Explain why the landscapes of major world cities are becoming increasingly similar.

“Global interactions are putting all the world’s wealth into the hands of a small number of people and countries.” Discuss this statement.

The focus should be an explanation of the landscapes of major world cities eg Sao Paulo, New York, Cape Town, Singapore, Mumbai, Barcelona, Dublin etc. These settlements may house “cloned” retailing districts and ubiquitous branded commodities (expect references to McDonald’s and Starbucks); also, a suggestion of “universal” modernist architecture in financial and housing districts (expect a range of examples in stronger responses); also, a broader response may encompass the proliferation of cultural and religious signs and symbols as a result of migration and diaspora (eg mosques, synagogues, churches all present in major world cities/global hubs). Metro-style transport networks are a common shared feature.

Explanation may include: the global influence of property developers (retail/financial/housing) key architects and their firms; inter-urban competition (eg status competition for the highest, or most modern-looking buildings); the power of TNCs to project global advertising messages in urban environments (and perhaps regulatory changes or trade bloc enlargements assisting their global expansion); rising affluence in emerging economies (thus enticing McDonald’s, etc); the “shrinking world” effect (the global diffusion of architectural styles, etc); migration leading to landscape changes; historical connections (colonial architecture).

The question does not require counter-argument although some may note that “similar” is not equivalent to “same” due to the survival of local architecture. The focus invites an overview of the world’s major cities/urban landscapes and the best answers may cite examples drawn from both developed world cities and those of some emerging economies eg “Asian Tigers”, Middle East, BRIC nations.

Band C answers are likely to be descriptive (lacking explanation) of urban homogenization, or explain cultural/global homogenization but without a landscape/city focus.

For band D, at least two reasons for urban/landscape homogenization should be well explained, or a wider range of reasons for cultural homogenization are explained in less detail and some links are made with urban landscapes. Band E should provide breadth and depth of explanation, with some variety of landscape exemplification.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

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

The broadest macro-scale distributional contrasts should be clearly highlighted – including the high growth rates of emerging economies, especially those of China and India (can be used to support or argue against the question) and the continued lack of FDI for the poorest 50 LDCs. A historical view might contrast the historical Brandt Line north-south wealth distribution with today’s more complex pattern of cores [Guide 1]. Good answers may even appreciate the recent relative underperformance and loss of share of wealth of established core regions (Japan, USA, Eurozone). Answers should be focused on wealth, rather than “importance” and may have supporting data, eg GDP figures or income data or use of Gini index data. These changes may be linked with a range of explanatory reasons relating to economic interactions including FDI, remittances, aid etc. [Guide 3], changes in global participation [Guide 1] or geopolitical change and interaction [Guide 6].

The benefits of globalization are not evenly spread within nations and this is a reason for resistance from some groups [Guide 5/7]. One approach might be to examine the claim that “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer” and describe evidence for worker poverty within some nations, linked to FDI/TNCs [Guide 3], outsourcing or agro-industry employment [Guide 4]. Societies that have been excluded from global interactions (indigenous tribes, etc) may also be discussed [Guide 7].

Good answers may address the question at different scales, or may suggest a complex global pattern of “haves” and “have-nots” (perhaps by identifying wealth in the Middle East or East Asia, or highlighting the persisting poverty of the poorest LDCs eg Mali). The best answers may distinguish between relative and absolute levels of wealth. As the rich have got richer, the poor may hold a lessened share of wealth – this is not the same thing as losing wealth.

Band C responses may assert the statement is correct/incorrect, based on a narrow range of supporting ideas, lacking much specific evidence/information.

For band D there should be a synthesis of several evidenced themes taken from the subject guide, or a properly evidenced conclusion that provides a considered/balanced viewpoint/overview, clearly related to the changing distribution of global wealth. At band E, expect both of these elements.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

There were some very descriptive answers seen, as commented on above. A commonly-made assertion was that TNCs “arrive” and transform the landscape. But why are TNCs arriving in Jakarta, Phnom Penh, Mumbai, Mombasa, Sao Paulo, and so on? Too many geography candidates are unable to meaningfully articulate why the world around us is changing. In strong answers, there was some recognition of the wealth growth amongst the new middle classes in global hubs such as Sao Paulo, attracting the interest of global capital. Good responses sometimes looked at the role of “re-branding” (modernizing the city, using cutting-edge architectural design) in order to attract further FDI (multiplier ideas). Some middle-ability candidates, however, lost focus on “major” world cities and wrote instead about small settlements (for example, “clone towns” in the UK, for which some credit could be gained provided the explanation was good and pertinent to the actual question set). Significant numbers wrote an inappropriate answer concerned with the Burgess concentric ring model, and asserted that this was a “universal” landscape (hence, they argued erroneously that all landscapes, from Tokyo to Illinois, must become the same in time, in strict line with Burgess’s wishes).

The general level of understanding in middle-ability responses to this question is also a cause for concern. Very few candidates seemed to show appropriate understanding of 21st century global economic geography. Not one single candidate, for instance, was seemingly aware that the McDonald’s franchises in India are 50% native-owned. Instead, the entire cohort asserted that “all the profits go to the USA”. Several more widely-used case studies suffered similarly from out-of-date, or just plain incorrect, content. Candidates had little or no knowledge of TNCs based in the BRIC or “Tiger” economies, such as Tata, Shanghai Electric or Samsung. Very few possessed up-to-date information about the world’s emerging middle class, such as the 40 million-strong C class in Brazil, who have enjoyed significant gains in consumption since the 1990s (though not in citizenship, which has been the focus of the recent riots in Brazil). It is, of course, entirely appropriate for candidates to be concerned with continuing poverty in parts of Africa, and the role that TNCs may play in perpetuating this. It is also true that a minority of billionaires monopolize a huge chunk of the world’s wealth, however, higher level diploma geography candidates should surely recognize that there is more to the changing global pattern of wealth than this. One good starting point for updating content is this recent McKinsey report: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/consumer_and_retail/capturing_the_worlds_emerging_middle_class