Categories
Uncategorized

Critically discuss what may be the reasons for more stringent (mandatory) measures failing to improve the transparency around lobbying?

LBU 3057: International Business Diplomacy

Individual Essay Assessment – Semester 1 (2020-21)

Marks Proportion: 30% of the total for LBU 3057

Task

Your group presentation will be an analysis based on the report produced by Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society (The Lobbying of the EU) in order to answer the following question.

Essay Question

“With corporate activities in Brussels being surrounded by controversy, mandatory measures are discussed as necessary to improve transparency around lobbying directed at European Union institutions”.

Critically discuss what may be the reasons for more stringent (mandatory) measures failing to improve the transparency around lobbying? Please support your arguments with appropriate theoretical concepts and empirical examples discussed in LBU 3057 lectures and seminars. 

Sources of information

  • Case Study – The Lobbying of the EU
  • LBU 3057 reading material
  • LBU 3057 lectures
  • LBU 3057 seminars

Individual Assignment Guidelines

  • Assignment length: 1000 words (+/- 10%)
    • Word count must be mentioned on the first page
    • Word count includes all text (including the in-text references) but excludes end-of-text bibliography and appendices.

Assignment format

  • Only word files to be submitted
    • Font size: 12
    • Times New Roman
    • Double spaced

Please submit your assignment via the appropriate TurnitIn link on Canvas assignment tab by 4pm on that date.

Marking and feedback

The assignment will be marked according to the standard undergraduate assessment criteria (see below).

Pre- and post-assessment support

There will be a 2h seminar (in week 14) that will provide students with a pre-assessment opportunity to discuss the essay question, both with the seminar tutor and as a group, with reference to their preparation for presentation videos. Students should consider these discussions as summative feedback and make notes accordingly.

Referencing

Please use Harvard referencing style in putting together the citations in text and reference list at the end of your essay. Please see referencing guide from Newcastle University – http://libguides.ncl.ac.uk/referencing

Plagiarism

The assignment should be your own work. Plagiarism is a serious offence that can lead to you failing the module and even to your suspension from studies. Make sure you understand the rules on plagiarism and collusion. Your markers are experienced at detecting plagiarism and use a range of tools to detect it (although you submit to TurnitIn it is not the only approach we use to identify plagiarism).

Standard UG Assessment Criteria

First    70% + very good analysis   all material that would be expected  originality / extrasExtremely thorough and authoritative execution of the brief. Containing evidence of significant independent research, reflective, perceptive, well-structured showing significant originality in ideas or argument, aptly focused and very well written. Few areas for improvement. Potentially worthy of publication.   Outstanding demonstration of understanding and depth, drawing upon extensive reading. Using outstanding examples and plenty of illustrative data. Providing outstanding evidence of independent research and wider reading. In addition, providing outstanding original perspectives or insights, argued logically.  90-100%
  Excellent execution of the brief, well-structured and clearly argued. Signs of originality and/or independent critical analytical ability. Supported by independent research, materials well utilised; well-focused and well written, displays mastery of the subject matter and of appropriate theories and concepts, but providing few original perspectives or insights.  80-89%
  Very good execution of the brief; well-focused, knowledgeable, some evidence of reading beyond the basic texts and displays a very good knowledge of the subject matter. Very good critical grasp of relevant theories and concepts.  70-79%
Upper second    60%-69% good analysis   all material that would be expected   but nothing extra    (a standard project)  Well-structured and well-focused answer. Comprehensive, although not complete. Showing understanding based on an ability to marshal information and to support arguments with appropriate examples. Some pieces of information or examples go beyond the lecture material in either depth or breadth. Sound grasp of relevant theories and concepts. Approach generally analytical.  65-69%  
As above but either occasionally lacking accuracy or with few examples.  60-64%
Lower second      50%-59% adequate analysis   minor omissions   minor errors  Concise but accurate. Based largely on lecture material. Information presented clearly but lacking any originality, tending to be descriptive in approach. Limited evidence of reading beyond the basic texts.  55-59%
As above but with occasional lapses of accuracy or logic.50-54%
Third    40%-49% basic analysis   omissions   errors  Answer complete but tending to rely entirely on lecture materials. Almost entirely descriptive in approach, limited knowledge and understanding of the subject matter displayed; partial and/or containing errors, poorly structured.  45-49%
  As above but with omissions or errors. Presentation poor. Examples inadequate. Some material relevant to the question. Evidence that the question has been understood in part at least.  40-44%
Fail    <40%   Insufficient focus on question   Inadequate analysis   Little evidence of knowledge and understanding  Inadequate execution of the brief. Highly partial and or containing major errors; contents partly or substantially irrelevant, poorly structured. Displays little knowledge of the subject matter. May contain excessive use of quotations. Inadequate with no substance or scientific understanding but with vague general knowledge relevant to the question.  30-39%
  Seriously inadequate execution of the brief. Failure to focus upon the question, seriously short or even devoid of theoretical under-pinning, large sections irrelevant. Rudimentary knowledge of the subject area. Errors serious and fundamental. Excessive use of quotations.  20-29%
  Little hint of knowledge. May be an answer to a different question.  0-19%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *