Economic insecurity and political trust in the united states

JOURNAL ARTICLE SUMMARY ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS________________________________________Description of ProjectYou are tasked to obtain one recent article (i.e., published after 2010) from the journal – American Politics Research (and no other journal). Full text articles from this journal are accessible electronically via the library webpage. You must choose an article (NOT a book review, editorial, commentary, or anything else) that addresses some element of the political, economic, and/or social forces that are shaping contemporary national governmental policy in the United States.For each article:You need to print the articleRead itAnd provide a 4 – 5 page typed double-spaced summary of the article.To receive full-credit for this assignment your chosen article needs to be attached to your summary (as one complete electronic document). A separate reference sheet listing your one article in Chicago Style (author date) format needs to be provided at the end of your summary. You must submit your article summary via the Canvas assignment page. Summaries turned in past the deadline will not be accepted without instructor approval.ObjectiveTo familiarize yourself with empirical research in the field of US government and public policy.PointsThis project is worth 200 points.Deadline11 p.m. Tuesday, May 1 Research DirectionsYou need to conduct a search of the journal to locate the particular article you want to write about. To find an article on your pre-selected topic, use various related keywords. Don’t be afraid to do a bit of exploring. If you encounter difficulties, talk with the reference librarians. These library personnel are trained to assist you in this type of research effort.This is a very important step. Plan to spend at least 1 – 2 hours reviewing various articles. Don’t just select the first article you find for your summary. You will regret it later! These articles may be very technical in nature and the language used can often be difficult to process. Your careful selection of an article that is of interest to you will be an important factor in your successful completion of this project. You are free to choose whatever article (not book review, commentary, summary, or editorial) you wish as long as its subject matter and structure fits within the assignment parameters. Before printing out the full-text of the article, print out a copy of the “Abstract” (if one is available). Abstracts are brief paragraph summaries of the research conducted. Review several abstracts prior to making your final decision. Once you’ve made a decision, print out the selected article.Read your article. Then read it a few more times. Please do not expect to understand it fully the first time you read it. Expect to have difficulties in comprehending what the researcher(s) attempted to do. Remember what I said earlier about the technical nature of some of these articles.Writing DirectionsCongratulations! You’ve completed the 1st part of the project. Now you must demonstrate through your writing that you understood the article that you just read. To do so, you need to review and understand the following sections of the article and then summarize each in your writing. Please note, spelling and grammar count! If you are not a great speller, use Spell-Check and/or a dictionary.PART I: SUMMARY OF ARTICLE INTRODUCTIONGenerally, the first section of a journal article is considered the “Introduction” section. You may see this exact heading in your article. Because this is such a common initial section in all such reports, some authors do not use a formal heading. You should know that all written parts prior to the “Method” section in your article are part of this “Introduction” section. Authors generally provide the reader with background information in this section. They often review the existing literature on the topic to highlight their objectives for the stated research. By reading this section, you should understand the goals or the hypotheses for the research.In your summary, you should first describe the objectives of the given research. If the authors provide information about specific aims or hypotheses, you need to give a brief explanation of these hypotheses. Use your own language. You can paraphrase but if you directly copy sentences, make sure to use quotation marks and cite the page. Keep in mind that I deduct points for over-reliance on authors’ language. So please do not write a paper that relies heavily on quotations. I want to read what YOU have to say about the article. METHODThis is generally the second section of the article. This section provides a summary of the procedures utilized by the authors to carry out the research. Generally, authors provide you with a description of specific research methods. However, some authors may not, so you may need to make inferences. For example, do they rely on data derived from interviews with political leaders, census data, content analysis of newspaper headlines, etc? It is also common for authors to provide an explanation for their choice of specific methods.In your summary, you should provide a brief explanation of these (stated or implied) procedures. Keep in mind that you don’t need to state every single procedure that was utilized. Your task is to be selective and in a one or two paragraph format, summarize to the best of your ability the researchers’ procedural methods. RESULTS/DISCUSSIONThis is the last section of the article, although sometimes it may be broken into two sections. In this section, authors generally provide a summary of the findings of their study. They state whether their initial hypotheses were supported or rejected. Authors also discuss the implications of their findings and make recommendations for future research.In your summary, you should provide a summary of the section/s. Briefly highlight the conclusions of the study and their possible implications.PART II: RESEARCH EVALUATION CRITICAL THINKINGIn this section of your article summary, you are tasked to critically evaluate the research study that you’ve read. This should be roughly a page in length. Provide your own opinions about the validity and the reliability of the research. Consider the following items prior to writing this section. Please keep in mind that you do not need to address every single item listed here but you should try to provide a comprehensive analysis by addressing as many of the items as you reasonably can. What were the weaknesses and strengths of the research study? Do you believe that research in this area was needed? Do you think that this type of research is important? Explain your rationale. Do you agree with the researchers’ hypotheses? Why or why not? Do you agree with the findings of the study? Can you relate the findings to your firsthand experiences? Were the findings surprising? Explain. What are the implications of this research? What should future researchers investigate? If you were granted funding to build upon this study, what specific areas would you further investigate? Reference DirectionsYou need to provide a reference page that lists the one article that you’ve reviewed. This reference needs to be presented in Chicago Style (author date) format. Example of reference in Chicago Style format:Cunningham, Peter J. 2015. “Many Medicaid Beneficiaries Receive Care Consistent With Attributes Of Patient-Centered Medical Homes.” Health Affairs 34:1105-1112. Accessed January 1, 2016; doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0141. Review Chicago Style (author date) ( (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. [click on the author date tab]) on this webpage; also check in with the reference librarian.Please, please, please – follow these directions to the letter! You will be graded not only on your writing ability but also on how well you follow instructions.1) You should avoid direct quotations of the author(s) words as much as possible. The goal is to use your words to summarize. However, certain information – like the authors’ specific hypotheses (if they have them) – must be quoted directly in order to accurately relay essential information to the reader. As a rule of thumb, just ask yourself before you quote directly if the information you are conveying must be presented that way or if you can reasonably paraphrase/reconfigure the language.2) This is not a blog post or diary entry. Throughout your summary, do not start sentences with “I” – as in, “I think the article…” So, avoid using “I…” and “In my opinion…” and the like. [This was an issue in the “good” summary sample I provided you and cost that student significant points.] Use professional/academic tone and language throughout.3) Do not assume the reader understands technical jargon on its face. Provide a very brief description/definition in your summary of any technical term that you introduce. Remember, that you have read the article (in full, repeatedly) while your reader may not have necessarily read it. 4) Keep each section’s relevant facts in that section (i.e., Introduction, Method, etc). So, don’t reference data or methods of analysis in your “Introduction” section. Don’t discuss the author’s results in the “Method” section. Etc. Finally, if you submit and then PRIOR TO THE OFFICIAL DEADLINE realize that you made errors, you may correct and resubmit before the deadline passes. You must then tell me which submission you want me to grade.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Economic insecurity and political trust in the united states
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

APRXXX10.1177/1532673X15597745American Politics ResearchWroe
Economic Insecurity and
Political Trust in the
United States
American Politics Research
2016, Vol. 44(1) 131­–163
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X15597745
Andrew Wroe1
Extant research demonstrates that citizens’ evaluations of national economic
performance play an important role in determining trust in politicians and
political institutions, whereas evaluations of their own economic situation
play a lesser or even negligible role. Utilizing American National Election
Studies data and more apposite measures of personal economic privation
during an age of globalization and de-industrialization, this article finds that
the extent to which citizens perceive themselves and their families to be
economically insecure has a statistically significant and substantial negative
effect on political trust. Indeed, the effect at least matches those of macroeconomic evaluations and party identification. This article therefore adds
a new dimension to our understanding of the economy–trust nexus and
contributes to the small but growing body of scholarship on insecurity’s
effects on political behavior.
trust in government, economic insecurity, risk, prospect theory, perceptions
Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our
government has never been so wide.
—President Jimmy Carter (July 15, 1979)
of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Corresponding Author:
Andrew Wroe, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent, Canterbury,
Kent, CT2 7NX, UK.
American Politics Research 44(1)
We face a deficit of trust—deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington
works that have been growing for years.
—President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address (January 27, 2010)
For some time, it has been almost axiomatic that each new prospective president or prime minister in the oldest and most stable democracies will presage
his or her term in office by declaring a crisis of confidence in the nation’s
governing institutions, quickly followed by a plan to remedy the widespread
malaise. Inevitably, political trust remains low, or, more often, falls even further. The next leader repeats the process, and so on ad infinitum. Low trust,
then, is not new, and a rich seam of trust research has been mined by political
scientists over several decades (Citrin, 1974; Miller, 1974). Little noticed by
many academic colliers, however, is that the era of low trust has coincided
with a growth in economic insecurity in the world’s most advanced economies. Regardless of the ebb and flow of national economic fortunes, citizens’
job tenure and health and retirement benefits are becoming increasingly insecure as globalization and other developments increase labor-market competition and corporations mothball generous health plans and final salary pension
schemes. There has been a Great Risk Shift (Hacker, 2008) in the United
States and possibly elsewhere from the broad shoulders of government and
corporations onto the narrow shoulders of individuals. Despite these important developments, little social science work has focused on the consequences
of the shift in risk for political behavior generally (Hacker, Rehm, &
Schlesinger, 2013) and political trust specifically. This article represents one
of the first attempts to explore these effects.
They are worth exploring because trust matters. Thinking about its effects
in the round, Hetherington (2007) concludes that political distrust “has
defined [the] American political landscape over the last several decades”
(p. 1), from the election of outsider presidents to handicapping progressive
domestic policies to increasing support for recent conservative foreign-policy
interventions (Hetherington & Husser, 2012). Trust’s importance is also evident at a more micro level. A lack of it undermines presidential approval
(Hetherington, 1998), increases voters’ support for non-incumbent and thirdparty candidates (Hetherington, 1999) and elite-challenging initiatives such
as a term limits (Karp, 1995), but may, when combined with high levels of
efficacy, increase political participation (Gamson, 1968). Distrust also leads
citizens to think their political leaders are corrupt (Wroe, Allen, & Birch,
2013), and even influences the extent to which citizens obey the law (Tyler,
1990), pay their taxes (Scholz & Lubell, 1998), and trust each other (Brehm
& Rahn, 1997).
This article contributes to the scholarly debate on the causes of political
distrust by offering a more nuanced and detailed account of the role of personal economic privation. Research demonstrates that citizens’ trust in politicians and political institutions is in part driven by their evaluations of the
performance of the national economy, but the conventional wisdom is that
personal economic experiences and evaluations do not play much of a role
(Dalton, 2004; Lawrence, 1997; Lipset & Schneider, 1983; McAllister, 1999;
Mishler & Rose, 2001). A key claim of this article is that the conventional
wisdom is wrong. It is so because it has relied on a few crude indicators that
fail to capture how individuals really perceive their personal economic situation. In particular, the indicators generally used by political scientists fail to
measure accurately an increasingly important concern of citizens in mature
post-industrial democracies: that is, economic insecurity. Drawing on the
innovative work of Jacob Hacker and his colleagues, this article utilizes some
new insecurity measures to improve our understanding of the trust–economy
nexus. Taking into account a range of other factors, it finds that citizens’ perceptions of their economic insecurity have a statistically significant and substantial negative effect on their levels of political trust.
There is compelling evidence that economic insecurity has increased
steadily from at least the mid-1980s and probably from the 1970s, and is now
an important concern for many individuals and families in the United States
and elsewhere (Hacker, 2008; Hacker et al., 2012; Hacker et al., 2013;
Kalleberg, 2013; Jacobs, 2007; Osberg, 2009; Rockefeller Foundation, 2007;
Standing, 2011). It is, indeed, one of the defining economic and political
issues of our age, and encompasses among other things insecurity in employment, in retirement, in health, in widowhood or as a single-parent, and in the
family wealth that can guard against economic shocks.
Given its breadth, insecurity is unlikely to have a single cause. The Great
Recession, which began in the United States in 2007 and spread around the
world, has exacerbated the problem of insecurity, but insecurity was high
before the recession set in and will persist after the recession is over (Hacker
et al., 2012; Hacker et al., 2013). Indeed, insecurity has a number of interlinked and interacting causes that are deeply embedded in advanced postindustrial economies. De-industrialization (Iversen & Cusack, 2000),
technological change (Rehm, 2010; Scheve & Slaughter, 2004), and deunionization (Rehm, 2010) have all amplified job insecurity. These factors
are sometimes lumped together under the title of globalization, but it is helpful to recognize that they are conceptually distinct from, albeit linked to,
globalization. Globalization, which refers to the process of international economic integration (Scheve & Slaughter, 2004), can itself drive insecurity in
employment by increasing the elasticity of demand for labor (Rehm, 2010;
American Politics Research 44(1)
Scheve & Slaughter, 2004) and by exposing labor to exogenous shocks (Rodrik,
1998). The causes of other forms of insecurity—in health care and retirement,
for example—are less obvious and perhaps more controversial. Hacker (2008)
attributes the rise in insecurity in the United States in these domains to deliberate policy choices by governments and employers designed to privatize risk.
Although the government and private-sector employers once pooled and spread
risk via “social insurance” from the Great Depression-era onward, this has been
steadily dismantled and replaced with private, individual provision in the name
of “personal responsibility.” Globalization, de-unionization, technological
change, and de-industrialization are likely to have exacerbated the privatization
of risk, but the role of government and employers is central; not only was social
insurance not reinforced in response to the threats to economic security posed
by macro-economic changes, it was deliberately dismantled, argues Hacker
(2008; see also Kalleberg, 2013; Standing, 2011).
Despite the contemporary prominence of economic insecurity, and compelling evidence of its growth, we probably know more about the causes of
insecurity than its consequences.1 What is known about the latter suggests
that economic insecurity could be an important explanatory variable in political behavior generally and trust research specifically. It has been connected
to a range of political attitudes, behavior, and outcomes. Insecurity, and specifically job insecurity, has been shown to influence party support, vote
choices, and election results (Marx, 2014; Mughan, Bean, & McAllister,
2004; Mughan & Lacy, 2002), and is associated with the size of, and support
for, the welfare state (Cusack, Iversen, & Rehm, 2006; Hacker et al., 2013;
Rehm, 2009, 2010; Rehm, Hacker, & Schlesinger, 2012; Rodrik, 1998). Yet,
in the round, “we know strikingly little about how the experience of major
economic dislocations and worries about them affect . . . attitudes toward the
economy and politics,” argue Hacker et al. (2013, p. 24).
This article contributes to this small but growing body of scholarship on
the effects of economic insecurity on political phenomena. Its focus is political trust. It reassesses the link between citizens’ personal economic concerns
and level of political trust in the face of existing research that has either dismissed the importance of such concerns or relegated them to secondary status
behind evaluations of national economic performance. “The Economy and
Trust” section of the article reviews what we know and do not know about the
economy and trust, and explains why the standard measures of people’s personal
economic experiences and worries need to be reconsidered. The “Theorizing
and Measuring Economic Insecurity” and “Linking Economic Insecurity and
Political Trust” sections briefly introduce some definitional issues and lay out
the mechanisms via which insecurity may influence political trust. The article
then presents the data and methods used to test the insecurity–trust relationship,
before reporting the results of the empirical analysis. The final section
discusses the importance, implications, and limitations of the findings.
The Economy and Trust
The connection between economics and trust seems intuitive and straightforward: Citizens trust government during economic good times and distrust it
during bad ones. One causal explanation, rooted in democratic theory, is that
citizens hold governments to account for their performance, and economic
management is a key performance criteria; where economic performance is
poor, or at least perceived to be poor, it is reasonable to expect that a government’s political support will decline (Alesina & Wacziarg, 2000; Clarke,
Dutt, & Kornberg, 1993; Keele, 2007; Scharpf, 2000).
Economic performance is, however, a broad term that incorporates many
different aspects (Clarke, Stewart, & Zuk, 1989). Objective national-level
measures of economic performance such as national output, unemployment,
and inflation, and objective individual-level measures such as family or per
capita income, changes in income, and employment or job status are often
utilized in trust models. However, it is also common to use subjective indicators of performance, such as individuals’ perceptions of the wider national
economy or their personal financial situation. The vast array of possible indicators complicates the economy–trust story. Which are more important and
According to some analyses, trust fell in advanced industrial democracies
at the same time as some objective macro measures of economic performance
(GDP, inflation, and unemployment, for example) were improving. That
objective macro trends do not, on their face, appear to track with political
trust suggests the two are not causally related (Dalton, 2004; McAllister,
1999). At the micro level, objective economic indicators also seem to be
unimportant, with several scholars reporting that household income has an
insignificant effect on political trust (Dalton, 2004; Hetherington, 1998;
Lawrence, 1997; Lipset & Schneider, 1983; McAllister, 1999; but see Wroe,
The general thrust in the literature is that subjective economic evaluations
are more important individual-level determinants of political trust than are
objective criteria (Citrin, McClosky, Shanks, & Sniderman, 1975; Dalton,
2004; Lawrence, 1997; Lipset & Schneider, 1983; McAllister, 1999). And
within the domain of evaluations, the conventional wisdom is that citizens’
perceptions of the performance of the wider economy matter more than citizens’ perceptions of their own or their families’ financial situation (Dalton,
2004; Mishler & Rose, 2001). However, it also appears to be the case that the
American Politics Research 44(1)
economy–trust relationship may be asymmetrical. Hetherington and
Rudolph’s (2008) time-series analysis demonstrates that trust declines during
economically challenging times, but does not increase when perceptions of
economic performance improve (see also Clarke & Kornberg, 1989). Overall,
it would be incorrect to conclude that subjective assessments of one’s personal or household situation do not matter, but these effects appear to be
modest at best (Dalton, 2004, pp. 64-5, 75; McAllister, 1999; Mishler &
Rose, 2001).
There are, however, several potential problems with the conclusion that
subjective personal economic criteria are unimportant to trust judgments, or
of only moderate importance at best. As noted by Hacker et al. (2013), the
first was highlighted nearly 30 years ago by Rosenstone, Hansen, and Kinder
(1986) and remains relevant today. They argued that
the frail results produced by survey-based analyses reflect in part the frail
measurement of changing personal economic well-being. While relatively
trustworthy measures of aggregate economic conditions are readily available,
the reliability and validity of individual measures of personal financial security
are largely untested. (p. 177)
The key culprit in their measurement error story is the standard ANES question, which asks respondents whether they and their families are “financially
. . . better off or worse off than you were a year ago.” As well as better off and
worse off, respondents are allowed to report no change, resulting in a threeitem measure that has been adopted as the standard measure of personal wellbeing by surveys around the world. However, as Rosenstone et al. (1986)
conclude, “pinpointing the connection between economic circumstance and
political preference based on this lone item is a perilous enterprise” (p. 177)
because it restricts respondents’ response variance and thus underestimates
the impact of changing economic circumstances.
A second problem is that these broad measures may fail to pick up the
most prominent economic concerns of contemporary citizens. For example,
an individual may well answer that she is “better off” financially than a year
ago if she has recently been awarded a salary increase or if her partner has
entered the workforce, but this same person may still feel economically insecure if her job is at risk or the value of her house has collapsed. As Mughan
and Lacy (2002) note, the economy and politics interact in complex ways,
and reducing “evaluations to short-term performance judgements alone risks
missing important dimensions of people’s perceptions of the economy that
help to explain facets of political behaviour for which the economy’s importance may go unnoticed” (p. 533). Indeed, such are the trends in advanced
economies that family incomes are increasing at the same time as economic
insecurity is growing (Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009). The story that some
scholars tell of an economically satisfied citizenry (Dalton, 2004; Inglehart,
1997a, 1997b) jars with a large and growing literature that points not to gains
in wealth and security but to greater economic insecurity (Dynan, Elmendorf,
& Sichel, 2012; Hacker, 2008; Hacker et al., 2012; Jacobs, 2007; Osberg,
2009; Rejda & Haley, 2004; Rockefeller Foundation, 2007; Stiglitz et al.,
2009). The real economic story is that many people are hurting financially,
primarily because they are increasingly insecure.
Theorizing and Measuring Economic Insecurity
As with many concepts in the social sciences, there is no settled definition of
economic insecurity and thus no agreement on how it should be measured.
The main definitional debate is whether economic insecurity should be conceived as a subjective or objective state. One group of scholars argues that
insecurity is best rendered as the subjectively assessed risk of economic hardship (Dominitz & Manski, 1997; Scheve & Slaughter, 2004), whereas another
conceives it as the extent to which individuals have actually experienced
“hardship-causing economic losses” (Hacker et al., 2012, p. 5). The lack of
consensus regarding the definition of economic insecurity has generated a
plurality of different measures to capture it (Bossert & D’Ambrosio, 2013;
Dynan et al., 2012; Hacker et al., 2012; Jacobs, 2007; Osberg, 2009; Osberg
& Sharpe, 2009; Rejda & Haley, 2004; Rockefeller Foundation, 2007, 2008).
Researchers more interested in charting and explaining trends in the real
economy generally utilize objective indicators such as income and income
volatility (for a review, see Dynan et al., 2012), or more complex multidimensional measures, such as the Economic Security Index (Hacker et al.,
2012), that weigh experienced losses in income against families’ ability to
buffer the effects of such losses. Those interested in the individual-level psychological, sociological, and political effects of insecurity usually favor subjective risk measures (De Witte, 1999, 2005; Mughan et al., 2004; Mughan &
Lacy, 2002; Slovic, 1999; Sverke, Hellgren, & Naswall, 2002, 2006), largely
because different people will assess and respond to risk in different ways
(Bossert & D’Ambrosio, 2013; Dominitz & Manski, 1997; Jacobs, 2007;
Manski, 2004).
Because this study is interested in the political effects of citizens’ perceptions
of their personal economic situation, insecurity is taken to be a subjective construct. The article therefore follows Dominitz & Manski (1997) and defines it as
individuals’ “perceptions of the risk of economic misfortune” (p. 264). Future
work may seek to explore the effect of experienced insecurity on political trust,
American Politics Research 44(1)
but insecurity is operationalized here as subjectively perceived risk across a
range of domains (employment, health, family, and wealth). It is, though, worth
noting that despite the plurality of measures in the literature, four consistent
and robust findings emerge regarding insecurity in the United States. Citizens
in the United States are more insecure than their counterparts in other wealthy
and mature democracies; economic insecurity in the United States increased in
the late 20th and early 21st centuries; it did so at a faster rate than in other
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Devel …
Purchase answer to see full

Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Work with Us

Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Professional and Experienced Academic Writers

We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.

Free Unlimited Revisions

If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.

Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.

Original & Confidential

We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.


Essay Writing Service

No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.


Admission Essays & Business Writing Help

An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.


Editing Support

Our academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.


Revision Support

If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. You can use this option as many times as you see fit. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15