Discussion Questions Based on the Readings

Please follow the instructions well and note that this is a Master's level assignment.
Critically analyze the readings and ask six reading response/discussion questions. Your questions should engage directly with the concepts and arguments in the readings. The main things the questions need to do are to engage analytically with the readings and to bring ideas that aren’t in the readings already. One way to do this is to pay close attention to the arguments made, try to identify problems or tensions in them, and see how they compare with the arguments made in the other readings. Another is to compare the empirical material discussed by the authors and ask a question about similarities and differences (and their possible explanations). A third tactic is to think about what’s left out of the reading (topics the author doesn’t discuss) and how the reading might change if they were to be included. The key thing, though, is to show that you are really grappling with the reading – evaluating arguments, making comparisons, thinking about what’s missing, making connections to theory, etc. Your six questions should be about 3-4 sentences long. Please note that all of your questions must refer specifically to not less than one reading (make linkages between them where possible) and no formal referencing is needed. You ONLY need to include page references when you are addressing a specific argument/fact/etc.
You should take care NOT to ask the following types of questions:
1. Questions that ask for a summary of the text. Thus, “What, according to Kristen Hopewell, are the emerging power alliances in global trade governance?’” is not a good question.
2. Questions that cannot be answered without detailed knowledge of events not covered in discussions. Thus, “How does the governance of trade under the WTO compare with the way trade was governed in 11th century East Asia?” is not a good question.
3. Questions that ask your reader to do all the work. It’s not enough to bring up an interesting topic from a reading, X, and say “explain X” or “discuss X” or “what do you think about X” or “how would the world be different if X had never happened” or “is X still happening/possible/important today” or “what could be done to solve the problem X” or “is it right/fair/ethical/just that X” or “was X a good idea” or “do you agree with X” or “compare and contrast X and Y”. The problem with questions like these is that writing them is too easy – you just need to find six policies or events and stick them into the formulae where it says “X”. These sorts of questions are not completely off limits, but they need to be pushed further – so if (for instance) you are asking how the world would be different if X had not happened, you need to suggest other things that might have happened, the likelihood that they could have happened, who might have wanted to see something else happen, and maybe some speculation about why X did in fact happen (luck? elite interests? US pressure?). That is, you need to show that you have put some thought into the question.
Don’t do enough to go beyond ideas that are already raised in the
readings and/or pose the kinds of “X” questions that the assignment asks you to avoid.
You should try not to ask questions that identify a theme in the readings and then just ask
your reader for an opinion/response.
An example of a good question to ask can be found below;
Stubbs et al (2021) talk about how the IMF had international capital prepared for the
COVID-19 crisis, ready to be lent out to nations suffering economically from the crisis.
In fact, the IMF approved $88.1 bn in financing loans to nations around the world. $36.2
bn has already been delivered during the crisis. These are all, however, mere loans
(Stubbs et al, 2021), meaning actors will have to return the money at some point. In other
words, the IMF is not handing out ‘freebies’. Given that there is a scrutiny of the
COVID-19 pandemic, with protests happening around the world and many claiming this
virus primarily affects seniors (prompting them to hold that the restrictive measures and
economic devastation are unwarranted), to what extent might countries be pressured by
international financial organizations to acquiesce to loans?