| ASSESSMENT BRIEF | |
| Subject Code and Title | ECON6001 Economic Principles |
| Assessment | Case Study – Group (Research Based) |
| Individual/Group | Group (3 students) |
| Length | 2 000 Words (+-10%) |
| Learning Outcomes | Analyse, individually and in teams the role of fundamental micro and macroeconomic principles in business decision-making Critically evaluate the applicability of various theories to economic policies and business decision making related problems Critically evaluate the role and impact of various forms of government intervention in the economy including business implications. Communicate complex economic concepts to business professionals. |
| Submission | End of Week 10 (11.55pm Sunday) |
| Weighting | 30% |
| Total Marks | 100 marks |
Context:
Assessment 3 assesses students’ understanding of the implementation of monetary policy, fiscal
policy and other unconventional policies to address recessions and stimulate economic growth.
Instructions:
In groups of 3 students you are expected to prepare a 2 000 word research report. For the
introduction and conclusion you can use up to 200 words. The report focuses on macroeconomic
management during and after the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2009. The report should address
the following:
(a) Your facilitator is going to allocate to you a pair of countries from the following table of
countries:
| Developed country | Developing country |
| United Kingdom | Indonesia |
| Ireland | Madagascar |
| Switzerland | South Africa |
| Norway | Brazil |
| Sweden | India |
| Finland | Argentina |
| Denmark | Colombia |
| Netherlands | Malaysia |
| Australia | Philippines |
| New Zealand | Vietnam |
| Singapore | Thailand |
| Canada | Bangladesh |
| Greece | Botswana |
| Spain | Ghana |
| Portugal | Namibia |
Collect information on the budgets of each of the selected pair of countries for the 15 years from
2004 and 2018. You need to collect information on the major components of revenue and
expenses with smaller items put into the category “others”. Determine whether the country or
federal budget was in surplus or deficit in each of the years. (10 marks)
(b) Perform a comparative analysis of the composition of the items of budget and expenditure over
the 15-year period between the two countries chosen and comment on how these have changed
over the period. (400 words) (10 marks)
(c) How has the global financial crisis (GFC) affected the budgets of the two countries? In your
answer consider how the use of fiscal policy during the GFC impacted the budget deficit/surplus.
The period of the GFC is 2007 to 2009. (500 words) (12.5 marks)
(d) Discuss attempts that have been made by the authorities to reduce budget deficits post – GFC
(from 2010 to 2018). Were they successful in their endeavour? (400 words) (10 marks)
(e) Using academic literature perform a comparative discussion that evaluates how successful the
two countries used fiscal policy to pursue objectives of sound macroeconomic management post
GFC until the end of 2018. (500 words) (12.5 marks)
In addition to the above, you will also be assessed on the following: (see marking Rubric at
the end for more description of expectation).
(f) Content Audience and Purpose (5%)
(g) Critical reasoning, presentation and defence of an argument and/or position (10%)
(h) Analysis and Application with synthesis of new knowledge (15%)
(i) Use of academic conventions and sources of evidence (5%)
(k) Effective communication (5%)
(l) Peer Review (5%)
Submission Instructions: This assignment must adhere to the following:
1. This assignment must be prepared and submitted as a group of 3 individuals.
2. You must prepare a Business Report. Please ensure that a report format is adhered to as strictly as
possible. Marks will be lost if any other format is used.
3. Submit as a Word document properly referenced using the APA referencing style. Wikipedia and
Investopedia not acceptable academic sources. Note that the Reference list, appendices and
calculations are not included in word count.
4. As the assessment is group work each member of the group will receive the same amount of
marks regardless of which part of the assessment he/she contributed to.
ECON6001 Assessment 3 Brief Page 2 of 2
Learning Rubrics
| Assessment Attributes | Fail (Unacceptable) | Pass (Functional) |
Credit (Proficient) |
Distinction (Advanced) |
High Distinction (Exceptional) |
| Grade Description (Grading Scheme) Students expected to produce a well structured report showing knowledge, critical reasoning and professionalism expected of postgraduate students |
Evidence of unsatisfactory achievement of one or more of the learning objectives of the course, insufficient understanding of the course content and/or unsatisfactory level of skill development. |
Evidence of satisfactory achievement of course learning objectives, the development of relevant skills to a competent level, and adequate interpretation and critical analysis skills. |
Evidence of a good level of understanding, knowledge and skill development in relation to the content of the course or work of a superior quality on the majority of the learning objectives of the course. Demonstration of a high level of interpretation and critical analysis skills. |
Evidence of a high level of achievement of the learning objectives of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, use of methodology and communication skills. |
Evidence of an exceptional level of achievement of learning objectives across the entire content of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, creativity, originality, use of methodology and communication skills. |
| Content, Audience and Purpose (Students should show an understanding of the essence of the assignment, the central idea(s) to be addressed and pitch the report accordingly) 5 |
Does not meet minimum standard Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. 0-2.4 |
Meets minimum standard Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment 2.5-3.24 |
Moves beyond minimum standard Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. 3.25-3.74 |
Exceeds minimum standard Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment. 3.75-4.24 |
Exceeds minimum standard and exhibits high levels of independence Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment. 4.25-5 |
| Knowledge and understanding (The students should display an understanding of the use government budgets, fiscal policy and relate to the global financial crisis.) 55 |
Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge Key components of the assignment are not addressed. 0-27.4 |
Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline. Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. 27.5-29.2 |
Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. 35.75-41.2 |
Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s. Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. 41.25-46.7 |
A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s. Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning. 46.75-55 |
| Critical reasoning, presentation and defence of an argument and/or position It is important to be able to justify position |
Specific position (perspective or argument) fails to take into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Makes assertions that are not justified. |
Specific position (perspective or argument) begins to take into account the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. |
Specific position (perspective or argument) takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Others’ |
Specific position (perspective or argument) is expertly presented and accurately takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) and |
Specific position (perspective or argument) is presented expertly, authoritatively and imaginatively, accurately taking into account the |
| taken. Backing up with academic literature and other authentic references is important. Check what experts such as economists say about the countries selected. It is not about expressing personal opinions. 10 |
0-4.9 | Justifies any conclusions reached with arguments not merely assertion. 5.0-6.4 |
points of view are acknowledged. Justifies any conclusions reached with well formed arguments not merely assertion. 6.5-7.4 |
scope of the assignment. Justifies any conclusions reached with well developed arguments. 7.5-8.4 |
complexities of the issue(s) and scope of the assignment. Limits of position are acknowledged. Justifies any conclusions reached with sophisticated arguments. 8.5-10 |
| Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge (Examining whether the students have applied well the knowledge of budgets, fiscal policy and macroeconomic management to the two selected countries) 15 |
Limited synthesis and analysis. Limited application/recommendations based upon analysis. 0-7.4 |
Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. 7.5-9.7 |
Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. 9.75-11.2 |
Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis 11.25-12.7 |
Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge. Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases. 12.75-15 |
| Use of academic and discipline conventions and sources of evidence Proper academic writing expected 5 |
Poorly written with errors in spelling, grammar. Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style. 0-2.4 |
Is written according to academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary) and has accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction. Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. There are no mistakes in using the APA style. 2.5-3.24 |
Is well-written and adheres to the academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary). Demonstrates consistent use of high quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are no mistakes in using the APA style. 3.25-3.74 |
Is very well-written and adheres to the academic genre. Consistently demonstrates expert use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop appropriate arguments and statements. Shows evidence of reading beyond the key reading There are no mistakes in using the APA style. 3.75-4.24 |
Expertly written and adheres to the academic genre. Demonstrates expert use of high-quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows extensive evidence of reading beyond the key reading There are no mistakes in using the APA Style. 4.25-5 |
| Effective communication The aim is to communicate well – to be understood in arguments presented and to address all the |
Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence. |
Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. |
Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. |
Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented, the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. |
Expertly presented; the report is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments. |
| questions in the assessment. 5 |
0-2.4 | 2.5 | 3.25-3.74 | 3.75-4.24 | 4.25-5 |
| Peer Review 5 |
Showed no real effort and contribution to the team. Other team members had to contribute more and take on also the tasks agreed by this member 0 – 2.4 |
Has fulfilled part of the agreed tasks and overlooked some. Has not been initiating much of the team group effort. More passive member of the group. 2.5-3.24 |
Has been following instructions of one or more team members. Contributed to the team efforts as per agreed tasks, but did not go beyond that. 3.25-3.74 |
Very valuable member of the team actively contributing to the team effort and the group assessment outcome. 3.75-4.24 |
Has been one of the key members of the group, taking initiative and extensively contributing to the group assessment effort. 4.25-5 |
The post ECON6001 Economic Principles appeared first on My Assignment Online.