The Student Room Group

OCR F581 Markets in Action - 11 May 2015

Scroll to see replies

Original post by JamesM96
And what about for the public good 6 marker?

I defined the two characteristics, explained how currently it would fit them but in the future - farmers buying land would legally make it theirs (excludable), and also when they use their bought land it would take away from the land that could be used for leisure, hence is was also rivalrous. So I determined that although it was a public good currently, it may not always be and could be a non-public good in the future dependent on how it is bought/used in the future.

6 marks?


Think it was more about whether open spaces currently were public goods

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 1461
I shifted demand as it said in the question the demand for agricultural products has increased due to consumers wanting affordable energy. Biofuel is a product of agriculture and that can be argued. Plus it said that the supply was subsidised for agricultural crops. The 18 marker when talking about positive externalities you say that the substitute increases the production for positive consumption lowering the price so that more people will consume it and welfare gain with increase(in simple terms) as the price falls
[QUOTE="casiobose;55650353"]
Original post by midgemeister7


No I didn't? Haha

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by midgemeister7
Think it was more about whether open spaces currently were public goods

Posted from TSR Mobile


It asked whether the ones in the case study would always be considered public good - or at least I thought:|
Original post by chloe-jessica
The 6 mark was explaining the PES figures then following 4 mark was basically determinants of PED.
The second question threw me a little, I shifted the supply curve but part of me was thinking whether or not to move both. The 18 marker was nice though, you could write a fair bit about how it depended on the cause of the market failure as evaluation, bringing in other intervention measures (eg taxation, regulation) which might be better suited to different types of market failure.


The term significantly implied that both should be shifted. Essay was indeed superb!

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by JamesM96
It asked whether they one in the case study would always be considered public good - or at least I though:|


What you put seems good, you should be okay either way hopefully!

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jakeyboy8
4 bro


I believe it was 6. 4 diagram 2 explanation.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Oops yes it was the 4 marker I meant with the PED.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I shifted the Demand curve
I shifted the supply curve
What did everybody get for Question 2?
I shifted both on the second question. 18 marker was a godsend. What did everyone put for commenting on allocative efficiency?

I feel like the grade boundaries could be pretty high.
Reply 1472
Original post by *Stefan*
The term significantly implied that both should be shifted. Essay was indeed superb!

Posted from TSR Mobile


If both shifted that's incorrect as unless supply or demand is inelastic there would be no change
Shi
Biocrops are a form of agriculture I believe- and the supply of these increased. But in the case study it stated that consumer demand had risen.
smashed it
Reply 1476
Original post by TazLi
I shifted demand as it said in the question the demand for agricultural products has increased due to consumers wanting affordable energy. Biofuel is a product of agriculture and that can be argued. Plus it said that the supply was subsidised for agricultural crops. The 18 marker when talking about positive externalities you say that the substitute increases the production for positive consumption lowering the price so that more people will consume it and welfare gain with increase(in simple terms) as the price falls


I believe it also mentioned that supply of other agricultural products fell since farmers moved to producing biofuel.
Original post by TazLi
If both shifted that's incorrect as unless supply or demand is inelastic there would be no change


An increase in demand and a decrease in supply would significantly increase price, yes.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TazLi
If both shifted that's incorrect as unless supply or demand is inelastic there would be no change


It's not. It said how the price can significantly increase. The most common way for this is a decrease in supply and an increase in demand.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
For my essay I used the example in the case study, about biofuels. I looked at how Biofuel's negative externalities caused market failure and then examined how subsidising an alternative, rice, would solve the overproduction. Do you think I will still get the marks or would they want you to talk about directly subsidising a positive externality/demerit good?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending