1. The title could be changed adaptively.
2. Core concept: explain why China chose to liberalize its trade policy in the 1990s
3. Note please include data about China’s FDI
4. Paper structure:
(introduce the question, the topic, or the exact puzzle that you’re looking at. For me, it is the large influx of FDI in 1990s China, related data https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.WD.GD.ZS?locations=CN
Your literature reviews should be between 2 and 3 pages, and should discuss the various explanations for the puzzle explored in your paper (for many of you, the puzzle is the timing and speed of a specific developing country to liberalize its international trade policy). Completing this assignment will require you to start reading more about your specific case. What types of explanations have you found? You will find some explanations in books and articles about your specific case. You will find other explanations in articles and books that study trade policy more broadly, and develop general arguments that might be applied to your case.
A helpful example of a literature review can be found in the Milner and Kubota article on the syllabus. In the opening pages of their article, they discuss the existing explanations for developing countries opening up to the global economy. Your literature review should include readings from class, as well as readings you find on your own. To be clear, your literature review should be written prose (like a section of a paper), not an annotated bibliography.
a long recognized puzzle and there are lots of people that have written about this and related questions about trade liberalization. And then sort of that review is just basically saying what’s out there to help you answer this question. the transition from the lit review to the argument should be something like, even though there’s all this stuff out there, it can’t answer this part of it.
In this section, explain why your country chose to liberalize its trade policy. You should present your argument in general terms that could apply to other cases of liberalization as well. This means describing the argument without referring to the specifics of your case.
Second, after presenting your general argument in this way, you should then present a short description of how your argument applies in your case. For instance, this would be a summary of your overall argument for your case study.
Methodology and data
Describe the primary documents that you plan to use for your research project. This will require you to identify some of the actors/groups that you think are key to explaining the trade policy change at the core of your paper. For example, if you think that labor unions played an important role, what type of documents will you need? The meeting minutes from union meetings? Union pamphlets? Local newspapers? Or maybe you think that the rhetorical style that a political leader used was important. What will you need? Public speeches? Records from parliamentary debates? Beyond identifying what types of primary documents you’ll need, you should demonstrate that you’ve made some progress in finding and reading them.
Why X or Y or Z were really important. I gathered or I’m going to analyze these documents from these sources and kind of like explained what the evidence is that you’re going to use to sort of adjudicating or test your argument basically, against the other arguments out there
Case study—primarysecondary resources, can be explained by your argument
here’s like this puzzle that can’t be explained as other things. My my explanation can explain it and the highlight throughout it. So the extent that you can, that like there are these puzzles that other explanations can explain So that’s sort of like a test of your argument versus the others. And then, you know, a bulk of it will be this evidence, this sort of like, case study, it can be a narrative. Or it could be, you know, you could structure the narratively sort of like, just like walking through the timeline. Or if you have it in you, you can do this sort of, like, near analytical framework where you’d say, like, you know, there are three parts of my argument, and I’m going to break up the case study into these three parts. And then they might be like, slightly repetitive chronologically, right. So instead of just being like, this is what happened and this and this and this, you might say, like, I think that there were like three major things, the IMF and labor unions and the same type. And then like, the three sections could be like, This is what the IMF did during these three years. And then this is what labor unions did during these three years. And then this is what like for Steam chamber, like during this three years, it’s been sort of like, go from like, you know, year one to year three, then again, your one, year three, your one, year three, you can start like sum it up altogether and have this thing subtracted. It’s up to you
1. The title could be changed adaptively.