Explain how and why one network (transport, internet, or communication) has grown over time.

Examine the relative importance of the different financial flows that connect global core areas with peripheral areas.

The description of “how” may include some account of changes in user numbers and the global pattern of distribution, including key nodes and hubs where large amounts of traffic (people, goods or information) are routed.

Some candidates may select one example of transport (for example, container shipping) while others may address transport in general. Either approach is acceptable and should be credited according to its merits.

While it is desirable that good answers can describe the spatial growth of the chosen network over time, it is also acceptable for the answer to instead describe growth in the intensity of use of the network over time (this applies particularly to an analysis of the worldwide web or of “global travel”).

The account of “why” should focus on a rising number of users/affluent markets, thereby causing networks to grow (in size or intensity of use) to help meet the needs of more individuals (leisure/tourism/work) and businesses, including TNCs and/or governments.

The overcoming of physical, economic, or political obstacles could form an important part of the account (either “how” or “why”). For example, an analysis of internet growth might mention physical challenges being overcome (through the laying of undersea cables). Or an account of airline growth might mention advancements in technology (Airbus) or the growth of cheap airlines. Equally, key milestones in the roll-out of the technology (for example, invention of TCP/IP protocol for the internet) can be applied to support either strand of the answer.

To access band D, both “how” and “why” need to be adressed in relation to the same network example. To access band E, the response should be well balanced, although a good explanation of “how” could balance a weaker account of “why” or vice versa.

Other approaches may be equally valid.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

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

Responses would be expected to outline some key financial flows: loans (and the repayment of interest/debt), Foreign Direct Investment, profit flows, share trades, remittances and international aid (government and NGOs) [Guide 3]. Food, raw materials, manufactured goods and services (all sold for profit) may also be addressed. The response should also provide some explanation of what is meant by a “global core area” and perhaps some discussion of the varied nature of the periphery (LDCs and NICs, for instance) [Guide 1]. There will be varying interpretations of what constitutes a core or peripheral area (for example, the issue of where BRICs are placed). The best answers may even critically address the issue of scale (for example, rural India is peripheral to the world economy but Mumbai could be described as a core/hub area) [Guide 1].

The relative importance of the flows needs to be addressed. Globally, FDI dwarfs aid flows, for instance. The power of TNCs is arguably greater than that of many sovereign states [Guide 6] and aid agencies, suggesting that trade flows may be more influential than aid flows in terms of the impact they have on different places and people’s lives.

The idea of what constitutes “important” may also be reflected on, or explicit recognition provided that many flows operate in both directions and so net effects are hard to quantify.

Any conclusion reached will be context-dependent. While the “Asian miracle” is often taught as a vindication of the transformative power of FDI, other localities have rejected FDI and aid flows (there are South American and African examples) and there is a spectrum of local reactions to international flows [Guide 7]. Accept a broad interpretation of what is meant by “currency”, for example, gold, diamonds.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

The question was generally quite well answered, although there was a tendency for weaker candidates to ignore the spatial aspects implied by the term "network" in the question (and subject guide). A small number of candidates explained the growth of more than one network by, for example, writing about transport and communications networks. (This approach tended to bring breadth of description, rather than depth of explanation, resulting in a lower likelihood of reaching band E.) A few very strong responses charted the growth (that is, actual spatial expansion) of airline hubs, or the roll-out of broadband (and could reference the internet "switching-on" of specific places, such as Kenya or Bangalore, rather than "Africa" or "Asia" in general).

The poorest answers described a timeline of travel ("growth" came to mean "speeding up" – not quite the same thing), starting with the invention of the wheel or walking. Within the context of a contemporary global interactions paper, this kind of "general knowledge" response would not have achieved many marks.

A proper examination of the "relative importance" of financial flows was not always delivered by candidates; most conclusions failed to reach the desired level of evaluation. Better responses did, however, make accurate reference to a variety of financial flows and displayed a good grasp of how they connect core and peripheral areas bidirectionally. The weakest responses failed to relate core and peripheral areas to specific locations and exhibited little knowledge of what flows are financial, or how financial flows operate. Moreover, some had no grasp of what the "core and periphery" pattern looks like in a 21st century global context. A simple "Brandt Line approach" is not an appropriate framework for contemporary global analysis, given today's complex map of emerging economies and the spread of world cities/global hubs. No credit was given to those who took "core" to mean CBD.