AQA A2 Economics Unit 3 - 12th June 2012 PM

I thought the question wanted us to explicitly address the affects that policies aimed at reducing pollution and climate change have on UK businesses as opposed to the forms of intervention? I did mention a couple of these but only so as to explain the effect they have on businesses...

I thought the question wanted us to explicitly address the affects that policies aimed at reducing pollution and climate change have on UK businesses as opposed to the forms of intervention? I did mention a couple of these but only so as to explain the effect they have on businesses...

I hope I did better than January's B too (i got 74 btw) although I think that is increasingly unlikely as, after finishing the poverty question, i did nearly a page on the CBA first part (essay 3) and then I stopped and went onto essay 2 the oligopoly one, I always crumble under exam pressure. Hence I only got down two points in the final question and a quick one line conclusion written down while the invigilator was waiting to collect my script. And tbh now I wish I did the diminishing returns one in the first place.

Yep, I took a more 'supply side' side view with the poverty Q as well. For the analysing two causes i did unemployment and low skills leading to low wages but im not sure if this falls under two distinct points. In short, I hate micro. Ive enjoyed ECON1,2 and 4, just hated this one.

What did everyone write for the oligopoly 25 marker? You've all got myself worrying too now..

I did..
Subsidise new entrants
Increase the fines (OFT only fines cartels them 10%)
Game theory and leaving to free market
Then a para on OPEC and how it's basically a cartel but legal..

Last econ3 I did in Jan12 the grade boundary for an A 80ums was 59/80 and I thought it was a really nasty paper, especially the data response, so compared to this one I think this was easier so I'm guessing the grade boundaries will be higher than 59 for an A?

Also I've looked at previous grade boundaries and theyre all extremely similar

Well i stated how since uncertainty and interdepence exists, they are tempted to collude to fix price and output to maintain market share and continue to make supernormal profits.

Then i said the Government can regulate through investigate bodies, and then talked about taxation such as if they are found to be colluding, they are fined 10% of annual turnover and gave BA as an example and said this is not so good as the fine may not be large enough to deter them and how regulators may turn a blind eye on some as they cant regulate every single firm. Said how this would lead to government failure. Said how some collusion can be good, if it is collaboration they may come together and share ideas and so forth and just become better.

Then talked about subsiding firms to reduce barriers to entry to make the market more contestable such as subsiding sunk costs and such. Said how if supernormal profits are to be made it would send signals out to the market, more firms will wish to make supernormal profit and will saturate the market leading to an increase of supply thus driving profit down back to normal. Said how it encourages firms to be more dynamically efficient to maintain market share.

Said it is alright but their is an opportunity cost to subsidise, could be spent on more socially desirable areas. Said that firms will only enter a market really when supernormal profit is to be made, after that they will leave the market and oligopolies can just take over again.

Sure i wrote a little more but in the end i said how the market is the best to control the actions as in a market if you don't toe the line then you will lose your market share and fail basically.

Think i did meh overall.

Sounds right! I think I wasted my time with OPEC though and should have talked about nationalisation maybe..
Ah well, hope I've done a bit better on the other questions.

Completely forgot to talk about means tested benefits and universal benefits, but I did manage to talk about benefits and problems of using progressive/regressive taxation and suggested a NMW as an alternative.

For the oligopoly question I talked about regulation and making markets more contestable to allow competition to control the actions of oligpolists.

Reckon I'll be alright? All I want is a B or A

Ummm.. it was the UK figure on the left hand table, divided by total world Co2 Emissions, I got 1.7%.

For part (b), I defined property rights (incorrectly), and then tried to explain how a lack of property rights resulted in the two things.

For part (c) I did pollution permits, how its good for energy efficient firms, some benefit for less energy efficient firms, pollution permits were good if a firm could call itself 'carbon neutral' for sales and stuff, then I said a tax was bad as it would increase costs for a firm, and less profit. Then the last one point was how nothing might happen if they are too lenient with the pollution permits.

For part (b), was it definitely a lack of property rights leading to pollution and resource depletion?

I mentioned competition in my conclusion haha. For Poverty i only did taxation and supply side and evaluated it a lot. I didn't do other policies, i didn't have time to go into detail. Should have mentioned them in my conclusion and how unequal income should be targeted from its roots, but i forgot. Oops. Should be alright though, they will acknowledge you cant make every single point in grave detail in 25 minutes.

For part B was the point that of Ronald Coase?
i quoted him so im hoping they give me some bonus mark haha. if property right are made clear and well defined & assuming legal costs of measures such as suing are made cheap and easy, gvt intervention is not required. this is coz individuals who are affected by the negative externalities will sue the firm and thus take the external cost back onto the market without the need for gvt intervention. this essentially means that the firm will face higher costs and will discourage them from polluting. without property rights, the negative externality will not seem to affect anyone. gvts may then have to intervene which may only make the situation worse.
i wrote something on resource depletion but dont think it was gud. haha wat were ur points?

I thought the question wanted us to explicitly address the affects that policies aimed at reducing pollution and climate change have on UK businesses as opposed to the forms of intervention? I did mention a couple of these but only so as to explain the effect they have on businesses...

I didn't mention means and universal benefits either. I just weighed up both policies and used examples from Budget 2012 to justify my answer.