Analyse the spatial and temporal pattern of adoption of one or more branded commodities.

“Global interactions have helped reduce disparities between places.” Discuss this statement.

There are spatial and temporal dimensions to the topic and both should be addressed. Only one example is required. If two examples are used then credit breadth rather than depth of analysis.

For band C, expect a description of the pattern of growth that contains some reference to a timescale and identifies countries or regions where the commodity/commodities have been adopted.

For bands D and E, expect a more thorough analysis that has good details or may additionally acknowledge the glocalized nature of the growth pattern or can identify growth boundaries (rather than implying the entire world has adopted the commodity), for example, may view poverty in parts of the world periphery as an obstacle to complete global diffusion. The case studies of diffusion may highlight key “blind spots” or anomalies where local resistance exists for cultural, political or economic reasons. For instance, there may be religious obstacles to the diffusion of McDonald’s beefburgers. Good answers may be aware of tariffs and trade bloc arrangements making it difficult for TNCs to gain entry to certain key markets.

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.

The term “global interactions” should be explained; many approaches are possible. Some responses may do this by reference to one of the indices of interactions [Guide 1]. This could then provide a structure for their response. Alternatively, responses may focus on different types of interactions, such as trade, aid, flows of labour, currency etc. and structure their response by looking at different examples [Guide 3].

It is valid to examine disparities at any scale, including the local scale, provided they are linked to global interactions.

The strongest responses will make explicit links between the changes they describe (for example, poverty reduction in China) and specific global interactions (for example, China building wealth through global trade).

Some may argue that as global interactions have increased, core areas have expanded to include more people [Guide 1]. Expect most accounts to tackle the idea of a developing periphery, for example, NICs/BRICs/EAGLEs.

A broad interpretation of “disparities” should be credited, for example, gender or environmental degradation [Guide 4]. Expect some mention of “unfair” losses for people whose environment is damaged by global trade and transboundary pollution [Guide 4]. Also, local cultures may be eroded [Guide 5], while the political emasculation of small states by powerful TNCs might even be discussed in a creditable way [Guide 6].

To access bands D and E, both sides of the argument should be addressed, although balance need not be expected if the candidate has a strong evidenced argument that mostly agrees or disagrees with the statement. Greater attention to scale (tackling disparities both between and within nations) is also indicative of high markband attainment.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

It is clear that many centres are teaching detailed case studies of Coca-Cola and McDonald's as branded commodities (very few responses mentioned other branded commodities). It was common for the temporal pattern of adoption to be treated in more detail than the spatial pattern of adoption, despite the guide's wording (that gives equal weighting to both). Weaker answers failed to reference any named places, cities, countries or regions, or could argue for little beyond a basic diffusion "from MEDCs to LEDCs". Most responses looked only (and partially) at where the commodity was adopted. Fewer considered the delimitation of the pattern, that  is, could recognize the "black spots" where it was not yet adopted, either because it was not offered or was rejected (this strand of argument was actively looked for at band E, given the overarching rationale of this part of the course – as set out in the very first paragraph of part 3 of the guide - which encourages teachers and candidates to consider patterns of resistance, as well as adoption, in relation to global interactions).

"Disparities" is a wide umbrella term. The use of it here aimed to open the question up, thereby allowing a synthetic response ideally to be developed. The best answers appreciated this, and could demonstrate that not all disparities are income-based (the commonest interpretation). Stronger responses also included reference to disparities relating to race, gender, ethnicity and social status. Mid-level responses tended to be limited to a consideration of just two kinds of interaction, typically remittances and investment by TNCs. A third theme was usually introduced in better answers, such as trade interactions taking place within trade blocs. (More than two themes is very much to be to be encouraged if bands D and E are to be attained in a part (b) essay, following the "synthesis" criteria of assessment objective 3.)