Introduction to Political Economy: Institutions and Rational ChoiceAssessment BriefThe pattern of assessment for this module is:Review of two articles in 1,000 words (500 words each review, +/- 10%). 30Review of two articles in 1,000 wordsYou are required to select two papers a write short review on each in a total of 1,000 words. The submission should focus on reviewing the articles and not summarizing them. The review can include the following:· What do you think the key argument in the paper was? Was it convincing?· What was the main methodology used in the paper? Was it clear?· What were the parts you found most interesting in the paper, and why?· Do you agree with the arguments of the paper? Why/why not?· How does the paper fit with the module, and Political Economy more broadly? What topics does it take further, and how?· Can you use the arguments in the paper to explain current political/economic trends and events?· Are the ideas in the paper are applicable to other contexts beyond political economy?These are just some suggestions, you should not attempt to do all of these in 1,000 words for two articles. Please see the marking criteria below on what makes a good article review, but Ill also be happy to discuss during feedback and support hours. Just to reiterate, there is no need to include a summary of the paper.Please note that the two reviews should be submitted via Turnitin in a single file. The length of the two reviews should add up to 1,000 words (+/-10%), and they should be of approximately equal length.Articles you can choose from:· Pierson, Paul (1996): The New Politics of the Welfare State. World Politics 48(2): 143-179.· Swank, Duane (2016) The new political economy of taxation in the developing world. Review of International Political Economy 23(2): 185-207.You need 2/3 academic peer reviewed sources for each articleMarking criteria for the article reviews· First (70% and above): The reviews have a clear structure; the arguments are logical and easy to follow. You provide an excellent account of your own opinion of the papers and justify your opinion with well-structured arguments. You provide well-rounded and thorough criticism of the paper, and link it up convincingly with current events (with examples and references) and other issues discussed in the module. There are no typos and the usage of English is perfect.· Upper Second (60-69%): The reviews have a clear structure, the arguments are logical. You provide a good account of your opinion of the papers and justify your opinion in most cases. You provide some criticism of the paper, and make good efforts to link it up with current events (with examples or references) and other issues discussed in the module. There are no typos and the usage of English is generally good.· Lower Second (50-59%): The reviews have a structure, but it is at times difficult to follow. Most arguments are logical. You provide some details of your opinion of the paper, but it is not strongly justified. You provide little criticism of the paper, and make attempts to link it up with current events and other issues discussed in the module, although these are not always convincing and you do not provide references. The usage of English is not perfect, and there are some misprints.· Third (40-49%): The reviews have no clear structure, making them difficult to follow. Most of your submission is a summary of the papers with little reflection. You provide very little details of your opinion of the paper, with almost no justification. You provide no criticism of the paper, although there are some attempts to link it up with current events. There are some editing mistakes.· Fail (39% and below): The reviews have no clear structure. Most of the arguments are not logical or are difficult to understand. The submission is a summary of the paper with no reflection. You provide no details of your opinion of the paper, or if you do, you do not justify your opinion at all. You provide no criticism of the paper, nor are there any attempts to link it up with current events or other topics discussed in the module. There is a significant number of misprints and editing issues.