Talk:National laws for global capital markets - A contradiction?

From VCSEwiki
Revision as of 11:52, 16 January 2010 by Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello Marenka, your review if very good, of course, it was easier for you as I have published my remarks already. But you are right, all these terms and features should be described. The author should be aware of the readers´ audience to whom he is speaking and should use the language they are familiar with. If he speaks to the expert community (which is not too much our case) he should follow customary practice in the field.

--Jana Dlouha 09:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Review by Marenka Krasomil

1. Basic criteria

1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High)

1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High)

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High)

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High) 2. Summary Comments for Author(s)

2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (Medium) ......................

2.2. Originality of the paper (High) ......................

2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High) ......................

2.4. Accurate information (Yes) .........................

2.5. Current information (Yes) .......................

2.6. Methodology (Yes) ...........................

2.7. Writing style is generally (Readable) ....................

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes) ....................

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) ....................

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes).......... 3. Written Comments for Author(s)

4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):

4.1. Publish as is

4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications

4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications

4.4. Unacceptable (select following option):

4.4.1. Not appropriate for the content/theme of the Course

4.4.2. Technically deficient

4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor Resource

Dear Stefan, First of all I am very sorry that I did not posted my comments earlier, I hope you still have enough time to read my comments and improve your text.

I really like your theme, I think it is a very current topic in respect to the financial crisis and in regards to globalisation. Though I had some difficulties to understand every thing, you could express some parts more in detail, even if I know that it is a very wide filed and the seminar just offers a small access.

Starting with your first text, there you give a short and brief introduction of your theme. You describe the changes in financial markets linked to the upcoming connection of globalisation and capital markets. This Introduction gives a good overview.

The main text is well structured, you start with an overview of historical events that are necessary to understand the following. In the first paragraph you mention general global effects as the interlinking between countries and markets. Here you could mention some more, that especially occur through the financial market. In the next paragraphs the argumentation structure is good organised, the whole text has a coherent structure, you write a thesis and after you prove it with arguments and resources. To give the reader a better and closer look to the argumentations you should go more in detail. You describe that companies try to maximize their earnings by locating their new factories in countries with the best conditions. Why is it a “quite new factor in global economy” ? You could describe the changes more considerably. What exactly do you mean by writing “the rising of quantity of financial instruments” ? It would help to understand if you explain more in detail what you mean with the quantity of instruments.

In the conclusion part you pick up the main problem, again “national laws for global capital markets- a contradiction ?” that brings it to a good conclusion. You describe that a supranational institution is required, what kind of institution could that be, what kind of capacity and competences should it offer? You mention the IMF and that it couldn’t fulfilled this task because it does not has appropriate responsibilities, how could the responsibilities look like, that the IMF would have the chance to fulfil its tasks properly ? I agree with you that Europe plays an important role for global markets and that the USA has a more aggressive way of acting in economic affairs. Do you think the new government with Obama could change anything about that ? Do you think the USA could focus on better regulations together with Europe?

In your whole text you use technical terms that are necessary though your writing stile readable that makes it easier to understand the topic with its professional demand.

Greetings Marenka

Assessment from January 4th - Jana Dlouhá


Stefan, your article has a good main idea (“research question”) and according to the abstract should be addressing very important topic. The main problem with it is that on such a restricted space the problems are only briefly outlined and not tackled in depth. Some of the problems you are not analyzing at all, e.g. “Actual existing institutions’ structures are inappropriate to fulfill this task.” is a very strong statement and not explained at all! You should at least figure out main institutions in the area under observation and say why they failed in their mission – or not mention this aspect at all. (You could read Economic Globalization and Institutions of Global Governance from the Part 4 for that).

I still consider your idea (the baasis of your text) good, but you have payed not sufficient attention to write it thoroughly (including some formal features).

--Jana Dlouha 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from December 8th

Your topic deserves the whole book and it is difficult to explain everything on a restricted space. So, you often start argumentation but do not explain the problem in depth - it is out of context then. Concentrate on smaller issues with clear conclusions.

Your article would deserve more extensive introduction describing problems and possibly benefits of global markets (you have deleted the previous intro?).

--Jana Dlouha 10:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)