• Uncategorized

Peer Review



Carbon Tax in Canada


It’s true that the worldcurrently suffers greatly from environmental pollution challenges.Canada’s carbon tax law is a positive move towards mitigating therisks associated with toxic carbon emissions. Your argument is wellinformed and based on evidence. However, there are very few theoriesand economic concepts used to back most of the propositions andarguments. For example, the Pigouvian tax system could have beenincorporated in understanding how the $10 per ton tax level comesabout. In spite of the fact that the government has not provided asound reasoning behind this tax value proposition, your analysiscould have incorporated theoretical evaluations of the possibleapproaches towards tax estimations. By incorporating the views ofPigou, the explanation could have been more academic andwell-informed.

Theessay also involves more narration than analysis. Pollution can beanalyzed as a cause of market failure (Vetter, 2013). From this pointof view, the concept of externalities (negative externality) withconcentration on carbon emissions could have been done with evidencefrom empirical studies. I like your argument on impact on productionlevels as a result of tax incorporation. The graph is a clearindication of the positive impact derived from carbon taxincorporation. In this section, the analysis could have been betterwith incorporation of economic concepts of individual and socialcosts associated with environmental pollution. From this analysis,the cost-savings associated with tax incorporation could have beenmore conclusive. At this stage, however, questions can still arise onthe theoretical evidence from which these arguments are generated.

Theessay touches on nearly all elements of the carbon tax incorporation.However, there’s limited link to the various theories relevant tothe Canadian case study. A strong theoretical and evidence-basedfoundation could easily boost your argument.

ShouldCanada Adopt the Norwegian Tuition Model?


The it’s an interestingtopic to look into. Indeed, it has been debated in many developed anddeveloping economies whether post-secondary education should beclassified as a public or private good (Kotchen, 2012). In mostcountries, today, the cost sharing approach is used. The economicposition of a country is a key determinant of the success with whichit can fund full education system. The Norwegian system is one thatis admired by most countries. In your evaluation, however, most ofthe focus is given to Norway as a country, whereas the paper needs toconsider the position of Canada in relation to its ability to applythe Norwegian tuition model. This makes the paper deviate a bit fromthe thesis statement.

Despite the fact that theessay is argumentative, a comparative analysis of the Canadian andNorwegian economies and education systems could have been a betterapproach towards finding a comprehensive answer to the researchquestion. The decision can best be made with a complete analysis ofthe differences and similarities that exist between the countries.For instance, what is the total cost of individual post-graduatetuition fees in Canada and Norway? The education systems have to becompared in terms of duration and curriculum size to make conclusiveremarks based on critical comparative analyses.

Upon reading your argument,I’m impressed with the fact that most of your arguments are basedon evidence with proper citations made on important facts. This isacademic. However, the paper does not balance between Canada andNorway. In fact, the larger part of the discussion explains theNorwegian model while Canada features in the opening and closingparagraphs. Please consider improving on the structure of theargument. Also, an incorporation of models and theories of public andprivate goods could have made discussion better and complete. It is,however, good for an initial draft.


Kotchen, M. (2012). Publicgoods. YaleUniversity. Retrieved fromhttp://environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/pgchap.pdf

Vetter, H. (2013).Environmental Taxesin the Long Run. TheOpen Access, Open Assessment E-Journal. Retrieved fromhttp://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2013-29/file