Analyse how the actions of two global groups or organizations have resulted in countries being more interconnected.

Discuss how different businesses and societies have been affected by the growth of global supply chains.

Marks should be allocated according to the paper 3 part A markbands. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

Global groups and organizations can include the G7/8/20, OECD, OPEC, UN, EU, IMF, BRICs, WHO among many others. Their actions include rules, incentives and sometimes sanctions and penalties. Interconnectivity may be analysed in terms of economic (trade), sociocultural (e.g. migration), political or environmental interactions.

Possible actions:

• The IMF lends money to states; in return, it usually requires increased participation in free trade.
• EU members have four freedoms of movement and so increased participation in trade, migration, etc.
• OPEC countries agree amongst themselves on how best to participate in global energy trade.
• Decisions made by G-groups and OECD members affect both themselves and non-member countries.

Good answers may apply (AO2) a wider range of knowledge and understanding (AO1) in a well-structured way (AO4). One approach might be to provide a structured systematic analysis of different kinds of actions (agreements, sanctions, etc.). Another approach might be to provide a structured systematic analysis of different types of interconnectivity (through trade, migration, data and ideas). Another approach might be to analyse positive and negative ways in which interconnectivity develops (e.g. dependency theory).

For 4–6 marks, expect some weakly evidenced outlining of the actions/influence of one or two global groups/organizations (do not expect balance).

For 7–9 marks, expect a structured, evidenced analysis of:

• either how the actions of two global groups/organizations have impacted on countries
• or ways in which countries can be made more interconnected by global groups.

For 10–12 marks, expect both of these traits.

Additional guidance for omissions or category errors in answers:

• Responses which only include one valid global group/organization may access the 7-9 band provided explicit analysis (AO2) of the concept of interconnected countries features as part of a knowledgeable (AO1) and well-structured (AO4) response.
• Responses which do not make use of valid global groups/organizations (and may instead erroneously use examples of TNCs, etc.) may still access the 1-3 or 4-6 bands provided explicit analysis (AO2) of the concept of interconnected countries features as part of a knowledgeable (AO1) and well-structured (AO4) response.

Credit all content in line with the markbands. Marks should be allocated according to the paper 3 part B markbands. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials. Credit unexpected approaches wherever relevant.

Global supply chain growth encompasses outsourcing and offshoring strategies, and the development of sometimes complex networks of businesses / factories / offices / suppliers. Effects may be positive or negative; economic, social, cultural or environmental; short term or long term. These effects are experienced by: businesses (successful TNCs and their suppliers; also failing businesses exposed to global competition); and producer and consumer societies in a range of geographic contexts.

Possible applied themes (AO2) include knowledge and understanding (AO1) of:

• positive effects for those TNCs (and their shareholders) that use supply chains to great advantage [Guide 4.2]
• negative effects for local forms of economic activity that cannot compete with the low costs of the global supply chain model [Guide 5.3]
• negative effects for local communities where deindustrialization has occurred [Guide 5.3] 
• negative effects for local communities who suffer poor working conditions within global supply chains [Guide 5.1]
• positive effects of affordable products, technology and innovation by TNCs whose success is attributable in part to supply chains, e.g. Apple [Guide 4.3]
• negative environmental effects for societies/communities [Guide 5.2].

Good answers may synthesize (AO3a) three or more of the above (or other) themes in a well-structured (AO4) way.

Good answers may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3b) of the statement that discusses the effects of global business supply chains on communities in particular places (deindustrialized areas, export processing zones). Another approach might be to discuss ways in which global supply chains have effects on human health and welfare at different scales (local or global). A good discussion may conclude with a substantiated final judgement on the overall balance between different (positive and negative) effects, or for different stakeholders (businesses and societies).

For 5–8 marks, expect weakly evidenced and/or imbalanced outlining of two or three relevant themes.

For 9–12 marks, expect:

• either a structured synthesis that links together several well-evidenced themes from the Guide (with a reasonable balance of effects for businesses and societies)
• or a critical conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) informed by geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

For 13–16 marks, expect both of these traits.

The most popular choices of global groups and organizations were the United Nations, the European Union, the World Trade Organization and the IMF. Examples such as these were invariably chosen by candidates who had revised thoroughly and were familiar with the content of the Geography Guide. Moreover, the strongest candidates applied their information to produce a thoughtful analysis of international interconnectivity. For example, some candidates emphasized how European countries have become both economically and culturally more interconnected as a result of diaspora growth enabled by freedom of movement.

Once again, a minority of candidates wasted time either criticizing the work of their chosen global group(s) or explaining ways in which interconnectivity might lessen over time. Such material could not be rewarded because it did not answer the specific question being asked. A minority of candidates made a category error when answering this question: they wrote about transnational corporations instead of multi-governmental organizations. In such cases, candidates could still access the middle mark bands provided their answers included a high quality analysis of what is meant by interconnectivity in a global context.

The best answers maintained a sustained focus on global supply chain issues. Popular themes included worker welfare in export processing zones, benefits for outsourcing companies in emerging economies, and health problems for societies adversely affected by poorly-regulated supply chain operations (such as palm oil production in Indonesia). In the middle and lower end of the mark range, candidates typically spent much of their time providing a critique of transnational corporations but with little or no explicit reference to supply chains included. Many answers were harsh in their judgment of cultural imperialism and the diffusion of Western culture through the medium of McDonald's and KFC. However, such material often neglected to make any mention of these restaurants' supply chains. While some credit was nonetheless awarded in such cases, this approach tended to be self-limiting.