Call/WhatsApp: +1 914 416 5343

economics of arts and cultural industry

economics of arts and cultural industry

Order Description
3. Considering the changing environment of the broadcasting industry, does microeconomic analysis provide justification (or not) for the BBC to continue in its current form?

Econ362 Coursework
Write an essay of no more than 3500 words on any oneof the following titles. Coursework to be submitted word-processed, electronically and hardcopy to the student support office by 4pm, Friday 18th December, 2015 (submission to: Dr Sarah Louisa Phythian-Adams).
1. Someone was willing to pay $12million for a stuffed shark!?How goodsattaintheir market value under neoclassical economic theory and critical extensions.

Unpacking Notes: This is essentially asking you to extend neoclassical theory for goods with creative content. You can focus on fine or popular arts if you wish and use any examples. You are not limited by the Damien Hirstexample in the title. A good idea when answering an open question is to include in the opening paragraph specification of what you will discuss.

2. The rise of the internetand contemporary creative markets. Is it a case of adapt and survive or should Governments do more to encourage regulatory framework, i.e. Intellectual Property (particularly copyright) protection?

Unpacking Notes: ‘Contemporary’ creative markets can include any markets where the rise of digitally accessible media has had an impact, e.g. Music, TV, movies, books etc. You can consider many, or focus on one or a few. Make your own delimitations on interpretation of the title clear in the first paragraph of your essay. Arguments that the rise of digital commerce has essentially ‘made’ markets while digital piracy has ‘broken’ others should be considered. Please consider both sides of any debate, but provide your own opinions and conclusions. Underlying economic theory include theory of contestable markets (IP creating monopolies) and Coasian transaction costs among others.

3. Considering the changing environment of the broadcasting industry, does microeconomic analysis provide justification (or not) for the BBC to continue in its current form?

Unpacking Notes: The BBC is the UK’s public service broadcaster, currently funded by mandatory license fee, but its remit is due for renewal in 2016. Even though the question states ‘economic justification’, you can includeissues of social welfare as they are generally considered in economic analyses.

Further guidance:
Submission deadline: 4pm, Friday 18th December, 2014
Essays will be marked and feedback returned by latest Friday 8th January, 2015. (This is within the standard 3-week return window, as the University officially closes between Christmas and New Year)
The maximum length of the essay is 3,500 words (excluding footnotes, appendices, tables and graphs imported from a secondary source and attributed as such and reference list. The word count does include direct quotations, summaries or citations used to credit the source of an idea or to support a point or argument within the main text of the essay, including the name, date and page number [where applicable] used to attribute the source). 3,500 words is the strict maximum, there is no “margin for error”.
This coursework requires dual submission. You must hand in a hard copy to the Student Support Office (post into the black submission boxes outside the office). You must also submit a soft copy via Turnitin, which is a plagiarism and collusion detection system. If you do not submit to Turnitin your work will not be marked. Failure to submit two identical versions (one in hard copy, one via Turnitin) will attract a penalty of 10 marks.
To submit via Turnitin, you go to the assessment area for the module on VITAL and you will find a link for the coursework. Click on View/Complete and then on the “submit” icon for the paper. You are then prompted to submit a title for the paper. Use the “browse” button to locate the file you want to submit, then click “submit”. You will then be asked to confirm that you want to submit by clicking the “Yes, submit” button.”

Tips for achieving good marks (and avoiding problems) in your essay assessments:
Marking of the essay will be according to the university guidelines, as laid out in your undergraduate handbook. You are advised to check your essay against these guidelines before submission in order to achieve as a high a mark as you are capable.
The work submitted must be your own with all sources drawn on properly attributed.
You are strongly advised to read carefully the Code of Practice on Assessment, Appendix L, which deals with Policy for Dealing with Plagiarism, Collusion and Fabrication of Data, which provides a definitive statement of University policy, including penalties. This is available at:
http://www.liv.ac.uk/tqsd/pol_strat_cop/cop_assess/appendix_L_cop_assess.pdf
The penalties for academic offences can be serious ranging from loss of marks for an assignment, zero for an assignment, zero for a module, suspension of studies for a year and, for very serious offences, termination of studies. It is important that you make sure you are familiar with the policy.
A brief guide, which does not replace the official policy, is that you should avoid:
Minor errors, such as missing quotation marks when quoting word for word, minor mistakes in references or incomplete reference lists. ULMS policy is a loss of up to 5% of the available marks for the assessment.
Poor practice, which includes poor paraphrasing when summarising someone else’s words and inadequate referencing. University policy is that your mark to be reduced to a bare pass. You will also have an academic offence noted on your academic record.
Plagiarism, which is passing off other people’s work as your own, which may be by using their words without attribution, passing their idea off as your own or copying and pasting tables, diagrams or images. Copying, which involves copying another students work without their knowledge. Collusion which involves working with other students to produce the same or substantially the same piece of work and passing the work off as your own individual effort. Collusion may also be with people who are not students on your course. Making up or embellishing data. These offences carry a penalty of 0 for the assignment for a first offence and 0 for the module for any subsequent offence. The offence will be recorded in your student record.
Very serious instances (or repeated offences) of plagiarism, fabrication and collusion (particularly commissioning someone else to write your assignment for you) may lead to suspension or termination of studies.
The following table sets out the standard guidelines on penalties that may be imposed:
The School has agreed that the following penalties will be imposed on coursework where students are found not to have followed the guidelines set down. No piece of coursework which achieves a mark of 40% or more before the application of penalties will be reduced below the pass mark once penalties are taken into account.
DEVIATION FROM GUIDELINES/REQUIREMENTS PENALTY
Coursework presented in a form that is difficult to read, e.g., if not word-processed, in a font that makes it hard to read, in single spacing or with inadequate margins. 5% of the overall mark available for the piece of work will be deducted.
Coursework exceeds the maximum word length specified by the module leader. 3 marks or pro rata per part thereof will be deducted for every 100 words by which the work exceeds the maximum length. E.g., 6 marks will be lost for work that exceeds the limit by 200 words, 1 mark will be lost for work that exceeds the limit by 30 words, etc.
Inadequate referencing. See the University’s Academic Integrity Policy at https://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/tqsd/code-of-practice-on-assessment/appendix_L_cop_assess_annex1.pdfFailure to include a list of references or a Bibliography. Up to 5% of the overall mark available for the piece of work.
Failure to submit identical pieces of work in hard copy and electronically. 10 marks will be deducted from the marked version.

Use of Wikipedia or other Wiki sites as a primary source of research. Penalty to be determined by the module leader – see module handbook for details.

Marking Criteria for Assignments

The School has developed a series of assessment criteria for use in qualitative work. These cover assignments, examinations, presentations, dissertations and learning logs.

90-100% 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, in appropriate register; few areas for improvement.
80-89% Thorough execution of the brief, well-structured, clearly argued, signs of
originality and/or independent critical analytical ability. Supported by independent research, materials well utilized; well focused and very well written.
70-79% Good execution of the brief; well-focused, knowledgeable, well-written,
strong evidence of reading beyond the basic texts and displays mastery of the subject matter.
60%-69% Well-structured and well-focused answer with strong evidence of reading beyond the basic texts. Well-written with few linguistic errors, thorough and comprehensive in approach. Displays a good knowledge of the subject matter and an ability to discuss theories and concepts.
50-59% Competently structured answer, reasonably well-focused and
comprehensive but tending to be descriptive in approach. Limited evidence of reading beyond the basic texts. Reasonably well-written, perhaps some minor errors in spelling, register grammar or syntax.
40%-49% Relies largely upon lecture materials and basic texts. Descriptive in approach, limited knowledge and understanding of the subject matter displayed; partial and/or containing significant errors and/or irrelevancies; poorly structured. Perhaps some inaccuracies in English which occasionally affect comprehension of ideas.
30%-39% Inadequate execution of the brief. Highly partial and/or containing serious
errors; contents partly or substantially irrelevant. Poorly structured. Displays little knowledge of the subject matter. Perhaps some inaccuracies in English which affect comprehension of ideas.
0% – 29% Seriously inadequate execution of the brief. Failure to focus upon the question. Seriously short or even devoid of theoretical under-pinning. Large sections irrelevant. Evidence of potential plagiarism. Perhaps some serious weaknesses in use of English which affect the communication of ideas.

Leave a Reply