Category: Economics

This is an ISS201 (Demand and Supply) assignment.

Write a 1500-word academic essay on Electricity Prices in China, following the structure and requirements below. Use simple, clear language suitable for a Bachelors level economics course.

Required structure and word limits:

• Introduction (100 words): Briefly introduce electricity as a good and explain why China is chosen.
• Data (100 words): Present recent electricity price data for China (household or industrial). Include a table or graph and clearly state the data source (e.g., National Bureau of Statistics of China, IEA, World Bank). Briefly describe the price trend.
• Background Research (400 words): Discuss key factors affecting electricity prices in China (e.g., demand growth, industrialization, coal prices, renewable energy transition, energy shortages, environmental policies). Use APA-style in-text citations and references.
• #PriceDetermination Analysis (400 words): Use demand and supply analysis. Clearly identify which factors are demand shifters and which are supply shifters, explaining them one by one. Include and explain demand/supply graphs in words.
• #Government Analysis (400 words): Analyze the role of the Chinese government in electricity pricing (e.g., price controls/price ceilings, subsidies, regulation). Evaluate how these policies affected prices and quantities.
• Conclusion (100 words): Briefly summarize whether demand/supply forces and government intervention explain the observed price movements.

Additional requirements:

• Follow APA style for citations and references.
• Use US English.
• Keep explanations clear and straightforward (no advanced math).
• Align with LO1 (Price Determination) and LO2 (Government Intervention).
• Include a references list at the end.

answer the main post:

Directions:

For this discussion, read

After reading the document, complete the matching exercise and note why you made your decisions. Then post your answers to the discussion board for comment. This will count as your first post.

Post an additional comment replying to a classmate’s answers to the case. This board closes at the end of the week 4.

Meets Module Objectives 1 and 3.

Professor will grade all assignments within 7 days of student submission.

2.Comment on peer post:

Reply from Stefany Guerra Gomez

Company 1 corresponds to a bank (B) because most of its assets are tied up in investments at 67%, not physical items. There is no inventory at all and almost no PP&E that accounts 1%, which tells us this company is not producing or selling goods. The very high current and quick ratios 11.85 suggest the company keeps a lot of liquid resources available, which is important for banks that must be able to meet withdrawals and other short-term obligations. Overall, the companys structure is centered on managing money rather than operating facilities.

Company 2 fits well as a department store (D) because it balances inventory at about 7% of total assets with a large investment in PP&E, which makes up roughly 49% and likely it represents store locations, fixtures, and in-store infrastructure. The receivables turnover of 15.13 suggests frequent customer transactions, often tied to store credit or short-term payment cycles. A gross margin close to 45% further supports this match, since department stores typically price higher than discount retailers while still relying on high sales volume through physical locations.

Company 3 matches an airline (A) based on how asset oriented it is. PP&E accounts for about 64% of total assets, which strongly points to expensive equipment such as aircraft. The company holds no inventory, which makes sense given that airlines sell transportation services rather than physical products. A current ratio of 0.73 indicates tight liquidity, and profitability remains modest, reflecting the high operating costs and thin margins that are common in the airline industry.

Company 4 aligns with an internet service provider (J) because it carries no inventory, very little in receivables, and relies heavily on debt. Long-term debt exceeds 250%, which suggests significant investment in network and infrastructure assets. The company is also unprofitable, with a net profit margin of negative 20.42%, which fits an industry where large upfront costs and intense competition often put pressure on earnings.

Company 5 shows the classic signs of a fully integrated oil company (K). PP&E represents about 70% of total assets, reflecting major investments in drilling equipment, refineries, and transportation infrastructure. The presence of inventory supports the idea that the company handles physical commodities. Profitability is steady but not extreme, which is consistent with oil companies that are influenced by fluctuating energy prices but supported by large-scale, asset intensive operations.

Company 6 matches a pharmaceutical manufacturer (L) because it generates a high gross margin of about 55.57%, reflecting strong pricing power from patented drugs. Intangibles account for roughly 8% of assets, supporting the importance of research, patents, and intellectual property. PP&E represents about 57% of assets, indicating investment in specialized manufacturing facilities. Even with lower liquidity, returns remain strong, which is typical in an industry driven by innovation and exclusivity.

Company 7 is a strong fit for the software industry (N). It carries almost no inventory, relies minimally on physical assets, and generates extremely high gross margins of about 81.05%. Profitability is also very strong, with return on equity close to 68%, showing how software companies can scale revenue without significantly increasing costs. The business clearly creates value through ideas and code rather than physical production.

Company 8 looks like an internet retailer (I) because inventory makes up about 34% of total assets while PP&E accounts for only about 1%, suggesting the company sells products without operating many physical storefronts. Days inventory outstanding exceed 270 days, pointing to large warehouses and a broad product assortment. This pattern is common for online retailers that prioritize product availability over fast inventory turnover.

Company 9 fits a securities brokerage (M) because it holds high levels of cash and receivables, carries no inventory, and has minimal physical assets. The very high receivables turnover reflects frequent trading activity rather than traditional product sales. This balance sheet structure supports a business model focused on financial transactions, client accounts, and market activity.

Company 10 aligns with an insurance company (H) due to the heavy presence of intangibles, which account for about 44% of total assets, along with low inventory and moderate physical assets. Insurance companies collect premiums, invest those funds, and manage long-term obligations, which explains this asset mix. Profitability appears steady but conservative, reflecting the long term and risk managed nature of insurance operations.

Company 11 matches a discount retailer (E) because inventory represents about 19% of assets, while gross margins remain low at roughly 22.36%. Inventory turnover is relatively fast, suggesting a focus on selling high volumes at lower prices. This pattern reflects a business model built on efficiency, price competitiveness, and rapid movement of goods rather than premium pricing.

Company 12 fits a cereal manufacturer (G) because it carries significant inventory, maintains strong PP&E, and shows stable but moderate margins. Food manufacturers typically operate with longer production and storage cycles, which explains the inventory levels. The asset structure supports large scale processing and packaging rather than direct consumer retailing.

Company 13 aligns with a brewery (C), with inventory making up about 29% of assets, reflecting the need for aging and storage of product. Gross margins are around 38%, higher than basic food manufacturers but lower than software or pharmaceutical firms. Breweries require both production facilities and time-intensive inventory management, both of which are visible in the data.

Company 14 stands out as a fast food retailer/franchiser (F) because it reports an extremely high gross margin of about 95.38 % while carrying minimal inventory. This suggests that most revenue comes from franchise fees and royalties rather than directly operating restaurants. The limited reliance on physical assets combined with strong profitability clearly supports a franchising-based business model.

• No need to go in great details, answers do not have to be long. Straight to the point!

Directions:

Refer to the

Use the financial statements to answer the questions in the case.Write your analysis in a Word document, embedding your calculations from Excel into this Word document and submit by the end of Week 4.

You can embed parts of your spreadsheet by first copying the portion of your Excel spreadsheet that you want to copy to your document, then going to your Word document and selecting Edit/Paste Special/Microsoft Excel Worksheet Object. In answering any specific question, embed only those calculations that are specifically relevant to the question being answered in that portion of your document. I.e., when answering Question 1 embed only the calculations necessary to support your answers for Question 1 in that portion of the document. In answering Question 2, embed only the calculations necessary to support your answers for Question 2 in that portion of the document, and etc.

Meets Module Objectives 1 and 2.

Lab 2: Medical Insurance, High vs Low Deductible

Students around University of California, Riverside often compare health plans (e.g., via parents insurance, marketplace plans, or graduate student plans). Consider a local clinic that sees patients from two insurance plan types:

• HD (High-Deductible plan): patients are more cost-sensitive when paying out-of-pocket. This plan is usually in HMO network.
• LD (Low-Deductible plan): patients are less cost-sensitive (lower cost-sharing). This plan is usually in PPO network.

The clinics resource cost per visit is the same regardless of plan:

(Think: doctor time, labs, suppliessame cost on average.)

The clinic can negotiate different patient copays (out-of-pocket price per visit) by plan type.

You have weekly data on:

• P= copay per visit (USD)
• Q= number of visits per week (units: visits/week)

You will need to prepare a report including the following information.

1. (2 pts)Estimate demand separately for HD and LD by running two regressions:

2. (2 pts) Calculate Price discrimination (two copays): choose

and

separately. What are the copays respectively? Calculate the profit.

3. (2 pts) Decide One copay policy: choose one copay for both groups. Calculate the profit.

4. (4 pts)Policy discussion: What if the clinic serves only the LD market (or only the HD market) by only be in PPO network? When might that be optimal?

(Bonus 2 pts) Bonus Question:

Incentive Compatibility via Importing Care (Out-of-network / cash-pay loophole)

Some LD patients try to act like HD by using a workaround: cash-pay telehealth or out-of-network billing to face a lower out-of-pocket price.

Let the clinic set two copays: and with .

Suppose an LD patient can instead access the HD-priced channel but must pay:

• Express admin fee (time + paperwork + portal fee)
• Tax / surcharge rate applied to (copay + fee)

Please justify the Express admin fee . Assuming Tax/surcharge rate is still 10%.

Here are the instructions: It should be 2 short paragraphs, one for each question.

Find a business and explain what you see happening in relation to costs

What changes have they made in the last two years? Find research on this or recount what activities you

have watched unfold. For example, look to see how they have saved cost and that will likely lead you to

uncover where a cost was too high thus limiting profit, so a decision was made to reduce costs

Literature Review Place-Based Development and Inequality in Puerto Rico Puerto Ricos contemporary economic development strategy has relied heavily on place-based tax incentives designed to attract external capital and high-income individuals. Scholars have long noted that such strategies emerge in contexts of structural economic constraint, where limited fiscal autonomy and prolonged recession shape policy choices (Dietz, 2003; Maldonado & Melndez, 2019). In Puerto Rico, these constraints have produced development models that prioritize investment attraction over redistribution, raising concerns about the uneven spatial and social distribution of benefits. Research on Puerto Ricos political economy emphasizes that development outcomes are rarely uniform across space. Instead, growth and investment tend to concentrate in already advantaged locations, particularly coastal zones and urban-adjacent areas with high amenity value (Maldonado & Melndez, 2019). These spatially uneven development patterns provide a critical backdrop for evaluating the distributional consequences of tax incentive policies such as Act 22 and its later consolidation under Act 60. Act 22 / Act 60 and Investor-Oriented Tax Incentives Acts 20 and 22, and their subsequent consolidation under Act 60, were designed to encourage business relocation and individual investor migration by offering preferential tax treatment. While proponents argue that these incentives stimulate economic activity and generate employment, critics contend that investor-oriented tax policies may disproportionately benefit high-income newcomers while providing limited spillover benefits to local populations (Gould, 2017; Rodrguez-Cotto, 2020). Empirical and policy-oriented analyses suggest that Act 22/60 participation is spatially concentrated, with investors clustering in select ZIP codes rather than distributing evenly across the island. This concentration raises concerns that incentive-driven investment may intensify localized housing demand and contribute to widening income disparities within receiving communities (Rodrguez-Cotto, 2020). However, systematic quantitative evaluations of these distributional effects at fine geographic scales remain limited, motivating further empirical investigation. Housing Markets, Gentrification, and Inequality A substantial body of urban scholarship links investment inflows to housing market transformation and displacement risk. Gentrification theory emphasizes how capital reinvestment in urban neighborhoods can produce rising housing costs, demographic shifts, and exclusionary outcomes, particularly for lower-income residents (Smith, 1996). Subsequent empirical research has documented how public and private investment can function as a catalyst for neighborhood change, often reinforcing existing inequalities rather than alleviating them (Zuk et al., 2018). In Puerto Rico, housing-market pressures have been shaped by a combination of investor demand, tourism expansion, post-disaster recovery, and constrained housing supply. Studies examining housing affordability on the island highlight that rising costs disproportionately burden long-term residents and lower-income households, raising the risk that incentive-driven development may exacerbate inequality through housing-market mechanisms (Maldonado & Melndez, 2019). These dynamics underscore the importance of incorporating housing controls when assessing the inequality implications of Act 60 exposure. Income Inequality and Fine-Scale Spatial Analysis Understanding inequality dynamics requires attention to geographic scale. Research demonstrates that income inequality and segregation often manifest more strongly at neighborhood or sub-municipal levels than at broader regional scales (Reardon & Bischoff, 2011). Fine-scale analysis allows researchers to capture localized processes that may be obscured by aggregate measures. ZIP-level analysis, while not without limitations, has been widely used in studies of neighborhood change and inequality due to its ability to capture sub-municipal variation while maintaining data availability across time (Galster, 2012). In the context of Puerto Rico, where municipalities encompass diverse neighborhoods with distinct housing and economic profiles, ZIP-level analysis provides a practical and analytically meaningful unit for examining inequality outcomes associated with policy exposure. Place-Based Tax Incentives in the Broader U.S. Context The broader U.S. literature on place-based tax incentives provides important context for evaluating Act 60. Studies of business incentives and tax expenditures consistently find mixed evidence regarding their effectiveness in promoting inclusive growth (Neumark & Simpson, 2015; Bartik, 2017). While incentives may influence firm or investor location decisions, their broader distributional impacts are often limited, particularly when investments concentrate in already competitive locations. Research further suggests that incentive-driven development may reinforce spatial inequality when benefits accrue to mobile capital rather than local labor or residents (Bartik, 2017). These findings parallel concerns raised in the Puerto Rican context and highlight the need to assess not only whether investment occurs, but where it occurs and how it interacts with existing socioeconomic conditions. Longitudinal Approaches to Neighborhood Change Neighborhood socioeconomic conditions evolve over time, making longitudinal approaches essential for evaluating policy impacts. Panel data methods allow researchers to model within-place change while accounting for unobserved, time-invariant characteristics that may influence outcomes (Wooldridge, 2010; Baltagi, 2008). Such approaches are particularly valuable in contexts where baseline conditions differ substantially across locations, as is the case in Puerto Rico. Mixed-effects panel models further enable the analysis of repeated observations while accommodating correlated errors across time. Prior research demonstrates that longitudinal designs improve inference in studies of inequality and neighborhood change by distinguishing temporal dynamics from cross-sectional differences (Wooldridge, 2010). Spatial Spillovers and Policy Diffusion A growing body of literature emphasizes that socioeconomic processes do not respect administrative boundaries. Spatial spillover frameworks recognize that investment, housing demand, and demographic change in one location may influence outcomes in neighboring areas through market interactions and mobility (Anselin, 1988; LeSage & Pace, 2009). Ignoring such spillovers can lead to incomplete or biased estimates of policy effects. Studies incorporating spatial dependence into analyses of neighborhood change demonstrate that spillover effects are particularly relevant for place-based policies that cluster geographically (Galster, 2012). In the context of Act 60, spatial spillovers may arise as investor activity in one ZIP code affects housing markets, labor dynamics, or inequality in adjacent ZIP codes, reinforcing the need for spillover-aware analytical frameworks. Summary and Research Gap Taken together, the literature suggests that investor-oriented tax incentives may generate concentrated development benefits while raising concerns about housing affordability and income inequality. However, empirical evidence evaluating these relationships at fine geographic scales and over time remains limited, particularly in the Puerto Rican context. Existing studies often rely on cross-sectional designs or aggregate units that obscure localized dynamics. This thesis addresses these gaps by employing a ZIP Year panel framework that integrates direct Act 60 exposure, temporal dependence, and spatial spillovers to examine the relationship between investor activity and income inequality across Puerto Rico. By combining distribution-based inequality measurement with longitudinal and spatially informed analysis, the study contributes to ongoing debates about the equity implications of place-based development policies.

In line with your guidelines, book review grading will be based on the following rubric with 4 components:

• Background of author and audience.
• Discussion of main ideas and objectives.
• The context for the book and comparison with other work on the subject.
• Comments about strengths and weaknesses and implications for research and public policy.

Where each rubric would have a weight of 0.25 and would have 5 categories (5,10,15,20,25). There could be further penalties for poor presentation or grammar. Component Scoring Scale (525 points)

25 (Exceptional): Comprehensive analysis with no gaps. All arguments are backed by specific evidence from the text.

20 (Strong): -5 points if the analysis is clear but misses secondary objectives or provides a generic description of the audience/context.

15 (Satisfactory): -10 points if the report is purely descriptive (summarizing what happened) rather than analytical (explaining why it matters).

10 (Poor): -15 points for significant gaps, such as failing to compare the book to other works or missing the author’s primary thesis.

5 (Minimal): -20 points for surface-level mentions that do not demonstrate the student actually read the book in its entirety.

Furthermore:

• You will get 0 points if you write a book review of a paper or a textbook, no exceptions allowed. You can get some suggestions of books in the first discussion section.
• Plagiarism will not be tolerated, actions would be taken.

Guidelines for Book Review:

A full book review may concern only one book. Its length is about 1500-2000 words. It should

give readers an engaging, informative, and critical discussion of the work. The review should

follow the Guidelines below.

The review should consider (you use as your outline):

The intended audience for the book and who would find it useful

The background of the author(s)

The main ideas and major objectives of the book and how effectively these are

accomplished

The context or impetus for the book – political controversy, implications of the book for

research, policy, practice, or theory

A comparison with other works on this subject

Constructive comments about the strength and weaknesses of the book

The front page of your review should include:

Your first and last name

Your student id

Author(s) or editor(s) first and last name(s) (please indicate if it is an edited book)

Title of book

Year of publication

Place of publication

Publisher

Number of pages

Price (please indicate paperback or hard cover) if available

ISBN

Please use the choosen book: Title: Chinas Development Priorities

Author Name: Shahid Yusuf , Kaoru Nabeshima

Publisher: World Bank

ISBN Number: 978-0-8213-6509-0

Number of Pages: 172

Dear Writer,

I am writing to seek your expert collaboration in preparing a submission for the John Locke Institute Global Essay Prize 2026. My chosen question for the Economics category is:

Technology now allows personalised pricing. If this came to be widely used, what effects should we expect?

I am committed to producing an essay that is competitive at the very top tier of this prestigious competition. To ensure we share a clear vision and methodology, I have prepared this comprehensive brief based on extensive research into the competition’s winning strategies.

1. Competition Ethos & Assessment Framework

This competition, judged by senior academics from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and others, evaluates essays as works of independent scholarly argument, not displays of memorised knowledge. As per the Institutes own criteria and analysis of past winners, success hinges on:

• Intellectual Depth & Originality: Cultivating a unique, insightful perspective.
• Analytical Rigour & Dialectical Reasoning: Building a thesis that survives serious critique through a “Point-Counterpoint-Reinforcement” structure.
• Persuasive Force: The ultimate goal is to craft an essay capable of changing a sceptical reader’s mind. Essays that are descriptive, one-sided, or fail to engage the strongest objections will not succeed.

2. Our Core Argumentative Strategy

To meet this standard, our essay must move beyond a simple list of effects. I propose we adopt a framework emphasised by successful entrants and tutors:

• Precision Dissection: We must first define the scopee.g., distinguishing between first, second, and third-degree price discrimination enabled by technologyand set clear boundaries for our analysis.
• Dialectical Thesis: Our central claim should be robust and nuanced. For example: While widespread personalised pricing promises significant gains in allocative efficiency and firm profitability, its net effect is contingent on regulatory frameworks capable of mitigating profound risks to equity, competition, and privacy; without such guardrails, the societal costs will likely outweigh the benefits.
• Mandatory Engagement with Counter-Arguments: Each major claim (e.g., efficiency gains from perfect price discrimination) must be immediately stress-tested with its strongest objection (e.g., equity concerns, consumer surplus extraction, algorithmic collusion) and then reinforced with reasoned analysis.

3. Required Research & Preparation Methodology

I am prepared to undertake 100+ hours of structured work, following a model derived from past winners experiences.

• Phase 1: Foundation (Weeks 1-2): Finalise argument angle and gather 40+ high-quality sources. This will include seminal economic texts on price discrimination (Pigou, Tirole), contemporary academic papers on algorithmic pricing, and real-world case studies (e.g., dynamic pricing in travel/e-commerce, regulatory responses like the EU’s Digital Markets Act).
• Phase 2: Construction (Weeks 3-4): Develop a detailed outline adhering to the winning structural template:
• Introduction: Hook, precise definitions, and a clear dialectical thesis.
• Body: Paragraphs following the “Claim-Evidence-Counter-Rebuttal” model.
• Conclusion: A synthesising restatement that offers a forward-looking insight, not mere summary.
• Phase 3: Refinement (Weeks 5-6): Successive edits focused on logical flow, clarity, and persuasive language. I will arrange for review by a critical third party to identify gaps.

4. Mandatory Benchmarks & Resources

To align our work with the competitions unique style, the following are essential references:

• Video Analyses: You must actively use these channels to understand the expected analytical depth and structural finesse:
• https://www.youtube.com/@viptutorsco/search?query=economics
• https://www.youtube.com/@qingyingyu
• https://www.aralia.com/helpful-information/guide-to-john-locke-essay-competition/
• https://doxa.co.uk/undergraduate-mentors/karimphil
• https://mypaperexperts.co.uk/john-locke-how-to-write-a-winning-essay-2025/
• https://www.universityadmissionstutors.co.uk/post/how-to-use-the-john-locke-essay-competition-in-your-university-application
• https://www.lumiere-education.com/post/the-ultimate-guide-to-the-john-locke-essay-competition
• https://www.career-lane.com/blog/7-writing-tips-to-submit-a-winning-entry-for-the-john-locke-essay-competition/
• https://www.tokyoacademics.com/blog/blog-john-locke-essay-competition-guide/
• https://thedegreegap.com/exploring-the-2025-john-locke-essay-competition-what-you-need-to-know
• https://qconsult.org/au-uni/how-to-excel-in-the-john-locke-essay-competition-a-tactical-theory-driven-guide/
• https://doxa.co.uk/undergraduateresources/johnlocke
• https://www.polygence.org/blog/john-locke-institute-essay-competition-guide
• Exemplar Essays: I have attached winning essays from prior years. These are the primary benchmarks for tone, sophistication, and argumentative quality. Please study their approach to using evidence, integrating theory, and structuring complex arguments.
• Substantive Depth: The essay must be rigorously economics-focused. Key areas for analysis include:
• Theory: Price discrimination (1st/2nd/3rd-degree), consumer/producer surplus, deadweight loss, game theory models of competition.
• Risks & Trade-offs: Equity vs. efficiency, behavioural exploitation (nudges, price walking), data privacy as an externality, algorithmic tacit collusion.
• Evidence & Examples: Empirical studies on dynamic pricing outcomes, regulatory approaches from different jurisdictions.

5. Compliance & Final Standards

• Format: 2000 words (excluding bibliography). No footnotes; author name omitted. Clean, academic presentation.
• Originality & AI Policy: The essay must be entirely original. AI can be used only for brainstorming and identifying objections, not for generating prose, structure, or arguments. This is a strict competition rule.
• Goal: To produce a work of undergraduate-plus standard that stands out for its clarity, originality, and compelling force.

I will manage the primary research, sourcing, and drafting, seeking your expertise to shape the argument’s rigour, economic precision, and structural power. Please confirm your availability for this collaboration and your agreement with this detailed approach.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kind regards.

Please read the case study and answer the questions