“Development does not always reduce social and economic disparities.” Discuss this statement, referring to examples.

A variety of responses would be acceptable. A candidate could agree with the statement using examples or a candidate could disagree with the statement using appropriate examples. The best responses will use examples that do both.  

It is likely that development is explained and candidates may explore social development as well as economic development and the importance of education, etc. for reducing economic (income/GDP/PPP/labour) disparities over time. Other themes that may be explored could include formal/informal labour markets, migration, patterns of land ownership/tenure.

Some answers will focus on the persistence of inequality in developed and emerging economies (for example, USA, India) and may use a range of evidence to support this. Others may take a temporal approach, looking at how development has at first increased economic disparities but which have subsequently lessened. A core–periphery analysis using spread/trickle-down ideas would be another valid approach.

Approaches that do not involve a discussion of the statement but rather describe methods of reducing disparities should not progress beyond band D.

Responses based on appropriate, well-supported examples, which formulate an opinion towards the statement are likely to be credited at bands E/F.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

This question prompted some very good discussion in places. Better answers demonstrated some grasp of the economic development in their selected case studies and then proceeded to comment on the success in removing disparities. Some looked in a positive fashion at scale and made the point that development in the NICs and BRICS countries had reduced global disparities by spreading wealth and jobs. It was often pointed out that the development had however been limited at a spatial and societal scale with regions lacking development and the benefits being confined to particular classes and genders. There were good examples given: China, Brazil and Malaysia being but a few. Some argued that development per se did not mean that disparities would be reduced and cited countries that were seen as “developed” having a great number of disparities (the USA and Australia being popular examples). Weaker responses were characterized by uncertain/partial knowledge and understanding of development. The term was not explained in detail and often from a very narrow point of view; examples and case studies, where included, were very limited in detail/relevance. These weaker candidates made little attempt at application and their answers did not address the question in depth. The evaluations of social and economic disparities relating to development were not discussed beyond a marginal/superficial level.