Level III
Chapter 7
Writing
IC3
IC3 | TIF | IT | TOEFL | Best Answer
Language Lessons
Assessment
Topic: Regional and Global Trade / Thương mại khu vực và toàn cầu
Guiding Question: How does Vietnam relate to ASEAN, and the United States to NAFTA? Do ASEAN and NAFTA position their members well in the world? |
Câu hỏi hướng dẫn: Mối liên hệ giữa Việt nam với ASEAN, giữa Hoa Kỳ và NAFTA? Nằm trong ASEAN và NAFTA các quốc gia thành viên có vị thế tốt trên trường quốc tế không? |
Skills:
In this chapter you will do these things:
English Language Skills:
- Vocabulary for Demographics and Statistics
- Does Research Matter?
- Overview for Writing a Research Paper (QTCCFASRQ Rubric)
- Focus on FAS and Gathering Resources for Research
- Skills for Writing a Response Paper
- Writing a Response Paper
- Making Charts and Graphs: Demographic Statistics and Websites
Vietnamese Language Skills:
Writing Predictions for Vietnam and WTO Relationship
IC3 Skills: Who Benefits from Free Trade Agreements?
IT: Evaluating Web Resources—A Checklist.
Appendix H: Glossary of Demographic Terms
Intercultural Communicative Competence
Who Benefits from Free Trade Agreements?
Here you will find an assortment of articles and excerpts assembled together to ask the question, Who benefits from free trade agreements? In Trade Policy Not Just a Rust Belt Concern Anymore , Lori Wallach explains that NAFTA is hurting more than blue collar (labor and manufacturing) workers in America. In the yellow boxes are excerpts from Charles Scalinger’s article: It's good at the top: (Special Report: Who Benefits?) in which he highlights some of the “fruits” of NAFTA. Judith Adler Hellman’s paper, Mexican Perceptions of Free Trade: Support and Opposition to NAFTA, attempts to get the views of Mexican citizens for NAFTA. Here you see Ms. Hellman’s introduction to the paper and then you see quotes that were found in the paper after a number of interviews. Are the comments by Mexican citizens similar to what one might hear about other trade agreements? And finally,
Anita Hawser’s article, ASEAN Countries Find Joy in Unity, contemplates ASEAN “looking for ways to promote intra-regional cooperation without reducing its members' competitiveness” and many who worry that ASEAN countries will be left behind.
Discussion Questions: As you read, think about who benefits from the Free Trade Agreements. Here are a few questions to stimulate dialogue.
- Do you agree with Charles Scalinger that free trade agreements tend to benefit the corporate and financial elitists?
- Some, then would say, that money would trickle down to the middle and low-income groups with more jobs and money—why would this not happen?
- A hot issue in the United States is illegal immigration from Mexico—does this have anything to do with NAFTA?
- Could the comments by Mexican citizens be the voices of other citizens around the world?—would there be people in ASEAN countries thinking about ASEAN in the same way?
- Comment on Protectionism—who benefits?
- Are there Free Trade agreements that protect “the little guy?” Is protecting “the little guy” in the nations’ best interest?
Trade Policy Not Just a Rust Belt Concern Anymore
by Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch in an interview with Bill Moyers in Moyers’ Journal (PBS) http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/06/trade_policy_not_just_a_rust_b.html
If you listen to some corporate lobbyists and Beltway pundits, you’d think that only blue-collar workers without college degrees working in a Rust Belt factory should be concerned about NAFTA-style trade agreements. Not so.
|
The fruits of NAFTA in the United States--massive job losses and the relocation to Mexico of entire industries, such as North Carolina's textile plants--are well known, especially among the millions of Americans who have been its victims. Less familiar, to the American public at least, are the effects of the managed-trade agreement on the citizenries of our two luckless partners in this extraordinary international scam. (Charles Scaliger, American Opinion Publishing, Inc., 2007, http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/170157819/?page=3) |
Did you know that Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice-chairman, Princeton economics professor, and NAFTA-WTO supporter, says that 40 million American service sector jobs could be off-shored in the foreseeable future?* Economy.Com estimates (PDF) that nearly one million such jobs already have been “off-shored” since early 2001 alone – one in six of those in information technology, engineering, and financial services.
Current U.S. trade policy represses the wage growth of all – not just manufacturing – workers. Trade does not affect the total number of jobs in the economy, but rather the composition and wages of jobs available. The claim that trade liberalization creates net benefits is premised on the notion that the losses caused by off-shoring are outweighed by the gains in lower consumer prices from imported goods and services. But, as the grandfather of trade macroeconomic theory, Professor Paul Samuelson, noted in a landmark 2004 article (PDF), the theory and reality disconnect if the jobs being lost are the high-wage professional and service sector jobs now being increasingly off-shored.
|
On one thing do supporters and opponents of NAFTA all agree: the North American Free Trade Agreement has greatly benefited the corporate and financial elitists in all three countries, allowing capital to collude more easily across international boundaries. All available information shows significant growth in income and assets among the wealthiest few percent in all three countries, growth that is strongly linked to more open borders. These are, of course, the very people who have been pushing NAFTA from the beginning, in cahoots with political leaders, and the deal has paid off handsomely for both groups--as it was intended to do from its inception. (Charles Scaliger, American Opinion Publishing, Inc., 2007, http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/170157819/?page=3) |
These facts might explain why now nearly three-quarters of Americans making more than $100,000 a year say that the trade status quo is a net negative. It is true that the more than 70 percent of Americans who don’t have a college degree have been clobbered by NAFTA. This group turned against Democrats in the 1994 elections after the passage of NAFTA by a Democratic-controlled Congress blurred the partisan lines on economic issues, delivering control of Congress to Republicans who campaigned on a “God, guns and gays” platform. It was also this demographic that helped Democrats retake Congress – after the party opposed CAFTA almost to a one in 2005 and in 2006 campaigned nationwide for a new fair trade agenda.
And, the threat our current trade policy poses for the environment and consumer safety are equally serious. NAFTA-model trade pacts – like those now being proposed for Peru, Panama and beyond – establish outrageous foreign investor privileges that not only create incentives (PDF) for U.S. firms to move offshore, but also expose our most basic (PDF) environmental, health, zoning and other laws to attack in foreign tribunals. These rules in NAFTA have resulted in nearly 50 challenges of federal and state laws, leading to more than $36 million in taxpayer funds from NAFTA nations being paid to corporations.
|
Canada has seen a significant decline in average per capita income, with wages failing to keep pace with rising productivity. Close to 200,000 Canadian manufacturing jobs disappeared by early 2006, a decline of 8.5 percent. Not only that, the decline in manufacturing-sector jobs has not been offset by a rise in higher-wage, higher-skill jobs in other sectors, contrary to the predictions of NAFTA proponents. Instead, writes Bruce Campbell of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in a September 2006 publication of the Economic Policy Institute, "displaced workers in the trade sectors have moved to the lower-skill, lower-wage jobs in the services sector. Precarious forms of employment (part-time, temporary, and self-employment) have also increased." Overall, says the Canadian study entitled Zip Locking North America, Canada's involvement in NAFTA has "significantly weakened the Canadian economy, has harmed the interests and the standard of living of 80 percent of Canadians relative to their position pre-free trade, and has allowed productivity to decline rather than increase relative to the United States. None of this was supposed to happen." (Charles Scaliger, American Opinion Publishing, Inc., 2007, http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/170157819/?page=3) |
And while 20 percent of the food we eat is imported, less than one percent of most categories of imported food are inspected. This, combined with inadequate inspections for other imported products, leads to the kinds of scares that we’ve seen with tainted toothpaste and toxic toy trains. Our current trade agreements set limits on how rigorous our product and food safety standards can be, limit how intensively we can inspect imports and actually requiring us to import meat that does not meet U.S. safety standards.
The choice is not between the status quo trade model and no trade. Rather, at issue is under what rules we will trade. Given the lived experience under the NAFTA model, it’s hardly surprising that most Americans – and a great many elected officials – oppose staying the course on the failed status quo. For more information on the trade state of play, visit our website (http://www.citizen.org/trade/) and our blog.
*Go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402555_pf.html
for Alan Blinder’s article in the Washington Post (May 2007)
|
The situation is even bleaker south of the Rio Grande [ Mexico]. The effects of NAFTA have been felt most acutely in the Mexican agricultural sector, where huge numbers of Mexico's poor farmers have been put out of business, unable to compete with heavily subsidized, cheaper produce from the United States. Ironically, it is in the production of corn, a crop that originated in Mexico and remains a staple of the Mexican food supply, where NAFTA-induced economic distortions have been most severe. As cheap American corn has flooded Mexican markets, Mexico's wealthy farmers have been forced to shift to other crops to survive. Those who cannot do this--the millions of rural Mexicans who rely on subsistence farming centered on corn cultivation--have seen their already precarious standard of living spiral downward. With no change from their millennia-old corn-centered style of farming, large numbers of Mexico's rural poor have fled northward to the United States to survive, accounting for a generous proportion of the flood of illegal immigrants threatening to overwhelm our country. (Charles Scaliger, American Opinion Publishing, Inc., 2007, http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/170157819/?page=3) |
Mexican Perceptions of Free Trade: Support and Opposition to NAFTA
Judith Adler Hellman
M uch of the debate around free trade and, in particular, much of the North American opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been framed in terms that would suggest that Canadian and U.S. losses will be Mexico’s gain. Even before an agreement was worked out, it appeared that, in aggregate economic terms, Mexico could be the partner that might benefit most from a free trade treaty. But while Mexico may improve its economic situation, undoubtedly many Mexicans will not. However, precisely which Mexicans-that is, which sectors of the economy and which social classes-will gain or lose ground was difficult to predict before the details of the bilateral negotiations with the United States were known.
In both the United States and Canada, support and opposition to NAFTA is easy to pinpoint. The loose coalition of interests that oppose economic integration includes, first and foremost, organized labor.' The trade unions are joined in their opposition by an assortment of human rights advocates and environmentalists, as well as small manufacturers and growers who fear they will lose out to cheaper Mexican imports. .
A rural school teacher told me:
Free trade? It is possible that it will benefit us. We really don’t know the road that we are going down but we hope that the results will be beneficial because we are surely going to have free trade but we don't know what this is going to mean in the future. What we produce is very cheap but everything we need to buy is expensive. I don’t know what the repercussions of free trade will be. . .
A textile manufacturer told me:
The economic opening was badly managed by the Mexican government because it permitted the entry of cheap goods from Asia. We Mexican manufacturers have to meet certain standards of quality and labeling, but the goods that our government has let in meet none of these standards. The future of this firm and of the industry depends on what the treaty stipulates in this regard. If apparel that has a high proportion of Asian-made fabric is regarded as “Mexican made” I will be out of business. There is no way I can complete with the Asian textile prices offered to Mexican garment makers. My quality is better, but it is not that much better, and I am not going to invest to bring my standard up in a situation that is so uncertain. . . .
One industrialist had no illusions whatsoever regarding Mexico’s relative influence in the bargaining process, but he was sanguine all the same:
The United States is going to construct the treaty. We will be invited to the bargaining table but, as was the case for you in Canada, the U.S. will call the shots . . . But we cannot be worse off than we were before [with state intervention and protectionism] because we couldn’t be worse off. Consumption will grow and this demand will stimulate Mexican industries .... My conclusion is that we Mexicans are going to end up with two choices: either go to work for the transnational corporations that will move in, or work as busboys and waiters in services. But the important thing is that we Mexicans should have work. I believe that the word “sovereignty” is one we will all come to forget. Sovereignty is going to reside in the notion that every Mexican every day is going to be a little better off.
The agri-businessman. . . :
Free trade is going to be very positive for the country. At first it will be difficult for Mexico to adapt, because we have had an economy that was too protected. The quality of our goods was low because we had a captive market. Likewise, productivity was unimportant, especially in agriculture, because the government set prices and subsidized inputs. Suddenly we found ourselves in a new reality that made us wake up. Now we know that Mexico has great opportunities with free trade because we have many advantages in climate, manpower, raw materials and enjoy complementarity with the markets of Canada and the U.S. At first we will face problems and some industries will disappear definitively while others flourish . . . but in the end it will be a very positive change .
. . .
Some, like a street vendor who sells cheap Asian imports (watches, radios, electric fans, cassette players) on the sidewalk near the Basilica de Guadalupe, express an elegantly simple view:
I don’t understand much about this treaty. But only yesterday I was commenting to a friend that the ones who will benefit are the large enterprises. The small merchant like me, no. The big fish are going to eat the little fish.
Or the banana vendor in a squatter community on the western periphery of Mexico City who did not need to think more than a second before he replied:
Free trade? It’s going to be bad for the small merchants. The government is doing it for the big entrepreneurs and the rich. The government always defends the rich, not the poor.
Or the waitress who said:
Yes, I’ve heard of free trade but I think that, in the end, it will not benefit us poor people in any way because the poor are not going to be part of it. The treaty is only going to be for the big businessmen, for the rich. Their money is going to grow. But as for us- I hope you will excuse my language-we will get screwed. We will be the same or even worse off than before.
Mexican perceptions--http://www.yorku.ca/cerlac/jhellman/Mexican_Perceptions.pdf
|
NAFTA promised to raise wages and living conditions in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, yet the middle class in these countries is getting poorer while the rich get richer.
(Charles Scaliger, American Opinion Publishing, Inc., 2007, http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/170157819/?page=3) |
ASEAN Countries Find Joy in Unity
Global Finance, July-August 2005 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3715/is_200507/ai_n14901883
by Anita Hawser
South East Asia 's regional trade alliance is looking for ways to promote intra-regional cooperation without reducing its members' competitiveness.
Global trading volumes have sky-rocketed in the past 50 years since the World Trade Organization first began its quest to demolish trading barriers. As developing countries such as China, India, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam open their markets to foreign investment, trading volumes will continue to rise. The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is hoping it can drive further growth in regional trade and integration.
The driving force behind free trade agreements is usually the idea that free trade promotes higher levels of economic integration and cooperation between regions. In reality, however, free trade agreements (FTAs) are often difficult and time consuming to implement, and there are questions around who really benefits from them.
Opponents often claim it is the larger developed countries with more sophisticated and powerful industrial conglomerates while supporters assert that it is the developing countries looking to make it onto the first rung of the ladder in their bid to become global market-based economies. The 2002 trade dispute over the United States' imposition of tariffs on steel imports in an effort to stem local job losses is a reminder that countries are only willing to open their markets so far and that the political will needs to exist for FTAs to be faithfully applied.
Implementing FTAs may be challenging, but they are considered to deliver clear economic benefits for those countries that can make them work. Studies by the Centre for Economic Policy Research show regional free trade deals between EU countries, for example, or the US, Canada and Mexico (NAFTA) can boost trade and economic growth. In the EU, consultant McKinsey says less-developed countries such as Ireland, Portugal and Spain gained more from EU membership in terms of higher levels of economic growth. Similarly, studies indicate that Mexico's economic growth has accelerated since it joined NAFTA.
ASEAN countries have been watching other regions' progress with interest. Now, the six original signatories, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore, and the newer entrants, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar, are hoping to emulate their success. Combined, the 10 member countries constitute a market of 500 million people with a combined GDP of $600 billion, the largest Asian consumer market in terms of value outside of China. In addition, ASEAN is also home to 40% of the Asia-Pacific's oil and gas resources.
Caught Napping
ASEAN came into being in 1967 as a means of promoting peace, progress and economic prosperity across the region. At its fourth summit in Singapore, in 1992, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) was born, with the aim of promoting the gradual phasing out of regional trade tariffs. The agreement has since been extended to include elimination of non-tariff barriers, liberalization of trade in services and intraregional cooperation on intellectual property rights.
But almost 40 years after the birth of ASEAN, the global economic landscape is much altered. Low-cost manufacturing centers in China and India have emerged, which means ASEAN can no longer compete on labor costs alone. In addition, the region is still reeling from the economic crisis of 1997, which, says McKinsey, caused FDI to fall by 66% and aggregate economic growth to decline by 50%. According to the ASEAN Surveillance Co-ordination Unit, from 1996 to 2002 the former Asian "tiger" economies' average annual growth of GDP was 1.8%, compared to 7.8% for China. Exports grew at an annual average rate of 1.5% in the "tiger" economies, compared to 13.1% in China. While China surges ahead, ASEAN has been caught napping.
In terms of increasing productivity, reducing costs across the region and increasing foreign investment, Adam Schwarz and Roland Villinger, consultants in McKinsey's Bangkok and Singapore offices, believe that further trade liberalization and regional economic integration is needed. "ASEAN must find the political will to reduce further the tariffs and non-tariff barriers that raise the cost of doing business across the region's borders," Schwarz and Villinger reported.
Free Flowing
ASEAN has not been resting on its laurels, though. Since the 1997 crisis, the original six AFTA signatories agreed to speed up tariff reduction. At Phnom Penh in September 2003, the AFTA Council announced that, after a decade, AFTA had been "virtually realized," with regional tariffs on 99.6% of products in the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Inclusion List in the ASEAN-6 countries being reduced to within the 0%-5% range.
Only 247 tariff lines within the region remained outside the remit of CEPT. The Council also announced that uptake of CEPT in the newer ASEAN member countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar) was keeping pace with the original members, with inclusion lists comprising 72.22% of the total number of tariffs, compared to 64.27% in 2002. More than 60% of products they traded within the region were within the 0%-5% tariff band. The target for all ASEAN-6 countries to reduce tariffs on imports to zero is 2010. The newer ASEAN countries have until 2015.
A number of ASEAN countries have also instigated FTAs with countries outside the region, notably Australia, China, South Korea, Japan and the United States. In November 2002 ASEAN signed a Comprehensive Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement with China, which focuses on liberalization of trade, services and investment, as well as economic cooperation. Japan is also looking to secure an economic partnership agreement with the ASEAN countries, which includes an FTA.
The framework agreement with China also includes an ASEAN-China FTA (ACFTA), which seeks to reduce both normal and "sensitive" tariffs, with different implementation schedules set for the ASEAN-6 and the newer countries. By January 2007 the ASEAN-6 and China hope to have reduced 60% of normal tariffs to 0%-5%. However, 150 tariff lines could still be in place by 2010, and reduction of tariff lines on the "sensitive" list may not occur until 2018 or 2020 for the newer ASEAN countries.
Working Together
In addition to liberalizing trade, in 1997 ASEAN outlined its Vision 2020 for achieving closer economic integration and narrowing the gap in development between countries such as Singapore and Thailand and Cambodia and Laos. In a recent paper on the evolution of ASEAN FTAs, Hadi Soesastro, executive director and senior economist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta, stated, "[ASEAN's plans] to deepen economic integration amongst its 10 members is a major undertaking in view of the big differences in levels of economic development and openness."
The ASEAN group of countries realize that if they want to attract outside investment, they need to put aside their competitive differences and work together. "Foreign investors increasingly see ASEAN as a single market and production base," says Martin Hutagalung, manager, ASEAN/APEC affairs, at the US-ASEAN Business Council, based in Washington. "It is quite challenging though," he adds, pointing to the newer ASEAN countries such as Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, which are still in the initial throes of becoming market-based, outwardly focused economies.
"Everybody wants ASEAN to get in the game and not be left behind. The ASEAN signatories have to find a way to help the four newest member countries develop," says Hutagalung. But can all countries within ASEAN equally benefit from free trade? Joseph Tan, an economist with Standard Chartered Bank in Singapore, believes that to get to that stage, various countries have to have the same pace of economic development, and in this sense "Singapore and Thailand are further up the scale than countries like Vietnam and Cambodia, which are struggling to be on an even footing," he says.
Although FTAs may have helped goods-and to some extent services and investment-to flow more freely, ASEAN still does more trade with countries outside the region. Although intra-regional trade may have increased since 1992, when AFTA was first implemented, McKinsey says from 1994 to 2001 intra-regional trade within ASEAN countries as a proportion of total trade fell by 19%. Some estimates put ASEAN's trade with other ASEAN countries at 23%, compared to 62% of EU trade, which is intra-EU.
Protectionism Persists
Although 99% of tariffs on the inclusion list in the ASEAN-6 countries are at relatively low levels, some countries still exercise "protectionist" policies when it comes to sensitive products. Malaysia, for instance, continues to protect its domestic auto industry manufacturer Proton from foreign competition by imposing tariffs on imports (see Malaysia Focus, page 40), and the Philippines continues to stand firm on its imposition of tariffs on rice imports, which it has exempted from full-scale liberalization.
Masahiro Kawai, economic adviser to Asian Development Bank president Haruhiko Kuroda, stresses that while most countries within ASEAN realize they must liberalize trade, some have "weak spots" in their economies. "Take the EU and agriculture," he says. "Not all countries, even developed ones, liberalize completely. Most of the [ASEAN] countries have weak spots, but they agree that they are going to liberalize." Malaysia may still protect its automotive industry, but Hutagalung says it has agreed to lower tariffs to between 0% and 5% by 2010.
One of the biggest criticisms of ASEAN is that, as it is a government-led trade group that works on the basis of consensus, it has neither the power nor the resources to effectively coordinate and monitor implementation and compliance across the 10 countries. "The ASEAN secretariat is unable to push for the common goal of 2010," says Tan, "as they don't have the political or financial muscle to push through these developments."
Many tariffs have been lowered, but other non-tariff areas still need to be tackled, including the lack of standardized customs procedures across the ASEAN. Efficiencies could be gained from harmonizing product and technical regulations and testing and licensing procedures. Some industry associations are also concerned about the pace at which countries are working to liberalize certain areas.
The Malaysian Plastic Manufacturers Association, for example, has called for the total elimination of tariffs on resin earlier than the 2010 deadline. Soesastro of CSIS in Jakarta says it is in the interests of ASEAN and China to try to accelerate the ACFTA process, but, he adds, the "political will" has to be there for this to happen. He says ACFTA is only the first step in what could be a protracted process, as negotiations around liberalizing services and investment could prove tricky.
Despite higher levels of economic cooperation across the region, ASEAN remains a collection of disparate markets. The flow of goods may be freer, but as Tan points out, the lack of free mobility for labor and capital still makes it difficult for foreign investors to do business in the region. "There are a lot more hidden costs of doing business in a region as diverse as ASEAN," he says. Hutagalung sounds a more optimistic note, saying that if the "political will" is there, ASEAN's 2020 vision can be realized.
But for a true "single market" to be realized within ASEAN, along the lines of the EU, for example, Kawai of the ADB says the ASEAN countries need to attain similar levels of economic development, including income, standard of living and market infrastructure and institutions, something that does not exist today, although he is heartened by economic growth inherent in Vietnam and Cambodia's entry into the WTO. "Low-income countries are catching up," he says, "but a single common market like the EU may be difficult in the short run." And although trade, FDI and macroeconomic interdependence are driving economic integration across the region, Kawai says this has not filtered down to the institutional level. "Institutional harmonization and integration is the next step," he says, "and FTAs are one important instrument for achieving that."
Copyright Global Finance Media Inc. Jul/Aug 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved
Evaluating Web Documents – Checklist
(from: http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~libweb/EvalWebDocs.htm)
The Internet can be a valuable source of information for academic research, however you must always think critically about every web document you find. Are you certain that the information you see is accurate, trustworthy and of academic quality?
Before using a web page as a source of information for your paper or assignment, apply this checklist to the document. Can you answer YES to the majority of questions? If not, reconsider using the document and try to find a more trustworthy source.
Document title: _____________________________________________________________
Uniform Resource Locator (URL): _____________________________________________
i.e. < http://www.emu.edu/ >
Is this web document to be used as a Primary Source or a Secondary Source: ___________
To evaluate a web document, answer the following questions:
Authority
- Is the author of the document clearly stated? Y / N
Author: __________________________________________________________
- Are the credentials of the author(s) provided (i.e. position, education, occupation)? Y / N
Evidence: _________________________________________________________
- Is contact information for the author provided, an email address, phone number and mailing address? Y / N
Evidence: _________________________________________________________
- Do you believe this person is qualified to write on the given topic? (look at credentials, other publications he/she has written) Y / N
Evidence: _________________________________________________________
- Is there an editorial board or someone who verifies or checks the information? Y / N
Evidence: _________________________________________________________
Often a web page is not "signed" or a specific author is not attributed to the document. If this is the case then you should try to determine the credibility of the host or sponsoring organization of the web document. If you can, answer the following questions:
- Who is the sponsoring organization reputable (i.e. a government body or an educational institute)?
Evidence: ____________________________________________________________
- If the host is a commercial Internet service provider (the domain is .com or .net), does the sponsoring organization have a postal address and phone number? Y / N
Contact: _____________________________________________________________
Content
- Is the scope or purpose of the web page clearly stated? Y/ N
Statement: __________________________________________________________
- Is the document written for an academic audience (i.e. not for entertainment or advertising purposes)? Y / N
Evidence: ____________________________________________________________
- Are the sources for any factual information clearly listed? Y / N
- Is a bibliography or list of works cited provided? Y / N
- Can you verify citations from our own academic resources? Y / N
Evidence: ___________________________________________________________
- Is the information free of spelling and grammatical errors? Y / N
Currency
- Is the date the page was created provided? Y / N
Date: _____________________________
- Is the date the page was last updated provided? Y / N
Update: ___________________________
- Are the links in the document current (i.e. have not expired or moved)? Y / N
Objectivity
- Is the information provided as a public service (i.e. not for profit)? Y / N
Evidence: ____________________________________________________________
- Is the web page free of advertising? Y / N
- Is the information presented with a minimum of bias? Y / N
Evidence: ____________________________________________________________
Conclusion Totals: yes _____ no _____
Did this checklist result in more yes answers than no?
Most importantly, are you confident that the evidence you provided substantiates that the web document is accurate, reliable and a suitable resource for an academic paper, Yes or No?
Other Related sites:
- How to evaluate the sources you find Cornell University Library (http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/evaluate.html). This document outlines the evaluation process in library research for books, journals and web resources.
- Evaluation of information sources World Wide Web Virtual Library (http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/evaln/evaln.htm). This page contains pointers to criteria for evaluating information resources, particularly those on the Internet.
Best Answers to Guiding Question: This section will be the same in the Listening/Speaking and Reading books chapter 7. This may be posting answers online and sharing answers cross-culturally.
Guiding Question: How does Vietnam relate to ASEAN, and the United States to NAFTA? Do ASEAN and NAFTA position their members well in the world? |
Câu hỏi hướng dẫn: Mối liên hệ giữa Việt nam với ASEAN, giữa Hoa Kỳ và NAFTA? Nằm trong ASEAN và NAFTA các quốc gia thành viên có vị thế tốt trên trường quốc tế không? |
