Department of Economics

Feedback on your submitted work

This form provides you with feedback on your submitted work. You will also be receiving generic feedback, including
the overall distribution of marks for this piece of work*.

You are strongly recommended to read back through your work in the light of both the individual and the generic
feedback and reflect on how you might have improved your work further. Where your reflection on the feedback
indicates to you areas where you would like additional support, you are welcome to seek this and further feedback
in the module team’s office hours.

What was done well:

 The Beveridge curve is plotted using all available data.
 Colours and legend with informative date labels are used very well to differentiate different key portions of
the overall Beveridge curve.
 Clear explanation of the period of focus, the nature of the data plotted, and the implications of its 3-month
moving average form.
 Good use of policy information on the Jobs Retention Scheme.
 Search-matching model algebra is used to understand the Beveridge curve.
 Excellent explanation of the role of separation rate for the empirical Beveridge curve.
 The presentation of US data on the third graph enhances the work.
 Good evidence of reading and sensible choice of material to include.

Areas for improvement:

 It is not clear why you include a trendline. Inclusion of this type of analytical device should be justified by its
explicit use in the text.
 You seem to ignore the role of supply in the determination of equilibrium output, e.g. for sectors as
‘accommodation and food services’.
 Your explanation for the low demand for labour during the period of focus could have been more explicit.
You could have explained it by the fall in output, leading to declining productivity. The fall in output could be
better explained by restrictions imposed on the supply of goods and services rather than by changes in the
demand.
 You incorrectly associate the vertical segment of the Beveridge curve with greater matching efficiency. The
reduction in separation rate is the correct explanation.
 Your explanation of the upward segment of the Beveridge curve, where you mention uncertainty, is vague
and unclear. You could have looked at the change in the matching efficiency instead.
 The comparison with the US labour market is cursory.
 Your grammar needs attention: the text ‘ therefore unemployment despite unprecedented low vacancy
rates’ is confused.

E-Submission V2.0 09 Mar 2016

 Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Is the work well presented?    

Is the work well structured?    
Yes No N/A
Is the referencing appropriate?   
* Mark distributions are not provided on modules with low numbers of students registered. Marks for second and third year
assessments remain provisional until confirmed by the external examiner at the end of your final year.

E-Submission V2.0 09 Mar 2016