An essay and an answer, assessed.

Globalisation

[In April, I posted this essay answer without commentary. As we head into the new academic year, I thought I would do my usual assessment package as described below.

Just a reminder – reading posts on Substack is much better on the Substack app (phone, computer or tablet than by email.]

For A level Geography, there are two key Assessment Objectives (AOs):

AO1: demonstrate knowledge and understanding of places, environments, concepts, processes, interactions, and change, at a variety of scales.

AO2: apply knowledge and understanding in different contexts to interpret, analyse, and evaluate geographical information and issues.

So, here are two versions of the answer.

The first answer is unannotated.

The second answer is in two formats:

(a)     AO1 in italics

(b)     AO2 in bold. 

[Note the self-imposed word limit of 400 words for this mark allocation]

Assess the extent to which global shift has caused more social costs than social benefits. (12 marks)

The global shift is the movement of secondary and tertiary industry to Asian countries like China, India, and Vietnam in the last 30 years. It has been made possible by globalisation and technologies like the internet and shipping containers allowing production to shift to lower cost locations from developed countries. It has social costs and benefits to both people and places that have gained jobs and ones that have lost them.

A very significant social impact has happened in places that have lost secondary sector jobs to Asian emerging countries. These include the USA Rustbelt, northern England, and the Ruhr Valley in Germany. These deindustrialised areas have suffered a spiral of social decline with rising deprivation, and poor industry-related health issues as jobs have been lost. In many cases, skilled younger people have left these regions leaving behind a core of ‘hard to employ’ male workers with unwanted industrial skills. Regeneration has been slow here because the regions have a weak tax base to pay for it. While there might be environmental benefits of heavy industry and its pollution moving aboard, the social benefits are few.

In Asia, many new employment opportunities have opened in China’s Pearl River Delta and Maharashtra State in India as manufacturing and service jobs have moved in. These jobs usually pay up to $10,000 per year, allowing people to enter the global middle-class. However, hours worked are long, conditions are harsh, and unions are usually banned. The drive for low costs can lead to tragedy such as the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Dhaka in 2013 in which over 1,100 died. The factory supplied Primark, Walmart, and Gucci.

Most factory and office workers are aged under 30 and are rural–urban migrants. This means families have been split up and workers are housed in small houses in increasingly congested and cramped megacities. Rapid urban growth, new factories and roads have led to very poor air quality in many Asian cities, and this has a cost on people’s health.

Overall, the global shift has had major social consequences, with the benefits of higher incomes and steady jobs offset by dramatic lifestyle changes, health impacts and rising inequality. However, most Asian workers would argue they are better off than their parents, meaning the social benefits outweigh the costs. Deindustrialised developed world regions have in some cases been regenerated but often not very successfully. (398)

Assess the extent to which global shift has caused more social costs than social benefits. (12 marks)

The global shift is the movement of secondary and tertiary industry to Asian countries like China, India, and Vietnam in the last 30 years. It has been made possible by globalisation and technologies like the internet and shipping containers allowing production to shift to lower cost locations from developed countries. It has social costs and benefits to both people and places that have gained jobs and ones that have lost them.

A very significant social impact has happened in places that have lost secondary sector jobs to Asian emerging countries. These include the USA Rustbelt, northern England, and the Ruhr Valley in Germany. These deindustrialised areas have suffered a spiral of social decline with rising deprivation, and poor industry-related health issues as jobs have been lost. In many cases, skilled younger people have left these regions leaving behind a core of ‘hard to employ’ male workers with unwanted industrial skills. Regeneration has been slow here because the regions have a weak tax base to pay for it. While there might be environmental benefits of heavy industry and its pollution moving aboard, the social benefits are few.

In Asia, many new employment opportunities have opened in China’s Pearl River Delta and Maharashtra State in India as manufacturing and service jobs have moved in. These jobs usually pay up to $10,000 per year, allowing people to enter the global middle-class. However, hours worked are long, conditions are harsh, and unions are usually banned. The drive for low costs can lead to tragedy such as the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Dhaka in 2013 in which over 1,100 died. The factory supplied Primark, Walmart, and Gucci.

Most factory and office workers are aged under 30 and are rural–urban migrants. This means families have been split up and workers are housed in small houses in increasingly congested and cramped megacities. Rapid urban growth, new factories and roads have led to very poor air quality in many Asian cities, and this has a cost on people’s health.

Overall, the global shift has had major social consequences, with the benefits of higher incomes and steady jobs offset by dramatic lifestyle changes, health impacts and rising inequality. However, most Asian workers would argue they are better off than their parents, meaning the social benefits outweigh the costs. Deindustrialised developed world regions have in some cases been regenerated but often not very successfully. (398)

[Many of you will want to know the actual mark for the above. Remember such answers are marked by using a mark scheme made up of Levels (likely to be 3 Levels for this mark allocation), each of which carry a range of marks. This answer merits the top Level.

So, what mark? That all depends on the marker, and the philosophy of the team leading the marking. Perhaps I should do a post on Levels marking, and the philosophy of marking?? Watch this space.

PS. I’d give it 12…. but many wouldn’t (mainly Geography teachers).]