Assessment paper 410412: Policy design in EU
Willem Halffman, (date removed).
Team: (made anonymus)
Grade: 8.5
General: Very good paper. Good research work, excellent thinking, well written.
Major flaws: the introduction and executive summary are weak; I was expecting more
solid scientific sources.
1. Essential steps of the analysis
1.1.
Problem definition
Good and to the point on climate change
Good focus on specific renewables. Problem analysis flows naturally from
stakeholder and current policy analysis. Very good.
1.2.
Stakeholders
Good, to the point. You make good use of specific examples, e.g. in the comparison
of the Netherlands vs. Hungary.
1.3.
Existing policies
Excellent overview of current EU policy, excellent characterization of current policy
(p9 “All in all…”), very good identification of the gap in the current policy.
1.4.
Alternatives
Good selection of policies.
Loans: inexpensive? Not so sure. (e.g. think about the complications if somebody
does not pay back the loans – the administration can get quite complicated) I get the
impression you want to run this through banks? (p.13) Maybe you should explain the
KfW-Foerderbank model some more? It gradually becomes more clear.
1.5.
Criteria
Elaborate set of criteria. “Binding” criterion is a bias for certain kinds of policy: not
all policy has to work with force and rules. (It’s the effect that counts.)
Perhaps a discussion of how and why these criteria?
1.6.
Project outcomes/trade-offs
2. Consistent and logical argument
Very good argumentation and logical build-up.
3. Well researched
3.1.
Information gathering
Excellent. You looked for and found very relevant data and examples.
3.2.
Quality of sources
Some good use of the theory articles provided (Birkland), otherwise I was
disappointed by the lack of scientific sources.
3.3.
Reasoning, calculation
Very well argued, calculations meticulous with realistic numbers.
4. Format
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Ok (add in front, does not highlight your
main policy relevant findings)
Ok (add page numbers)
Good
Good
Good
Title
Names
Student number
Organization/place
Date
Executive Summary
Table of contents
References
Page numbers
Length
5. Realism/originality
Good policies. I can see why your two preferred policy options make sense in terms
of your problem analysis, but in both cases I wonder if perhaps these are not policies
best implemented on the level of member states.
6. Other
Work on your English in some parts (although the general level is quite good), e.g.:
P 6 “the government’s positive” = colloquial, use “the government is positive”
Next sentence “but” always preceded by a comma
“One of the stakeholders most affected by the radical change in energy production,
which is needed to reach the 20% reduction goal of the European Union are private
households.” Better: “Private households are one of the stakeholders most affected by
the radical change in energy production. These changes are needed to reach the 20%
reduction goal of the European Union.” (avoid subordinate clauses interrupting your
sentences)
Next sentence: effected = affected, do not start sentences with “But”.
Keep paragraphs well-proportioned (e.g. last one on p 6, first on p7: split)
P 13 will be giving cost-dependently = will be given cost-dependently
Horatory = hortatory (but it is wrong in Birkland too, so don’t worry, it is not a
commonly used term)