Analyse the relationship between globalization and the resurgence of nationalism in one country you have studied.

“Global interactions have made the world a richer place but not a fairer place.” Discuss this statement.

The resurgence of nationalist tendencies within states can link with international migration (notably the EU, also southern states of USA), a politicized loss of jobs to outsourcing (for example, USA to China) and broader concerns with cultural dilution (for example, the Facebook ban in Pakistan; state internet censorship to some degree can be found in 40 countries).

For bands D and E, the focus should clearly be on global rather than local interactions that do not reflect the dynamics of the world economy and/or its media (thus the labour migration of workers from Mexico to a global hub such as the USA is highly relevant; refugees seeking refuge from drought in a neighbouring country is not).

Nationalism itself assumes many forms – from overt racism/xenophobia to less sensational controls, for example, migration caps. Alternative interpretations of nationalism could include state-sanctioned hostile reaction to TNCs (for example, Chavez seizing assets of TNCs, or another “resource nationalism” case study) or clampdowns on media access sanctioned on national security grounds.

An account that lacks details of the manifestation of the growth of nationalism can still access the higher bands if the multiple “threats” brought by global interactions are well analysed. Discussion of only one country is required. In-depth analysis of a single reaction could reach full marks if the answer is developed, shows relevant understanding and uses terminology well.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

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

Richer:

Global participation has increased over time and core areas [Guide 3] have clearly expanded since the days of the Brandt Report. Developing peripheries [Guide 3] are places where a large emerging middle class can be found apparent, for example, NICs/BRICs. This economic fact does not need to be contested/debated. However, it could be by suggesting the 2008 credit crunch caused the expansion of world wealth to temporarily halt/reverse. It is also possible to critique other notions of “wealth”, such as cultural [Guide 5] or ecological wealth [Guide 4], although, again, this is not a requirement.

Fairer:

This point does need to be debated, as it is controversial. Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in China although India is still a very divided society. It can be argued that global financial flows [Guide 3] have redistributed money on a regional level as world GDP has risen, with Asia, Brazil and some African (“African lion”) states clearly prospering at the aggregate level of GDP. But the benefits are still very uneven. Numbers in poverty in Saharan Africa have doubled over 30 years. Some financial flows (TNC profits, mining revenues etc.) are re-directed at core regions [Guide 3]. Good answers may debate the difficulties in finding a universally accessible definition of “fair” (or “wealth” for that matter).

There are also “unfair” losses for the environment [Guide 4] in many places (an account of transboundary pollution could be employed here) and for local cultures as languages are lost etc. [Guide 5]. There are many possible approaches and these should be assessed on their merits.

To access band D, the answers should be well balanced. For band E, there should be an evidenced conclusion that has critically interrogated the idea of “fairness” with respect to the changing distribution of the growing total amount of global wealth.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

Some very strong answers examined the phenomenon of nationalization as an expression of "resource nationalism" (wherein the state re-asserts control of strategic resource operations, such as oil refineries owned by TNCs, as witnessed in recent years in Bolivia and Venezuela). Other candidates provided a thorough account of the xenophobic reaction to multiculturalism in EU nations (seen as a proxy for, or subset of, globalization). Contrastingly, weaker answers showed little understanding of what "nationalism" means, or made simple assertions that racism is now a problem in the UK, for example.

Less confident candidates sometimes chose to simply agree that the world is indeed an unfair place and did not, or could not, offer a counter-argument, whereas the strongest candidates knew plenty about the pros and cons of the actions and impacts of the IMF, the World Bank and SAPs (from strand 3 of the guide) and could therefore mount a proper assessment of how the opening up to global interactions of China and India (among others) had impacted on aggregate levels of wealth as well as on distributions (at varying geographical scales). The best answers provided strong evidence to support their arguments and could offer a wide interpretation of "fair" that allowed them to build a wider synthesis of ideas.