Recent Question/Assignment

EC304: Economic Development
Semester I, 2022
Research Project
10%
Due date : 29/04/22
Background
The two papers below are about Institution. Based on what you have learned from EC304, please review the two papers. A short essay of max. 2000 words is requested to be completed and submitted for final assessment.
1. Asefa, S (2003) Developing Democratic Institution in Ethiopia: The challenge of Building enabling Institutions for Economic Growth and Development, Northeast African Studies,10(1):67-113.
2. North.C.D. (1971) Institutional Change and Economic Growth, The Journal of Economic History, 31(1): 118-125
You are asked to review two leading papers oninstitutions and write an essay using knowledge and critical thinking within sixdays. This is a comprehensive assessment that meets all learning outcomes of the course. Each of you must submit a written essay independently.
Each of you needs to submit a final essay of no less than 1500 words and no more than 2000words in length (front page, graphs, tables and mathematical formulae excluded).
You must download the papers by yourselves. Any failure of downloading the papers is also treated as failure of the assessment.
General structure of essay
You are expected to summarize and critically review their research questions, theoretical arguments, empirical evidence, and results. You have to relate these papers to what you have learnt in EC304. Please kindly find the marking criteria given below.
A written essay includes
a. Review the research questions and theoretical argument in the papers (40%)
b. What are the main findings (20%)
c. Your own insights and briefly relate them to Fiji (40%)
Plagiarism
All submissions are subject to Turnitin check for similarities. Evidence of academic misconduct will result in penalties according to university policy.
Essay Marking Criteria
Knowledge and understanding Intellectual skills Transferable skills
100% The best answer that could reasonably be expected from a student at that level of study under the prevailing conditions
85 to 99 Total coverage of the task set. Exceptional demonstration of knowledge and understanding appropriately grounded in theory and the relevant literature. Extremely creative and imaginative approach. Comprehensive and accurate analysis. Well-argued conclusions. Perceptive self-assessment. Extremely clear exposition. Excellently structured and logical answer. Excellent presentation, only the most insignificant errors.
78 to 84 As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses or gaps in knowledge and understanding. As ‘Outstanding’ but slightly less imaginative and with some minor gaps in analysis and/or conclusions. As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses in structure, logic and/or presentation.
72 to 77 Full coverage of the task set. Generally very good demonstration of knowledge and understanding but with some modest gaps. Good grounding in theory. Some creative and imaginative features. Very good and generally accurate analysis. Sound conclusions. Some self-assessment.
Generally clear exposition. Satisfactory structure. Very good presentation, largely free of grammatical and other errors.
63 to 71 As ‘Very Good’ but with more and/or more significant gaps in knowledge and understanding and some significant gaps in grounding. As ‘Very Good’ but analysis and conclusions contain some minor weakness
As ‘Very Good’ but with some weaknesses in exposition and/or structure and a few more grammatical and other errors.
50 to 62 Patchy coverage of the task set. Patchy Knowledge and understanding with limited grounding in literature. Just meets the threshold level at the bottom end.
Rather limited creative and imaginative features. Patchy analysis containing significant flaws. Rather limited conclusions. No self-assessment. Just meets the threshold level at the bottom end. Competent exposition and structure. Competent presentation but some significant grammatical and other errors. Just meets the threshold level at the bottom end.
40 to 49 Some parts of the task set likely to have been omitted. Major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Some significant confusion. Very limited grounding. Falls just short of the threshold level. No creative or imaginative features. Analysis and conclusions rather limited. Falls just short of the threshold level.
Somewhat confused and limited exposition. Confused structure. Some weaknesses in presentation and some serious grammatical and other errors. Falls just short of the threshold level.
0 to 39 Substantial sections of the task not covered. Knowledge and understanding very limited and/or largely incorrect. No grounding in theory. No creative or imaginative features. Analysis extremely weak or omitted. No conclusions.
Largely confused exposition and structure. Many serious grammatical and other errors.