[SOLVED] International Economic Institutions
Do international economic institutions make developing countries economically better or worse off?- The maximum length of the paper is 1,500 words (not counting the works cited section). State your word count at the beginning of your paper. There is no word minimum. However, it is generally a good idea to take advantage of the space you have to write a comprehensive paper.- The paper must include a works cited section where you list all the readings cited in the paper.- The paper should be double-spaced, with standard formatting for fonts and margins; it should include the page number for each page.SOURCES- This is not a research paper. External research is neither required nor expected.- The sources for the paper are the class readings.TOPIC CHOICESQ1: Do international economic institutions make developing countries economically better or worse off?STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER- State your thesis early in the paper (in the 1st sentence)- Describe and assess the logic of your argument Describe and assess the logic of the alternative argument- Address the evidence- Convincingly and clearly argue, referring to the logic and the evidence, why your argument is better than the alternativesThe paper emphasizes analysis and asks you to take a side in a debate. Your thesis is a statement of which side of the debate you think is more persuasive. For topic 1, you can argue that international institutions make developing countries better off, or that they make developing countries worse off.The side of the debate you choose is associated with your argument; the side of the debate that you do not choose is your counterargument. E.g., if you are arguing that international economic institutions make developing countries better off than the counterargument is that they make developing countries worse off. Your paper needs to present the strongest possible case for BOTH sides of the debate, including the one you are arguing against. You need to describe and asses the causal logic behind both sides of the debate. The casual logic should be developed by analyzing relevant arguments from the readings. Identify and address scholars and theories who argue in favor of international institutions or who criticize those institutions (topic 1), In doing so, you should emphasize analysis: show clearly and directly why some arguments are more persuasive than others. Explain specifically why the logic behind the counterargument is flawed and why the logic behind your side of the debate is more sound. You should also be comprehensive in incorporating a number of relevant readings, authors and issues.The paper should consider relevant empirical evidence from the class readings. Scholars and analysts make claims and predictions about how the world works. Are those predictions supported by relevant evidence (e.g.: the track record of international economic institutions; history of great power politics)? Refer with specificity to relevant empirical evidence. Do not ignore evidence that does not favor your side of the debate; rather show why the evidence is overall more consistent with your side of the debate than the counterargument.Finally, to strengthen the paper, work on overall organization and coherence. Avoid the following problems: 1) writing a laundry list paper. Addressing a number of relevant authors and arguments is good and it makes your paper more comprehensive. However, you also need to develop a coherent analytical structure showing why overall some arguments are more persuasive than others. You should not only write a list of authors along the lines of: scholar A says X, scholar B says Y [ ], and stop there without doing analysis. 2) a paper that reads like you are trying to figure out what you want to say as you go along. Instead, write a paper with a coherent overall structure.Overall, this is a paper that emphasizes analysis based on the class readings. Think about the following question: how do you know? Write with an analytical purpose. E.g., when discussing what happened in country X at time Y, go beyond being descriptive and telling a story: make an analytical point about how and why that development supports or is inconsistent with a certain theoretical perspective. Always back your claims by reference to the arguments and the evidence from the readings.CITATIONS- Identify your source within the text of the paper. Key: identify the author of the text ((e.g., if citing the Wallerstein chapter of the Lechner and Boli book, identify Wallerstein). If you are citing multiple chapters from the Lechner and Boli book, list each chapter separately in the works cited, rather than only listing the Lechner and Boli book.- Cite the author in parentheses at the end of sentence (or within a sentence) but always according to the format author/year/page (i.e. Keohane and Martin 1995, 40). If cited within a sentence the format should be According to Keohane and Martin (1995, 40) - Include a works cited section at the end with all the relevant information. Example: Keohane, Robert O. and Lisa L. Martin. 1995. International Security 20(Summer): 39-51- Follow APSA style and consult the following document: http://www.psci.unt.edu/~pmcollins/APSA%20Citation%20and%20Reference%20Guidelines.pdf (Links to an external site.)- If you prefer to follow another commonly used citation style (e.g., Chicago style), that is fine.STYLE GUIDELINES- Avoid long verbatim quotations, rather paraphrase and use your own words, while citing the source you are referring to.- Break up long paragraphs.- Proofread the essay before submission.
