Academic year and term: Semester One 2019/20
Module title: Managerial Economics
Learning outcomes 1. Knowledge outcome – You will be able to develop your
capacity to analyse the economic environments in which
assessed within this piece
business entities operate and how managerial decisions can
of work as agreed at the
programme level meeting vary under different constraints
2. Intellectual /transferrable skills outcome – You will be able to
consider and apply a complex economic theory to the ‘real
world’ behaviour of firms
Type of assessment: Summative: Individual Coursework
(60%)-Essay (2500 word limit)
Assessment deadline: Summative ( Individual Coursework): 2pm on Wednesday,
10thth January 2020
Assessment Part 1: Individual Coursework
(This component accounts for 60% of total module marks)
Deadline for handing in the Assignment: 2pm,10th of January, 2020
Instructions for assessment
Answer ANY ONE of the following two questions (Both questions carry equal weightings)
Question 1: “The extent to which firms vertically integrate is determined by the trade-off
between technical and agency efficiency”. Evaluate this statement with reference to the
relevant theory and empirical examples. (Word limit: 2500 words)
Question 2: Discuss how the principal- agent relation is linked to the issue of Moral hazard? Using a suitable empirical context, assess the severity of the problem and briefly suggest possible solutions to the problem/s you have identified. (Word limit: 2500 words)
The maximum length of the assignment should be 2,500 words ((+/- 10 %,), excluding appendices and bibliography.
Important information regarding the preparation of your work
1. In completing this task, be sure to draw on the concepts and analytical tools you have learnt about during the module, making direct reference to subject materials (i.e. the prescribed text, courseware and other resources). Students who fail to comply with this directive will find it difficult to receive a pass mark.
2. High marks will be awarded for good, critical analysis, rather than for content merely stitched together from websites and other sources.
In particular, the following assessment criteria and weightings will apply:
• Subject Knowledge: Assignment demonstrates student has understood key topics (35%)
• Quality/Scope of Literature Review: Understanding of established knowledge; Use of suitable sources focused to answer key questions (25%)
• Analysis: Quality/level of analytical skill demonstrated in discussing key points
• Application and Insightfulness of Analysis: Use of appropriate examples, Relevance and Usefulness of findings, Conclusions drawn (15%).
• Assignment Structure, Presentation, and Quality of Writing: clarity of aims, objective, structure and presentation, Readability and ability to convey key messages concisely, correct referencing (10%)
How will we support you with your assessment?
• The formative assignment will consist of a short plan (max A4 size page) outlining the key concepts/theory and the case example. You will receive formative feedback in Week 9-10. This will take the form of comments on a one page plan that is submitted via Moodle on part 1 of the assignment. This plan should be submitted by Week 8. Plans that are submitted after the deadline will not receive any feedback.
• There will be an assessment briefing in Week 1.
How will your work be assessed?
Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking grid provided in this
assessment brief. The scripts are also moderated internally and externally complying with
the University marking guidelines. When you access your marked work it is important that
you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.
You MUST use the Harvard System. The Harvard system is very easy to use once you
become familiar with it.
The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not as a pdf) and must not include scanned in text or text boxes. They must be submitted
by 2pm on the given date.
Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work
The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website
Marking and feedback process
Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below.
• Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided.
• Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.
• Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback
• Step Four – Work at Levels 5 and 6 then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair
• Step Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the office and made available to you.
Marking Rubric (Guiding Criteria) for Assessing Summative Essays
Outstanding Excellent Very Good Good (60-69) Satisfactory Adequate (40-49) Marginal Fail Fail (20-29) 25 Not done 0
100 (80-89) 85 (70-79) 75 65 (50-59) 55 45 (30-39) 35
Criterion 1 “Exceptional Contains all Contains all Contains all Contains most Contains basic Contains only Contains none Missing.
SUB knowledge and information information or almost all information (core) information a limited or almost none Wholly
knowledge understanding required, required, with information required, with required, with amount of of information incorrect or not
(35%): of material, with no no major required, with no or very few some major and information required and attempted.
Understandin main errors. errors and no no major major errors minor errors. required, with with many
g of concepts/theori Evidence of or very few errors and and some Demonstrates numerous major and minor
established es at this level. study minor errors. only a few minor errors. limited major and errors.
knowledge Awareness of beyond the Demonstrate minor errors. Demonstrates understanding of minor errors. Demonstrates
the limitation of module s substantial Demonstrates modest but topic and its Demonstrates no
their content. understandin some incomplete context. little understanding
knowledge, Demonstrat g of topic understandin understanding understanding of topic and its
and how this es superb within a wider g of topic of topic and its of topic and its context.
influences any understandi context. within a wider context. context.
analyses and ng of topic context.
interpretations within a
based on that wider
Criterion 2 “Exceptional An excellent A near A large A reasonable Some useful and Only a small Little useful or Missing.
Quality and account of the account of flawless amount of amount of relevant literature amount of relevant Wholly
Scope of relevant the relevant account of relevant relevant and concepts relevant literature and incorrect or not
Literature literature and literature, the relevant literature, and literature, and have been literature, and concepts have attempted.
Review (25%): concepts have and literature, concepts concepts have provided. concepts have been provided.
Use of been concepts and concepts have been been provided. been provided.
suitable provided”. have been have been provided.
sources, provided. provided.
Criterion 3 “Exceptional Ideas Ideas Ideas Ideas not Ideas rarely Ideas rarely Ideas Missing.
Analysis (15 demonstration expressed expressed generally always expressed expressed expressed Wholly
%) : Quality of of logically and logically and logically and expressed expressed logically and logically and incoherently. No incorrect or not
analytical skill coherently coherently. coherently. logically and logically and coherently. coherently. linking of ideas attempted.
demonstrated presentation of Excellent Effective use coherently. coherently. Limited use of Little or no use within text. Little
ideas and use use of of Competent Adequate use appropriate of appropriate or no use of
of analytical/ appropriate appropriate use of of appropriate analytical / analytical / appropriate
diagrammatical analytical / analytical / appropriate analytical / diagrammatic diagrammatic analytical /
exposition. diagrammati diagrammatic analytical / diagrammatic exposition. exposition. diagrammatic
c exposition. diagrammatic exposition. exposition.
Criterion 4 Exceptional Excellent Very good Good Limited No adaptation or No adaptation No adaptation Missing.
Application adaptation and adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation and application of or application or application of Wholly
(15%): Use of application of and and and application of concepts. Some of concepts. concepts. incorrect or not
appropriate concepts to application application of application of concepts. irrelevant Much Largely attempted.
examples, appropriate of concepts. concepts. concepts. Some material. irrelevant irrelevant
conclusions examples and No Little or no Some irrelevant material. material.
drawn conclusions irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant material.
drawn material. material. material.
Criterion 5 “Exceptional Excellent Effective Competent Limited Minimal No integration No integration Missing.
Structure and integration of integration integration of integration of integration of integration of of ideas and of ideas and Wholly
Presentation ideas and of ideas and ideas and ideas and ideas and ideas and information. information. incorrect or not
(10%): information. information. information. information. information. information. Poor Very poor attempted.
Readability Outstanding Outstanding Excellent Good Adequate Adequate formatting and formatting and
and ability to formatting and formatting formatting formatting formatting and formatting and presentation presentation
convey key presentation and and and presentation presentation throughout. throughout.
message(s) throughout the presentation presentation presentation throughout the throughout the Referencing is Referencing is
concisely; assignment. throughout throughout throughout assignment. assignment. limited extremely
Correct Outstanding the the the Referencing Referencing limited
referencing. criticality of assignment. assignment. assignment. contains some contains many
argument and Outstanding Excellent Good omissions and omissions and
referencing referencing referencing referencing inconsistencie inconsistencies.
throughout. throughout. throughout. throughout. s.
RESIT / DEFERRAL Assessment: RESIT/ DEFERRAL assessments will mirror those of the main assessment and will have two similar components (in-class test and a coursework). The date of the in-class test (RESIT/ DEFERRAL) will be announced in due course.
Resit Coursework: Submission Date- April, 2020 (TBC)
For students who are offered a resit you are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective commentary discussing what you have learned from the process.
You must resubmit your work using the specific resit Turnitin link on Moodle.
1.Review your previously submitted work and read carefully the feedback given by the marker.
2. Use this feedback to help you revisit and rewrite your work, improving it in the areas identified as weak in the original marking process
3. Include with your resubmission an additional reflective piece (up to 500 words) on what you understand was weak, how you set about addressing this and what you have learned from this that may help you with further assignments. You should address the following specifically:
i) Identify tutor feedback points on your original work and identify where/how the resit work has changed (give page number) in response to feedback
ii) Identify the lessons you have learnt from doing the resit.
iii) Reflect on how your feedback and this process will help you improve future assignments
The original marking criteria will still apply (see rubric above) except that the 10% weighting for presentation will be awarded instead to your reflective piece.
If you did not submit work at the first opportunity you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, you are still required to submit a reflective piece in which you identify your reasons for non-submission, the implications of non-submission for your future success and how you propose to address this in the future. If you have issues with confidentiality of your reasons for non-submission then you could reflect on how you have met the learning outcomes for the module, how you can use what you have done on the module to support your future career and what skills/employability attributes you feel the module has helped you to develop.
If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece as this is a first submission at a later date, not a resit. You will be submitting your work to be marked separately in a dedicated turnitin submission box. Your work will be marked against the marking criteria set out in the original assessment brief.