Business Economics | My Assignment Tutor

1BSc (Hons) Business ManagementAssignment Brief Module TitleBusiness EconomicsModule Credit Value20Module Level4Module CodeLSME505Academic Year2020/2021 Term 3 (Sept 2019 & Sept 2020 Evening G4)LecturerHillary KorakeghaLearning OutcomesOn successful completion of this module students will be able to: Understand how changes in the economy affect business decisions and thebehaviour of firms. Discuss the operation of a market and how … Continue reading “Business Economics | My Assignment Tutor”

1BSc (Hons) Business ManagementAssignment Brief Module TitleBusiness EconomicsModule Credit Value20Module Level4Module CodeLSME505Academic Year2020/2021 Term 3 (Sept 2019 & Sept 2020 Evening G4)LecturerHillary KorakeghaLearning OutcomesOn successful completion of this module students will be able to: Understand how changes in the economy affect business decisions and thebehaviour of firms. Discuss the operation of a market and how market structure influences a firm’sproduction and strategic decisions. Explain how market imperfections and market failure, particularly in labour andfinancial products, affect entrepreneurial activity. Interpret how government economic policies shape business strategy anddecisions made by management.Issue Date24.5.2021SubmissionDeadlineAssignment 1: Essay 23.04.2021 4:00 PMAssignment 2: Case Study 28.05.2021 4:00 PMSignature of AssessorHillary Korakegha 2Module DescriptionUnderstanding how market economies work is a key management skill. Even the not-for-profit andvoluntary sectors are subject to profound economic forces that affect their operations. The moduleconsiders the two main branches of economics; how individual markets operate (microeconomics),and how economies operate at the aggregate level (macroeconomics). Many economic models andconcepts are theoretical but nevertheless lead to insights that reduce uncertainty in a constantlychanging business environment.Assessment TasksThere are TWO assignments to be completed in this module: Assignment 1 – (Essay) 2000 words +/- 10%Total Weighting: 50%Intended Learning Outcomes: 1 and 2 Assignment 2 – (Case study) 2000 words +/- 10%Total Weighting: 50%Intended Learning Outcomes: 3 and 4Assignment 1: Essay1. Write a constructive essay which clearly shows how changes in the economy can affect businessdecisions and the behaviour of firms with a discussion on the operation of a market and influenceof market structure on a firm’s production and strategic decisions.[100 Marks]Assignment 1 – Indicative Marking Criteria EssayA* 80%+High FirstAn excellent answer will have the following attributes: Exceptionally broad factual and conceptual understanding of howchanges in the economy can affect business decisions and the behaviour offirms Exceptional discussions with various examples of market operations andclearly explain how market structure influences a firm’s production andstrategic decisions Exceptionally well structured and well-presented arguments Correct use of English language Referencing in correct Harvard StyleA 70 – 79%First ClassAll components will have been submitted, and the remaining criteria will be asnoted for the 80%+ marking band. However, in one or two areas, thesubmission will be open to minor criticism.B 60 – 69 %Upper Second A good factual and conceptual understanding of how changes in theeconomy can affect business decisions and the behaviour of firms A robust discussion with various examples which establishes marketoperations and clear explanations of how market structure influences a firm’sproduction and strategic decisions 3  Clear and logical structure showing the progression of ideas andargument There may be some minor mistakes in presentation or referencing.C 50 – 59%Lower SecondAll components will have been submitted, and the remaining criteria will be asnoted for the 60-69% marking band. However, there will be some gaps inknowledge and analysis.D 40 – 49%Third Class A basic level of factual and conceptual understanding of how changes inthe economy can affect business decisions and the behaviour of firms Mainly descriptive with limited evidence of deeper understanding of variousexamples of market operations and clear explanations of how marketstructure influences a firm’s production and strategic decisions Limited evidence of understanding of the forces that are playing keypart in shaping the future organisations Weak structure with some mistakes in grammar or sentence structure. References may have some style errors.F 30 – 39%Fail The submission has a few major flaws. A few important sections are missing. Inadequate explanation and/or analysis. Major language and referencing errorsF 0 – 29%Poor Fail The submission has a large number of major flaws. Most important sections are missing. Assignment requirements not met at any level Assignment 2: Case studyTopic: The case for OFSMOKE: how tobacco price regulation is needed to promote the health ofmarkets, government revenue and the publicThis case study is adapted from OFSMOKE: how tobacco price regulation is needed to promote thehealth of markets, government revenue and the public by Gilmore et al. (2010): BMJ Journals,http:// about/unlocked.xhtmlNote * This case study has been modified specifically for this module to enable students to focus onthe required learning outcomes.INTRODUCTIONThis paper makes a radical proposal for the regulation of tobacco markets which are overwhelminglydominated by cigarettes. It shows how market failure, in the form of market power, combined withwell-intentioned and necessary tobacco control policies, including taxation and marketing restrictions,have had the unintended consequence of giving cigarette manufacturers considerable pricing powerand profits. In so doing it outlines an overlooked issue in tobacco control: gradual increases in specifictaxes benefit cigarette manufacturers by enabling them to increase prices and thus profits, an issuewhich explains why industry profits continue to increase despite falling cigarette sales. It then exploresways of addressing this problem, proposing as a solution a system of price cap regulation which, bycapping cigarette manufacturers’ prices but not the price that consumers face at retail outlets, wouldallow governments to maintain and expand their tobacco control policies while mitigating theirunintended consequences. In other words, this proposal would allow tax increases to remain a centraltenet of tobacco control policy, but would do so while simultaneously preventing the highmanufacturer profits and market distortions. To explore how this might work in practice this paper4uses the UK as an example, outlining how such an approach would not only address market failureand capture the rent currently accruing to the tobacco industry for the public purse, but also bringnumerous public health advantages. Finally, the paper suggests that such a system could be appliedto most markets, including those with state monopolies, by adapting it as necessary to the nationalcontextPROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT TOBACCO MARKET AND THE TOBACCO PRICING SYSTEMMarket failureMainstream economic theory outlines four main causes of market failure: information failure orasymmetry, externalities such as the external costs imposed on others through the manufacture anduse of tobacco, the provision of public goods and market power. That two of these (information failureand externalities) exist in a tobacco market has already been clearly outlined and is not dwelt onfurther here. Instead, we outline how market power also exists. The number of major tobaccotransnationals has been declining following numerous mergers and acquisitions such that there arenow only four, dominating the global tobacco market outside China: Philip Morris International, BritishAmerican Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Tobacco. Consequently, the cigarettetrade is dominated in virtually all major markets by a very small, and declining, number of cigarettemanufacturing companies. In 2008, for example, notwithstanding the publicly owned ChineseNational Tobacco Company which has a 98% share of the Chinese market, the leading company ineach of the world’s largest cigarette markets had a market share of between 28% and 86%.The most striking indication of the highly concentrated nature of cigarette sales is the three-firmconcentration ratio; the total market share in each country accounted for by the three companies withthe largest market share. With the exception of Indonesia, in all the major markets just three firmscontrol at least 80% of the market, and in many markets the top three firms account for more than90%. To put such figures into perspective, the UK Competition Commission investigates mergersbetween companies that would result in firms gaining more than 25% market share or less where itappears likely there would be a substantial lessening of competition. This highly concentrated natureof cigarette markets is exacerbated by the significant underlying barriers to market entry by newcigarette manufacturers which have inadvertently been amplified by tobacco control measures,notably bans on advertising and promotion. These measures are essential and effective componentsof tobacco control strategies6 and are thus likely to expand in both scope and geographical reach.In addition, the product is highly addictive and there are no real alternatives, whether in the form ofpharmaceutical nicotine or alternative tobacco products, currently available and able to compete withcigarettes. This market failure gives cigarette companies immense pricing power which in turn isexacerbated by tobacco tax policies, the most effective tobacco control policy available. Taxes makeup a large portion, and manufacturer’s revenue a small portion, of the final price consumers pay. As aresult, small increments in the manufacturer’s margin have negligible impact on demand but equateto big increases in manufacturer revenue. This is particularly true in countries which have high specifictax levels. As normal competitive forces are absent, the resulting oligopoly can raise prices seeminglyat will, generating sustained high profits, significantly higher than those earned on other consumerstaples As table 2 shows, the profitability of Europe’s two largest tobacco companies (measured usingthe EBITA Margind the firms’ earnings before interest, taxation and amortisation expenses have beendeducted as a proportion of its total revenue) is significantly greater than that of comparableconsumer staple companies.Currently, tobacco profits are approximately double those of most other companies and these veryhigh returns are predicted to continue into the future. Only one firm, Diageo, comes close to matchingthe high profitability of the tobacco companies; Diageo stands out as being abnormally profitable inthe beverages industry sector and may also benefit from market power, reportedly enjoying 50% ofthe UK gin and 40% of the global vodka market.8 These excess returns, through reinvestment in brand5marketing, then further raise the barriers to market entry. In short, the immense profits cigarettecompanies make from selling a product that kills one in two of its users is not because of somebreakthrough intellectual property or other typical marketplace advantage. Rather, it is a classicexample of market failure.How increases in specific taxes can benefit tobacco companiesIronically, this situation has been made worse by government cigarette excise policies in two mainways. First, in many markets.Particularly high tax markets where specific taxes predominate, cigarette companies are using tax risesto disguise price increases. This raises an issue, as reported in recent years by city analysts, that small,gradual tax increases, even at high rates of tax, may benefit the industry (in contrast to largeintermittent tax increases) while having relatively little impact on consumption. Some even suggestthat the major transnational’s now support higher specific taxes, albeit implemented gradually. As aresult, high tax countries such as the UK, for example, are now often the industry’s most profitable.11It also partly explains why industry profits are increasing in most western markets despite decliningcigarette sales. Second, this emphasis on specific taxes has further reduced competition in the market.Specific taxes tend to reduce price differentials while ad valorem taxes widen them making it harderfor cheap brands to remain competitive. Specific taxes therefore tend to favour the major tobaccocompanies (which sell predominantly expensive cigarette brands or have a wide brand folio coveringall price segments) over smaller companies mainly selling cheaper brands, and have probablycontributed to the former’s growing predominance. This situation benefits the tobacco industry whiledisadvantaging the consumer, and reducing potential benefits to population health and the publicpurse. The extreme profitability of cigarettes gives tobacco companies both the incentive and the6resources to fight public health measures designed to reduce tobacco consumption, and an enormousinterest in opposing anything that could disrupt the current cigarette-dominated nicotine market. Thepricing power of these companies also creates significant economic rents for the tobacco companieswhich ought to be captured by the state and used for wider social benefits.CHANGE IS NEEDED: WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS?There are three main approaches through which this particular market failure and related problemscan be addressed, and any organization charged with preventing market abuses would wish toconsider each. First, creating more competition in the market; second, nationalizing tobaccocompanies; and, third, regulating to overcome the negative consequences of market failure. The firstwould be both undesirable (as increased competition in the cigarette market would have negativepublic health consequences) and largely impossible given the existing barriers to market entry, which,as outlined above, will increase as tobacco control measures progress.Thus attempts to dismantle dominant cigarette companies or encourage new entrants to the cigarettemarket would almost certainly fail. The only way in which competition could potentially be increasedis if a broader market in nicotine products could be created wherein smokeless tobacco and othernicotine products could compete with cigarettes. This too might raise public health concerns and, evenif it were achievable, competition would be severely limited because the major cigarettemanufacturers have now acquired virtually all the large independent smokeless tobaccomanufacturers, and at least some, recognizing cigarettes as their most profitable product, lackincentive to promote smokeless tobacco to compete with cigarettes while having every incentive topromote dual use in a way that maintains the cigarette market. Nationalization of transnationalcompanies would capture the excess rent accruing to the industry for governments, but would beimpractical, given the large revenues governments would need to buy out the companies, thedifficulty of engendering public support and, in the case of transnational corporations, the complexlegal challenges.Closely related proposals to remove the profit incentive from tobacco manufacturing by buying outthe tobacco companies and transferring the assets to a not-for profit organization with a public healthmandate would face similar problems. Regulation to overcome the problems of market failure,therefore, seems a more attractive and practical proposal, and we propose below a system of pricecap regulation. However, we first note that implementation of sufficient tobacco control regulations,with plain packaging being a key example, might also limit profitability. The impact of such policies onprofits would, however, be far less certain than price cap regulation, particularly given the industry’swell-documented history of circumventing previous advertising restrictions, and less immediate. Norwould other regulations raise money for the treasury. The key issue, however, is that one would notpreclude the other: price cap regulation would make it easier to implement other tobacco controlpolicies such as plain packaging because arguments about their negative impact on industry revenuewould no longer apply and if such policies did adequately address the excess returns, then priceregulation could stop.A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE: PRICE CAP REGULATIONWe propose that the problems outlined above can be most easily addressed by the application of asystem of price cap regulation, such as RPI-X, to tobacco products wherein the cap is applied to themanufacturers’ pre-tax price but not the retail price. The rationale would be threefold. First, to helpaddress the market failure described above and control the excessive margins enjoyed by the industry(without having to weaken essential tobacco control policies). Second, to increase governmentrevenue by restricting the price the industry can charge, thus enabling governments to increase taxesand transferring rent from the tobacco industry to the government. Third, to bring public healthbenefits though a number of means outlined further in the next section. To our knowledge only one7previous (unsuccessful) proposal has been made to regulate manufacturers’ prices, in BritishColumbia, Canada, in Rules on minimum retail prices are more widely known but differ significantlyby focusing on retail rather than manufacturers’ prices and fail to deal with the market failure andprofit issue. Furthermore, a new (albeit contested) ruling suggests that minimum prices, in someinstances at least, may be illegal under EU law.PRICE CAP REGULATION: THE BASIC MODEL AND ITS APPLICATION IN THE UKPrice cap regulation has been heavily utilized in the British utilities sector (and elsewhere) as a meansof protecting society from the monopoly power of companies which face little or no competition giventhe nature of the market in question. As such, there are significant parallels to the tobacco industrywhere a strong case exists for further action to protect society from the effects of market failure. Asthis market failure applies to cigarette manufacturers rather than retailers, we envisage the systemonly applying to those manufacturing (rather than retailing) cigarettes for the UK market. The systemworks by establishing an independent regulatory agency The Office for Smoked Tobacco Regulation(OFSMOKE), for example which would carry out periodic reviews of what cigarette companies areallowed to charge, setting maximum prices allowed for each product. The prices set would be basedon how prices in the economy have generally changed (the retail price index (RPI) element), anassessment of the genuine costs each firm faces in its production and operations and an assumptionabout the productivity improvements it would be expected to make (the X element).For the sake of simplicity, we can illustrate this solution by imagining how the system might work inpractice. Let us assume that after some research on the industry’s current costs the regulator sets themaximum price a manufacturer can charge, before any taxes or retailer’s margin are added. Thismanufacturer’s price would undoubtedly be less than the industry would wish to charge, thuscurtailing profits. How much less would be judged by the regulator based upon its assessment of thelegitimate costs the industry faces. This is illustrated in table 3 using a hypothetical example: theregulator caps the manufacturer’s price at 50 pence per pack of 20 cigarettes, a 40 pence reductionfrom the baseline situation. The retailers would then add their mark-up as at present such that theirprofits would therefore be unaffected and the government also adds its various taxes and duties.When implementing a policy of RPI-X type price controls, government would need to use tax policy toensure that the final price the consumer pays does not fall. Again this is illustrated in Table 3.Where them position of a 50 pence price cap would result in a 40 pence reduction in retail price unlessthe government increases taxes accordingly. These 40 pence per pack currently accruing to tobaccocompanies as a result of a market failure would thereby be transferred to the national treasury. Theregulator would also have to consider whether this regulated price should change during each of the8years of the price control period (usually between 3 and 5 years). Any permitted changes would bebased upon predicted changes in average prices in the economy, predicted changes in industry costsand efficiency savings the regulator feels the company can make. For example, if average prices wereseen to increase by 3% per year, and companies were judged able to operate more efficiently (ie, byremoving unnecessary spending while achieving the same outputs) to the tune of 1% per year, theregulator would allow the 50 pence to increase by 2% in each of the subsequent years of the pricecontrol period. Furthermore, when the regulator considers its next periodic price review, it would actas above, but would also consider what happened in the past control period. If some companies hadbeen able to generate efficiency savings of more than the 1% assumed, then these additional savingscould be taken into account when setting the next price controls.Thus any efficiency gains in production are ultimately gained by society, since benefits to the companyare limited to one price control period. Similarly, changes in the price of key inputs, for example, orchanges in the marketplace can also be taken into consideration, and it is this periodic flexibility tolook forwards as well as backwards which ensures that neither the industry nor society is stuck withan unsatisfactory situation. Within the system described above, individual companies or brandsoperating within the market may be allocated different prices depending on the costs of inputs andmanufacturing, but given that most cost differences reflect packaging and marketing spend,differences would probably be marginal. The regulated companies still have an incentive to run theiroperations efficiently since it is the price they can charge that is regulated, not the profits they canmake. Thus by avoiding unnecessary costs, the firms can boost the profits that accrue to shareholdersin the short term. In contrast to the current situation, they cannot use price increases as a means ofboosting revenue.PRACTICALITIES AND POTENTIAL POLICY CHALLENGESAs with any significant change in policy, a number of issues would have to be considered whendeveloping the regulatory system. The main and a potentially significant barrier would be reluctanceto establish a regulatory agency. The issue of cost is, however, easily overcome because, as with othersimilar agencies, OFSMOKE could be funded through a levy or license fee paid by all the tobaccocompanies operating in the market, and need not therefore cost the consumer or taxpayer directly.Consequently, it should be reasonably easy to sell the policy to consumers who are ultimately thevoters behind the politicians who would have to implement such a scheme. Public mistrust of thetobacco industry is widely held even among smokers42 and thus a measure to control the oligopolypower of tobacco firms, given all the aforementioned benefits, should enjoy wide public support.There are likely to be some, most notably the tobacco industry, who suggest that the imposition ofthis type of direct economic regulation is an extreme reaction.It is hard, however, to argue that nothing needs to be done given the extent of the market power andthe number of deaths the sector causes. Moreover, potential alternatives, as outlined above, appearto be less practical or unlikely to address the market failure which will only be amplified by furthertobacco control measures. Furthermore, the imposition of RPI-X regulation is in line with the UK BetterRegulation Executive’s five principles of sound regulation (box 2), thus eliminating a likely line ofindustry argument.43 A further consideration is whether the tobacco industry or retailer wouldundermine price controls by switching to a low price strategy. While theoretically possible, both areunlikely. As the proposal would not alter profit margins for the retailer, there is no reason for them tochange their current pricing behaviour. For the manufacturer, price controls would probably be setlow enough to only allow a return that just covers the cost of industry capital. Thus cutting priceswould severely restrict profit per unit. Other tobacco control measures, combined with the inelasticityof demand, would mean that manufacturers and retailers are most unlikely to be able to increase salessufficiently to offset the reduction in revenue per pack that would result, suggesting this would not bea sensible strategy.9Furthermore, even if they were to attempt to cut prices, the government could respond by furtherincreasing taxes to ensure the price the consumer faces do not fall. Finally, some might suggest thatthe increased government revenue might reduce government incentives to implement effectivetobacco control measures. While theoretically an issue, it is possible, given the price inelasticity oftobacco, that just as industry profits are increasing despite falling sales, government revenue mightfollow the same pattern. Even if this was not the case (and this would require further research), anyperverse incentives would be mitigated by two aspects of price cap regulation.First, the industry would now have far less incentive to lobby heavily against tobacco control measuresas outlined above. Second, the regulatory agency would help distance and shield government fromthe tobacco industry, as the regulator would now be responsible for determining the impact of taxand tobacco control policies on the industry. Importantly, most governments have extensiveexperience in undertaking these sorts of activities and the fact that price cap regulation is used inother sectors provides sufficient evidence of its feasibility and legality under both World TradeOrganization and European Union rules. Although a detailed review of these issues is outside the remitof this initial exploratory paper, we note that the cap would apply equally to domestic and importedproducts (and thus be compliant with Article III of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)),and as the system would allow reasonable profits (being intended to capture excess profits, not cutsales the latter being addressed separately through excise policy), it could not be considered a‘quantitative restriction’ (Article XI of GATT).Assignment 2 – TaskIn line with the OFSMOKE: how tobacco price regulation is needed to promote the health of markets,government revenue and the public in the above case study, explain how market imperfections andmarket failure affect entrepreneurial activity. It is also essential to interpret how governmenteconomic policies can shape business strategy and decisions made by management.The break down below will further guides students in completing this Assignment 21. Using the case study, explain how market imperfections and market failure can affectentrepreneurship activity?20 Marks2. Explain how market imperfections and market failure affect labour and financial products usingrelevant examples?30 Marks3. Provide a logical interpretation of how the UK government economic policies can shape businessstrategy25 Marks4. Interpret how UK government economic policies can shape business decisions?25 Marks[Total 100 Marks]10Assignment 2– Indicative Marking Criteria Case StudyA 80%+High FirstAn excellent answer will have the following attributes: An excellent analysis and explanation of how market imperfections andmarket failure can affect entrepreneurship activity, Excellent explanation of impact of market imperfections and market failure onlabour and financial products with most relevant examples Excellent inferences drawn with a clear and logical interpretation of howgovernment’s economic policies can shape business strategy and decisionsmade by management Extensive reading of primary and secondary sources Exceptionally well-structured and well-presented report Full reference accurately in the Harvard style of referencing.A 70 – 79%First ClassAll components will have been submitted, and the remaining criteria will be asnoted for the 80%+ marking band. However, in one or two areas student maynot have demonstrated the skills as noted in band 80%+B 60 – 69 %Upper Second Very good analysis and explanation of how market imperfections and marketfailure can affect entrepreneurship activity. Very good explanation of impact of market imperfections and market failure onlabour and financial products with relevant examples Very good inferences drawn supported by good and logical interpretation ofhow government’s economic policies can shape business strategy and decisionsmade by management A well-structured and coherent work written in correct English with someminor errors. Full list of references with minor errors/omissions.C 50 – 59%Lower Second All components will have been submitted, and the remaining criteriawill be as noted for the 60-69% marking band. However, there will besome gaps in knowledge and analysis.D 40 – 49%Third Class A limited analysis and explanation of how market imperfections and marketfailure can affect entrepreneurship activity Good explanation of impact of market imperfections and market failure onlabour and financial products with a limited use of relevant examples Some meaningful inferences drawn supported by satisfactory interpretation ofhow government’s economic policies can shape business strategy and decisionsmade by management Generally well-structured but with some noticeable errors in the EnglishLanguage. References and citation of all the sources not includedF 30 – 39%Fail An inadequate analysis and explanation of how market imperfections andmarket failure can affect entrepreneurship activity Very limited understanding of impact of market imperfections and marketfailure on labour and financial products with a very limited or no use of relevantexamples 11  Meaningful inferences not sufficiently drawn. Impact of government’seconomic policies to shape business strategy and decisions not sufficientlyinterpreted. Structure very weak or lacking Many mistakes in grammar or sentence construction. The references list not complete and not in the Harvard referencing style.F 0 – 29%Poor Fail Largely inaccurate or irrelevant material. Little or no evidence of factual or conceptual understanding of thesubject or of reading or research. The work shows no evidence of analysis and contains unsubstantiatedopinions Structure very weak or lacking. Many mistakes in grammar or sentence construction. Citations and bibliography incorrect or missing. The work may be incomplete or too brief. Completing the tasksIn order to complete the Assignments 1 and 2, you will need to research different informationsources such as textbooks, journals, articles and the internet. You are required to developskills in analysis of information. Analysis requires you to critically examine different aspectsof a topic and identify important issues. Make use of information on assignment preparationand command verb usage in your Moodle Platform.Helpful informationCore TextsAdditional Texts John Sloman, Dean Garratt, Jon Guest, Elizabeth Jones (2019) Economics for Business 8thEdition, Pearson Higher Education, Pearson UK Moore McDowell (2012) Principles of Economics, (UK Higher Education BusinessEconomics), McGraw-Hill Education – Europe Mankiw Gregory. N., Taylor, Mark. P. and Ashwin Andrew (2017) Business Economics,Centage Learning Taylor, M., Ashwin, A., Mankiw, N. (2013) Business Economics. Oxford, OUP Gillespie, A. (2016) Business Economics. Fourth edition, Andover, Cengage12Journal Articles will be provided during weekly lectures and uploaded on the college VLEWebsites, Journals and other relevant sources of informationThere are hundreds of relevant journals that support this module. Students are encouragedto read widely from sources such as: Business Strategy Review Harvard Business Review Journal of Strategic Change Strategic Change Strategic Management Journal Leadership Management JournalReferencing your workReferences to relevant academic theory and research findings should be provided and citedappropriately using the Harvard system of referencing. Example of this referencing style is asfollows:Sillah, D. (2007) ‘Screening of TB in the Gambia’ Journal of Epidemiology, 1 (2), pp.34-56Author/s name and initials are listed first, followed by year of publication in brackets. Thenthere is the title of article and the journal where article appears, which is in italics. Finally,state the volume and issue number (in brackets) along with the pages where article can belocated. Include at least two in-text citations and references in each assessment criterion.Further information on the Harvard System of referencing is on your Moodle Platform.Note: Do not use Wikipedia as a source of reference.Academic MalpracticeYou are required to work independently when preparing this assignment and you arereminded of the need to avoid the risk (intentionally or unintentionally) of committingacademic malpractice. In particular, presenting another learner’s work as yours or takinginformation from any sources without acknowledging the source correctly can constituteacademic malpractice. You are expected to submit your work using the Turnitin software thatis provided by the school. Please note that your work may be subject to penalties and/orcancelleation if academic malpractice has taken place. The Turnitin similarity report canhighlight where academic sources have not been referenced appropriately/effectively andthis could result in a concern being highlighted around possible plagiarism (one form ofacademic malpractice where sources have been used without proper acknowledgment).Make sure you read over your work carefully and ensure that all sources of information havebeen acknowledged to avoid any untoward investigations that would result in a delay in yourachievement of the module. Further information on academic malpractice (includingplagiarism) and potential consequences is available in your student handbooks.13PresentationPresent a document with a word count of 2000 words (+/- 10%) (Essay) and 2000 words (+/-10%) (Case study evaluation) excluding references, bibliography, images, diagrams, tableand appendices. The word count should be stated in the assignment cover sheet and pleasenote you will be penalized for exceeding the word limit. Work must be submitted in afolder, word processed in a suitable format of 12-point font, 1.5-line spacing and pagesnumbered.SubmissionWhen submitting your assignment, you must include: An Assignment Submission Sheet/ Assignment Front Cover Other documents required by your lecturer as evidence of achievement. All assignments should be submitted via TurnitinSubmission deadlines must be strictly observed. Therefore, disciplined time management isvery important when producing this assignment. Failure to meet deadlines will be consideredas a failure by non-submission. You will only have the opportunity for one resubmission of adifferent assignment. Refer to the Student Handbook for more informationEnd of Assignment Brief



Hello! Need help with your assignments? We are here
Don`t copy text!