Essay - Markets in Action
by Senja Hirvonen
Submission date: 11-Oct-2019 09:04AM (UTC+1000)
Submission ID: 1190374403
File name: ECON_Essay.pdf (175.91K)
Word count: 1383
Character count: 7537
1
2
34
FINAL GRADE
96/100
Essay - Markets in Action
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructor
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
Comment 1
Elasticity of supply?
PAGE 3
Comment 2
Impact on consumer surplus?
PAGE 4
PAGE 5
Comment 3
Excellent
Comment 4
How conclusions can you draw from Indonesia's example that are relevant to the price floor in
Australia?
PAGE 6
PAGE 7
PAGE 8
INTRODUCTION (20%)
Clear, concise, well-presented, pertinent description of: (a) the chosen
company and its relevant characteristics/nature. (b) the chosen
company's market structure (based on presented evidence-based
argument). (c) a single relevant upcoming or recently enacted
government policy change. (d) the announced reason and other
potentially plausible reasons why the government might want to enact
the policy. NOTE: (c) a recent or upcoming policy is a policy introduced
in the last 12 months (leeway to January 2018), or that is planned for
the near future. The abolition within the last 12 months or planned
abolition of a government policy also counts as a recent or upcoming
policy.
ANALYSIS (60%)
Demonstrated grasp of relevant policy implications; logical thinking,
coherence, conciseness, clarity and robustness of microeconomic
analysis of announced policy change, including: (a) appropriateness
GRADING FORM: ECON7002 ESSAY SEM 2
SENJA
HIRVONEN
96
19
and quality of selected analytical approach – well-reasoned use of
microeconomics theory in analysing the announced policy change,
well-reasoned analytical conclusions including of unintended
consequences. (b) description of alternative means the government
can use for achieving its aims, including descriptions of likely market
and welfare impacts, explaining why the government chose its
announced approach. (c) literature support of essay's analysis: properly
presented arguments supported by well-cited SCHOLARLY quotes and
references, few if any unsupported opinions (excepting commonly
accepted facts). (d) diagrammatic support of essay's main analysis: use
of clear, well-labelled, relevant, properly referenced diagrams/tables
that support the analysis.
CROSS-COMPARISON (10%)
Real-life example of an essentially similar government intervention in
an essentially similar market at any time previously anywhere in the
world, noting: (a) whether the intervention produced its intended
results, (b) how it informs the essay's economic analysis.
CRITICAL REFLECTION (10%)
Critical reflection of the analytical approach, emphasising its strengths
and weaknesses for the real world.
60
7
10
MAJOR PENALTIES
(Sum of all penalties not to exceed awarded points. Ensure no double
counting.) 1. (Deduct up to 80%) REPORT DOES NOT MEET
ASSIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS: selected issue / policy debate /
analytical approach is not relevant to ECON7002, e.g., student
performs only macroeconomics / high level analysis with no/little
microeconomics analysis, e.g. of US-China trade war. 2. (Deduct up to
90%) Plagiarism in whatever form, especially looking out for
"synonymisation". 3. Late submission: penalised at 10% of the total
value of the assignment per day. No marks if > 3 days late. NOTE: A
handful of students have obtained submission date extensions – these
are noted in the Instructor Notes field in the Blackboard Grade centre
assignment record. 4. Word count: deduct 3% for each 150 words
quantum above/below 1000 words (Note: title page, references section,
tables and diagrams do not add to word count).
MINOR PENALTIES
(Sum of all penalties not to exceed awarded points. Ensure no double
counting.) (Deduct up to 30%) Poor choice of announced policy: must
be no earlier than January 2018, in English and freely accessible on
the internet. (Deduct up to 20%) Writing style: incorrect grammar or
spelling, long or disconnected sentences, over-use of quoted material,
incoherence, sloppiness. (Deduct up to 20%) Poorly or ineffectively
organised report; unclear or illogical flow of ideas; ineffective, badly
composed or unclear arguments. (Deduct up to 20%) Improper, lack of,
or extraneous citations and references; degree of uncited and/or
unscholarly opinions; supplying a Bibliography rather than a
References section. (Deduct up to 10%) Lack of evidence of reading
outside of the article and course textbook (require at least three (3)
references in addition to material from the textbook).