Explain how global core areas (hubs) can be distinguished from peripheral areas.

Examine the geographical consequences of international outsourcing.

Candidates would be expected to define “global core areas/hubs” as significant places that provide a focal point for global flows and activities. They are places where major diaspora groups may be found or may be identified as source regions either for contemporary cultural diffusion (for example, Seattle’s computer industries) or economic imperialism (for example, Washington). The scale at which hubs can be identified is open to interpretation. Small cities like Cambridge (UK) are hubs, but so too are megacities such as Sao Paulo and small states including Monaco and Luxemburg.

Arguably, entire nations such as Singapore and South Korea could be described as hubs at which point the term hub is almost synonymous with “core” in world systems analysis. But an appropriate “core and periphery” analysis in 2011 should not simply echo 1970s World Systems theory. Responses that do not acknowledge this and do not examine more than a simple “MEDC–LEDC” worldview (for example, by at least acknowledging a semi-periphery of emerging economies/NICs) should not progress beyond band C. (Within bands D and E, a good explanation of a fuller range of characteristics could compensate for a more limited description of the hub/periphery pattern.)

At bands D and E, answers need to be focused on how such places can be distinguished from other places and should not just assert that they exist. People and organizations in hubs will display high levels of global participation which could be measured using KOF or AT Kearney indices. They may also host major diasporas or can be mapped as source regions for key “globalized” cultural traits including language (such as English or Spanish). Mapping the head offices of large TNCs is another route of inquiry. Other routes could include a ranking of the competitiveness of financial centres, airports, ports, internet bandwidth availability, reliance on agriculture.

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.

Outsourcing should be clearly defined as the concept of taking internal company functions and paying an outside firm to handle them [Guide 3]. “Geographical consequences” of outsourcing can encompass economic, political, social, cultural, environmental, geopolitical and demographic themes at varying scales, for both host and source regions. Outsourcing occurs across all sectors of industry from agriculture to high-tech research. It can be a complex affair when strings of sub-contractors (both upstream and downstream linkages) are part of the picture.

Improvements in ICT are an important consequence (due to the need for enhanced videoconferencing capability etc.) and not merely a cause of outsourcing [Guide 2, Guide 3]. So too are trade blocs (MGOs), insofar as businesses will lobby for expanded tariff-free trade areas within which they may outsource at lower cost to themselves [Guide 6].

At a national and local (city region) scale, a key theme must be the reaction to loss of jobs in “source” economies [Guide 7], but growth for emerging “host” economies. Sweatshop workers may be cast as “victims” or beneficiaries of global capitalism in this account according to the case studies used (outsourcing includes “white collar” work in Bangalore, for instance) or the candidate’s political convictions (although exploitation needs to be evidenced and not simply asserted). TNC shareholders may be recognized as being among the real winners of outsourcing [Guide 3].

Environmental aspects are likely to be a popular theme, notably in relation to pollution [Guide 4]. However, high band answers should make it clear that the problems result from outsourcing (so unreliable sub-contractors are the issue) and not simply the internationalization of trade.

It may not always be clear whether genuine outsourcing or a firm’s own division of labour is being discussed (for example, as a cause of de-industrialization in developed countries). The benefit of the doubt should be given and a band D mark could be awarded to answers that are insecure on the precise meaning of outsourcing but are strong on the varied geography of global shift.

There are many possible approaches and these should be assessed on their merits. Depth might compensate for lack of breadth.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

This question produced a disappointing set of responses on the whole. Too many candidates merely asserted, wrongly, that a simplistic MEDC–LEDC divide still exists. There was next to no acknowledgment of globally important hubs such as Mumbai or Sao Paulo or other key settlements in emerging economies (or peripheral "LEDCs" as they were portrayed in most accounts, despite the BRIC group’s key role in driving global GDP growth today). Overall, the cohort showed poor understanding of contemporary economic geography and the global pattern of hub regions.

The use of the word "hub" in the guide, and in this question, ought to be a clear signal to centres that the core–periphery literature dating from the 1970s is not, in itself, sufficient background reading for the current global interactions course. Candidates who relied exclusively on this outdated framework found themselves erroneously describing a global system within which a global periphery, that includes China and India, continues to provide raw materials for the manufacturing firms found in developed countries. Examiners were left wondering whether, in other contexts, such candidates would be able to explain the rise of the Asian tigers and BRIC economies, or the de-industrialization of the old global core.

Thus a widespread lack of familiarity with the concept of emerging economies as new global hubs (which must surely come from examining the latest KOF or Kearney indices) was seen. There was little mention of the activities of the world’s financial hubs (which have triggered the global economic turndown that now surrounds us).

The concept of scale was clearly the biggest problem. There was a lack of comprehension that world cities in middle-income and low-income nations can nonetheless be global hubs. Effective teaching about globalization and global interactions needs to move beyond the nation state as the only frame of reference for patterns of wealth and connectivity.

Outsourcing is clearly defined in the guide. Many themes pertaining both to foreign direct investment and also outsourcing, such as financial flows, transboundary pollution and the factors encouraging the growth of multi-governmental organizations are scattered through the guide. Good candidates who were familiar with the synthetic nature of the part (b) essay mode of assessment rose to the occasion. The best answers came complete with plans that included positive and negative (or short-term and long-term) impacts, sub-divided into themed consequences such as economic [Guide 2/3]), environmental [Guide 4], political [Guide 6],  and social [Guide 7].

Well-informed candidates were thus able to highlight how global networks of outsourcing have helped drive the trend towards regional trade bloc integration. Elsewhere, outsourcing was seen as a factor that can be responsible for poor health and safety standards (some asserted, perhaps correctly, that this was the cause of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill). Outsourcing of back office functions to India was a popular theme, whose consequences were seen as being both positive (rising incomes) and sometimes negative (long and unsociable hours for call centre workers).

Some discussed the social reaction/anti-globalization movements against outsourcing (linked with de-industrialization, for example, of US manufacturing hubs). A few even argued that outsourcing has introduced new kinds of geographical risks for TNCs who find their supply chains disrupted by recent hazards such as Thai floods, Japan’s tsunami and Icelandic ash clouds. This is a truly synthetic theme and one that future candidates could be encouraged to explore further.

In contrast, weaker candidates were uncertain as to the exact nature of outsourcing and were clearly not able to differentiate between outsourcing and FDI (for instance, when discussing the relocation of US manufacturing to the Mexican maquiladoras). If a good range of consequences were developed, however, such candidates were still allowed to achieve a sound mark.