[ECON 1] AQA Economics Unit 1 - 13th May 2013

Hi, can someone tell me if this is right, I did context 2 about mobile phones and wrote about taxation, regulation and education and why if the government inforced these they might work but light cause market failure? I did analyse them in quite a lot if detail but jut wondered if they were right?
Thanks

I found the exam hard, I would honestly be happy with a D just so I can stay on the course next year, could anyone tell me if this would be enough on the 25 marks question to get a decent mark

I chose context 2 and wrote about indirect taxes and campaigns to give information about the health risks of mobile phone and also to make sure suppliers ensure information is labelled on their product thought regulations. I done a graph of the effect indirect taxes would have on the supply of mobile phones is that correct. I didn't write very clearly and every was abit jumbled up but the information was their , could this be enough for a d grade

Cheers Conor

I wrote about the same points! Except I didn't specify the tax as being indirect :/ you should be okay as you naturally tend to evaluate a 'for and against' question, plud it was easy to refer to the sources in that question. I'm sure you did well

Posted from TSR Mobile

omds I drew a neg externalties diagram for context 2 25 marker saying that radiation causes cancer can I still get the marks

For context 2 I wrote about subsidising hands-free sets and imposing a minimum wage for asian workers in phone production, my reason for the government not influencing the market was very vague. What did people write for reasons against the government intervening for context 2?

omds I drew a neg externalties diagram for context 2 25 marker saying that radiation causes cancer can I still get the marks

Hi guys

I sat this exam this morning and I think it went ok. My essay was pushed for time. I chose context 2 and structured it like so:

INTRO : Defined govt intervention. Only should be used if market failure can be evidenced and a policy that is economically viable and fair is found.

1) Free market is thought to work well at allocation of resources. Analysis - price functions: incentive, rationing, signals. Evaluate, allocative efficiency is achieved (price = marginal cost).

2) Calls for intervention to due market failure in the form of externalities (health + phone use whilst driving) + Market failure diagram showing negative externality.

3) Policy could be education. Reduce output closer to socially optimum level due to reduced demand. BUT (evaluation) expensive (given budgetary frugality atm), long time period, dependent on audience and receptiveness, liberty (why can't we choose ourselves?), government failure. Therefore it is not viable.

CONCLUSION : should be left to the free market, policy not suitable because of govt failure and variables of success. In the long run, firms entering the industry may lead to r & d which may reduce the negative externalities from health.

What do you guys think of that as a structure? I was pushed for time, but hope my evaluation, of the free market's efficiency and the unsuitability of an education policy due to govt failure, will be sufficient to get good marks.

I had a similar sturcture to this switch your opening and 1) round and developed some ideas a bit more such as with health concerns there is no concrete evidence yet as phones are relativly new technology and diseases associated with mobile phones e.g. cancer take a long time to develop. However if they did in the long run it may burden the NHS and create an opportunity cost as less can be spent on infrastructure and this may worsen the standard of living of the population. then a paragraph on minimum prices and also as you said neg ext w/ information gap etc. Also in final evaluation talked about how economics is a social science so dont know how the market will respond, the need for more data such as price elasticity of demand to gain an idea as to whether intervention will make a difference (inelastic probs not), and ideas referring to regulation of phone mast locations. But summed up saying there is a case for intervention with some more evidence to back it although it may not be preferable by the population in the short run, it MAY benefit society in the long run

lets put a mark schme for this together....

1) D - maximise profits
2) B - increased capital
3) D - positive

aeroplane one?
marginal benefits one?
money as a medium of exchange?
total revenue one?

areoplane was derived demand B