Aims

The aim of the workshops is to get students to work on specific issues, and to teach them to read, summarise, argue, give expositions and write.

Main themes

The subjects have been chosen in such a way as to refer to notions already acquired by students in basic economics courses and two-year degree courses. The workshops will also provide useful research experience in preparation for the dissertation. To that end, they are organised in such a way as to guarantee the maximum personal work.
For example, the following subjects are addressed: The rise in inequalities in Europe and the US; Property, power and company results; Coordination and development; The stability of the international finance system; The instruments of environmental policy; An analysis of economic policies; Fighting structural unemployment in Belgium; The cost of capital; Automation of the finance markets; and Economics and environmental protection.

Content and teaching methods

Workshops are in four stages:
a) Definition of the subject: one or two expositions are given at the beginning of the semester to clarify the workshop theme, and students are then invited to think about formulating questions related to it.
b) Formulation of questions: a session is organised in which a list of proposed questions is drawn up and distributed among participants.
c) Summary: the students prepare answers to the questions assigned to them, and produce personal written summaries of their answers in a document 5-10 pages long. Workshop leaders are available during the semester to give students advice if required, and one or two intermediary sessions are put on to evaluate how well students' work is progressing.
d) Discussions: at the end of the semester, two or three sessions are organised during which each student is invited to present his/her outcomes orally. These presentations are followed by discussion.

Other information (prerequisite, evaluation (assessment methods), course materials recommended readings, ...)

Students are assessed on the basis of the quality of their interventions, the formulation of questions and participation in discussions, and their summary marks.