Post Your Economics Question Here
Scroll to see replies
Chilly
Need help with these!!!!! Could you please answer as many as you can.
Thank you so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) Discuss whether developing economies should adopt the same path towards development followed by developed economies (15)
2) Explain the features which distinguish the newly industrialised countries from the low income economies. (10)
3) How might an economist explain the low levels of productivity found in developing economies? (10)
4) Discuss the difficulties that governments in developing economies might experience in improving the quality and allocation of resources. (15)
5) Discuss the possible advantages and disadvantages for a developing country of introducing policies to promote greater self-sufficiency (15)
6) Discuss the extent to which rural to urban migration promotes economic development (15)
Thank you so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) Discuss whether developing economies should adopt the same path towards development followed by developed economies (15)
2) Explain the features which distinguish the newly industrialised countries from the low income economies. (10)
3) How might an economist explain the low levels of productivity found in developing economies? (10)
4) Discuss the difficulties that governments in developing economies might experience in improving the quality and allocation of resources. (15)
5) Discuss the possible advantages and disadvantages for a developing country of introducing policies to promote greater self-sufficiency (15)
6) Discuss the extent to which rural to urban migration promotes economic development (15)
Hey!
3) Look at the standards of living - lack of public sector and infrastructure.
Poor health = lower productivity.
Poor education = lack of skills > lower productivity. Depends on what kind of sector we are talking about - this is more the case in manufacturing.
Lower incomes > lower incentives to work, be innovative and motivated.
Low investment in capital > could be ralated to low productivity of workers, but a weak argument.
5) It's great because:
- Lower dependency on one product > greater stability. E.g if the country is dependant on export of copper, it will use the income to import other goods. If there is natural disaster / strike/ prices fall, the country doesn't have enough money to pay for imports. However, if the country is self-sufficient the problem won't be as bad. Depends on the extent to which the country was dependant on a single product / industry.
- Greater protection of employment. E.g. if 90% of jobs are in agriculture, the economy continues to deteriorate because commodity prices fluctuate in the short run and fall in the long run. That means that there is less and less funds for investment, constantly falling output > starvation. However, if there are jobs in other sectors, lower proportion of employees will be at risk.
- Avoiding the iron fists of Tesco etc. To lower it's prices Asda, Tesco (you name it) squeeze their suppliers. The farmers in LEDC's don't have a choice but to sell production at low prices because they need that income anyway to finance imports.
Hard because:
- extremely difficult to transfer resources from one sector to another, especialy from primary to turtiary (heavy capital spending required). Unless there is enough FDI,the newly established industry branches will decline leaving people unemployed, and it might be too late to go back to agriculture.
- If a country is hit by a tsunami / plague or something, there wouldn't be enough trade links with other countries to compensate for falling output. As workers are v. unlikely to have savings, that could be very dangerous for a large proportion of labour force.
- What would the policies be? If they are greater incentives to develop other sectors of production, it's great. But if the government is corrupt and inefficient and won't spend that much. Could this mean that the rent / tax on land will be increased to force workers out of agriculture etc.
Erm I somehow assumed that we the LEDC is specialising in agriculture, it is mainly the case, although some specialise in tourism (e.g. egypt, thailand) or things like oil or copper.
6) basically, the factors from the above answer, change them round a little. Commodity prices fluctuate in the SR and fall in the LR, making the eco enviroment unstable. That reduces the chances of getting FDI (which could play a huge role in increasing eco growth - can you explain how?). Also within the country, it reduces the amount of investment > never good for growth, can even lead to a recession (a slower rate of eco growth for 2 successive quarters) through the multiplier process.
I will possibly answer a couple more later. Hope that's good for now.
Those who are happy with my answers, rep appreciated (because it makes me feel my effort is worth something).
Everyone else.... I'll post soon you guys... be patient! x
Everyone else.... I'll post soon you guys... be patient! x
This may seem like a dumb question and considering I have my AS economics exam in less than three weeks time I should really know the answer 
Okay, in my OCR economics book it shows a graph. As the quantity of money in the economy is increased, the rate of interest decreases. That's simple enough to understand.
However, I don't understand why demand decreases when quantity of money is increased.
Basically, the graph has qty of money on the x-axis and rate of interest on y-axis. There is a left to right downwards sloping "d" curve. This d curve implies that qty of money up = demand down. I don't understand why!!
Please help. Thanks so much.
Okay, in my OCR economics book it shows a graph. As the quantity of money in the economy is increased, the rate of interest decreases. That's simple enough to understand.
However, I don't understand why demand decreases when quantity of money is increased.
Basically, the graph has qty of money on the x-axis and rate of interest on y-axis. There is a left to right downwards sloping "d" curve. This d curve implies that qty of money up = demand down. I don't understand why!!
Please help. Thanks so much.
seaspray
This may seem like a dumb question and considering I have my AS economics exam in less than three weeks time I should really know the answer
Okay, in my OCR economics book it shows a graph. As the quantity of money* in the economy is increased, the rate of interest decreases. That's simple enough to understand.
Okay, in my OCR economics book it shows a graph. As the quantity of money* in the economy is increased, the rate of interest decreases. That's simple enough to understand.
Money Supply* is the more correct term, IMO, i.e. the supply of money in the same sense as there is a supply for a good or service.
However, I don't understand why demand decreases when quantity of money is increased.
Basically, the graph has qty of money on the x-axis and rate of interest on y-axis. There is a left to right downwards sloping "d" curve. This d curve implies that qty of money up = demand down. I don't understand why!!
Please help. Thanks so much.
Basically, the graph has qty of money on the x-axis and rate of interest on y-axis. There is a left to right downwards sloping "d" curve. This d curve implies that qty of money up = demand down. I don't understand why!!
Please help. Thanks so much.
Demand for what? I'm confused by your question.
The demand for money curve, i.e. Liquidity Preference, shows that the lower the interest rate, which represents the price of ready-to-use money, the higher the demand for money. Could you copy exactly what your textbook says here?I have attached a version of the graph exactly as it is in my text book.
I don't understand why, when quantity of money increases, the demand decreases.
Thanks.
The graph is entitled "Relationship between money supply and interest rates" and states exactly what is in the attachment. It states "quantity of money".
I don't understand why, when quantity of money increases, the demand decreases.
Thanks.
The graph is entitled "Relationship between money supply and interest rates" and states exactly what is in the attachment. It states "quantity of money".
seaspray
I have attached a version of the graph exactly as it is in my text book.
I don't understand why, when quantity of money increases, the demand decreases.
Thanks.
The graph is entitled "Relationship between money supply and interest rates" and states exactly what is in the attachment. It states "quantity of money".
I don't understand why, when quantity of money increases, the demand decreases.
Thanks.
The graph is entitled "Relationship between money supply and interest rates" and states exactly what is in the attachment. It states "quantity of money".
How does demand for money decrease? From that graph, the shift in money supply from S1 to S3 causes the new equilibrium point (where supply meets demand) to be at a higher quantity of money, and lower interest rate. The quantity of money demanded has increased.
/\Shaz\/
How does demand for money decrease? From that graph, the shift in money supply from S1 to S3 causes the new equilibrium point (where supply meets demand) to be at a higher quantity of money, and lower interest rate. The quantity of money demanded has increased.
you've misread the diagram
In theory, I do my best to help people who are confused in some parts of economics (and I get a lot of practice and some rep points for it).
In practice, this is also where people come when they aren't sure / are lazy enough not to bother with their eco homework, and I am still willing to do it for them, though with some delay due to overload in school.
Isn't that obvious?
In practice, this is also where people come when they aren't sure / are lazy enough not to bother with their eco homework, and I am still willing to do it for them, though with some delay due to overload in school.
Isn't that obvious?
tanusha-tomsk
In theory, I do my best to help people who are confused in some parts of economics (and I get a lot of practice and some rep points for it).
In practice, this is also where people come when they aren't sure / are lazy enough not to bother with their eco homework, and I am still willing to do it for them, though with some delay due to overload in school.
Isn't that obvious?
In practice, this is also where people come when they aren't sure / are lazy enough not to bother with their eco homework, and I am still willing to do it for them, though with some delay due to overload in school.
Isn't that obvious?
Well, what is obvious to me is the fact that the people asking the questions are not extremely bright
For if they were, they would have the capability to open a text book.Are you retaking the AS level?
EDIT: not trying to be mean here...
Hi, I have to do an economics module and I'm very stuck. Can anyone quickly explain what the answer is and how they came to the conclusion? Any help at all would be super. I thought it was 100 as 20+0.8(100)=100. But obviously not!
C= 20+0.8Yd
Yd= Y-T
T= 0.25Y
I= 50
G= 90
E= C+I+G
What is the equilibrium income for this economy?
a) 267
b) 400
3) 640
4) 300
C= 20+0.8Yd
Yd= Y-T
T= 0.25Y
I= 50
G= 90
E= C+I+G
What is the equilibrium income for this economy?
a) 267
b) 400
3) 640
4) 300
Never seen Yd before!! ...Y stands for income, as far as I know (as in YED = income elasticity of demand). AD is always AD. But AD = Yd (d for demand) because the demand is as high as the consumers can afford it to be.
I take it I= Investment, G=Government spending, E=equilibrium income.
C = 20 + 0.8 x (Y-T) = 20 + 0.8Y-0.8(0.25Y)
At equilibrium, E=Y, so Y= C + I + G
Y = C + I + G = 20 + 0.8Y - 0.2Y + 50 + 90
Y - 0.6Y = 160
0.4Y = 160
Y = 400.
That's the best I can do...
I take it I= Investment, G=Government spending, E=equilibrium income.
C = 20 + 0.8 x (Y-T) = 20 + 0.8Y-0.8(0.25Y)
At equilibrium, E=Y, so Y= C + I + G
Y = C + I + G = 20 + 0.8Y - 0.2Y + 50 + 90
Y - 0.6Y = 160
0.4Y = 160
Y = 400.
That's the best I can do...
These are the points I have so far, can someone help me with new points and expanding on the following points
b) Discuss the difficulties that governments in developing economies might experience in improving the quality and allocation of resources. (15)
· Funds and resources needed
· Need to import capital goods- trading blocs, tariffs
b) Discuss whether developing economies should adopt the same path towards development followed by developed economies (15)
· Should follow them in the savings and investment
· Should folow them by changing the structure of the economy
· Shouldn't follow them as developing countries have a high population growth rate, which affects the path they follow.
b) Discuss the extent to which the economic problems of the poorer regions in developed countries are similar to those of developing economies. (15)
Ways in which similar-
· Low savings culture
Ways in which not similar-
· Don't rely on agricultural and primary commodities export
Thanks soooo much
b) Discuss the difficulties that governments in developing economies might experience in improving the quality and allocation of resources. (15)
· Funds and resources needed
· Need to import capital goods- trading blocs, tariffs
b) Discuss whether developing economies should adopt the same path towards development followed by developed economies (15)
· Should follow them in the savings and investment
· Should folow them by changing the structure of the economy
· Shouldn't follow them as developing countries have a high population growth rate, which affects the path they follow.
b) Discuss the extent to which the economic problems of the poorer regions in developed countries are similar to those of developing economies. (15)
Ways in which similar-
· Low savings culture
Ways in which not similar-
· Don't rely on agricultural and primary commodities export
Thanks soooo much
heya,
im really stuck on the following questions, relating to development as well:
Assess the relationship between the distribution of income in a country and that country’s economic development [20 marks]
- im confused here cos surely an equal distribution of income is an aim for development, but in pursuing this objective, is economic growth satisfied? Plus im not sure what they want for 20 marks…
The path to economic development for the least developed economies is blocked by obstacles which the developed economies have not had to face or which they have already overcome
a) Explain briefly the major obstacles to economic development faced by developing countries. [10 marks]
b) With the aid of examples, discuss whether these obstacles are best overcome by free market forces or government intervention [15 marks]
any help much appreciated thank yooou
im really stuck on the following questions, relating to development as well:
Assess the relationship between the distribution of income in a country and that country’s economic development [20 marks]
- im confused here cos surely an equal distribution of income is an aim for development, but in pursuing this objective, is economic growth satisfied? Plus im not sure what they want for 20 marks…
The path to economic development for the least developed economies is blocked by obstacles which the developed economies have not had to face or which they have already overcome
a) Explain briefly the major obstacles to economic development faced by developing countries. [10 marks]
b) With the aid of examples, discuss whether these obstacles are best overcome by free market forces or government intervention [15 marks]
any help much appreciated
thank yooouChilly, since I have so little time I have to choose to ignore your question, especiallly because I've helped you with other ones. Any other economists are welcome to help you and I'm sure that someone will. An you should be confident enough by now (as in 3 weeks before the exam) as to what to write, give it a go!
1) That's what I came up with: Equal distribution of income is not only an aim but also one of the measures of economic development. The relationship works both ways: If the distribution of income improves, then other things being equal fewer people will be living in absolute poverty. However, that depends on how uneven incomes were distributed originally. Also more people would have access to education / healthcare (note that life expectancy and literacy are 2 of the measures of a country's development).
However, poor income distribution could be somewhat beneficial to the population, for example if the government / the elites take responsibility for the poor and provides education / healthcare on demand for free. This is of course a very weak argument because government of developing countries specifically is more prone to corruption (esp. by using large percentage of Aid that's coming in from other countriies for its own interests rather than to improve infrastrcuture etc).
Probably not enough for 20 marks though...
2) a)
- Lack of [capital] resources (which means they have to be purchased from elsewhere if the economy is to produce more)
- Corruption of the governmental channels
- Lack of labour, physically suitable for jobs in the economy
- Lack of incentives for MNCs to invest (low FDI - missing out on eco growth)
- Lack of effective government policies
- Strong dependency on exports of a single primary product / commodity
... I'd say pick any three which you can explain best, then you have to get 5 marks on each in part b.
b) Depending on which ones you pick!
- Sometimes it is the fault of the government itself, don't pick these ones!!!
- If it is primary product dependency - gov intervention all the way to redistribute resources by creating incentives for people to shift to secondary / turtiary sector. Secondary in particular is more difficult because it requires large flows of investment in capital, presumably from the government / MNCs. But it creates inefficiency and misallocation of resources. To what extent is it valid? Depends on what is the product, e.g. if it is coffee, prices fall in the ong run, if it's copper, prices fluctuate, which cause economy to underachieve (cobweb model). If this is left to free market forces, the most efficiently produced product will be supplied, but that causes uncertainity and fluctuations in income.
- Need of FDI - it is partly up to the government to ensure that it's policies are FDI-friendly, e.g. lower interest rates (to make it cheaper to borrow money), low taxation (buit at the expence of the natives?), availability of resources / labour. Evaluate on the importance of these factors to a decision to invest in a country.
- Unsuitable labour (sick / unskilled). Market forces normally end up making the distribution of income more uneven, with some benefitting from high profits at the expenct of the others who face discrimination and are charged high prices. So mixed economy is best, with supply of demerit and merit goods (alcohol/ tabacco and education / healthcare) being controlled by the government, but others left to free market forces because incentive of profit is the strongest driving force for an economy and eco growth.
candyfloss
1)Assess the relationship between the distribution of income in a country and that country’s economic development [20 marks]
- im confused here cos surely an equal distribution of income is an aim for development, but in pursuing this objective, is economic growth satisfied? Plus im not sure what they want for 20 marks…
2) The path to economic development for the least developed economies is blocked by obstacles which the developed economies have not had to face or which they have already overcome
a) Explain briefly the major obstacles to economic development faced by developing countries. [10 marks]
b) With the aid of examples, discuss whether these obstacles are best overcome by free market forces or government intervention [15 marks]
any help much appreciated thank yooou
- im confused here cos surely an equal distribution of income is an aim for development, but in pursuing this objective, is economic growth satisfied? Plus im not sure what they want for 20 marks…
2) The path to economic development for the least developed economies is blocked by obstacles which the developed economies have not had to face or which they have already overcome
a) Explain briefly the major obstacles to economic development faced by developing countries. [10 marks]
b) With the aid of examples, discuss whether these obstacles are best overcome by free market forces or government intervention [15 marks]
any help much appreciated thank yooou
1) That's what I came up with: Equal distribution of income is not only an aim but also one of the measures of economic development. The relationship works both ways: If the distribution of income improves, then other things being equal fewer people will be living in absolute poverty. However, that depends on how uneven incomes were distributed originally. Also more people would have access to education / healthcare (note that life expectancy and literacy are 2 of the measures of a country's development).
However, poor income distribution could be somewhat beneficial to the population, for example if the government / the elites take responsibility for the poor and provides education / healthcare on demand for free. This is of course a very weak argument because government of developing countries specifically is more prone to corruption (esp. by using large percentage of Aid that's coming in from other countriies for its own interests rather than to improve infrastrcuture etc).
Probably not enough for 20 marks though...
2) a)
- Lack of [capital] resources (which means they have to be purchased from elsewhere if the economy is to produce more)
- Corruption of the governmental channels
- Lack of labour, physically suitable for jobs in the economy
- Lack of incentives for MNCs to invest (low FDI - missing out on eco growth)
- Lack of effective government policies
- Strong dependency on exports of a single primary product / commodity
... I'd say pick any three which you can explain best, then you have to get 5 marks on each in part b.
b) Depending on which ones you pick!
- Sometimes it is the fault of the government itself, don't pick these ones!!!
- If it is primary product dependency - gov intervention all the way to redistribute resources by creating incentives for people to shift to secondary / turtiary sector. Secondary in particular is more difficult because it requires large flows of investment in capital, presumably from the government / MNCs. But it creates inefficiency and misallocation of resources. To what extent is it valid? Depends on what is the product, e.g. if it is coffee, prices fall in the ong run, if it's copper, prices fluctuate, which cause economy to underachieve (cobweb model). If this is left to free market forces, the most efficiently produced product will be supplied, but that causes uncertainity and fluctuations in income.
- Need of FDI - it is partly up to the government to ensure that it's policies are FDI-friendly, e.g. lower interest rates (to make it cheaper to borrow money), low taxation (buit at the expence of the natives?), availability of resources / labour. Evaluate on the importance of these factors to a decision to invest in a country.
- Unsuitable labour (sick / unskilled). Market forces normally end up making the distribution of income more uneven, with some benefitting from high profits at the expenct of the others who face discrimination and are charged high prices. So mixed economy is best, with supply of demerit and merit goods (alcohol/ tabacco and education / healthcare) being controlled by the government, but others left to free market forces because incentive of profit is the strongest driving force for an economy and eco growth.
Sorry, I started a thread on this question before seeing this one. This is a labour market question, and I concede, a bit of a daft one but I've been bumming all year and am learning everything now so please be patient
Wage determination occurs because of the interaction of supply and demand/mrp. I understand that much, but I get confused as to what factors affect each. For example, cheaper and better capital to substitute labour with, better education etc. are "supply side policies" which influence productivity, which is a demand side issue... On the other hand, better educated workers are more likely to enter the workforce and use their human capital. I am totally lost, can someone help me distinguish between what affects which side i.e. demand or suppyly of labour?
Thanks
Wage determination occurs because of the interaction of supply and demand/mrp. I understand that much, but I get confused as to what factors affect each. For example, cheaper and better capital to substitute labour with, better education etc. are "supply side policies" which influence productivity, which is a demand side issue... On the other hand, better educated workers are more likely to enter the workforce and use their human capital. I am totally lost, can someone help me distinguish between what affects which side i.e. demand or suppyly of labour?
Thanks
I don't do Labour Markets unit, but that's what we've done in other units:
Demand-side issues are one that make employers employ one additional worker - i.e. if the perceived productivity / experience / training are high, the demand for workers will rise because the output produced by a worker will more than compensate for the costs incurred in employing a worker (incl. non-wage costs, e.g. sick pay, pensions contribution from the company, maternity / paternity leave etc). These factors include incentives to get higher education, encouraging GAP years and work experience placements, etc.
Supply-side factors are one that give incentive for workers to enter the labour market, because the costs of being employed (e.g. the opportunity cost of spending 8 hrs at work and loss of unemployment-related benefits like JobSeekersAllowance) are more than covered by the wages paid and/or personal satisfaction gained. These include introduction of minimum wage, reduction of the size of unemployment related benefits etc.
Sorry if it's not consise enough, we do unit 5B Development instead of Labour markets. I also stand to be corrected by other economists, of course. Hope that helps
Demand-side issues are one that make employers employ one additional worker - i.e. if the perceived productivity / experience / training are high, the demand for workers will rise because the output produced by a worker will more than compensate for the costs incurred in employing a worker (incl. non-wage costs, e.g. sick pay, pensions contribution from the company, maternity / paternity leave etc). These factors include incentives to get higher education, encouraging GAP years and work experience placements, etc.
Supply-side factors are one that give incentive for workers to enter the labour market, because the costs of being employed (e.g. the opportunity cost of spending 8 hrs at work and loss of unemployment-related benefits like JobSeekersAllowance) are more than covered by the wages paid and/or personal satisfaction gained. These include introduction of minimum wage, reduction of the size of unemployment related benefits etc.
Sorry if it's not consise enough, we do unit 5B Development instead of Labour markets. I also stand to be corrected by other economists, of course. Hope that helps
Guys i could use your help here:
One of the questions in a past paper was this:
Using the data (obviously its not up here) and your own economic knowledge, evaluate the possible contribution of supply side policies to the reduction of unemployment in the UK. (15 marks)
3 arguments need to be written on this. i've done 3 but it's the last one im not too sure aboutbtw i wrote this while i was half dead so if something doesn't make sense please tell moi)
With house price growth down resulting in decreased consumer spending, the likelihood that firms would invest in schemes to improve supply would decrease. this is because a ceteris paribus increase in supply would only serve to depress the price further- meaning even lower profits for firms.
but with the pound strong against other currencies, it is even more important that firms invest to help improve economic rowth or at least sustain it at the current level. this is because with decreased competitiveness in the UK economy, less goods will be demanded by both home and foreign consumers decreasing AD and as a direct result probably output/employment.
by investing in becoming more competitive, the productive capacity of the economy would improve- also improving productive efficiency. with greater competitiveness, demand for UK goods start to rise as a result.
this overall could cause a multiplier effect where the initial increase in supply causes an eventual increase in demand as more people are emplyed etc. creating more disposable income in the economy- supply creating it's own demand.
(i haven't added the evaluation for this argument here)
is the above an explanation of say's law (l'offre crée sa propre demande- supply creates its own demand) and does it make any sense or can anyone point out where i may have gone wrong?
any help would be very much appreciated
One of the questions in a past paper was this:
Using the data (obviously its not up here) and your own economic knowledge, evaluate the possible contribution of supply side policies to the reduction of unemployment in the UK. (15 marks)
3 arguments need to be written on this. i've done 3 but it's the last one im not too sure about
btw i wrote this while i was half dead so if something doesn't make sense please tell moi)With house price growth down resulting in decreased consumer spending, the likelihood that firms would invest in schemes to improve supply would decrease. this is because a ceteris paribus increase in supply would only serve to depress the price further- meaning even lower profits for firms.
but with the pound strong against other currencies, it is even more important that firms invest to help improve economic rowth or at least sustain it at the current level. this is because with decreased competitiveness in the UK economy, less goods will be demanded by both home and foreign consumers decreasing AD and as a direct result probably output/employment.
by investing in becoming more competitive, the productive capacity of the economy would improve- also improving productive efficiency. with greater competitiveness, demand for UK goods start to rise as a result.
this overall could cause a multiplier effect where the initial increase in supply causes an eventual increase in demand as more people are emplyed etc. creating more disposable income in the economy- supply creating it's own demand.
(i haven't added the evaluation for this argument here)
is the above an explanation of say's law (l'offre crée sa propre demande- supply creates its own demand) and does it make any sense or can anyone point out where i may have gone wrong?
any help would be very much appreciated
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities!
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 (9ECO 01) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A-level Economics Study Group 2023-2024
- Economics Application
- Eduqas A level Economics
- is 'taxi driver' classed as a job of a lower socio-economic background?
- 2023 WJEC Ecomnomics A Level Grade Boundaries
- Aqa Economics or Edexcel Politics or Aqa Sociology???
- alevel economics
- A-level Economics Study Group 2022-2023
- Official University of Roehampton Applicant Thread for 2024
- economics a level aqa
- Geography vs Economics A level choices
- Help me pick unis
- Economics at Aberdeen
- LSE Economics: without FurtherMaths
- GCSEs good enough for Econ and Econ history?
- Choosing Between Reading and Loughborough for Economics & Investment Banking
- What are my chances of getting into Oxford off this info?
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
