Národohospodářská fakulta Vysoké školy ekonomické v Praze, nám. Winstona Churchilla 4, 130 67 Praha 3 tel.: +420 224 095 521, fax: +420 224 221 718, URL: http://nf.vse.cz
REVIEW OF THE DIPLOMA THESIS SUPERVISOR
Student’s name and surname:B.Sc. Johanna Katharina Trager
Thesis title: Cross-Border Commuting between the Czech Republic and Germany Thesis supervisor:PhDr. Klára Kalíšková, M.A., Ph.D.
1 2 3 4
Assessment of the main aspects of the thesis:
1 Structure of the thesis (logical and systematic construction) ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
2 Goal of the thesis (unambiguity of formulation, adequacy) ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
3 Quality of the theoretical part ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
4 Quality of the application/analytical/empirical part ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
5 Adequacy of the methods to the goal of the thesis ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
6 Sources (topicality, relevance, frequency) ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
7 Quality of conclusions, fulfillment of the goal of the thesis ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
8 Formal aspects (formatting, stylistics, references) ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Verbal assessment (describe the strongest and weakest aspects of the thesis; especially in case of a low assessment 3-4, concrete reproaches need to be expressed):
The thesis is separated into two main parts – theoretical and practical, which are then divided into chapters. This overall structure is logical and gives the reader a good idea about the content of the thesis. However, within each chapter, there are subsections that often have quite confusing titles (e.g. chapter “Data” includes subsection “Explanation of the difference-in- differences analysis”, which might be quite confusing for the reader, because methodology is being discussed in the next chapter of the thesis). Similarly, the order of subsections is sometimes quite illogical (e.g. results of the main analysis should be presented first, not after the comparative analysis).
The goal of the thesis is clearly stated and fulfilled, but the main research questions (which is to investigate the impacts of the 2004 EU enlargement on the number of Czech cross-border commuters to Germany) is not very well motivated. The author discusses the severe consequences of the current pandemics on cross-border commuters but fails to explain how her analysis of the impact of the EU Eastern enlargement in 2004 contributes to the current debate about the situation of cross-border commuters. There are also two parts of the empirical section that deal with these different questions – one is about the impact of 2004 EU Eastern enlargement and the other is about the impact of covid-19 pandemics. However, there is no connection between these two parts of the thesis and the conclusions fail to unite these two parts and provide a general conclusion and policy recommendation.
Theoretical part of the thesis is of a high quality, author provides overview of different economic models that explain cross- border migration and commuting behavior. The author also provides a very comprehensive overview of existing literature on this topic and clearly states the contribution that this thesis brings to the literature.
The empirical part is carefully conducted and uses adequate methods, but lacks a clear connection to the theoretical part, especially in Chapter 6. In Chapter 5 the author shows some descriptive evidence about the push and pull factors that were identified in the theoretical part. This is a nice connection to the theoretical part. However, in Chapter 6, when the main empirical analysis is presented, these factors are forgotten and no further references to the conclusions drown from theoretical part is made. Another shortcoming of the empirical part is the lack of description of the chosen method (difference-in- differences) and the discussion about the assumptions of the chosen method. Estimation equation is not presented. This then leads to a confusion about results of the method, where the author presents several different comparisons, but it is unclear which group of commuters serves as a real control group to control for a trend in commuting behavior and which group is another affected group.
Complex assessment (it is necessary to state whether the thesis complies with the Methodological guidelines of the Faculty of Economics, University of Economics, Prague as concerns the quality of the content, the extent and formal requirements and whether the thesis is being recommended to the defense or not; the thesis can also be nominated to a special award, etc. ):
The thesis deals with a topic of cross-border commuting and investigates how lowering barriers to labor market mobility affects numbers of cross-border commuters. The theoretical part of the thesis is of a high quality and provides a comprehensive overview of economic models as well as previous empirical studies on the topic. The empirical part was carefully conducted and provides a lot of insightful information but lacks a clear connection to the theoretical part and better explanation of the method used and its assumptions. Also, the thesis fails to unify different topics that are included. Nevertheless, the thesis fulfilled its stated goal, satisfies all formal requirements and I recommend it for a defense.
Questions to the defense:
How do we define a control group in a difference-in-differences model? [apply to your research question]
What is the assumption of the difference-in-differences method used in the thesis to estimate the impact of the 2004 EU Eastern enlargement on the number of Czech cross-border commuters?
How can the results of your difference-in-differences analysis contribute to the current debate about the impact of the COVID pandemics on cross-border commuters?
Suggested grade: very good
Date: ...
Thesis supervisor’s signature
