Explain how one multi-governmental organization has led to a loss of sovereignty.

Discuss the interrelationships between global interactions and changes in technology.

Candidates would be expected to define their chosen multi-governmental organization as a grouping of nations, providing as their example the EU, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, ASEAN or others.

The example chosen will influence the answer, as some MGOs are merely free trade areas while others have a common external tariff, in the case of the EU a common market and fuller economic union with shared currency and freedom of movement for workers. Thus an answer based around the EU will most likely assert that sovereignty has indeed been lost, while one based around NAFTA may address the phrase “loss of sovereignty” more reservedly.

Accept a wide interpretation of MGO to include the IMF, UN, G20, NATO etc. However, such answers may be self-limiting and unlikely to gain the higher bands as it may be hard to display a loss of sovereignty.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

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

One view is that technology drives global interactions. Historically, improved transport and communications networks have enabled the flows that allow global interactions to occur [Guide 2]. Expect details about cheap air flights driving global tourism [Guide 5], the internet driving the growth of virtual communities (Facebook), spatial diffusion into new markets (for example, mobile uptake in Africa and Asia). Various forms of technology are a key factor explaining the growth in power and influence of TNCs (with their ability to “knit” places together as part of a productive division of labour, outsourcing or through their attempts to build markets around the world) [Guide 3]. Also credit references to “technology transfer” by TNCs and application of the shrinking world concept/time–space compression [Guide 2].

Another reciprocal view exists, which is that globalization drives technology. It is global consumerism [Guide 5] which drives innovation, outsourcing and the technologies needed to make it all possible. Demand from people for faster internet (HD TV on demand etc.) leads to large TNCs re-investing profits into research and development hubs. Some answers might even touch on the role of international conflict in driving military technologies (roots of the internet lie here). Or the need for diasporas to maintain communication [Guide 5].

To attain band E, there must be some acknowledgment or suggestion of an “interrelationship” rather than just “relationship”, and the reciprocal relation should be mentioned or strongly implied.

Other approaches may be equally valid. Accept a wide interpretation of “technology” (for example, global diffusion of medicare, farming techniques etc.)

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

Some good answers chose the EU to exemplify loss of sovereignty in many policy areas, including currency, human rights, immigration and other important aspects of governance. Pleasingly, details of the recent Eurozone crisis appeared in some scripts, with impressive analysis of the outcome for Greece that tackled head on the issue of loss of sovereignty.

Another successful approach was to choose the IMF as the chosen example and provide details of how the acceptance of structural adjustment programmes has represented a partial loss of sovereignty for nations like Tanzania for whom the receipt of much-needed loans has been conditional upon privatization of infrastructure and services (and all under the tutelage of EU-based consultancy firms).

Several examples were seen of very poorly prepared candidates writing about TNCs rather than MGOs; why they did not simply choose a different question is unclear.

Some excellent, wide-ranging answers thoughtfully examined how technology had led to, or accelerated, a range of global interactions. Candidates who understood the nature of the paper 3 assessment were able to plan a wide-ranging response that considered, in turn, political, economic, social and cultural interactions (showing in each case how ICT or containers and cheap flights assisted with global-scale processes and interactions). In contrast, some weaker responses merely listed (often for several pages) a timeline, or catalogue, of technologies before asserting that these all contributed to, or constituted, a shrinking world. While this showed good general knowledge of technology and gadgets, it was hardly the best way to tackle a synthetic geography assignment and tended to be a self-limiting approach.

Very, very few grasped the "interrelationship" suggested by the question. This ideally required some acknowledgment that technologies do not come "from nowhere" but are rather the outcome of powerful global actors actively seeking time–space compression in an attempt to increase product sales, turnover times, break into new markets and undertake corporate mergers. The role played by the research and development units of TNC headquarters (part of the international division of labour) was not appreciated. Thus the reciprocal profit motive that drives the technical creativity of TNCs such as Apple, Microsoft and Google was almost entirely neglected.