Mind-map or outline: Overview Content whether the Great Recession of 2008 affected The political consencus about decentralization & the conventional wisdom abt its impact on economic, po
Trang 1HANOI UNIVERSITY
ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES DEPARTMENT
Academic Reading – Term 3
Pair Reading Project
Student name: 1 Nguyễễn Trà My
2 Bùi Thiễn Nga Student ID#: 1 1904040079
2 1904040080 Lecturer: Ms Bùi Ng c Liễn ọ
2019-2020
Trang 2Pair Reading Project Guideline
Reading is an input skill, and its mastery is clearly illustrated by an output product; thus, reading project is needed for the on-going assessment process of the course The project also encourages your extensive reading related to your major It enhances your teacher’s interaction with you in the same way as between a reader and a writer, through a real cycle of reading and writing You read then write, your teacher reads your work, then writes feedback for you to read.
A Pair Reading Project consists of the following tasks.
1) Pair extensive reading (assignment)
- Your pair select and read an English reading text.
- Each text can be a chapter of a printed book or a research article, journal article or news article.
- It is at least 800 words in length, of A4 paper size with Times News Roman –
font 12.
- It must have a reference source.
- Topic MUST BE an academic topic related to your major.
- Your project must include a soft copy of this reading text: copy the content and paste it in this file – or take a photo and insert the picture into this file (or a hardcopy for offline class).
- First, you are required to create a mind map or an outline (that summarizes this
reading text).
- Second, you are asked to answer a list of “critical analysis and discussion” questions about the text, type the answers, explain the answers and provide evidence Examples of the critical questions are in the textbook The list of questions are provided by the Teacher.
- All work must be typed using the forms provided below (and printed in offline class).
- Pair Extensive Reading covers critical analysis and discussion questions of Week 1 to 7.
- Paper can be refused if it does not meet requirements.
- Teacher will collect your assignments for marking and giving feedback in
Week 8, then return them to you later.
- You MUST keep all your papers with teacher’s feedback.
Trang 3- For online class, send the whole project to the Teacher online.
- For offline class, you will staple the whole project (hardcopy) together, and submit the Pair Reading Project at the end of the course for teacher’s final marking.
2) Pair critical review: 1 pair written paper & 1 brief presentation
Written critical review (of 300 – 400 words)
Your pair use the same English reading text (in the previous Pair Extensive
Reading assignment).
You are required to write a critical review of this text It should be at least 300 –
400 words in length Submit First draft in Week 9 , submit Final draft in Week 11.
PPT presentation about your critical review (maximum 2 minutes)
Your slides display your critical review (text summary & critique).
One of you presents the critical review’s content in Week 11 (one speaker only).
Note:
Do NOT use the same reading text as your classmates, or copy your classmates’ work It is
very easy to see and you will be penalized or have to find a new reading text.
Late submission: Your score will be deducted if you do not complete your tasks on time.
B Resources of reading texts for Pair Reading Project:
Research articles & journal articles from:
HANU library
lib.hanu.vn
Vietnam Journals Online
http://.vjol.info/index/about/
National Library of Vietnam
http://dl.nlv.gov.vn/
Google Scholar
http://scholar.google.com.vn/
Trang 4 Taylor & Francis Journal
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess
Research Gate
http://www.researchgate.net/
Free source:
http://www.freefullpdf.com
ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/
Wiley Online Library
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com
News articles from: e.g The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist,
Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, Financial Times, Washington Post, or other reputable newspaper.
The following resources are NOT ACCEPTED for the Pair Reading Project:
(1) posts on social networks such as Facebook or Twitter;
(3) personal opinion in opinion column on newspaper;
(2) blogs;
(3) YAHOO.COM news reports;
(4) Wikipedia and other similar websites;
(5) Viet Nam News;
(6) textbooks for English language learning
(7) IELTS texts
You MUST select reading topics that are related to your major.
Trang 5Pair Extensive Reading (submitted in Week 8)
Tittle Decentralization after the great recession: fine-tuning or
paradigm change?
Reference
source/web
link:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00343404.2020.17118
78?fbclid=IwAR2OF0BDbM_3uj55jbZgdp8WwihxmJ-XuGkhKgx3URUt0yYQZpHVRhIi9J0
B Mind-map or outline:
Overview
Content whether the Great Recession of 2008 affected
The political consencus about decentralization & the conventional wisdom abt its impact on economic, political & social outcomes
Approach
Examine in depth the effects of the economic & fiscal crisis
Identify & explain differences in political, economic & fiscal performances of the
various countries
Trang 6C Answers to Critical Questions about this reading (the list given by the Teacher):
1 Answer to Question 1:
Where was this text published?
This text was published in a peer- reviewed academic journal because it has been peer-reviewed by many people in the same area of study who have a similar level of expertise The text is also examinated carefully and give opinion on its strength and weeknesses
When was this text published? Is the text up-to-date or outdated?
Consequences of
the great recession
for the quality of
governance
Whether voters hold incombent accountable for the country's economic performance during the
Great Recession
Whether voter's electoral response to the Great Recession is uniform across districts
within countries
Solution
Social protection expenditures are best assigned to the central level of
government
Investments in the traditional drivers
of growth remain the main factors behind successful economic
trajectories
Increasing GV quality is the most effective policy for increasing regional economic performance in lagging
regions
Trang 7The text is up-to-date because it was published online on 31 January 2020.
2 Answer to Question 2:
Who is the author of the reading text? What are his/her credentials,
profession and educational background?
The author of the text cosists of three peoples:
Ignacio Lago: Professor of Political Science at Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona, Spain) and Doctor-Miembro at Juan March Institute (Madrid) His recent publications have appeared in Economics and Politics, Electoral Studies,…
Santiago Lago-Peñas: Full professor and Director of Governance and
Economics research Network (GEN) at University of Vigo in Spain Director
of the Galician Economic Forum.
Jorge Martinez-Vazquez: is a Professor of Economics and Director of the International Studies Program at the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University He has worked as Consultant for the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter American development Bank, USAID, the governments of many countries and state governments in USA.
Is the text biased or objective?
This text is objective because it discussed both sides of the arguments which is how the Great Recession of 2008 affected the political consensus about decentralization and the conventional wisdom about its impacts on economic, political and social outcomes Additionally, the author do not use emotional words.
3 Answer to Question 3:
Who was the text written for?
The text was written for academic audience because it has technical, specialized vocabulary which only for those who specialize in this field.
Why did the author write the text?
The author wrote this text to make a contribution to their field and to add to the bank of knowledge available on how the Great Recession of 2008 affected the political consensus about decentralization and the conventional wisdom about its impacts on economic, political and social outcomes.
4 Answer to Question 4:
Does the author present or imply his/her opinion about the topic in the text? What is his or her opinion?
The author does not present or imply his opinion about the topic.
Does the text present a convincing argument or reliable information about its topic? (Briefly explain why it is convincing/ reliable, or why not).
The text does present a compelling argument and reliable information about its topic because:
+) The author conducted all of the information from trustworthy sources which the person and organization have specialized in the economic field.
+) The information is still new because all of the research dates are only in the range of 2000 to 2019, so is cant be outdated information.
5 Answer to Question 5:
Has the author done empirical research about the topic? (YES or No?)
Trang 8No, the authors have not done empirical research about the topic As we said in the previous answer, the authors used many different reliable sources so this means that the authors do not do the empirical research by themselves; instead, they uses other sources.
Do the author use such types of evidence as anecdotes, visual items, statistics, quotations to support his/her points? Is the evidence convincing and
effectively used? If there is no evidence, how are the author’s points
supported?
The authors use statistics to support their points.
For instance:
- Similarly, the Regional Authority Index elaborated by Hooghe et al (2016) shows that the average level of decentralization in 2007 and 2010 (the last available year)
in a sample of 79 countries has not decreased, but, in fact, slightly increased, from 9.64 to 9.77.
- The 2016 edition of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development’s (OECD) Fiscal Federalism concludes that ‘the consolidated shares of sub-central governments in general government spending and revenue have evolved relatively little over the last two decades or so – even after the onset of the crisis in 2008’ (OECD/KIPF, 2016, p 13).
The pieces of evidence are convinced and effectively used because they are taken from the research of other authors.
Trang 9DECENTRALIZATION AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION: FINE-TUNING OR PARADIGM CHANGE?
Authors : Ignacio Lago, Santiago Lago-Peñas, Jorge Martinez-Vazquez
Words count: 1,927
ABTRACT
The general question addressed in this special issue of Regional Studies is whether the Great Recession of 2008 affected the political consensus about decentralization and the conventional wisdom about its impact on economic, political and social outcomes The present introduction emphasizes the two main lines of enquiry that cut across all the papers in this issue First, the effects of the Great Recession on the relations between national and subnational governments; and second, the differences in political, economic and fiscal performance across countries depending on the extent and quality of the institutions supporting both political and fiscal decentralization
INTRODUCTION
The decentralization of political and economic power has become a defining feature of contemporary representative democracies The dispersion of political authority from national governments to supranational, regional and local ones has expanded rapidly worldwide in the last decades, in what Hooghe, Marks, and Schakel (2010, p 52) have characterized as the ‘era of regionalization’ The consensus position is that the division of functional responsibilities among levels of government increases the efficiency and responsiveness of governments In short, at the beginning of the 21st century, democracies with a highly centralized structure of power are not conceivable As the World Bank has emphatically argued: ‘strategies to stop decentralization are unlikely to succeed, as the pressures to decentralise are beyond government control’ (World Bank, 2000, p 124) The general question addressed in this special issue is whether the Great Recession of 2008 has affected the political consensus about decentralization and the conventional wisdom about its economic, political and social outcomes (Martínez-Vázquez, Lago-Peñas, & Sacchi, 2017; Mookherjee, 2015; Wibbels, 2006).
From a bird's-eye view, at least on the surface, it would appear that no systemic changes have taken place The 2016 edition of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Fiscal Federalism concludes that ‘the consolidated shares of sub-central governments in general government spending and revenue have evolved relatively little over the last two decades or so – even after the onset of the crisis in 2008’ (OECD/KIPF, 2016, p 13) This is in line with the 2014 edition of the same report According
to the OECD (2013, pp 14–15), sub-central tax revenues and intergovernmental grants have remained almost stable since 2008, while the sub-central fiscal consolidation has been achieved mainly through spending cuts Similarly, the Regional Authority Index elaborated
Trang 10by Hooghe et al (2016) shows that the average level of decentralization in 2007 and 2010 (the last available year) in a sample of 79 countries has not decreased, but, in fact, slightly increased, from 9.64 to 9.77.
Even if the 2008 Great Recession has not (yet) remodelled the architecture of local and regional authorities, it has open up a vivid debate over the benefits and costs of decentralization power According to the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (2013), the economic and financial crisis has had ‘a major impact on Europe's approach to the organization of services and the question of financial independence … Certain governmental actions run counter to these principles [the desire of greater decentralization and the principle of subsidiarity]’ Similarly, the debate has also become popular among citizens with the Great Recession putting into question the extent to which the political and economic power in European Union countries has to be shared between national and supranational institutions.
The papers in this special issue of Regional Studies take part in this ongoing debate about how the dispersion of political and economic authority across levels of government has been challenged in recent times The approach is multidisciplinary with contributions from economic, political science and economic geography perspectives The papers pursue two main objectives First, they examine in depth the effects of the economic and fiscal crisis that hit much of the world in 2008 on the relations between national and subnational governments Second, they identify and explain differences in political, economic and fiscal performances of the various countries depending on the extent and quality of the institutions supporting both political and fiscal decentralization More specifically, when decentralization is the input, the topic addressed here is to what extent the consequences of the Great Recession on the quality of governance are driven by decentralization; when decentralization is the output, how decentralization conditions the political and economic effects of the Great Recession.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE GREAT RECESSION FOR THE QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE
The first set of papers focuses on the social, political and electoral dimensions of decentralization after the Great Recession Pablo Beramendi and Melissa Rogers, in ‘Fiscal decentralization and the distributive incidence of the Great Recession’ (2019, in this issue), focus on the relationship between decentralization and inequality Using a difference-in-differences approach and data from 21 OECD countries in the years following the Great Recession, they find that fiscally decentralized nations saw increased interpersonal inequality and lower redistribution, but lower interregional inequality.
The second topic addressed in this section is whether voters hold incumbents accountable for the country's economic performance during the Great Recession, and how electoral accountability is channelled by the degree of decentralization of political and economic power Ruth Dassonneville and Michael Lewis-Beck, in ‘Inequality and party support: positional economic voting or a new dimension of valence’ (2019, in this issue), take advantage of the Great Recession to examine whether economic growth and inequality are valence or position issues for voters in established democracies, and the extent to which their effect on election outcomes is driven by federalism Somewhat surprisingly, they find that both left- and right-wing incumbents are held accountable for changes in inequality, suggesting that inequality can affect the vote in a valence way, while federalism does not affect these outcomes In a third paper, Ignacio Lago and André Blais, in ‘Decentralization and electoral swings’ (2019, in this issue), explore whether voters’ electoral response to the