“Trade is always more effective than aid in reducing global disparities.” Referring to examples, discuss this statement.

It would be expected that responses show an understanding of both “trade” and “aid”. The focus should be on how effective they are as tools to help reduce disparities between countries and regions. The focus of the essay should be assessing which is/has been more effective in this role and why, with the use of examples. Candidates can agree or disagree with the statement but need to be able to support their position. It is also possible that responses may agree that both are equally effective, or may argue that both are equally ineffective. “Disparities” is also open to interpretation as the question does not specify economic disparities and so responses may argue that human rights or gender issues are or are not effectively addressed by either aid or trade. There are varied ways of tackling this question and each needs to be marked on its merit.

Responses may develop aspects of trade such as: tariffs, subsidies, dumping, foreign direct investment, export-driven growth of the “Asian Tigers”. Responses may argue that trade is mainly seen as a method of breaching the economic development gap. The focus over the last decades has been neo-liberalism with the belief that as trade increases and GNI increases for low-income countries the “trickle down” effect will eventually help increase the standards of living. Responses may cite the Asian Tigers and more recently China as examples of success. Alternatively responses may argue that trade has failed to successfully lift many nations out of poverty and that the main benefactors have been Western nations with protectionist policies and subsidized production.

Responses may look at different types of aid (food, emergency, financial, bilateral, multi-lateral) and address aspects such as: dependency, corruption, debt, conditionality such as with structural adjustment schemes, bilateral aid agreements, the MDGs, emergency aid, micro credit schemes, NGOs, FBOs, charities. If looking at economic disparities responses may argue that since the post-Second World War Marshall Plan aid has been ineffective. Many OECD countries do not give 0.7% of their GDP and the conditionalities attached to loans from the IMF and WB have done more harm than good to many low-income economies. When looking at other social or health disparities responses may argue that aid has been more effective. For example Ethiopia met its MDG target on reducing child mortality two years ahead of 2015.

Responses should make use of examples but responses that focus on describing trade and aid and not focusing on their effectiveness as a tool to reduce disparities will be self-limiting.

For band D expect some understanding of how trade and aid can help/not help reduce disparities. This need not be balanced.

For band E expect some understanding of how trade and aid can help/not help reduce disparities with reference to their effectiveness using examples. This need not be balanced.

For band F expect some understanding of how trade and aid can help/not help reduce disparities with reference to their effectiveness using examples. This need not be balanced. There should be some attempt at an evaluation of the statement.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

This, together with question 6, was the most popular of the three questions. Many candidates were able to evaluate effectively with a range of varied and valid examples. Many used Ethiopia, Haiti or Jamaica in assessing the effectiveness of aid, and the EU, China or the Asian Tigers in assessing the effectiveness of trade. Some responses were quite descriptive and candidates needed to focus their knowledge and understanding towards the question more. There were a number of responses that focused their entire answer on the value of fair trade; whilst this could have been one small aspect of the answer it should not have dominated the entire response. There were some excellent band E and F responses for this question.