Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizzie196)
    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.
    If i remember then only A asked for a specific country, 1b just gave the example of france having high tax rates so i just used france as the example country
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tobias888)
    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
    as i said i did why they did it thats how understood it, but apparently it was what to do to reduce it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nightw0lf07)
    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?
    (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
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sheik96)
    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??
    Hey,
    they might cap your part A for not relating to a specific country just because I think I've seen that on mark schemes in previous papers.
    i also related like half of my part b to high earners but then also said how the increased tax rate should in theory reduce inequality and increase gov revenue and then evaluated with the laffer curve and tax avoidance/evasion etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHenri)
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin stilton)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mhassan)
    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
    Tariff diagrams are just the best I also mention WTO being more leaned towards bilateral rather than multilateral agreements plus the process of actually coming to an agreement is lengthy. Then again WTO has led to significantly less trade barriers
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullycorporate)
    (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
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sheik96)
    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 related it to high earners which was especially useful for evaluation...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mhassan)
    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
    I agree with that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHenri)
    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.
    yeah im with u on that, 3b was just too nice of a 30 marker compared to the others so hope i gained enough marks on that to cancel out any i might have lost in 3b! thanks any way man
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nightw0lf07)
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullycorporate)
    Pretty much exactly, I quoted the same figures as well using 1998 instead of 1999 though
    Ok cool. that should be fine
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aminkaram)
    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 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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous1717)
    I related it to high earners which was especially useful for evaluation...
    When you say evaluation, did you take a particular side of the argument? I just made certain points, some positive (e.g. more tax revenue for government) and some negatives (e.g. high earners relocate abroad) and then evaluated those points with how they could be questioned. Didn't take a particular side.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do people really think this wasn't harder than last year? In my opinion it was the hardest paper set so far. The data responses both had a few tricky questions and the essays weren't as straightforward as last year. (Maybe with the exception of the fiscal policy one but that's not my cup of tea.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sheik96)
    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??
    Yup same here, I said about debt repayments/incentives/laffer curve, disposable income and multiplier/economy, brain drain/people moving abroad (Specifically evaluated with high earners ) and inequality/trickle down and the concluded with an incentive point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHenri)
    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.
    You are joking me ((((( that would have made it so much easier
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.