Assignment 2: Trade Route Analysis for Economic Development

Description

Question:

In Assignment 1 you identified a trade route (lane) to study, located key information sources, and outlined some economic forces that have shaped, and continue to shape, its development

The task

Working in groups of 3-4, develop a presentation which addresses the following:

1. A description of the geography of your chosen trade route and the economic regions that it connects, including the main ports and airports.

2. An assessment of the composition and volume of trade along the route, assembled from secondary sources, e.g. port/airport websites, economic statistics (imports and exports).

3. The macro forces that have shaped the development of the trade route, and the forces which may shape its future development.

4. A description of important infrastructure that facilitates the trade route, including any current or planned infrastructure (physical and technological) projects.

5. A brief forecast of how the trade route may develop in the future.

Presentation and submission

You will present your work to the class on 27th November in a presentation of 12-15 minutes duration, which involves all members of the group. This will be either face-to-face on online via MS Teams. PowerPoint slides to be submitted via My Studies under ‘Assignment 2’.

All information sources must be referenced by author (date) on the slides, with full references provided in the penultimate slide using the Harvard referencing system, as detailed in the School Referencing Handbook. A brief statement of the contribution of group members to be included in the final slide.

Information sources

Please see reading list and sources cited in lectures, e.g. Manners-Bell on the development of trade in emerging markets, and Johnson, Scholes and Whittington on macro environmental analysis and scenario planning.

Assignment Specific Assessment criteria

· Coverage of the task, as specified above (50% of marks).

· The visual impact and design of your slides, the quality and timeliness of the verbal element, and your ability to handle questions (30% of marks).

· The credibility of your forecast (task 5 above), which depends on the range of information sources consulted and the quality of your analysis (20% of marks).

Please also see the General Masters Assessment Criteria attached.

General Master’s Level Assessment Criteria

Module assessment Masters’ level courses use a numerical marking scheme under which the following grades can be achieved within a module:

-High Distinction (80-100%)

-Distinction – (70 – 79%)

- Merit – (60 – 69%)

- Fail and Refer this is a provisional failure which can be overturned if you provide additional satisfactory evidence of achievement of   the module learning outcomes required in order to achieve a pass standard.

Task requirements

-  Fail and no Referral

Grading criteria

The following grading criteria, based on the University’s postgraduate marking/ grading descriptors, indicate the marks and classifications to be awarded for various standards of written work. Your work will be marked in percentages, with the exception of those few modules that just need Pass/fail As each subject has its own emphases and as assignments may vary in their approach (e.g. essays, reports, projects etc.) so descriptions offered here are inevitably generalised and will need to be interpreted and adapted to the specifics of each assignment. Sometimes you will be issued with supplementary grading criteria which are specific to the particular task you have been set.

High Distinction

An outstanding response to the task: all learning outcomes/assessment criteria have been achieved to an exceptionally high level. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics beyond that expected for work at the given level of study within the discipline:

· Exceptional display of understanding, exploration, insight and/or research

· Potential for publication/exhibition and/or ability to undertake further research

· All specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate, have been strictly adhered to  

· The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, are exemplary throughout

· Evidence of effective communication of work to specialist and non-specialist audiences

· Stimulating and rigorous arguments that are likely to be at the limits of what may be expected at this level

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in an original way

· Inspirational, innovative and authoritative  evidence of intellectual rigour, independence of judgement and insightful contextualisation, including relevant theory/literature/artefacts/performance

· Clear evidence of extensive study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence

· Evidence of very high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Outstanding problem solving skills – suggests alternative approaches

· Ability to address complex issues both systematically and creatively  - challenges established knowledge

Distinction

An excellent response to the task: all learning outcomes/assessment criteria have been achieved to a high standard and many at an exceptionally high level. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:

· In-depth understanding, exploration, insight and/or research

· Potential for publication/exhibition and/or ability to undertake further research

Geography and economic regions

· All specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate, have been adhered to

· The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, are excellent throughout

· Evidence of effective communication of work to specialist and non-specialist audiences

· Convincing arguments that are likely to be at the limits of what may be expected at this level

· The work has been approached and/or executed/ performed in an original way

· Insightful contextualisation, including relevant theory/literature/artefacts/ performance   

· Clear evidence of extensive study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence

· Evidence of high to very high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Excellent problem solving skills – suggests alternative approaches

· Ability to address complex issues effectively – challenges established knowledge

Merit

A good to very good response to the task: all learning outcomes/assessment criteria have been met fully at a good or very good standard. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:

· Good to very good understanding and exploration, some insight and/or thorough research

· Some capacity to undertake further research

· No significant inaccuracies, misunderstandings or errors

· The specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate, have been adhered to  

· The work is well organised, coherent  and the standard of presentation including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate,  is at least good

· Evidence of effective communication of work

· Ability to present structured, clear and concise arguments

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in a comprehensive way with some degree of originality

· Appropriate contextualisation, including relevant theory/literature/artefacts/performance   

· Evidence of extensive study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence

· Evidence of high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Good or at least competent problem solving skills – suggests alternative approaches

· Ability to address complex issues competently – explores established knowledge

An adequate to sound response to the task: all learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been met. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:

· Sound understanding and exploration, some insight and/or appropriate  research

· Some minor inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings – small but not significant errors

· Some minor aberrations from the specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate

· The work is suitably organised and the standard of presentation, including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate,  is at least sound

· Ability to develop an argument but can lack fluency

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in a standard way with limited evidence of originality

· Some contextualisation but with a heavy reliance on a limited number of sources and, in general, the breadth and depth of sources and research are lacking

· Evidence of study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence

· Some, but limited evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal

· Some evidence of problem solving skills

· Some evidence of ability to address complex issues adequately

Fail (40-49%)

An unsatisfactory response to the task: one or more of the learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have not been met.  The work may display some strength but these are outweighed by several weak features in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline, such as:

· Limited understanding and/or exploration of major ideas with very little insight and/or minimal research

· Some significant inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings – gaps in understanding and/or knowledge

· Insufficient attention paid to some of the assessment criteria and some significant aberrations from the specifications for the assessment task  

· The work is too descriptive, somewhat disorganised and unclear and the standard of presentation,  including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, is poor

· Development of an argument is limited and often flawed

· The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in poor way

· The context provided takes the form of description lacking any breadth, depth and accuracy

· Limited or inappropriate research and demonstrated ability to reach decisions

· Insufficient evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal  

· Little evidence of problem solving skills

· A struggle to address complex issues