the paper is to write a separate section for each economist
summarizing their views, and then compare and contrast their views in a new section. But, there are many suitable ways
to structure the essay. Try to draw upon what you learned from the first writing assignment to create positions for these
now dead economists on these current issues.
Ensure you use complete sentences and well-organised paragraphs. Stick to the page limit. You will be penalised if your
assignment is under 6 A4 pages or over 8 A4 pages. Do not use a font size below 11 point and do not play games with
spacing or margins. Deliberate attempts to make essays appear longer or shorter than the specified limits will result in a
loss of marks.
For a full guide on how you will be assessed, refer to the marking rubric on the final page of this document.
Group work and plagiarism
This assignment is an individual assignment. The ideas and expressions in your assignment should be created
independently by you, and no one else. Do NOT copy and paste unattributed text from any primary or secondary
source, and do not write the same material as another student. This will be considered plagiarism. (NB: Short direct
quotations, properly attributed to their original author(s), are acceptable).
In the School of Economics all cases of substantial plagiarism are reported to the Associate Head of School. The following
penalties will apply:
Reduction in marks for the assessment item, including zero;
Failure in the course [00FL] in extreme cases;
Other additional penalties in accordance with the UNSW Procedures for Dealing with Student Plagiarism, may
be considered in extreme cases;
All cases will be recorded on the UNSW Plagiarism Central Register
More information about plagiarism and how to avoid it can be found at:
http://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/learningandteaching/studentservices/resources/Pages/referencingandpla
giarism.aspx
List of thinkers
Adam Smith
Thomas Malthus
David Ricardo
Robert Owen
Henri de Saint-Simon
John Stuart Mill
Karl Marx
Francis Edgeworth
Frédéric Bastiat
Henry George
Thornstein Veblen
John Hobson
Alfred Marshall
John Maynard Keynes
Joseph Schumpeter
Marking Rubric
Criteria and
Weightings
Below Expectations
<50% (Fail)
Meets Expectations
50% - 74% (Pass-Credit)
Exceeds Expectations
75% (Distinction-High Distinction)
1. Clear and
accurate
communication
of ideas and
information
(20%)
Main ideas and arguments
not clear
Expression/grammar
frequently inaccurate
Terminology not used
appropriately or correctly
Main ideas and arguments
generally clear, although some
details may not be developed
clearly
Expression/grammar may contain
some errors which occasionally
impede clarity
Generally appropriate and
accurate use of terminology
Ideas and arguments presently clearly
throughout
Accurate use of language and grammar
(or with negligible errors which do not
diminish reader’s understanding)
Accurate and appropriate use of
terminology
2. Logical and
coherent
structure (20%)
Does not present material
logically , e.g.:
Not a clear focus; ideas are
difficult to follow; may
include irrelevant material
or go off track
Not structured clearly to
convey key messages to the
reader; e.g. inadequate
introduction and/or
conclusion; subsections that
do not progress the
arguments.
Presents key material logically &
coherently, e.g.:
Has a mainly clear focus, with
little/no irrelevant material; reader
can follow development of main
arguments
Structured adequately to reinforce
key points, e.g., informative
introduction and/or conclusion;
sections are linked and progress
the arguments.
Presents material logically and persuasively
in a well-structured essay, e.g.:
A clear focus, with no irrelevant or
repetitive material; a logical sequence so
that the reader can follow ideas
Structured to reinforce key ideas &
distinguish from supporting details, e.g.
introduction clearly defines aim; sections
are well-developed & clearly linked.
3. Depth of
代写 economic ECON 1401 assignment
engagement
(25%)
Does not display adequate
engagement with material, e.g.:
Little reference to relevant
texts/author/ideas and/or
policy issue
Superficial regurgitation of
phrases and terminology,
with little evidence of
understanding
Little evidence of any
outside research on the
topic or economic thinkers.
Reasonable level of engagement, e.g.:
Clear references to relevant course
material (texts/author/ideas) and
to policy issue
Competent level of understanding
of both abstract concepts and
concrete policy issue, although
some details may remain fuzzy
Some engagement with genesis of
ideas and policy issue
Some evidence of outside research
on the topic or economic thinkers,
possibly including citations.
High level of engagement, e.g.:
Excellent grasp of the nuances of both
relevant course material
(texts/author/ideas) and policy issue
Demonstrated interest in and superior
engagement with the complex genesis of
ideas and policy issue
Clear evidence of outside research on
the topic and economic thinkers
including citations.
4. Successful
application and
critical analysis
of ideas (30%)
Inadequate application or
critical analysis, e.g.:
Lack of critical comments
about material
No evidence of application
of texts/author/ideas to
policy issue
Presentation of
texts/author/ideas and
policy issue as mainly
unrelated entities
Inappropriate or incorrect
use of outside research
information.
Some evidence of application and
critical analysis, e.g.:
Appropriate, logically sound
application of texts/author/ideas
to policy issue
Some critical comments and
intellectual questioning of
texts/author/ideas
Good use of outside research to
support critical analysis of the
topic and the ideas of the
economic thinkers.
Evidence of strong abilities in application
and critical analysis, e.g.:
Rich, novel, and engaging application of
texts/author/ideas to policy issue
Engaging, logically coherent critical
analysis of texts/author/ideas
Attempt to offer a novel solution to
policy issue grounded in
texts/author/ideas
Excellent use and application of
supporting outside research to enhance
critical analysis of the topic and
economic thinkers.
5. Reflection on
performance
(5%)
Either no marks or full marks; no partial credit.
Full marks are awarded only if both (a) your performance on each criterion is self-assessed in Review, and (b) the
scores you estimate you will achieve on each criterion are reasonably justified by two to three sentences of
thoughtful reflection on your performance. Do not include your self-assessment scores or text in the body of your
work. Instead, use Review’s slider scales to record your self-assessment scores on each criterion, and type or paste
your reflection text directly into the “Student Comment” box in Review. See the “Using Review” guide, available on
Moodle, for more guidance.
Note that markers will not see your self-assessment scores or text before they mark your assignment.
