User interface language: English | Español

Date November 2014 Marks available 10 Reference code 14N.3.hl.1
Level HL only Paper 3 Time zone
Command term Analyse Question number 1 Adapted from N/A

Question

Analyse the increasing influence of one multi-governmental organization you have studied.

[10]
a.

“Global interactions bring negative effects, rather than positive effects, to every part of the world.” Discuss this statement.

[15]
b.

Markscheme

Likely examples include the EU, NAFTA or the BRICS group (which has had annual meetings since 2009). Also credit other examples of global governance with a multi-governmental character, such as the IMF, World Bank, G8, OPEC, NATO, OECD. Also credit the UN, or UN-sponsored agencies. An analysis of the influence of a specific global conference or agreement/protocol (climate change meetings in Kyoto, Doha, etc) could reach band D/E provided that it is explicitly shown to be the product of multi-governmental collaboration, organization or debate (if not, limit such responses to band C).

Multi-governmental organizations (MGOs) influence the way citizens, civil society and businesses operate by relaxing barriers to certain types of global flow/movement (migrants, tourists, goods, capital, etc). A key issue is the diminishing effectiveness of political borders.

Alternative approaches might analyse the political influence that MGOs have over the governance of sovereign states:

At band D, expect either description of some range of ways in which an MGO is influential, or some chronology/explanation of why its influence is increasing.

For band E, expect both.

a.

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

Three likely ways to discuss the statement (there may be others) are as follows:

Likely themes for discussion include:

Good answers may provide some discussion of the extent of these effects (the interrogation of whether “every place” is affected) and may focus on “un-globalized” societies eg Amazonian tribes [Guide 7], ocean pathways for pollution and plastic-strewn coral atolls, Antarctic beaches, etc.

At band D, there should be either a detailed explanation of a variety of effects or a more critical discussion of the net balance/spread of effects.

For band E, expect both.

b.

Examiners report

Some excellent answers were seen that addressed “influence” in multiple ways. Trade, geopolitics and migration were common themes that candidates using the EU or NAFTA explored. These were far and away the most popular examples, although a small minority wrote about Mercosur. Middle-ability candidates were sometimes shaky on important details, such as the number of EU member states.

a.

Well-informed and well-revised candidates were likely to attain band D, as this was achievable by synthesizing a series of “positive” and “negative” case studies of almost any variety and concluding that global interactions have brought “mixed” results. Far fewer candidates displayed the ability to produce a nuanced evaluation of the statement that was more sensitive to the concepts of geographical place and scale. Where band E marks were awarded, candidates had generally progressed beyond a mere “costs and benefits” approach and were able to focus on the veracity of the statement that every part of the world is adversely affected by global interactions. They debated explicitly whether effects such as the spread of English language, or diffusion of plastic pollution in the oceans, are truly globalized phenomena or not.

b.

Syllabus sections

HL extension: Global interactions » Economic interactions and flows » Financial flows

View options