Edexcel Economics Unit 4 Global Economy Discussion Thread (10.June.2014)

did anyone else do question 1? only i didn't mention a specific country in my part b and feel that i may have misread the question? did it say 'with reference to a country of your choice' I implicitly mentioned labours proposals to increase the high rate of tax but im not sure that may be enough. Just a little concerned as it may mean that i have been capped on that question. Any help would be very much appreciated only im a little concerned.

For question 5 d , did you put the reasons why they should decrease their imbalances or how they did it ? I was slightly confused by the wording of the question thx

Did anyone else do questions 1 and 4?

Q1a) there wasn't much for eval, i just prioritised and could you say that government borrowing had fallen and more of the national debt had been paid off, thereby reducing the budget deficit?

For q4, i'm really not sure about (b) and (c)

for (b) i know that it was all KAA but i don't know if i got all the marks? it just said describe the increase in income inequality so i x-refd the data and drew a lorenz curve shifting out.

(c) was pretty horrible, could you say that absolute poverty may have increased (the poorest) thereby allowing relative poverty to rise but with an overall increase in inequality? Could you then say for eval that relative poverty is subjective, difficult to define, and more data is needed?

and for (d) was this basically primary product dependency pros/cons but related to economic effects?

I did question 1. A) I didn't particularly relate it to the UK or a specific country. I talked about an increase in corporation tax revenue, decrease in spending on unemployment benefits and Osborne's austerity cuts. Does not relating mean I won't get marks? My points were all theoretical not real-world...

B) I focused on the fact that it was an increase in income tax on high earners. So I talked about people moving abroad, decrease in disposable income etc. Did anyone else specifically relate it to high earners or did I do it wrong??

it was the other way around.

christ...........

my first factor was that developing countries have primary product dependency, commodities may mean they only have low incomes so they cant grow (threw in something about prebisch singer) then said that industrialization would be essential for both development in the long run and growth in the short run, would that be ok??

honestly cannot remember anything else i wrote for the entire exam

The dependency on oil question was nice. Just talk about price fluctuations, lack of investment etc. the WTO question was the best question, i just drew a tariff diagram and explained the pros and cons of free trade. The 10 marker on inequality was ridiculously hard. Left that out

(b) how do you even mention enough points for 8 marks on gini/lorenz...
(c) As long as you said why absolute poverty would increase, I dont see why it would be wrong
For (d) I think it means looking at impact on macroeconomic impacts such as on inflation/employment etc. I only realised this nearer the end

I did question 1. A) I didn't particularly relate it to the UK or a specific country. I talked about an increase in corporation tax revenue, decrease in spending on unemployment benefits and Osborne's austerity cuts. Does not relating mean I won't get marks? My points were all theoretical not real-world...

B) I focused on the fact that it was an increase in income tax on high earners. So I talked about people moving abroad, decrease in disposable income etc. Did anyone else specifically relate it to high earners or did I do it wrong??

The dependency on oil question was nice. Just talk about price fluctuations, lack of investment etc. the WTO question was the best question, i just drew a tariff diagram and explained the pros and cons of free trade. The 10 marker on inequality was ridiculously hard. Left that out

to be honest I dnt really know what is the right structure for this.:/ I guess primary product you could mention more in question b) than in a). I basically parted it into supply side growth and demand side growth and how each would affect development differently and said inequality might arise through econ growth so might not promote development, but ay I dont know really unsure on this question.

Sorry for (c) i did more but didn't put it down here. I defined both the gini coefficient and the lorenz curve, quoted from the extract for 2 app marks, drew a lorenz curve shifting out and then said that a value of 0 represents absolute equality and a value of 1 represents absolute inequality and thus a change from 0.405 (1999) to 0.425 (2011) increased in inequality.
Is this what you did?

Pretty much exactly, I quoted the same figures as well using 1998 instead of 1999 though

Did anyone else have trouble with 3 (b) the approach I took was to say it isn't significant and describe 4 other factors. Primary product dependency, debt, corruption and lack of human capital. Then for evaluation I wanted to say that is significant. But I could only think of one good point. i.e harrod domar model. I also mentioned that it would limit infrastructure improvements but couldn't think of a third point.

I related it to high earners which was especially useful for evaluation...

I did question 1. A) I didn't particularly relate it to the UK or a specific country. I talked about an increase in corporation tax revenue, decrease in spending on unemployment benefits and Osborne's austerity cuts. Does not relating mean I won't get marks? My points were all theoretical not real-world...

B) I focused on the fact that it was an increase in income tax on high earners. So I talked about people moving abroad, decrease in disposable income etc. Did anyone else specifically relate it to high earners or did I do it wrong??

I also said that my other factors such as lack of infrastructure was more significant as a constraint than savings gap i think it is ok if you argue that way describing four factors was the right approach I think, but you could also evaluate those factors. eg ppd not that signficiant because some countries developed with dependancy etc.