Using examples, analyse the reasons why some national governments introduce trade restrictions.

Discuss the local and global challenges that are being created by new communications technologies.

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

Trade restrictions include tariffs, quotas, sanctions, etc. The most likely foci are protectionism and resource nationalism (in relation to, for example, rare earths). Contemporary examples could include the USA, China or Bolivia.

Emphasis should be placed on the reasons why national governments seek to restrict trade with some or all nations. These may include:

• the perception that it is economically advantageous to do so (imports may threaten a country’s domestic industries and economic growth)
• evidence that other countries are not “playing by the rules” (e.g., Chinese government support/subsidies for industries runs afoul of WTO free trade rulings) – this may apply to particular sectors only, however
• political reasons / trade embargoes (e.g., USA with Cuba, Iran; sanctions)
• the perception that benefits of free trade do not outweigh harm done to deindustrialized regions and communities
• the political manifestos of elected leaders and parties (possibly in relation to populist or nationalist agendas, and re-shoring promises).

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 response based around different categories of reason/rationale (there may be economic, social, political gains). Another approach might be to analyse, in turn, the differing strength and/or scale of trade restrictions (ranging from complete embargo to highly-targeted actions e.g. tariffs on solar panels or processors).

For 4–6 marks, expect some outlining of one or two generalized reasons. Response is either partial, narrow or lacks supporting evidence.

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

• either two or more reasons why national governments may restrict trade (e.g. protectionism, geopolitical reasons, sanctions)
• or a wider variety of contexts (e.g. varying industrial sectors, varying scale or strength of restrictions).

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

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.

New communications technologies may include:

• broadband internet and 4G/5G wireless connections
• social media platforms
• remotely operated drones and networked 3D printers
• online application of artificial intelligence (AI)

A spectrum of local and global challenges exists, ranging from localized social challenges of digital exclusion through to global security concerns linked with new communications technologies (viruses and cyber-attacks).

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

• uneven patterns and trends in communications infrastructure and use (4.3)
• threats linked with the shrinking world (4.3)
• cultural imperialism linked with the diffusion of ideas (5.2)
• perceived geopolitical threats to state sovereignty (5.3)
• examples of places where internet freedoms have been restricted (5.3)
• hacking, identity theft and surveillance freedom issues (6.1)
• disruptive innovations, including drones and 3D printing (6.1)
• societal and economic risks stemming from global interactions (6.1).

Credit may be given for an evaluation of the benefits of a technology - provided this is connected logically to a discussion of that same technology’s challenges. Do not credit an account of a technology which is focused solely on its benefits.

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

Good answers may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3b) of the statement that discusses the relative importance of different threats and challenges. Another approach might be to critically discuss how different places and stakeholders have been unevenly affected (e.g. issues of digital exclusion for rural societies). Another approach might be to discuss interactions between different technologies creating heightened threats and challenges (e.g. role of AI in disseminating “fake news” via social networks).

For 5–8 marks, expect some outlining of two relevant challenges. Response is either partial, narrow or lacks supporting evidence.

For 9–12 marks, expect:

• either a structured synthesis which links together three well-evidenced themes from the Guide
• or a critical conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) informed by geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

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

Most candidates who attempted this question achieved a satisfactory mark in the 7-9 band. They did so by referencing two or more clearly explained reasons for trade restrictions. Popular themes included: 

the need to protect domestic industries from competition; geopolitical tensions; and moral and ethical reasons (for example, the imposition of trade sanctions in response to human rights abuses).

The highest scoring answers provided sustained evidence to support their chosen reasons, with many candidates making topical reference to recent trade disputes between the USA and China. A minority of answers provided detailed accounts of some unusual examples of trade restrictions, such as the fact that chewing gum cannot be imported into Singapore.

Weaker responses typically failed to identify specific reasons for trade restrictions. They wrote — often at some length — about problems associated with particular types of trade, such as high environmental costs. However, the account lacked an explicit focus on the key word "reasons". Additionally, some answers drifted into a description of migration or investment flows (both of which are sometimes linked with trade patterns but are not the same thing). Some AO2 credit was given in such cases if a strong focus on governance (and the reasons for restrictions) was evident, thereby ensuring that a partial attempt had been made to apply knowledge and understanding to the question asked.

Most candidates were able to distinguish between 'local' and 'global' challenges. Popular 'local' themes included: the loss of employment (due to ICT-supported outsourcing); governance challenges in places where social media use has become linked with increased civil society campaigning (for example, Capitol Hill in the USA); online bullying and manipulation of young people by posts from social media platforms. Popular 'global' themes included: international espionage; tax evasion and identity theft; online recruitment by international militia groups; and the idea that a digital divide exists between some countries, regions and groups of people at both global and local scales. Good answers took care to link all of the chosen themes explicitly with the facilitating role played by the internet and social media. Weaker answers were typically less explicit and described the injustices or problems caused by drone missiles or 3-D printers but without making much reference to digital data flows.

Some answers were largely anecdotal and lacked use of geographical terminology or concepts. In contrast, stronger answers linked their examples and case studies with a range of recognizably learned concepts such as sovereignty, identity, the shrinking world or cultural imperialism. These answers were often extremely interesting and conceptually rich.

A minority of candidates ignored the precise wording of the question and chose to also write at length about the benefits which some technologies bring. Sometimes credit could be given for this. For example, a candidate might explain how problems can arise from social media and then reflects on mitigation measures which could tackle those problems while ensuring that the technology's benefits are still enjoyed by people. This is a creditable evaluative approach. In contrast, material which dealt only with the benefits of a particular technology (such as e-passports) had to be marked as irrelevant in the context of this question.