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

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

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:

• EU states must agree to adopt legislation from European Parliament (some may even know of the growing influence of Germany as a driver of EU policy affecting Greece during Eurozone crisis)
• IMF insistence on economic reform/adjustments in countries seeking loans, sometimes critiqued as a neo-colonial form of influence
• UN human rights rulings/war tribunals/peace-keeping operations
• NATO or other military alliances and their actions
• the macro-economic influence of OPEC during the 1970s (another approach might be to analyse why OPEC’s influence has ceased to increase since)
• the growing influence of the BRICS group (especially Chinese and Indian investment in African countries).

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.

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:

• one way is to assess the net effect for a range of generic global concerns (“every part of the world” is thus interpreted as “the world”)
• another way is to agree that there are few positives associated with global interactions, notably environmental effects, and to then address the extent to which particular places, especially isolated/wilderness regions [Guide 7], have suffered
• alternatively, candidates may offer a place-by-place or regional audit eg compares/discusses South America, Africa, USA, etc.

Likely themes for discussion include:

• financial flows [Guide 3] and workplace exploitation, balanced against the alleviation of poverty
• cultural interactions can bring homogeneity but also bring new forms of culture, and hybridity [Guide 5] but this must be balanced against the loss of authentic differences and the ways in which adopted cultural traits enable “exploitative” or consumerist TNCs to gain leverage to penetrate new markets, etc
• migration brings a range of effects for host and source regions [Guide 5]; these should be carefully weighed and, ideally, a genuine evaluation given (rather than listed costs and benefits)
• environmental harm is likely to be a major theme [Guide 4]; some may argue that accelerated climate change stems from accelerated global interactions (accept this view), opening the way for a thoughtful discussion of predicted changes (including some beneficial ones, eg thermal growing season).

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.

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.

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.