Assignment Overview
The Literature Review is the culminating project for DWA 103. You will identify a research issue in global political economy, survey the scholarly conversation around it, and produce a substantive review essay that maps what scholars have learned, where they disagree, and what remains unresolved. The assignment unfolds in four stages, each with its own deliverable.
Stage 1 — Pick a Topic. Choose from the ten topics below (or propose your own, with instructor approval). Each topic comes with ten starter readings to help you orient.
Stage 2 — Annotated Bibliography. Due Monday, April 13. A topic description and 5–7 annotated sources. (10% of final grade)
Stage 3 — In-Class Group Presentation. April 23 & 28. A 3-minute presentation to a small group, with peer Q&A and peer grading. (5% of final grade)
Stage 4 — Final Literature Review. Due Friday, May 8 at 11:59 PM. A ~2,500 word essay. (25% of final grade — no extensions)
A good review surveys the key empirical findings in your chosen area — what scholars know, where they agree, and where they disagree — and then goes beyond description to evaluate the state of the field: what is missing, what is contested, what might come next. In the discussion, you may also bring a theoretical perspective from the course (Liberal, Neomercantilist/Realist, or Critical/Marxist) into dialogue with the literature as an optional framing lens.
Stage 1 — Pick a Topic
Below are ten topics in global political economy, each paired with a starter reading list of ten key empirical papers. Browse the topics, click the one that interests you to expand it, and use the starter readings to orient yourself before you begin searching on your own. You are welcome to propose a topic not on this list — just clear it with me first.
You do not need to use all 10 readings listed under your topic. Your final bibliography should contain 8–10 sources that you have identified as most relevant to your specific topic. Some may come from this list; others you will find through your own Google Scholar research. The search process is part of the assignment — follow citation trails, and check recent Annual Reviews for orientation.
The Ten Topics
1 Global Inequality and Development ▼
‣ Has economic globalization reduced global poverty while increasing within-country inequality?
‣ What does the empirical record say about the effectiveness of foreign aid in promoting economic development?
‣ Did the Washington Consensus policy package deliver on its promises, and what has replaced it?
2 International Trade and Tariffs ▼
‣ Do the gains from trade outweigh the distributional costs, and for whom?
‣ Does the empirical evidence support infant industry protection or unilateral tariff escalation as effective development strategies?
‣ Has the "globalization backlash" produced measurable changes in trade and immigration policy?
3 Economic Sanctions and Statecraft ▼
‣ Under what conditions do economic sanctions achieve their stated foreign policy objectives?
‣ How effective have the post-2022 sanctions on Russia been in constraining its war economy?
‣ Is China's emerging countersanction regime fundamentally different from Western economic statecraft, or a mirror image of it?
4 Global Financial Crises and Regulation ▼
‣ What empirical patterns explain why financial crises recur despite post-crisis regulatory reforms?
‣ Does IMF conditionality promote economic recovery, or does it deepen recessions in borrowing countries?
‣ How did the 2008 global financial crisis reshape the architecture of international financial governance?
5 The Green Energy Transition and Climate Finance ▼
‣ Is the global flow of green finance sufficient to meet climate mitigation goals, and who benefits from it?
‣ How does the geopolitics of critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, rare earths) shape the energy transition?
‣ Do green industrial policies like the Inflation Reduction Act accelerate decarbonization or primarily serve national competitiveness goals?
6 Supply Chains, the “China Shock,” and Geoeconomic Fragmentation ▼
‣ How has import competition from China reshaped labor markets and political preferences in advanced economies?
‣ What does the empirical evidence show about the actual extent of nearshoring and friendshoring since 2020?
‣ What are the measurable economic costs of US-China decoupling for both countries and for third parties?
7 The Global South and Global Financial Governance ▼
‣ What patterns characterize recurring sovereign debt crises in developing countries, and why do they persist?
‣ How has China's rise as a major bilateral creditor changed the dynamics of debt restructuring?
‣ Does the empirical evidence support the claim that international financial institutions exhibit lending bias toward certain countries or policy orientations?
8 The Return of Industrial Policy ▼
‣ What does the empirical evidence from East Asia, the US, and the EU tell us about whether industrial policy "works"?
‣ How do the CHIPS Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the EU Green Deal compare in design and early outcomes?
‣ Is the current global surge in industrial policy a departure from the liberal trade order, or compatible with it?
9 Globalization and the Rise of Populism ▼
‣ What is the empirical link between trade-induced labor market disruption and populist voting?
‣ Do left-wing and right-wing populisms respond to the same economic grievances, or to fundamentally different ones?
‣ Has the populist surge produced measurable changes in economic policy, or has it been more rhetorical than substantive?
10 Democracy, Authoritarianism, and Economic Performance ▼
‣ Does the empirical record show that democracies outperform autocracies on long-run economic growth?
‣ What explains China's sustained economic growth under authoritarian governance, and is the "China model" replicable?
‣ How does regime type shape a country's capacity to respond to economic crises?
Stage 2 — Annotated Bibliography
Due: Monday, April 13 at 11:59 PM (10% of final grade)
This first written deliverable asks you to stake out a research issue, survey 5–7 key sources, and begin thinking critically about the state of the field. It has three components, described below.
Prioritize peer-reviewed journal articles from reputable outlets in political science, economics, and sociology. Occasionally, working papers from recognized institutions (World Bank, IMF, NBER, Peterson Institute) and chapters from major university-press monographs are acceptable. Avoid news articles, opinion pieces, Wikipedia, and blog posts — these are not scholarly sources.
Step 1 — Topic Description (~500 words)
Write a concise overview that does the following:
1. Define the issue. What research issue or problem are you surveying? Frame it as a general area of scholarly concern — the terrain of debate, not a specific hypothesis you intend to test.
2. Establish context. What are the broad trends? Provide descriptive statistics, key facts, or indicators that help the reader understand the scope and scale of the issue (e.g., GDP figures, trade volumes, inequality coefficients, migration flows).
3. Identify the actors. Who are the key players — states, international organizations, firms, social movements? Why do their actions or positions matter?
4. Motivate the topic. Why should anyone care? Connect the issue to ongoing policy debates, current events, or unresolved scholarly disagreements. A good motivation answers the "so what?" question.
Step 2 — Annotated Bibliography (5–7 sources)
For each source, provide the following:
A. Full bibliographic citation — use a consistent format (Chicago Author-Date is recommended).
B. Summary (2–3 sentences). What is the author's main argument, finding, or contribution? Be specific — don't just say "this article is about trade." Identify the thesis, method, and key results.
C. Critical engagement (2–3 sentences). How does this source relate to your topic? What is most useful about it — and where are its limitations? Note specific pages, data points, or quotes you may want to revisit in your final paper.
Korzeniewicz, Miguel (2015). "Commodity Chains and Marketing Strategies: Nike and the Global Athletic Footwear Industry," in Lechner, Frank & John Boli (eds), The Globalization Reader. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 175–185.
Summary: Korzeniewicz analyzes the design, production, distribution, and marketing of athletic footwear, using Nike as a case study. The article maps Nike's commodity chain across "core" and "noncore" societies, showing how value is captured at the design and branding stages rather than in manufacturing.
Critical engagement: Linking production and consumption within a single commodity chain is a powerful analytical move, but the article is dated — rising consumer demand in emerging markets and the politics of authoritarian states courting global brands complicate Korzeniewicz's framework. See especially p. 173 on 12-hour workdays in Chinese factories and p. 178 (Lauridsen quote) for evidence relevant to labor rights debates.
Step 3 — Reflection (~500 words)
Drawing on the sources you have annotated, write a short reflective essay that addresses:
Major themes. What patterns, points of agreement, or recurring findings emerge across your sources? Are there identifiable "camps" or schools of thought in the literature?
Gaps and limitations. Where is the existing research thin, outdated, or geographically narrow? What questions remain unanswered?
Potential research questions. Based on the gaps and tensions you have identified, generate 2–3 possible research questions that a future project could pursue. You are not committing to answering these — the goal is to show that your engagement with the literature has surfaced live, answerable questions worth investigating.
Use Google Scholar as your primary search engine. Pay attention to both the recency and the citation count of each publication; focus on "seminal" works that other scholars reference frequently.
Follow citation trails: when you find a good article, look at what it cites and what cites it. This is the fastest way to map a literature.
Zotero (free) is worth installing for citation management — it will save you hours of formatting headaches.
Stage 3 — In-Class Group Presentation
April 23 & 28 (5% of final grade)
Presentations take place in small groups of 4–6. Each of you will present your literature review to your group, run a short Q&A using questions you have prepared, and grade your peers.
You are not expected to have a finished essay. The questions you bring are a vehicle for you to think through where your draft might go next — what needs more evidence, which themes deserve more weight, what you are still unsure about. Treat peer responses as a brainstorming opportunity, not as a verdict on your work.
Before Class — Prepare Two Things
1. A 3-minute presentation covering:
- Overview — your topic and why it matters
- Two themes you identified across the literature
- Two reflections on the state of the field — tensions, gaps, or directions it should go
No slides. Speak from notes.
2. Five discussion questions, printed. Load your sources and your current draft into NotebookLM and ask it to generate five questions about your literature review. Then edit them. The final five should be questions that help you think about where the draft goes next — what to strengthen, what to reconsider, what tensions in the literature deserve more attention. Keep the ones that surface real uncertainty; rewrite or replace any that feel generic.
One copy for each group member, one for me, and a spare or two just in case. Bring them to class.
In Class — Per Presenter (~10–12 minutes each)
1. Distribute your question sheet to everyone in your group. Hand one copy to me.
2. 3-minute overview of your literature review.
3. Q&A round. Peers each pick a different question from your five and respond (~1–2 minutes each). In a group of 4, one question will go unused; in a group of 6, doubling up on a question is fine.
4. Peers take brief notes and assign a grade using the scale below. Then move to the next presenter.
Peer Grading Scale
Grade after the Q&A, not after the overview — how the presenter handles their own questions is part of what you are evaluating. Peer grades are one input into my evaluation of the presentation; they are not the whole grade.
Your printed question sheets (7–8 copies) and a pen.
Stage 4 — Final Literature Review
Due: Friday, May 8 at 11:59 PM — no extensions (25% of final grade)
The final paper is a ~2,500 word essay in narrative form (more is fine, less is not) — not a list of article summaries. It should read as a coherent, well-structured account of the state of knowledge on your topic. Think of it as telling the story of a scholarly conversation: who said what, where they agree, where they disagree, and what remains unresolved.
Suggested Structure
Introduction (~500 words). Define the issue, give the reader a reason to care (with relevant data or indicators), and preview the structure of the paper.
Scholarly Context (~1,000–1,200 words). This is the heart of the paper. Organize the literature thematically — do not simply summarize one source after another. Identify 2–4 key themes, debates, or findings that run through the literature, and discuss how different scholars contribute to each theme. Use specific evidence (data, arguments, page numbers) from your sources. Show that you can discriminate among sources — not all are equally rigorous or relevant.
Conclusion (~500–800 words). This is where your own voice should be strongest. What are you still puzzled by? What is missing in the literature? How, if at all, should the field refocus? What would be needed — new data, new methods, attention to new cases — to advance understanding of your topic? One productive option here: bring a theoretical perspective from the course (Liberal, Neomercantilist/Realist, or Critical/Marxist) into the discussion as a framing lens. What does one of these lenses reveal about the assumptions, blind spots, or implications of the empirical literature you have surveyed? This is offered as a frame, not a requirement.
How the Final Paper Will Be Graded
The final paper is evaluated on four dimensions. Here is what the top tier ("Exceeds Expectations") looks like for each:
Problem & motivation (10%): You define the research issue with precision and make a compelling case for why it matters.
Relevance & context (10%): You demonstrate exceptional understanding of why your project matters, skillfully align the literature with your specific context, and set an in-depth frame for your problem.
Knowledge and systematic presentation of the field (50%): You show exceptional depth — comprehensive use of recent and seminal sources, and you clearly discriminate among them (not every source is treated as equally authoritative). The literature is organized clearly into themes, schools of thought, or analytical directions, so the reader can see the shape of the scholarly conversation.
Writing quality (30%): Exemplary prose; the components of the paper are connected seamlessly; no grammatical, punctuation, or spelling errors.
The "book report" structure. Don't summarize Article 1, then Article 2, then Article 3. Organize by theme, not by source.
Weak source selection. Relying on textbooks, news articles, or non-peer-reviewed material signals a shallow engagement with the field.