Analyse how the growth of multi-governmental organizations (MGOs) can impact on the political borders of member states.

Contrast the impact of global interactions on the quality of life of different groups of people.

Analyse how the growth of multi-governmental organizations (MGOs) can impact on the political borders of member states.

Political borders are potential barriers to flows of goods, capital or people. Likely examples of multi-governmental organizations include the European Union (EU), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), etc. Also credit discussion of WTO, IMF, UN, BRICS summit groups, OECD, G7/8/20, OPEC etc.

Other possible analytical themes include:
• Not all MGOs impact on the effectiveness of member states’ borders to the same extent. Only the EU allows full freedom of movement.
• Trade blocs like NAFTA allow movement of commodities across borders without the imposition of tariffs.
• Illegal migration / smuggling may render borders ineffective.

Good answers may apply (AO2) a wider range of knowledge and understanding (AO1) in a well-structured way (AO4). One approach might be to analyse how the word “can” is conditional and suggests other geographical influences should be considered too, such as the effectiveness of border controls (eg US–Mexico). Another approach might be to analyse how political borders remain in place for states at the supra-national scale. MGO formation might even strengthen external borders eg external tariff / customs union / border policing of migration from external states outside the MGO.

For band C (4–6 marks), expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of the impact of one or two MGOs on national borders.

For band D (7–8 marks), expect a structured, evidenced analysis of
• either two or more detailed MGO contexts
• or some variety of impacts on political borders (perhaps at varying scales).

For band E (9–10 marks), expect both band D traits.

Contrast the impact of global interactions on the quality of life of different groups of people.

Credit all content in line with the markbands. Credit unexpected approaches wherever relevant.

The focus here is on quality of life, which is a highly debatable concept in itself (expect some definition to be provided in a good answer). The merit of the answer is likely to depend on the variety of global interactions that are conceptualized and/or the contrasts that are offered.

Possible applied themes (AO2) include knowledge and understanding (AO1) of:
• isolated tribes and their quality of life [Guide 7]
• issues of multiculturalism [Guide 5]
• deindustrialization, labour flows and outsourcing and their impacts on employment in a range of different contexts [Guide 2 and 3]
• the homogenizing power of global media and TNCs (cultural imperialism) and the reaction to this [Guide 5 and 7]
• environmental concerns and the health concerns associated with waste dumping, transboundary pollution and some work eg e-waste harvesting [Guide 4].

Good answers may synthesize (AO3) three of more of these themes in a well-structured (AO4) way.

Good answers may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which contrasts a wider range of groups (isolated tribes; people in deindustrialized regions; societies benefiting from inward investment or outsourcing; global citizens; conflict victims). Good answers might take a more nuanced view than simply listing “winners and losers”. For example, one group might gain employment from global shift while also experiencing a negative change such as cultural dilution; this could make it hard to judge the net impact on their quality of life. Good answers might conclude that contrasts should be drawn carefully because “quality of life” and “global interactions” are complex ideas.

Answers which deal mainly with “benefits” for people, rather than addressing quality of life explicitly, may still reach band D if sufficient relevant themes are synthesized.

For band C (5–8 marks), expect weakly-evidenced outlining of two or three relevant themes from the Guide.

For band D (9–12 marks), expect
• either a structured synthesis which links together several well-evidenced and well-focused themes from the geography guide
• or a critical conclusion (or ongoing evaluation).

For band E (13–15 marks), expect both of these traits.

This was the least popular question; candidates attempting it generally produced merit-worthy answers that dealt competently with the effect that the EU and NAFTA have had on the borders of member states (these were the most popular examples by a considerable margin). Done well, an analysis of borders/barriers to the movement of people and trade was sufficient to access the top bands provided good supporting details were provided of one or two organizations.  A large proportion of answers, however, were side-tracked into an analysis of the costs and benefits of MGO membership. Some barely mentioned the word ‘borders’ and wrote instead at some length about sovereignty and political self determination. Wherever possible, credit was awarded of course. However, some clearly knowledgeable candidates did not access the highest bands on account of their lack of focus. 

Candidates often failed to use the phrase ‘quality of life’ and instead wrote far more broadly about ‘winners and losers’ of globalization, or ‘positive and negative consequences’ of global interactions. Some material was creditable on account of the way in which quality of life was implied; for instance, the statement ‘remittances sent home may help children in the source country to attend school or gain access to improved health care’ (this implies improved quality of life for the children). Other material was less obviously creditable. For instance, the statement ‘globalization has helped China develop into the world’s largest economy but some African countries have done less well’ (in this example, it is less obvious what is being said about quality of life). A few answers focused exclusively on the lives of ‘non-globalized’ groups such as the Xingu tribe and Amish of North America. This approach did not work terribly well as candidates could offer little in the way of evaluation beyond the observation that these groups are unaffected so their quality of life remains unchanged. In contrast, the best answers often mentioned indigenous tribes but additionally evaluated the changing quality of life for a wide range of different groups, including consumer societies, producer societies, social network users and societies disproportionately affected by global environmental change.