fhs ppe report 2008

- 1 -

F I N A L H O N O U R S C H O O L O F P H I L O S O P H Y , P O L I T I C S A N D E C O N O M I C S

2 0 0 8

Internal Examiners’ Report

This report is in three sections: Part A – Statistics; Part B – Chair’s comments; Part C – reports of internal examiners for Politics and Economics (Philosophy is the subject of a separate report).

PART A – STATISTICS

1. Number of FHS and Pass School candidates by combination offered:

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 FHS Phil/Pol

102 (41.5%)

94 (36%)

103 (38%)

103 (37.1%)

99 (37.8%)

105 (37.8%)

133 (42.5%)

FHS Pol/Econ

86 (35.0%)

119 (45.8%)

109 (40.2%)

99 (35.6%)

104 (39.7%)

118 (42.4%)

122 (39%)

FHS Phil/Econ

35 (14.2%)

26 (10%)

31 (11.4%)

29 (10.4%)

32 (12.2%)

26 (9.4%)

23 (7.3%)

FHS Tripartite

23 (9.3%)

21 (8%)

28 (10.3%)

47 (16.9%)

27 (10.3%)

29 (10.4%)

35 (11.2%)

Pass School

0 0 N/A

N/A

2 N/A N/A

Total 246 260 271 278 264 278 313

2. Class distribution of FHS candidates (% of all candidates in brackets)

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 I 45

(18.3%) 49 (18.8)

53 (19.6)

51 (18.3)

46 (17.6)

45 (16.2)

49 (15.6)

II 1 192 (78.0%)

196 (75.4)

199 (73.4)

210 (75.5)

198 (75.6)

207 (74.5)

224 (71.6)

II 2 9 (3.7%)

15 (5.8)

17 (6.3)

17 (6.1)

17 (6.5)

24 (8.6)

39 (12.4)

III 0 0 0 0 1 (0.4)

2 (0.7)

1 (0.3)

Unclassified 0 0 2 (0.7)

0 0 0 2 (0.6)

Fail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 246 260 271 278 262 278 315

- 2 -

3. Percentage Class distribution by combination offered, FHS 2008 (FHS 2007 in brackets)

1 2(1) 2(2) 3 Total Phil/Pol 15.7 (18.1) 78.4 (75.5) 4.9 (6.3) 0 (0) 100 Pol/Econ 19.8 (20.2) 78.0 (73.1) 2.3 (6.7) 0 (0) 100 Phil/Econ 20.0 (11.5) 77.0 (84.6) 2.9 (3.8) 0 (0) 100 Tripartite 17.4 (23.8) 78.3 (76.2) 4.3 (0) 0 (0) 100

The average marks for each subject were (2007 figures in brackets): Philosophy 64.6 (64.5) Politics 64.5 (64), Economics 64.4 (64.2). The standard deviation of marks in the three subjects was 5.0 in Philosophy, 5.2 in Politics and 5.0 in Economics.

4. FHS percentage class distributions by sex

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 M F M F M F M F M F M F I 20.3 15.0 24.5 11.5 22.8 12.4 22.9 11.1 22.8 15.9 22.9 12.4 II 1 75.8 81.7 70.7 81.4 69 80.2 72.0 82.4 69 81.4 72.0 80.2 II 2 3.9 3.2 4.8 7.1 8.2 7.4 5.1 6.5 8.2 2.7 5.1 7.4 III 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

In 2008 93 (38%) of the 246 candidates were female (5.5% fewer than in 2007). In 2008 the mean mark for all candidates was 64.2, with a standard deviation of 5.1 across all marks and 3.4 across candidates. The average mark for female candidates was 63.8 (standard deviation was 5.1 across all marks and 3.4 across candidates) and the average mark for male candidates was 64.4 (standard deviation of 5.1 across all marks and 3.4 across candidates).

5. Numbers offering each paper in the Final Honour School and Pass School of PPE

Philosophy 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 History of Philosophy 75 79 73 96 84 75 109 Knowledge & Reality 22 29 85 77 69 76 87 Ethics 157 147 156 175 155 154 189 Philosophy of Mind 22 7 16 29 20 29 26 Philosophy of Sci. & Psychology

2 2 1 4 1

3 4

Philosophy of Sci. & Social Sci. 7 3 8 11 10 7 6 Philosophy of Religion 41 26 35 39 35 27 57 Philosophy of Logic 6 15 4 16 8 10 7 Aesthetics 24 23 24 35 33 31 36 Medieval Philosophy 1 0 2 1 1 5 0 Continental Philosophy 0 0 2 1 2 3 2 Philosophy of Kant 8 6 5 6 10 7 6

- 3 -

Post-Kantian Philosophy 22 21 20 18 11 34 23 Plato 62 53 11 19 11 13 3 Aristotle 32 34 3 5 5 9 7 Frege, Russell & Wittgenstein 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 Later Wittgenstein 12 8 16 9 9 12 11 Formal Logic 1 4 7 5 4 4 5 Intermediate Philosophy of Physics

1 0 1 0 2

0 0

Philosophy of Mathematics 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 Jurisprudence 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Thesis in Philosophy 1 3 6 11 2 4 8

Politics (no. of which were HP candidates included in

brackets)

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Comp Govt 99 (14)

93 (25)

109 96 87 87 100

Brit. Pol. &Gov since 1900 76 (23)

65 (18)

58 56 59 80 81

Theory of Politics 165 (18 & 38 Phil.)

158 (25) (36 Phil)

155 (44 Phil)

172 (33 Phil)

155 (48 Phil)

146 (39 Phil)

187 (44 Phil)

Modern Brit. Gov& Pol. 20 (4) 22 (5) 21 26 24 26 38 Gov. & Pol. of the USA 30 (4) 27 (5) 38 37 31 29 52 Gov. & Pol. in W. Europe 25 (1) 17 (3) 28 26 19 31 30 Russian Gov. & Pol. 11 (3) 16 (3) 8 13 15 14 22 Pol. in Sub-Saharan Africa 24 (5) 28 (5) 33 11 20 26 34 Pol. in Latin America 18 (5) 14 (3) 14 17 10 16 20 Pol. in South Asia 9 (1) 14 (1) 13 13 8 15 17 Pol. in the Middle East 52

(13) 51 (13)

28 34 33 37 34

IR in Era of 2 WWs 31 (1) 30 (2) 29 26 45 36 43 IR in Era of Cold War 69 (8) 70 (7) 57 72 91 92 115 IR 195

(43) 164 (45)

160 167 173 178 215

Plato to Rousseau 34 (3) 27 (2) 21 34 29 25 36 Bentham to Weber 37 (6) 33 (5) 35 30 21 25 33 Marxism 18 (1) 17 (1) 13 18 10 14 20 Soc. Theory 14 (1) 5 (0) 22 8 10 17 13 Soc. of Industrial Societies 5 (0) 8 (1) 11 9 7 12 14 Pol. Soc. 59

(12) 46 (9) 73 68 65 80 78

- 4 -

Brit. Soc in the 20 th C. 12 (4) 9 (1) 19 14 10 15 10

Gov. & Pol. of Japan 2 (1) 2 (1) 5 2 1 2 2 Social Policy 15 (3) 13 (1) 20 22 18 11 15 Politics of China 20 (1) 19 (1) 18 20 16 N/A N/A Quantitative Methods in Politics and Sociology

2 (0) 4 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Supervised Dissertation in Politics

N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 4 3

Thesis in Politics 34 (19)

24 (18)

19 33 17 20 31

Economics 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Macroeconomics 144 166 167 175 163 173 181 Microeconomics 144 166 167 175 163 173 181 Economic Theory 9 18 21 11 17 23 19 Money & Banking 9 0 0 14 22 14 16 Public Economics 31 35 39 52 31 26 21 Economics of Industry 23 30 27 31 36 37 36 Labour Economics & Industrial Relations

20 (5 Pol)

24 (6 Pol)

31 (8 Pol)

16 31 (7 Pol)

34 (7 Pol)

17 (4 Pol)

International Economics 39 43 55 29 44 49 58 Command & Transitional Economies

9 12 15 9 9 8 16

Economics of Developing Countries

51 48 52 56 50 48 38

British Economic History 10 15 19 8 12 9 12 Classical Economic Thought

3 8 3 7 4 5 6

Statistical Methods in Economics

8 10 12 9 22 (5 Pol)

20 (7 Pol)

26 (14 Pol)

Econometrics 26 22 28 10 13 14 13 Demography 8

(2 Pol) 6 (2 Pol)

9 (1 Pol)

7 (2 Pol)

8 (2 Pol)

4 (1 Pol)

3

Economics of OECD Countries

19 23 28 29 23 43 40

Finance 10 Thesis in Economics 3 2 2 4 1 2 7 Total numbers of papers (including supervised dissertations and theses) sat in 2008 Final Honour School of PPE: 1, 956 (Phil 508; Pol 882; Econ 566)

- 5 -

6. Approximate percentages of papers sat in each branch (FHS plus Pass School)

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Philosophy 26.0 24 24.1 24.8 24.9 24.4 25 Politics 45.1 46 45 45.8 44.9 45.6 48.3 Economics 28.9 30.1 30.9 29.4 30.2 30.0 26.7

The figures for 2008 attribute all Theory of Politics papers to Politics, and all Labour Economics and Demography papers to Economics.

7. Supervised Dissertation and Thesis titles

Philosophy • To what extent should egalitarian justice be concerned with ensuring that

individuals bear the social costs of their free choices?

Politics • The Military Regime and the Militarisation of Society in post-colonial Sub-

Saharan Africa • Beyond the 'Rentier State': The role of education reform in the democratic

transtiion process in Qatar • Communication in international relations: the Case of US-Iranian interaction • What is the nature of charity in the just society? • Globalisation and the Decline of Electoral Turnout in Advanced Industrialised

Democracies • Female Genital Cutting, Victimisation Rhetoric, and the question of Female

Empowerment. • Sovereign Mimicry: Imitation and Rebellion in the Behemoth of Thomas Hobbes • NATO's Quest for a viable partnership structure: the case of the Euro-Atlantic

Partnership Council, 1997 – 2008 • Against International Justice as Reciprocity • Explaining the Timing of Mass-based Anti-Japanese Political Activism in modern

day China • What is our justification for punishing criminals? • Left-Libertarianism and Self-Ownership: An Assessment • Explaining Anomalous Cases of Democratic Endurance: Lessons from India • Can democratization be guided by the political theory of Leo Strauss? • How have conceptions of sovereignty and the experience of humanitarian crises

shaped Sub-Saharan African perspectives on humanitarian intervention? Econ omics

• Intellectual Property Rights, Competition: Policy and China's Membership in the WTO

• Factors Determining Migrant Remittances: The Case of Morocco • Should Domestic Water be Provided by the Public or the Private Sector? How

should Domestic Water use be Priced?

- 6 -

PART B – Chair’s Comments 1. Administration The examining process was smoothly and expertly administered by Rachel Dryden and colleagues from the Department of Politics and International Relations. The Chairman is grateful to the convenors, John Hyman (Philosophy), Petra Schleiter (Politics) and Sudhir Anand and David Vines (Economics), for their unstinting assistance. The Board and at least one external noted that there were problems in the Mark-It averaging by candidate. They felt that the provision of low, mean and high averages for candidates’ results was useful. However, the computer programme used has code that that overrides the averaging when the initial marks are within the agreed maximum difference. Where the initial marks across the range of papers are within the maximum difference (5), the upper and lower averages are reset to the average. Where a candidate has only one paper with a difference of over 5, then the recalculation of maxima and minima is based only on the one paper’s variation of more than 5. This results in a situation where the reported high and low averages do not correspond to the actual averages of the high and low marks. It is not clear why this coding has been adopted and relevant bodies may wish to consider whether the reported high average and the low average data should correspond to the actual high and low averages in such instances. The Board agreed that an effort should be made to ensure that electronic means of checking plagiarism (Turnitin) be put in place for theses and that theses should be submitted with an electronic copy in order to facilitate checking. Some concern was raised over the processing of special circumstances cases. This process involves some combination of colleges, proctors, chair of examiners, and the PPE examination administration team. Multiple channels and multiple processes generate risk. Consideration should be given to streamlining the procedures. 2. Internal Examiners Philosophy Politics Economics

A. Hattiangadi R. Duch S. Anand (Convenor) J. Hyman (Convenor) E. Frazer A. Courakis T. Mawson A. Hurrell K. Mayhew G. Rodriguez-Pereyra N. MacFarlane S. Mukerji R. Mitter D. Vines (Co-convenor) N. Owen P. Schleiter (Convenor) S. White

- 7 -

3. External Examiners The report from the Economics external was not available at the time this section was drafted, but has since been received. The external examiners were Dr. R. Dannreuther (Politics), Dr. Max de Gaynesford (Philosophy) and Professor Paul Grout (Economics). They attended the third marks meeting on 4 July 08 and the fourth (and final) marks meeting on 7 July 08. During the intervening weekend, the external examiners reviewed the papers of 4 candidates where a classification decision was deemed particularly difficult. They agreed with the decisions of the board in each case. In addition, they examined the work of potential candidates for prizes, and sampled papers at the margins between classification and within each classification. External examiners were satisfied with the integrity of the examining process and impressed by the efforts made to ensure accuracy and fairness. Internal and external members of the Board noted the rather high number of 2:1s and the low number of 2:2s. Some members of the Board were concerned that the classification results may not have corresponded to the intentions of the markers of the papers. Two externals queried whether the conventions might be tightened at the 2:2/2:1 boundary. This might be effected through alteration in the preponderance rule or through a lifting of the required mean average towards 60. I note that the third external examiner expressed satisfaction with the classification line in Board meetings. External examiners raised questions about the bunching of firsts at the low end of the range, and noted that marking behaviour was not consistent with the descriptive guidance for markers. External examiners noted that the PPE practice of not permitting markers to confer on their co-marking in order to arrive at agreed marks might be revisited, given the different practice in HP. One external examiner expressed concern again that, although he had seen and commented on draft question papers, he had not seen the final versions of papers before the marking period. Examiners noted, and expressed concern about, the low number of candidates taking up the thesis option. 4. Medical Certificates Ten medical certificates were issued this year. In most cases, classification was unproblematic. The Board ordered a reread of some of the papers of one candidate in order that marks be resolved. Another was fully reread and referred to the external

- 8 -

examiners. One candidate was classified on the basis of seven papers. One candidate was permitted by University authorities to take exams spread across two years. One of this candidate’s papers was referred to the external examiners for confirmation of the agreed mark. Several candidates had extenuating circumstances with respect to specific papers; these were considered and since they were classifiable and marks in the affected papers were in line with their range of results, no action was taken. 5. Examiners and Assessors Examiners and assessors worked hard and effectively as a group. The convenors provided invaluable help to the chair. Enhanced efforts to train assessors appeared to work well, as noted in the Politics convenor’s reports. The Board encountered several cases of examiners or assessors with discrepant marks. The markers in question were asked for an explanation, and provided it. One case required substantial rereading within the Board. The time taken to clear up the problem resulted in a Board decision to move directly to a third reading for a very small number of papers. The Board also ran into difficulty with an Economics option that contained an error in the set paper. This was picked up fairly quickly in the exam itself and corrected. Issues arising were resolved in consultation with the Junior Proctor and the paper setter. As last year, the Board encountered several problems with markers not being present or contactable during the rereading period. One assessor wrote comments on all the scripts s/he marked, in clear violation of marking guidance. This problem was addressed effectively and did not prejudice the second marking, but it does raise a question about the extent to which some assessors understand and act on the basis of guidance provided. In two cases where markers had communicated during the second reading period before revised marks were returned, third reads were requested. One thesis with atypically high marks was read a third time. 6. Conventions Issues arising in regard to the Conventions have been addressed elsewhere in this report and notably at 3 (distribution of marks, classification boundaries, reconciliation).

- 9 -

7. Prizes Politics The prize in Politics for the best Politics written papers in the examinations for PPE and HP was awarded to Andrew Goodman (PPE, Magdalen College). The proxime accessit was awarded to John Marshall (PPE, St Anne’s College). The Gibbs Thesis Prize in Politics, for the best Politics thesis or supervised dissertation submitted, was awarded to John Marshall (PPE, St Anne’s College). The proxime accessit was awarded to Toby Fell-Holden (PPE, Harris Manchester College). Economics The Hicks and Webb Medley Prizes for best overall performance in Economics (in PPE and HE) were awarded to Wolfgang Schmidt-Degenhard (Balliol College) and George Herbert (St Peter’s College), both PPEists. The John Hicks Foundation Prize for the best performance in Microeconomics (PPE and HE) was awarded to Wolfgang Schmidt-Degenhard (Balliol College). The John Hicks Foundation Prize for the best performance in Macroeconomics was awarded to George Herbert (St Peter’s College). The George Webb Medley Undergraduate Thesis Prize was awarded jointly to Sabria Regragui Mazili (St Anne’s College) and an Economics and Management candidate. 7. Conclusion The Chair would like to express his gratitude to examiners, markers, and the administrative team for their assistance with the examining process this year. Neil MacFarlane Chairman of Examiners

- 10 -

PART C - INTERNAL EXAMINERS REPORTS

REPORT ON POLITICS PAPERS

Report of Convenor of Politics Examiners, PPE Finals, 2008

This report focuses on three aspects of this year’s examining process: 1. The report by last year’s politics convenor urged DPIR to reflect on the practice of allowing staff who do not regularly teach at undergraduate level to mark undergraduate scripts. The concern was that Examiners and Assessors who are not engaged in the regular teaching of undergraduates might find it very difficult to develop an appropriate sense of what makes for a quality answer at the undergraduate level. This year, again, DPIR relied heavily on Assessors and Examiners in that category, and in addition also on non-established staff, many of whom were assessing for the first time. A central reason for this was that two subject areas in particular were severely short-staffed due to a combination of

• the popularity of these areas with students • the fact that a number of members of staff on which these areas

critically rely were on leave • the reluctance of some colleagues to agree to fulfil their examining

obligations None of these issues should be allowed to create problems for the examining process and my suggestions in this area are twofold. First, in the past the head of department sent letters to each member of staff well in advance of the appointment of assessors to remind all staff of their examining duties. The vast majority of staff are perfectly happy to examine, but a small minority cause a disproportionate number of problems when it comes to appointing assessors, producing marks on time, and submitting reports. To reduce the frequency of such problems, I would urge the department to continue to send the annual letter explaining examining obligations, and I would also urge the head of department to discuss the issue directly with individual members of staff who prove particularly reluctant to fulfil their examining obligations. Second, I would suggest that DPIR reflect urgently on the adequacy of its arrangements to cover for staff who are on leave in particular in areas that are under pressure because they are currently particularly popular with students. A particular priority ought to be to ensure that all Assessors actively teach or research in the area of the papers that they are marking. Staff should not be asked to assess papers that are marginal to their area of expertise.

2. The department introduced, for the first time this year, an induction session to support Assessors and Examiners who were new to the examining process. The session served to explain the structure of the examining process, marking criteria, and the responsibilities of Assessors and Examiners, and proved to be extremely helpful. I would strongly recommend that such an induction session be made a routine feature of the examining process.

- 11 -

3. Administratively, the examining process largely worked smoothly on the politics side. An area of repeated difficulties, though, was the liaison between the History Faculty and the staff who were administrating the examination on behalf of politics. This naturally concerned PPE finals examining somewhat less than the MHP finals examining process, but none the less DIPR and History Faculty should reflect on ways to improve communication and the systems that are in place to agree the setting papers and processing reports. In addition the History Faculty urgently needs to improve its systems for signing in theses and recording returned marks. Petra Schleiter Exam Convenor in Politics Individual Paper Reports

201 Comparative Government In all 100 candidates sat this paper and unlike recent years, the answers were fairly evenly distributed across the entire paper. The standard of the answers was generally very good. The students showed a good knowledge of the relevant literature and empirics. The essays also showed a good understanding of important theoretical approaches. Most answers competently defined key concepts and carefully considered the question. Some answers, however, seem to reproduce tutorial essays on the general topic rather than developing a specific answer to the essay question. While almost all answers referred to relevant empirical evidence, only very few answers explicitly considered the nature of the evidence and the limits to what can legitimately be inferred from any given piece of evidence. The empirical evidence was often limited to US and Western Europe (mainly the UK and Germany), and large-N evidence was only used sparsely. Often the empirical discussions were presented as “illustrative case studies” rather than empirical evidence, few answers included methodological considerations. Regrettably few answers incorporated the material discussed in 2nd- or 3rd-year classes into their answers. An indication of the popularity of each question is given in brackets.

1. “The survival of democracies is a question of economic development rather than cultural requirements.” Discuss. (High)

Candidates who answered this question had to consider what mechanisms underpin the stability of democracies. Better scripts explored the relative importance of the level of wealth, culture, institutions, and other factors in accounting for democratic stability.

- 12 -

2. “[R]ecent presidential democracies have accomplished quite a bit under a range of political conditions. There is no reason – at least no reason intrinsic to the nature of the form of government – why they should not continue to accomplish as much” (Cheibub 2007). Discuss. (Low)

The best answers to this question clearly delineated the meaning of “accomplish quite a bit”, and showed a very good understanding of the theoretical debate as well as empirical debate (primarily using examples from Latin America).

3. To what extent does the success of federal systems depend on the representation and mediation of diverse regional interests rather than on making and enforcing central government policy? (High)

The quality of answers to this question was of quite mixed quality. The question required candidates to define by what yardstick they wished to evaluate the success of federal systems. The better scripts identified various dimensions of success or failure in federal systems and showed knowledge and a critical understanding of the debates in the literature about the effects of federalism on the performance of democracies.

4. What light do principal-agent approaches shed on cross-national variation in the structure, performance and accountability of bureaucracies? (Low)

The best candidates discussed principal-agent approaches to bureaucracies and compared the explanatory power of these approaches with other theoretical frameworks for understanding cross-national variation in bureaucracies. Some essays, however, revealed only a superficial knowledge of principal-agent approaches.

5. “The greater the impact of legislative elections on policy, the greater the power of the legislature.” Do you agree? (Medium)

The students clearly found this question quite difficult, an d there was great variation in the standard of answers. The best scripts clearly delineated the scope of the question, and discussed different sources of a legislature’s power. Surprisingly, some answers focused exclusively on the parliamentary-presidential distinction.

6. “The scope and manner of judicial influence on politics varies so much across countries that it makes little sense to talk of the judicialization of politics as a general trend.” Discuss. (High)

This was a very popular question, but the quality of the answers was quite mixed. Better scripts questioned whether cross-national variation is in fact inconsistent with

- 13 -

the existence of trend of judicialization, explored the causes of cross-national variation and linked that discussion to changes in judicial power over time.

7. Why are some party systems stable and others not? (High) This was another popular question. Some candidates imaginatively drew on their knowledge of party system stabilization in new democracies, most answers, though, focussed on differences in party system stability in established democracies. Most candidates answered this question competently with reference to institutional and sociological explanations of party system change. However, there was a tendency to focus on change rather than stability.

8. Does the median voter theorem provide any useful insights into the workings of representative democracy? (Medium)

Those who answered this question generally did so competently, focusing on party convergence. The stronger answers discussed how the implications of the median voter theorem related to different aspects of representative democracy.

9. “The one way to assure more diversity on the ballot is to change the electoral system and adopt proportional representation”. Discuss. (High)

The quality of answers to this question was quite varying. Strong answers to the question clearly defined “diversity” and distinguished between diversity on the ballot and diversity of legislative outcomes of elections. Weaker answers simply reproduced tutorial essays on the effect of electoral systems on party systems.

10. What determines the effectiveness of interest groups? (Low)

Surprisingly, this straightforward question about interest groups attracted few answers. Good answers showed knowledge of the theoretical literature on interest groups and discussed how interest group characteristic and contextual factors influenced the effectiveness of these groups.

11. How is the validity of causal inference in comparative politics affected by the method of analysis used? (Low)

Very few students answered the question, and those who did generally answered it poorly. They failed to discuss the meaning of “causal inference” and generally displayed a limited understanding of methodological issues.

12. Are executives in presidential democracies more powerful than they are in parliamentary democracies? (High)

- 14 -

Most answers to this question were of very good quality. One challenge for candidates here was to define ways to observe and evaluate the “power” of presidents and prime ministers. Good answers did so and showed a nuanced understanding of factors that conditions the power of executives in both parliamentary and presidential systems. Some essays ventured to explore changes over time, and made reference to the debate about the presidentialisation of politics. Regrettably few answers gave any thought to case selection issues in their empirical investigation and many relied entirely on illustrative examples, focusing mainly on the US and the UK. 202 British Politics and Government in the Twentieth Century Q no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10a 10b 11 12 13 No. of answers

2 6 32 13 11 6 12 32 27 3 6 1 47 15

NB these numbers do not include students taking this paper outside PPE and HP 1. (2 answers). Plainly a questions lacking appeal in spite of its importance in party strategies and several general elections. 2. (6 answers). The question was detailed and so were the few answers offered. Irish questions (at least those in the 1900 – 22 period) have not been popular in spite of the lecture devoted to them. Those answers which were written were well informed. 3. (32 answers). This question covered one of the most important pre-1939 topics and received its due share of answers, often displaying widespread knowledge of events, authors and arguments. A few made heavy weather of ‘sociological’, probably because they were not expecting it, but more constructed convincing cases rebutting the question; (in a few cases denouncing it roundly). Some of the best answers explored when the ‘rise’ of Labour was completed. Cases for 1923/4, the Second World War, or 1945 were interesting and usually better informed than those which considered that the franchise factor and the 1918 election ended the debate. The question also allowed for consideration of the interests of trade unions to be contrasted with those of socialists. Ramsay MacDonald would have been flattered to know the high regard in which he is held by many Oxford students. A question well answered. 4. (13 answers). A relatively small number of answers, but most of them were good or very good. Some challenged the question, mainly on the ground that Liberal fivisions were clearly evident before 1916 or on the ground that 1923 and Free Trade was an artificial end point because Liberals were divided again shortly afterwards. Both cases were well made. A few candidates displayed knowledge of elections (including by-elections) which was very impressive.

- 15 -

5. (11 answers). Most disagreed with Hobson, some because ‘the state’ advanced but not socialism, some because the war changed the nature of socialism in ways Hobson could not have predicted. A few took the question to it chronological conclusion by a brief survey of nearly half a century – an ambitious attempt but, which in the hands of well informed candidates was both interesting and successful. One candidate summarised elegantly what most argued: ‘The growth of the state was evident, but was not as threatening as Baldwin or Chamberlain might have feared’. 6. (6 answers). The question was disappointingly unappealing to candidates, and so were the answers. Whichever case candidates wished to present, knowledge of the effects of women’s enfranchisement was presented in generalities – women tended to vote Conservative, for example. The world ‘workers’ tended to be used in a sloppy fashion, lacking analysis. 7. (12 answers). Candidates sometimes either misread the question or ignored part of it, assuming that they were being asked ‘economic or military’ rather than ‘economic and military’. Most did answer on both, sometimes combining the two in imaginative ways. Nearly all associated appeasement with the government of the 1930s, but sometimes only with Chamberlain, which was inadequate. 8. (32 answers). The second most popular question, equally with question 3 – but less well answered. Several candidates were plainly determined to regurgitate their tutorial essay, whatever the examination question. Disappointingly, these included scripts on which the other two answers were good. Some candidates argued that Attlee’s government did not need to renew itself; others, adventurously that policy renewal was necessary but not a change in electoral appeal (pointing to the 1951 election). Only a few answers tackled centrally what ‘renewal’ might have meant. Much was made of the age and illness of members of the government by 1951 – rather too much in the case of the candidate who asserted that one member of the cabinet was dead. 9. (27 answers). Some very good answers combining internal politics of both parties together with the impact of large policies issues and decisions. Interesting themes pursued by candidates included the modernisation of the Conservatives internally, their capacity to overcome immediate setbacks, (Suez, ‘a little local difficulty’ and so on) and to profit from affluence. The travails of Labour were often cited. 10. a. (3 answers). Too few answers to assess the question, although the few who answered did so well. b. (6 answers). Good attempts. The governments, trade unions and business shared blame in roughly equal proportions. One candidate put a bold and well argued case that inflation could be good for governments and bad for most sectors of the economy. 11. (1 answer). Three party systems win the prize for apathy this year.

- 16 -

12. (47 answers). Nearly half the candidates answered this question. The best combined sharp analyses of both terms, often placing them throughout the twentieth century. The weakest were simply a recitation of Thatcher’s governments with a cursory nod towards Conservatism. There was a pleasing diversity in argument: Thatcherism and Conservatism were similar because Conservatism is pragmatic; Thatcherism preached Gladstonian ideas but practised a heavy-handed stsate; no such thing as Thatcherism, merely a series of ideas borrowed from elsewhere; or, most succinctly, ‘Thatcherism, the bastard child of Conservatism’. Sometimes a wide spread approach revealed shaky knowledge – that Conservatives had always supported free trade, for example. At the upper end of the good answers, this question produced original and perceptive essays. 13. (15 answers). A smaller number of answers than might have been expected in part perhaps because candidates had studied new Liberalism or New Labour but not both. Indeed, this was strongly suggested by the weakest answers. 203. Theory of Politics Overall, students showed a good level of knowledge and understanding of the political concepts covered in this paper. The distribution of marks for the paper was in line with that for other papers, suggesting that students did not find the paper particularly easy or difficult. As has been the case in recent years, answers were overly concentrated on some questions, particularly the topics of political obligation ((1) (a)) and equality ((3)). Although some answers to these questions were excellent, many were derivative. It is important that students consider how the concepts they study for this paper are connected. Good performance on this paper often reflected an ability to make such connections rather than treating each concept (‘justice’, ‘liberalism’, ‘feminism’) etc. as a wholly separate entity sitting its own box. The comments below on specific questions will provide some examples of this.

(1) (a) ‘Since there is a duty to resist injustice, in what sense (if any) is there an obligation to obey the state?’

This was a popular question. It produced some good answers which employed knowledge and understanding of the debates on the basis and nature of political obligation in a targeted way to answer the specific question asked. But students need to beware of producing essays which simply review the various theories of political obligation without targeting their knowledge to the specific question asked. Students should also be wary of adopting a sceptical position on political obligation in answering on this topic which is then implicitly contradicted by the answers they give to questions on other topics.

Proportion of students answering: 56%. Relative popularity score: 8.

- 17 -

(Note: If all questions on the paper attracted equal numbers of students, each question would attract close to 7% of students. The relative popularity score is the proportion of students actually answering divided by the 7% figure for the proportion who would answer if answers were equally divided across all questions.)

(b) ‘If anarchic society is not possible, does anarchism have a point?’ This question prompted a small number of generally thoughtful answers. The most popular line of response was to argue that the impossibility of an anarchist society does not discredit ‘philosophical anarchism’ as a sceptical position in the debate over political obligation. Students did not show much knowledge of anarchism as a political tradition, e.g., of ‘pragmatic’ tendencies within anarchist thought which aim at expanding the scope of anarchist organization in society without necessarily making society as a whole anarchic (e.g., Colin Ward, Anarchy in Action). Students were also too much inclined to take the impossibility of an anarchic society as a given, showing relatively little knowledge of the anthropological/game theoretic literature on the possibility of order under anarchy (e.g., Michael Taylor, Community, Anarchy, and Liberty). Proportion of students answering: 9%. Relative popularity score: approx 1.

(2) ‘To what extent (if at all) is justice a matter of distributing goods and bads according to desert?’

This question on justice was not as popular as questions on this topic have been in recent years, perhaps suggesting that students found this to be a relatively demanding question. Some good answers considered not only the relationship between desert and distributive justice, but also the role of desert in thinking about justice and punishment. Students sometimes struggled to say anything much in defence of a desert-based theory of distributive justice, and this seemed to reflect a superficial understanding of this kind of theory. Students also need to be aware not to confuse desert-based theories with ‘entitlement theory’ (Nozick) and to distinguish between preinstitutional and institutional notions of desert. Proportion of students answering: 26%. Relative popularity score: approx 4.

(3) ‘Is equality of opportunity an ethically preferable objective to equality of welfare?’

This was the most popular question on the paper. The quality of answers varied considerably. Most students reasonably connected the question with the ‘Equality of What?’ debate and presented more or less accurate and more or less critical accounts of this debate. Many answers also considered the claims of ‘meritocracy’. Many answers were, however, rather derivative. (Note: One odd error which recurs in

- 18 -

students’ answers is worth commenting on. A number of students made the claim that G.A. Cohen is a supporter of equality of welfare or equality of opportunity for welfare. As other students understood, he is in fact a defender of ‘equality of access to advantage’, an objective which incorporates a concern for equality of opportunity for welfare, but is not reducible to it. This point is clearly made in the lecture notes on the Department website.)


(4) ‘‘A person is free to the extent that she or he is not subjec t to power.’ Discuss.’ This was one of the more popular questions on the paper, despite the potentially challenging linkage of the liberty and power topics in one question. One line of response, which produced some good answers, focused on the ‘republican’ theory of liberty developed by Philip Pettit and Quentin Skinner. Another fruitful approach was to discuss Foucault’s analysis of power and its implications for liberty. Some students showed analytical finesse in tracing the links between various conceptions of liberty and various conceptions of power. On the whole, students responded well to the question.

Proportion of students answering: 47%. Relative popularity score: approx 6.5.

(5) (a) If two alleged rights conflict, can they both be rights? Students who answered this question generally showed good knowledge of theoretical approaches relevant to the question (e.g., ‘specificationism’) though answers were generally better at setting out the issues at stake than in resolving them in a convincing manner.


(b) Should individual rights trump promotion of the common good?

There were few answers to this question. Students who attempted it tended to assume that the ‘common good’ is an aggregative concept and so focused on the substantive question of whether/how far rights should be respected at the expense of an aggregate good. While this was a reasonable approach to the question, students might also have explored the notion of the common good itself and how far it can be understood in terms of respect for rights. Proportion of students answering: 5%. Relative popularity score: approx 0.7.

- 19 -

(6) ‘‘Democracy is justified by its consequences, not by its supposed intrinsic fairness.’ Discuss.’

This was quite a popular question. Answers showed a good level of knowledge and understanding of the debates over the justification of democracy. Discussions were often balanced and thoughtful. However, there was some tendency to treat the idea of ‘deliberative democracy’ superficially and as a solution to all difficulties. While there may indeed be a lot to be said for deliberative democracy, the claims made for it in some answers were well in excess of what could be supported by the information and arguments given.

Proportion of students answering: 23%. Relative popularity score: approx 3.

(7) ‘Is ‘green liberalism’ a contradiction in terms?’ This question was not as popular as questions on the ‘liberalism’ topic have been in recent years, suggesting that students found the connection between liberalism and green theory in the question challenging to consider. However, those students who did attempt the question generally did well. These answers understood the central issue to be one of whether a ‘green’ politics conflicts with liberal commitments to ‘neutrality’. In contrast to answers on the liberalism topic in recent years, students did seem to have a grasp of the distinction between ‘neutrality of effect/impact’ and ‘neutrality of justification’, and this made for some good answers.


(8) ‘Is your body your property?’

Students answering this question showed good knowledge of the debates between libertarians and egalitarians over the status of self-ownership. However, students would benefit from wider knowledge of the literature on property/ownership (e.g., of Anthony Honore’s essay on the concept of ownership).

Proportion of students answering: 9%. Relative popularity score: approx 1.

(9) ‘‘Whatever is of value in socialist thought has been absorbed into egalitarian liberalism.’ Discuss.’

Very few students attempted this question. However, those that did produced some informed and thoughtful answers. One interesting line of response was to argue that while egalitarian liberalism has absorbed the traditional distributive aims of socialism (to some extent), it has not absorbed the ‘qualitative’ or ‘relational’ features of socialist thought, which, it was argued, retain some independent value.

- 20 -


(10) (a) ‘Are conservatism and multiculturalism compatible?’

Too few students attempted this question to formulate any remarks on how it was answered. It is worth remarking, however, on how surprising it is that students did not try to answer the question. The low rate of response to the question perhaps indicates that students still need to be encouraged to think about the topics they have studied for the paper in a connected way, rather than as separate topics.

(b) ‘To what extent (if at all) is cultural difference a problem for feminism?’

This was much more popular than (10) (a) and was usually well answered. Students showed good knowledge and understanding of a range of feminist approaches, of feminist critiques of multiculturalism (especially that of Susan Moller Okin), and tended to discuss the issues at stake in a balanced and thoughtful way.


(11) ‘‘Since ideology is implicit in all political projects, it makes no sense to say

that some political movements or individuals are more ideological than others.’ Discuss.’

There were few answers to this question. Those students who answered it showed a good and critical grasp of the debates surrounding the concept of ideology.


(12) ‘What makes a relationship a ‘political’ relationship?’

There were few answers to this question. Some answers were, however, thoughtful and showed independent reflection. Some students saw how knowledge on the ‘feminism’ topic could be usefully applied here and wrote good answers on this basis. This indicates how students need to be alert to the full range of ways in which their knowledge on a given topic can be brought to bear in answering the paper, rather than evaluating questions simply on the basis of whether or not they contain a key word like ‘feminism’, ‘liberalism’, etc. Proportion of students answering: 5%. Relative popularity score: approx 0.7.

- 21 -

204 Modern British Government and Politics Question no. 1 2 3 4 5a 5b 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 No. of answers

8 6 5 4 5 10 2 3 2 8 12 0 8 1

1. Is electoral reform for Westminster a necessary element of ‘constitutional

renewal’? This question was generally well done. Most candidates showed a good knowledge of the debate concerning electoral reform, and the stronger ones were able to relate it properly to the wider question of ‘constitutional renewal’.

2. ‘Relations between the central and devolved administrations of the UK since 1999 have been remarkably consensual, but only because the Labour Party has been so dominant and public spending so high.’ Is this true?

Again, a high degree of competence was shown in relating the history of relations between the centre and the devolved administrations, but several answers failed to address the question sufficiently directly and some simply offered an over-general account of the successes and failures of devolution as a whole.

3. Does the creation of a Ministry of Justice threaten the independence of the UK judiciary?

Good knowledge of recent developments, but in most cases too little thought was given to defining ‘independence’ before answering.

4. What functions of modern governance in the UK, if any, can only be performed adequately by a permanent civil service?

There were some very well-informed and thoughtful answers to this question, although one or two candidates’ ideas of what modern governance involved were not very modern.

5. EITHER: How can ministerial accountability to Parliament best be improved? OR: Has the House of Lords become stronger since 1999? If so, why?

Most of those who did this question wrote on the House of Lords, and most wrote well-informed and intelligent answers. Weaker answers usually lacked evidence against which to test the claim of greater strength. Answers to the first question were nearly all thoughtful and clearly argued.

6. Are the problems of UK local government all really problems of finance? Only two candidates attempted this question.

- 22 -

7. ‘The Northern Ireland peace process tried to build agreement between

moderates, but ended with an agreement between extremists.’ Do you agree? There was at least one excellent answer to this question. As in many other instances, the weaker answer(s) did not lack knowledge of events but failed to engage with the terms of the question.

8. Does low turnout in recent UK elections support the claim that people are becoming less interested in politics?

Only two candidates attempted this question.

9. Has the time now come for greater state funding of the UK’s political parties? Most of the candidates who attempted this question had a good sense of the competing arguments and the strengths and weaknesses of recent proposals.

10. ‘Decisions in the UK core executive are necessarily made collectively, but that does not mean that there is Cabinet government.’ Do you agree?

This popular question required candidates to adopt and apply a precise definition of Cabinet government. The weaker answers ducked this challenge and reverted to more conventional material constructed in much broader terms, which often relied too heavily on anecdotal evidence concerning prime ministerial style.

11. Does pressure group activity in the UK help or hinder civil society? No one would say.

12. Is the relationship between the media and politicians in the UK too conflictual or too cosy?

This question was best done by candidates who identified its key claim clearly and focussed on it, rather than using it as a jumping-off point for general reflections on the state of the nation’s media.

13. Why has the issue of Europe been so much less divisive for the Labour Governments since 1997 than it was for the Major Governments?

Only one candidate attempted this question. 205 Government and Politics of the United States Thirty candidates sat the examination this year, consisting of 26 who were reading PPE and 4 reading MHP. The number of students answering each question was as follows:

- 23 -

Question Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Number of Candidates

6 0 5 13 15 3 13 7 9 10 7 2 0

The examiners found it rather curious that, in a year featuring a closely contested presidential election, neither of the questions on American electoral behaviour (2 and 13) attracted a single candidate. All the other questions were answered by at least one candidate, although none of the answers to question 10 dealt with either urban policy or welfare policy. It was also slightly surprising that the two questions on Congress (3 and 12) attracted between them a total of only 7 answers. This year’s examiners were pleased that a development noted by the examiners in their report last year was evident again in 2008. In earlier years, when between 40 and 55 candidates usually opted to take the US Politics paper, there was a “long tail”, with a disproportionately large number of weaker candidates choosing to take the paper. With smaller numbers in the last two years the “tail” has largely been eliminated, and the distribution of marks is much closer to the norm for politics papers. It is to be hoped that the false, but previously widespread, assumption among students in earlier years that a subject that was often taught in Prelims would be an easy one to take in Finals will not gain credence once more in the future. Most scripts displayed a good knowledge of the American political system. Some scripts, usually amongst the best ones and especially in answers to question 4, did try to bring in relevant material from other papers they had taken. This was a refreshing development particularly in light of the comments made by last year’s examiners. There were relatively few variations in the level of performance between questions, although one or two points can be made. Many of the (relatively small number of) 5 answers to question 3 on congressional committees were of a high standard, as were a number of answers on economic policy (one of the alternatives available in question 10). Some of the candidates answering question 6 had only a limited knowledge of particular instances of the restriction of civil liberties. There was a general tendency among candidates to under-examine major concepts such as separationism (q4, in which candidates were much more confident about the meaning of presidentialism), autonomy (q5), policy agendas (q10), and social class (q11, in which most candidates paid much more attention to race, leaving class unexamined). 206 Government and Politics in Western Europe General Comments The overall standard of answers was rather average this year with no failed or third class, but also no first class scripts. Surprising was the large number of scripts

- 24 -

presenting rather muddled and somewhat confused arguments. In addition, a number of scripts failed to cover the three countries adequately. On individual questions: Question 1 Too few takers 2. Too few takers 3. This was one of the two most popular questions with a number of good and some poor answers. Better scripts reflected on the term Grand Coalition State and discussed several potential meanings. Many discussed the two federal Grand Coalitions so far as well as the probability of Grand Coalitions becoming a constant feature of German Politics, although a number of candidates failed to mention Grand Coalitions at the Länder level. The best answers also referred to the frequent situations of ‘divided government’ (Bundestag and Bundesrat with different majorities) forcing the two major parties to work together. Poorer answers simply equated the term with ‘consensus democracy’ or gave a historical account of the development of the German party system. 4a. Another popular question. Most answers provided a standard discussion focused on cohabitation as well as constitutional and personal factors. Poorer answers simply gave a historical overview over different presidents, while the better answers were organised along factors, often also including the impact of coalitions. While all candidates discussed the impact of cohabitation, some failed to explain why cohabitation reduces the power of the French President. 4b. Again a popular question. Most answers discussed the changes due to the 1993 electoral reform competently, although some seemed to overlook the fact that the second Berlusconi government stayed in office for a full term. Poorer answers focused mainly on the pre-1993 party system, while some of the best answers also discussed the effects of the 2005 reform. 5a Overall rather uninspiring answers. Most redefined the question into one about the challenges to and the success of different social democratic parties. Few answer genuinely attempted to analyse what social democratic parties have to offer to voters in terms of policies etc. 5b Too few takers 6. Overall competent answers. Most discussed institutional, organisational as a well as societal factors explaining the varying success of extremist right wing parties. Poorer answers demonstrated little empirical knowledge of European extremist right wing parties, while better answers discussed different forms of ‘success’ (votes, government participation etc. ) and analysed success over time on the basis of solid empirical knowledge.

- 25 -

7. Only one taker 8. Too few takers 9. Surprisingly not a very popular question. Most answers were rather standard, focussing on electoral systems (Duverger) and, less often, on cleavages (Lipset and Rokkan). Good answers analysed additional institutional factors and/ or discussed how the institutional and sociological perspective can be reconciled. 10. The answers focused mainly on the two ‘grand theories’ Neo-functionalism and Liberal Intergovernmentalism, their explanatory power and shortcomings. Some answers also mentioned neo-institutionalist approaches. Overall, this question produced solid, but again fairly standard questions. The best answers discussed not only the theories in some more detail, but also reflected on the functions of theories in general or with regard to European integration and a few offered a proposal on how the main two theories could be combined to gain a fuller picture of European integration. 11a. Too few takers 11 b. No takers 12. No takers 13. Too few takers 207 Russian Government and Politics There were 11 candidates for this paper. Overall, the papers were somewhat disappointing, with very few first class answers. Candidates showed knowledge of Soviet and Russian politics and government but tended to rely on a narrow range of source materials. There was a particular lack of willingness or ability to place answers in a broader theoretical or comparative context, with very few answers showing how understanding of Soviet and Russian politics might be informed by what they learned on other papers (such as Comparative Government or Political Sociology). Q1. No answers. 2. 6 answers. The best was very good, but most failed to place the question within the context of debate in the literature or to explain what the ‘status quo ante’ was or to say convincingly why one point during perestroika was a more likely tipping point. 3. No answers. 4. 1 answer only.

- 26 -

5. 2 answers. Answers suffered from lack of familiarity with comparative literature, weakness in pressing home how to link transition to post-Soviet politics, and any scepticism about the enterprise. 6. No answers. 7. 1 answer only. 8. 4 answers. The answers to this question were generally well informed and displayed knowledge of the development of the Russian party system before and after 2000. The main weaknesses here were conceptual: most of the candidates appeared to lack an awareness of the functions and dimensions of party systems, which could have helped to structure the discussion. 9. 7 answers. This was one of the most popular questions, but the answers were often surprisingly weak. The question required a clear definition of key features of a federal system, many essays were weak on that front, and a surprising number of answers also displayed a relatively weak grasp of the key empirical developments. 10. 3 answers. Answers to this question were generally well informed, and conceptualised legislative power and effectiveness in meaningful ways. 11. 1 answer only. 208 Politics in Sub-Saharan Africa The paper attracted 24 candidates. This is fewer than in 2006 and 2007. The students showed a good knowledge and understanding of African politics in general as well as the realities of particular countries, making competent comparisons across most questions. While there were some excellent performances that showed conceptual sophistication and a strong engagement with the relevant literature, the majority of students did well and there was no case of very poor results. While all questions attracted answers, including the more complex ones, there was a clear preference for questions 8 (relationship of patrimonialism with political violence) and 12 (the relevance of recent elections in Nigeria and Kenya for democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa). In regard to the latter, students predominantly engaged with the Kenyan elections of 2009. While there were considerable differences between mostly factual accounts and answers that were both empirically solid and analytically stimulating, on the whole answers were satisfactory. This was much less so in the Nigerian case, with fewer students picking it and answers of a markedly lower caliber. Other questions that attracted much attention were 4, 10 and 11. Question 11 on “femocracy” was the most consistently disappointing one, with few challenging and interesting answers. A number of misunderstandings about the concept were also evident throughout. Question 10 on trade unions garnered passable but formulaic

- 27 -

answers and the topic seemed a little tired. Question 4 on democratization was handled very well by most candidates and provided some of the best answers in the paper. At the other end of the spectrum, there were questions that received little attention, especially the question on the role of Islam (one answer) and on agricultural policies. Overall, students engaged examples from Anglophone Southern Africa and East Africa, while Central and West Africa, and non-English-speaking countries, were less favoured. 209 Politics in Latin America Eighteen candidates took this paper (thirteen PPE and five MHP). Most of the answers were to just five of the twelve questions, namely Q.6 on populist politics (14 answers); Qs. 3 on competitive elections and consolidation, and 1 on democratic transitions (9 answers each); Q.5 on executive-legislative relations and political representation (8 answers); and Q.4 on political parties and political instability (6 answers). The remaining questions attracted only one or two answers each, and no-one attempted Q.10 on the assertion of indigenous rights and its effects. The overall quality of the scripts was good. All scripts demonstrated some knowledge of the contemporary politics of the continent, and of the relevant literature, while the better ones articulated analytical insights with empirical evidence. A few outstanding scripts succeeded in building these insights into a coherent, comparative argument. The scripts mainly addressed government politics (executive-legislative relations), party politics, and issues of democratic transition and consolidation. As last year, the candidates appeared less drawn to ‘rights’ questions, or to questions of inequality and exclusion, despite evincing lively interest in these topics in the classroom and in tutorials. The final marks for the scripts created a distribution of 15.38 per cent firsts, 61.54 per cent upper seconds, and 23.08 per cent lower seconds (with no thirds or fails), which is quite close to the PPE average over the past three years of 18 per cent, 57 per cent, and 23 per cent, respectively. 210 Politics in South Asia 8 PPE candidates and 1 MHP candidate sat this paper. The general standard was good, but this was not a very distinguished cohort. Most students wrote with competence and a satisfactory knowledge of the subject, comfortably reaching 2.i standard. All except one student received upper second class marks, but unusually this year there was no first class script. All produced respectable answers, driven by clear lines of argument, and with occasional nice flashes of insight, but none really came close to first class quality. Some bunching of answers around the same few questions - caste, democracy, religious nationalism - made it difficult for even the better candidates to distinguish themselves. There was a degree of uniformity in the answers, suggesting a strong tendency to rely on teaching. In a couple of cases, the candidates seemed to find it difficult to write focussed answers to the more difficult

- 28 -

questions that required independent thought and analysis. The lack of regional detail and all-India generalisations were often a shortcoming. The most popular question was on democracy and the role of the poor (Q3) with seven answers, followed by caste and politics (Q6) with six answers, gender and politics (Q8) with four answers, and authoritarianism in Pakistan (Q5) and Hindu nationalism and the role of the media (Q11) with three answers each. Two students attempted the question on religious nationalism as an elite ideology (Q2). The question on the state and society-centric explanations of politics (Q1) was attempted by one student, as was the question on regional separatist movements (Q7). Four questions, covering the character of the Indian state, social and environmental movements and NGOs, were not attempted at all. The distribution of answers was as follows: Question Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


1 2 7 0 3 6 1 4 0 0 3 0

211 Politics in the Middle East The standard of answers was generally high with a good range of questions tackled. Particularly pleasing was the way in which candidates combined good knowledge of the major themes taught with a useful array of case studies. Many papers were of good 2:i quality and there were also a number of first class scripts. Individual question comments: Question 1 was less popular than usual because of the comparison between Britain and France, though most answers noted the key differences. Question 2 was a little tricky in wording to avoid standard answers, but those who tackled it did a good job in considering why women’s roles might have been underrated. Question 3 a few good answers tackling the legitimacy question. Question 4 on Arab nationalism was, as usual, a popular question with mostly competent answers. Question 5 some answers failed to get the right balance between economic and political liberalisation and a few failed to consider other (non-rentier) reasons why liberalisation might not have occurred. Question 6 mostly well covered without duplicating Q 5

- 29 -

Question 7 a potentially wide question which invites a consideration of Iran as well as Arab states. Most answers contained useful arguments and examples. Question 8 Egypt is a popular example to use and those that tackled this question made useful comparisons with other states Question 9 some answers lacked nuance and didn’t make a good enough distinction between cooption and coercion. Question 10 the few who chose this question successfully analysed Turkey’s political development and particularities Question 11 showed a reasonable understanding of the process of succession, though ‘regulation’ needs to be unpacked to explore its relationship with democratic processes Question 12 most picked up the different tracks of the question which required looking at and distinguishing leaders and peoples and the nature of civil society 212 International Relations in the Era of Two World Wars 32 candidates: 30 PPE 2 MHP Most candidates showed a reasonable knowledge of the paper and an ability to discuss both historical and theoretical issues. There was, however, a significant minority whose answers were weak, with inadequate knowledge or simplistic arguments. The tendency to prepare only certain topics contributes to a lack of understanding of the relationships between them which in turn leads to one-sided answers. At the top end, however, there were, as usual, impressive scripts.

1. EITHER: Are the origins of the First World War best explained at the level of the international system? (20 answers)

This was generally well done though some candidates are still vague as to what ‘the level of the international system’ means and several thought the alternative must be the individual level, apparently ignorant of the concept of the state level.

OR: Are the origins of the Second World War best explained at the level of the individual? (1 answer)

2. EITHER: Was there any realistic alternative to national self-determination as

the basis of the Paris peace settlement in Europe? (9 answers) Most candidates attacked the idea that self-determination was realistic but few considered whether there were realistic alternatives.

- 30 -

OR: Àn imperialist peace but one that lasted.’ Discuss this verdict on the peace settlement in the Middle East. (6 answers)

In general well done with good knowledge of the region. Only a few candidates, however, were prepared to reflect on the ways in which it lasted and why.

3. What were the consequences of the First World War for the international economy? (1 answer)

4. `Soviet foreign policy in practice bore little relation to its ideology.’ Do you

agree? (15 answers) A popular question and in general well done. Most candidates understood the major developments in Soviet foreign policy. The best gave convincing accounts of the interaction between power politics and ideology.

5. `The real dividing line between the years of war and the years of peace’ (Austen Chamberlain, 1925). Was this assessment of the Locarno Pact justified? (2 answers)

6. Was the foreign policy of the United States between the wars against its

national interest? (13 answers) This produced interesting answers with a variety of views. The best looked at different ways in which the national interest could be defined.

7. EITHER: Did the policy of àppeasement’ undermine the League of Nations? (16 Answers)

A popular question and one with a disproportionate number of weak answers, which simply recited the weaknesses of the League. There were also good answers, however, which explored the relationship between the League and àppeasement’ over the period as a whole.

OR: Why did the efforts to promote disarmament after the First World War achieve so little? (4 answers)

Some good answers to a minority question.

8. Was Fascism an international movement? (0 answers)

9. What were the consequences of Japanese expansion in China for the international system? (2 answers)

10. Why did Czechoslovakia and Poland adopt different policies in the inter-war

period to protect their independence? (0 answers)

- 31 -

11. Why did the European wars which broke out in 1914 and 1939 both become world wars? (1 answer)

12. Does it make sense to talk of a Cold War from 1917? (5 answers)

On the whole well done with clear distinctions made between ideology and the distribution of power as explanations. 213 International Relations in the Era of the Cold War There were 71 candidates, 61 PPE and 10 MHP. The average PPE mark was 65.2. There were some very strong scripts. There is still overwhelming interest in the key Cold War players (which is historically appropriate), but not quite as overwhelming as in previous years. There were relatively few takers for nuclear weapon and very few for Japan, European integration, the influence of West European statesmen on the Cold War, and communist influence in SE Asia. There was less detailed knowledge of Europe than might have been expected. In so far as candidates used theory it was usually of a rather narrow realist/liberal variety, the latter defined as anything that was not realist. Q1: Popular question. Temptation to do the standard ‘origins’ answer (at times barely mentioning Korea at all!), or standard ‘Korea/Cold War’ answer rather than addressing the specific question. Q2: Few takers. This was quite a difficult question, and often answered as east-west, rather than international relations more generally. Rather poor knowledge of nuclear weapons, both the narrow strategic side and the broader political importance (for example, in relation to alliance relations). The role of nuclear weapons in the Cold War might be something to cover more explicitly in lectures. Q3: Popular question. But many concentrated on superpowers only. A harder question than it looked to many candidates. There was too much vagueness about what ‘linkage’ was, and several would have benefitted from a clearer distinction between linkage as a part of US détente policy and linkage as something intrinsic to bargaining within a strategic relationship. Q4: Popular question. Complex question but produced some good answers. Rather too many just went through their standard end of the Cold War essay. Many did not really deal with the fallacies aspect. Q5: The good answers saw this both as a way to show off decision-making and theory as well as knowledge of Chinese foreign policy. The ‘more than any other major state’ made this question very difficult to answer except at a very high level of generality. But the best answers displayed a very good knowledge of Chinese foreign policy.

- 32 -

Q6. Very few answers. But nicely done. Shame as it was one of the more straightforward questions. Q7. Few takers. Q8: Most looked at De Gaulle but several of these did not focus very directly on ‘east-west relations’. Q9. Few. The best answers saw this is being about superpower politics as well as regional politics. Q10. Popular question, with some good answers discussing different ways of evaluating success and failure. Interesting that many started out on revisionist line but concluded more sympathetic to Israeli security dilemma Q11: Best answers picked up on ideas of ‘imposition’ and ‘authority’ (and on the tensions between them). But again quite a lot of very standard answers. Q12: Some very sharp answers Good to see reasonable number of answers to this, given the previous superpower-focus on the paper. 214 International Relations The paper continued to be very popular with 195 candidates taking the paper (152 for PPE and 43 for MHP). The overall standard for this year was better than last year, with an average mark for PPE candidates of the paper of 63.5 and fewer low second scripts. The examiners sought to respond to the comments of the IR Panel by (a) trying to set a paper which balanced theory and history; and (b) arranging a meeting with new assessors to talk through the paper and the examining process. The paper was marked by two examiners and eight assessors. Overall comments: Although the examiners sought to balance theory and history, it was the empirical and historical sides that were generally weaker than one might have expected. It was striking, for example, how few candidates answered on whether 2001 was a turning point in US foreign policy and the detailed knowledge of US foreign policy was not strong. There was also a tendency for many to use the neorealist, neoliberal, and constructivist frames to approach questions and to structure answers, even when the question did not call for them (e.g. UN, Democratic Peace, Globalization). Comments on individual questions: 1a. Moderately popular and with an interesting range of answers. Many focused directly on the state/non-state aspects: terrorism representing a non-state threat, and states responding by trying to trying to turn it into something more like a traditional threat, especially in terms of military force. Others looked at the difficulty of explaining the origins of terrorism as a security threat in neorealist terms and in relation to material forces. Others picked up the neorealist idea of the idea of the

- 33 -

system ‘punishing’ the US for not following its logic and at the extent to which terrorism had underpinned different forms of institutional logics, both functional and normative. Bu the main point to emphasize is that it was not enough simply to say "but terrorists aren't state actors". The better answers did more, such as pointing out that neorealism struggles to explain attempts to forge consensus through institutional channels. 1b. The best answers discussed what ‘progress’ might involve before looking at constructivism or IS. Generally reasonable understanding of what the two sets of theories involved; less good on discussions/definitions of progress. 2. A popular question. The better candidates illustrated the idea of law acting to reinforce or restrain but also discussed (a) different notions of power and (b) way in which law reallocates power and alters the way in which power is exercised or expressed. The weaker ones tended simply to see how strong is law and its overall impact on power politics. 3. One of the most popular questions. The slightly odd wording of the question was designed to avoid stock answers evaluating the UN in international security. It was generally successful in this: several offered good challenges of the question and whether it was a useful or fair way of evaluating the UN; there were several creative answers that questioned the good times/bad times criteria; it also pressed many candidates to discuss their views on the conditions at the time of the founding of the UN and the nature of its aims and objectives. 4. Rather few answers: but the best distinguished between the role of inter-state bargains in the origins of the EU and in the various stages of its evolution on the one hand, the more complexes process of integration to which these bargains gave rise, including the elements of supra-nationalism. Several of the best candidates argued that the structural consequences of inter-state bargains resulted in deeper and complex processes and structures of integration than went beyond the contingent alignment of national preferences at particular times. 5. Reasonably popular and mostly answered in relation to NATO. The best separated out evolution and impact (sometimes suggesting that institutionalism was good on the evolution side, but realism did better in terms of impact). The better candidates combined theory with detailed knowledge of what NATO has done. Some good and interesting arguments about the external vs internal dimensions and logics of the alliance. 6. The most popular question. The wording was designed to work against standard answers. Some gave a rather general picture of the theory followed by a rather indiscriminate run around different regions. Despite being the most popular question, many did not do a good job of using the experience of “regions” to assess the soundness of Democratic Peace Theory. For some, regions basically meant one or two countries in, say, in the Middle East. The stronger answers discuss relative peace (or absence of) within a region’s (e.g. “Europe” or “South Asia”), leading to

- 34 -

more persuasive conclusions. The strongest candidates also isolated particular aspects of the theory and then discussed how looking empirically at regions could help illuminate those aspects. Some picked up on the definitional issue of ‘regions’ and what that implied; and some discussed what this kind of question could do in terms of testing a theory (Do we teach enough on this?). Too many candidates used up too much time providing a general outline of the theory. 7. Reasonably popular. Some good answers here, mostly challenging the idea of ethnic conflict, either because of the role of alternative factors, or, with the best, because of how ethnicity interacted with other logics of conflict. 8. The third most popular question. Best discussed what the notion of ‘state power’ involved and then related this to some of aspects of globalization. Weaker candidates tended just to give a general view of globalization with a rather cursory nod towards state power. Some looked at power of the state vs other actors; others at the way in which globalization was changing the nature of state power. 9. Not many takers. Does this indicate that we are not covering US foreign policy? Those that answered sometimes just looked at Bush without really picking up on the nature of foreign policy under Clinton and how much this differed. 10a: Very few takers. And rather general essays. 10b. More than the US or Germany. Some gave a rather cursory discussion of status quo and revisionist; the best unpacked what these terms may mean and then applied this to different aspects of Chinese foreign policy. Some challenged whether the dichotomy was useful at all. 11. Not many takers, with a diversity of viewpoints. Some took heterogeneity of the ‘South’ as the core problem, but then why does it have any purchase as a framework for bargaining (eg on climate change)? Others assumed that inequality makes it relevant, but then did not look very much at ‘international bargaining’. 12. Few takers. One good and well argued essay that related the IR side to debates within political theory. 215 Political Thought: Plato to Rousseau Distribution of answers: 1. Plato 17; 2. Aristotle 4; 3. Aquinas 0; 4. Machiavelli 12; 5. Hobbes 23; 6. Locke 10; 7. Montesquieu 1; 8. Hume 3; 9. Rousseau 10; 10. Stability 9; 11. Public and Private 0; 12. Utopia 5; 13. Law 1. The standard of answers was generally good, with candidates showing a pleasing level of understanding of authors’ concepts and structures of inference. Answers were mainly relevant and accurate responses to the question put. We were disappointed that a number of candidates answered the Machiavelli question

- 35 -

without reference to The Discourses and accordingly failed to produce an appropriately full response to the question put. Otherwise we were pleased with the level of accuracy in understanding of the texts. 216 Political Thought: Bentham to Weber Distribution of answers: 1. Bentham 2; 2.St-S 4; 3. Hegel 14; 4. Tocqueville 9; 5. Mill 26; 6. Marx 15; 7. Weber 9; 8. Durkheim 10; 9. Religion 1; 10. Science 5; 11. Individual17; 12. Family 2. The standard of answers was generally good, with candidates able to get to grips with the detail of the authors’ arguments so as to analyse the question put. We were pleased that all four of the thematic questions attracted answers. These answers are on the whole interesting to read; the candidates give the impression at least of enjoying the process of composing them; and it is very nice to see candidates wrestling with the project of comparison, although we would like to see more consideration of the problems of comparing thinkers treating ostensibly ‘the same’ theme at different points in the nineteenth century. 217 Marx and Marxism The paper was taken by 18 candidates. The overall standard of scripts was relatively good. The best candidates combined solid textual knowledge with analytical and critical skills of a high order. Where three or more candidates answered a particular question, further comments are provided below. Question Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


2 10 0 9 11 11 3 1 0 4 3 0

2. Is it only proletarians who are alienated in capitalist society?

A popular question. Most candidates demonstrated a reasonable understanding of alienation, although not all of those who made use of the subjective/objective distinction were able to explain it adequately. Most agreed that other classes in capitalist society – including, but not limited to, the capitalist class – might be considered alienated, and some attempted to explain why with reference to particular cases. A few candidates were familiar with some of the infrequent passages where Marx himself discusses this issue.

4. What role does class struggle play in Marx’s theory of history? A popular question. There were some good summary accounts of Marx’s theory of history, but candidates displayed less assurance with the particular question asked. Several advanced some version of the claim that class struggle plays an essential but

- 36 -

not (explanatorily) foundational role in that theory, although elaborations of that distinction varied in clarity and persuasiveness.

5. ‘Marx’s claim that the state will wither away in communist society is scarcely intelligible let alone plausible.’ Discuss.

A popular question which provoked some high quality answers. A majority of candidates thought that the idea of ‘withering away’ was intelligible but not defensible. In particular, there was some pertinent scepticism about the feasibility of combining collective decision-making procedures and non-coercion (without requiring implausible assumptions about abundance or unanimity of preferences). There were a variety of explanations of what ‘withering away’ might involve, and some good marshalling of textual evidence.

6. Did Marx think that communist society would be more just than capitalist society?

A popular question. Weaker answers were unable to resist the temptation of rehearsing some general remarks on the topic of ‘Marx and morality’. Better answers focused more closely on the question asked; understanding that justice and morality are not identical concepts, and paying some attention to the distributive threads in Marx’s account of communism.

7. In what respects is ‘scientific socialism’ superior to ‘utopian socialism’? Candidates typically combined convincing accounts of Marx and Engels’ understanding of utopian socialism with rather less developed accounts of what made scientific socialism ‘scientific’. Direct knowledge of the work of the utopian socialists was not apparent. Answers included some pertinent scepticism about the purported superiority of scientific socialism (which superiority was widely held to rest on doubtful Hegelian premises).

10. What was at stake in ‘the revisionist controversy’? Most candidates demonstrated a solid understanding of Eduard Bernstein’s revisionist views. However, knowledge of other participants in the controversy, and of the wider context of Second International Marxism, was less impressive. (In particular, accounts of Kautsky and the orthodox centre of German Social Democracy tended to lack detail and accuracy.) Moreover, even candidates with good knowledge of Bernstein’s views sometimes struggled to clarify the character of the stakes here.

11. Do any ONE OR MORE of the following Marxists offer a coherent and plausible alternative to Lenin’s account of the role of the party: Luxemburg, Trotsky, Gramsci?

- 37 -

Candidates discussed a variety of alternatives, but Gramsci was a particular favourite. Essays displayed a reasonable understanding of the main issues in these early twentieth-century debates about the role of the party, but often lacked detailed textual or contextual knowledge. Candidates typically found it easier to discuss whether the relevant alternative was coherent, than to judge whether it was plausible. 218 Sociological Theory There were 13 candidates for this paper. Quality ranged from competent (lower second class) to excellent (first class). The poorer scripts tended towards scholasticism, the recounting of stereotyped debates between different theorists; the best scripts considered theories in relation to the explanation of real social phenomenon. The most popular questions were on social norms (Q8, answered by ten candidates), class conflict (Q2, seven candidates), interpersonal interaction (Q6, five candidates), and gendered violence (Q7, four candidates). Three answers were offered on interpretation (Q3) and rational choice (Q4); two answers were offered on social networks (Q1) and natural selection (Q13); one answer was offered on self-interest (Q10) and subcultural survival (Q11). 219 Sociology of Industrial Societies Question number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of candidates

3 1 0 1 1 4 1 3 1 0 0 0

There were only five candidates for this paper, and the quality of answers ranged from competent (lower second class) to excellent (first class). The three most popular questions were:

• Q1. Why might we expect industrial societies to display high levels of social mobility? Do they?

• Q6. To what extent are the predictions of secularization theory contradicted by empirical evidence?

• Q8. Why do men and women continue to occupy gender-stereotypical roles in industrial societies? Answer with reference to EITHER the gender division of domestic labour OR occupational sex segregation.

The best answers showed a high level of engagement with the question as it was asked on the examination paper, and advanced arguments that were well supported by references to relevant literature. 220 Political Sociology Frequencies for questions answered for the 47 PPE and 12 MHP scripts:

- 38 -

Question Number

1 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


27 11 14 2 28 15 18 10 13 12 12 6 9

There was, as last year, a good spread of questions answered, with all but three questions receiving answers in the double figures. The standard over representation of students choosing to answer the questions on class and political culture nonetheless remained, with over 30 per cent of answers on these two topics. Although many answers were of a high standard, some candidates presented the usual problems of (i) inadequate presentation of empirical evidence, (ii) a need for greater questioning of measurement and research design in the empirical literature, (iii) a focus on a narrow range of literature and (iv) an inability to address central definitional aspects of the question. Question specific comments are as follows: 1. Some good answers, though many candidates struggled with the emphasis on social trust in the question. Better candidates were able to engage with definitional issues of trust and democratic stability, as well as competently assess the empirical evidence. 2. Some very good answers, though also many poor answers that showed little familiarity with the literature and used anecdotal evidence. 3. Weaker candidates failed to interpret ‘political opportunities’ with reference to the POS literature. Empirical evidence was lacking in many answers. 4a. Only two answers. 4b. The most popular question. Answers tended to range from the mediocre to the competent, with few very bad or very good answers. Weaker candidates tended to get bogged down in detail that they were unable to put into a broader perspective. 5. Many candidates did not adequately define a social cleavage, and were thus unable to answer the question effectively. The worst answers concentrated almost exclusively on secularisation and failed to explain any mechanism by which declining church attendance might impact on politics. 6. Few candidates dealt well with both sides of the question (the RC model and declining turnout), those that did often provided very good answers. 7. Very few answers took the proposition seriously enough to plausibly defend it. Weaker candidates used this as an opportunity to list examples of countries that have

- 39 -

and have not democratised, and discuss those countries’ levels of economic development. 8. Some excellent answers that showed an in-depth knowledge of the literature. Also some very poor answers that showed a misunderstanding what it might mean to test an explanation. 9. Some good answers to this question. Weaker answers did not show enough knowledge of the welfare state literature, and misunderstood Esping-Andersen's arguments. 10. Answers ranged from the very competent, with good knowledge of the literature, to some of the worst answers overall that simply focused on anecdotal evidence and assertion. 11. Only six answers. 12. Most answers dealt with Inglehart competently, but did not necessarily provide much more. Weaker candidates did not adequately engage with the question’s focus on party system change. 221 British Society in the 20th Century The History Faculty was unable to provide a report which made mention of the 8 PPE candidates who took this paper. The existing report is available from the History Faculty. Of the 8 PPE candidates who sat this paper, six achieved established marks of between 60 and 69 inclusive (2.1) and two between 50 and 59 inclusive (2.2.). 222 Labour Economics and Industrial Relations 41 candidates sat this paper. The most popular questions were: 2 OR (national minimum wage), 3 EITHER (gender discrimination), 4 (the impact of education on earnings) and 7 (individual merit pay). There was a spread of answers to all the other questions, except 3 OR (racial discrimination) and 8 (human resource management and trust relationships), which attracted no takers. The general standard was good and there were relatively few lower second class papers. The best answers combined three things: sound theoretical knowledge, sensible use of evidence and relevance to the question as set. The weaker candidates lost marks because of lack of relevance, poor use of evidence and ignorance of institutions. Comments on the more popular questions:

- 40 -

2 OR. Generally well done. Some candidates failed to fully appreciate the significance of dynamic monopsony models. Others failed to put the positive arguments for a national minimum wage in the appropriate national settings. 3 EITHER. The best answers to this question were very good indeed. The weaker answers often suffered from a failure to fully appreciate the distinction between disadvantage and discrimination, whilst others failed to deploy effectively the various theories of discrimination.

4. The relevant theory was mostly well understood. There was much greater variance in the quality of answers on the testing of alternative hypotheses. 5. There were some excellent answers to this question where candidates used both theory and evidence to good effect. A few candidates were far too imprecise in their presentation of the theory. 223 Politics in Japan Questions answered: 1 (1), 3 (1), 6 (2), 9 (2). Only 2 candidates this year and they revised together which explains the spread of questions answered. Both produced answers at the 2.1 level. One candidate focused more on analytical answers whilst the other was slightly weaker analytically but both made some original points deriving from their work for other papers. 224 Social Policy 15 candidates (12 PPE (originally 13, 1 withdrawn); 3 MHP). The scripts this year were of a good standard. The most popular exam questions included both those requiring analytical accounts of policies such as health or education and those concerning more conceptual issues such as the role of the state in welfare and typologies of welfare regimes. Out of the twelve questions, candidates attempted all but three (on housing, pensions and the environment and social policy). The most popular were:

• 5. Does social exclusion as a concept add to, or detract from, a focus on poverty? (11)

• 2. To what extent has the state been taken out of ‘the welfare state’? Discuss with reference to the last twenty-five years of reform in the UK. (8)

• 8. Has New Labour’s focus on parental choice of schools helped or hindered equality of educational opportunity? (8)

The quality of scripts was generally high, with answers displaying some clear analysis as well as a command of the facts and arguments. The best scripts provided historical context for current policy where necessary, were grounded in the research literature (including the comparative evidence if this was relevant), balanced the

- 41 -

arguments and knew the main debates on the topic, and were aware of policy implementation as well as design. Weaker answers omitted some important aspect or aspects of the policy debate or research, failed to provide key references or made errors in their accounts of historical developments and/or central arguments. The majority of candidates showed understanding of key concepts in social policy such as the ‘welfare mix’ or relative poverty, and were aware of the need to relate policy developments to outcomes. The number of takers for each question was as follows: Question Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13


2 8 6 2 0 11 1 5 8 2 0 0 0

Classification: MHP scripts: Mark classification Number of students attaining this First 1 2: 1 1 2: 2 1 PPE scripts: Mark classification Number of students attaining this First 2 2: 1 7 2: 2 3 MHP and PPE scripts combined: Mark classification Number of students attaining this First 3 2: 1 8 2: 2 4 Last year no candidate was awarded a Lower Second mark (out of 13), whereas this year there were 4 candidates (out of 15) with this grade. However, given the small number of candidates taking this paper, we believe that a minor change in the distribution of marks from year to year should not be interpreted as having great significance. 225 Comparative Demographic Systems See report for Economics paper 315.

- 42 -

226 Quantitative Methods in Politics and Sociology There were two candidates who both wrote good scripts for this paper. 227 Government and Politics of China This was generally a strong set of papers, with one or two truly outstanding. Optional papers tend to attract students with a particular interest in an area, so it is perhaps unsurprising that work on these papers tends to be strong. Every question bar one was attempted by at least one candidate, suggesting that students had managed to do a good spread of reading and were comfortable with a variety of issues. Certain key topics, unsurprisingly, did attract a larger number of answers. In particular, questions on women, US-China relations, and democracy attracted many takers. The questions on these areas this year were on slightly unusual aspects of the topics– they concentrated on the one-child policy, global norms, and meaning, respectively, which did mean that candidates who merely trotted out standard answers probably did less well than they might have done in previous years. Those who thought through the question carefully were, however, likely to get very good scores. This year, it was good to see the question on nationalism get much more attention: perhaps a sign of the importance of this phenomenon in an Olympic year? Only Chinese workers did not attract any takers: this topic may not seem “hot” in the way it would have done in the era of Mao, but it is still an essential one. Overall, candidates who showed good knowledge of the scholarly arguments and sources tended to do very well. Question distribution: Question Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


4 6 13 6 3 8 4 9 4 3 0 2

- 43 -

REPORT ON ECONOMICS PAPERS 301 Macroeconomics In general examiners looked for sustained detailed exposition of how a particular model explained the outcome identified in the question, rather than long list of disparate factors each of which might lead to such an outcome. In Part A a good answer involved describing briefly how this particular model might be extended, or involved a discussion of what this model had left out. In Part B a good answer involved discussion of relevant factual material, and, where relevant of the data or charts provided, within a framework of analysis provided by such a particular model. The most striking feature overall was the very small number of weak scripts or even of seriously weak individual answers within scripts. At least in part this reflected the scope offered. The number of questions was unusually large, and almost all candidates could find the appropriate number of questions where they were well prepared. However this did not bring uniform quality in answers. Many of the questions were straightforward in structure, but in general these proved to be good discriminators, allowing excellent answers to show at the same time as weaker candidates were exposed. As often in the past, a main area of weakness was for candidates to answer the part of the question for which they felt well prepared and to slide past, or even totally ignore, other parts. Comments on individual questions: Part A 1. Either (Keynesian unemployment). Answered by about 10% candidates. Tackled only by those who felt equipped; reasonably well done although weaker candidates relied too much on Prelims material. Most candidates argued at length that rigid wages do not necessarily signify that economic agents are irrational. 1. Or (unemployment). Answered by about 15% candidates. Not frequently tackled, and poorly answered. Most candidates confined their analysis to investigating the effects of shifts of the WS and PS curves on the NAIRU. The question required one to think in terms of movements along the labour demand curve as against shifts of the curve. 2. (consumption). Answered by about 40% candidates. Very popular with a wide quality range in the answers. The best answers were comprehensive and well targeted. Weaker candidates gave flakey accounts of intertemporal optimisation, and largely ignored stock prices. This was a good example of a ‘predictable’ question proving a good discriminator. Better candidates were careful to note different impacts on consumption of younger and older generations. They also noted that a

- 44 -

higher disposable income leads directly to both higher consumption and house prices. 3. (imminent recession). Answered by about 8% candidates. Not popular and not well done. A disappointing number failed even to see that IS-LM gave an easy route to answering the first part. The open economy was largely ignored. A small number of candidates produced very good answers. They explained why the policy of fiscal expansion alongside cuts in interest rate may suit the US but not more open economies. 4. (constrained discretion). Answered by about 50% candidates. Very popular, again with a good quality spread in answers. A good answer should have analysed in detail the notion of constrained discretion. Weaker answers gave a mechanical account of time-inconsistency without pinpointing its crucial assumptions, and without discussing clearly how the time-inconsistency problem can be circumvented. A surprising number identified constrained discretion with a range for the inflation target. 5. (open economy interest rates). Answered by about 10% candidates. Weaker answers failed to understand or make effective use of the uncovered interest parity condition. An effective answer required one to show that, even with perfect capital mobility so that this condition held, interest rates could be manipulated to levels different from the rest of the world by inducing exchange-rate movements which caused an expectation of future exchange-rate change which would offset the interest rate differential. 6. (short run trade-off). Answered by about 20% candidates. This potentially very ‘do-able’ question didn’t draw a very large number of answers. Most candidates showed how a short-run Philips curve can be derived with reference to the WS/PS diagram. Consequently they argued that the trade-off between inflation and unemployment is due to wage rigidity. Better candidates noted that this account of the trade-off is not wholly satisfactory since it does not allow the wage and price setters to be forward looking. Then they proceeded to outline the conceptual innovations implicit in the NKPC. The best answers went on from this to show knowledge about empirical regularities, the various ‘stickiness’ stories and their puzzles. Weak answers consisted of a 1970s type discussion of short-run and long-run Phillips curves. 7. Either (Solow). Answered by about 35% candidates. Predictably popular, again with a good range of expertise displayed. Many candidates gave a competent exposition of the basic model, but incoherent algebra was also on show. A good answer required both a demonstration of steady state properties and a demonstration of the golden rule. Better candidates argued that once the model is modified to admit human capital as a factor of production it can account for cross-country differences in income.

- 45 -

7. Or (endogenous growth). Answered by about 15% candidates. Again predictably fairly popular, straightforward and a good discriminator. Those who chose it showed good understanding of the motivations and structure of the main approaches. Weaker answers tailed off on convergence. 8. (cycles). Answered by less than 1% candidates. An important and highly ‘do-able’ question but apparently not part of this group’s Macroeconomics. Part B 9. Either (globalisation). Answered by about 5% candidates. Most of candidates went straight for globalisation and ignored innovation; also they talked coherently about the decline in inflation and did not discuss output volatility. 9. Or (emerging economies). Answered by about 15% candidates. Some good analyses here of global markets and the international transmission of price changes. Better candidates were able to distinguish clearly between the terms of trade and inflation effects. 10. (UK unemployment). Answered by about 70% candidates. Hugely popular, again with a wide quality spread in the answers. Predictably, all candidates were ready to trot out their account of the UK NAIRU. A satisfactory answer required one to distinguish between actual unemployment and NAIRU unemployment, and to discuss the information in the Chart using this distinction. Disappointingly, a number of candidates tried to set the discussion in the context of the open economy diagram. They were typically unsuccessful due both to inadequate grasp of the analysis and weak factual knowledge. The rise in unemployment in the early 1980s was widely attributed to deindustrialisation with no mention of exchange rate overshooting - one of the few examples of failure to ‘join up’ macro issues. All but the best candidates had no account of the rise in the early 1990s; the weakest simply ignored it. The employment rate and inactivity also got scant treatment. Although evidently predicted and prepared for by most candidates this question was an effective discriminator. 11. (government finances). Answered by about 1% candidates. A straightforward question on a topical issue with plenty of analytical content, but shunned by candidates. 12. (monetary policy). Answered by about 20% candidates. Many answers showed an inability to connect the history of monetary policy in the UK with the associated theoretical debates. 13. Either (productivity). Answered by about 20% candidates. The candidates wrote about the ‘five drivers’ of productivity growth. However they wrote relatively little about interdependencies between investment and the remaining four drivers – many answers merely consisted of a descriptive list of the drivers without adequate

- 46 -

analysis. Few candidates pointed out that the relative price of capital goods declined considerably over the last two decades. 13. Or (competitiveness). Answered by about 5% candidates. The better candidates understood Krugman’s argument. 14. (EMU). Answered by about 30% candidates. The candidates showed good knowledge of OCAs, automatic stabilisers and sustainability. Better candidates explained the incentives faced by individual national governments to act as a free rider by expanding fiscally and not suffering much from higher interest rates. They also pointed out that a limit of 3 per cent of the GDP imposed on the budget deficits may undermine fiscal policy in its role as automatic stabilizer, and may also prevent any further stabilisation of shocks by fiscal policy. 15. (BoP). Answered by about 5% candidates. Only a few, rather weak, discussions of the ‘Lawson doctrine’ or the issue more generally. A good answer required discussion of how long a current account deficit can be sustained, and of whether the private sector is sufficiently forward looking to ensure correction of a deficit within this period. 16. Either (house prices). Answered by about 20% candidates. Many candidates did not know what to make of the data on dwellings completions and/or ignored it. Most were well informed on the Barker report, Muellbauer-Murphy and financial liberalisation. 16. Or (firms’ financial reserves). Answered by about 5% candidates. Most answers were weak on profit rates on capital, both analytically and empirically. This was a difficult question. A good answer would have required a consideration of the extent to which the growing macroeconomic imbalance that preceded financial markets difficulties was a factor behind a cautious stance taken by the firms in the real sector. 302 Microeconomics The examiners would like to emphasize demonstrations of breadth of reading and multiple citations are not what we look for in answers to questions in Part A; what matters is the careful exposition of relevant arguments. For Part B questions, it is not the recitation of facts per se that impresses; what is required is an exposition of how theory helps us understand relevant empirical/institutional details and how the two combine to inform design of policy. Part A: Theory 1a] Answered by about 25% candidates. A reasonable knowledge of basic public goods theory displayed but candidates did not always focus on the specific question asked. Most candidates identified that free-riding gives rise to under-consumption of the public good. Only a handful, and that

- 47 -

too with varying degrees of success, argued that exclusion could eliminate free-riding and improve efficiency. Very few candidates discussed congestible goods. Quite a few scripts showed confusion about the precise role of excludability in the provision and consumption of public goods, while many quite unnecessarily described the Lindahl equilibrium and Clarke-Groves mechanism.

2a] Answered by about 60% candidates Very popular, but disappointing. Candidates tended to write a textbook exposition of the 1st as well as the 2nd Theorem for pure exchange economies. The recitation of the conditions was generally accurate but the answers to “what would follow ...?” were generally not particularly thoughtful. Some candidates overlooked the importance of convex preferences and technologies and even when these were mentioned rarely was an effort made to give an intuition as to why these conditions were needed. Many responses suffered from an absence of a formal discussion or illustration of the Edgeworth Box. Stronger answers observed that the statement requires transfers to be non-distortionary, which is practically infeasible (even if all other conditions are met) as leisure cannot be taxed etc. Discussion of tax policy in the 2nd best was rewarded. 2b] Answered by about 10% candidates Less popular but better answered with good descriptions of the two systems often framed in terms of the Arrow axioms. Candidates often neglected to discuss single-peaked preferences and the circumstance under which they may be reasonable. 3] Answered by about 25% candidates The overwhelming majority of candidates discussed the terms of trade argument for the implementation of a tariff, drawing a distinction between small and large countries. While most candidates mentioned the risk of retaliation, only a few discussed how small countries forming a customs union could retaliate against a tariff implemented by a large country. The fact that the optimal tariff is likely to be very small in practice was largely overlooked. The use of diagrams varied. The infant industry argument, pre-existing distortions and strategic considerations were touched upon by candidates but inadequately discussed, for the most part. While some candidates discussed how tariffs could be used to correct for externalities, very few mentioned that domestic policies are a more efficient means of achieving this goal. 4] Answered by about 25% candidates Candidates showed some knowledge of game theory but the question was a poor discriminator. Many treated it as invitation to write down all they knew about the subject. 5] Answered by about 20% candidates This question was a gift for those who knew the material well. Quite a few looked it in the mouth, however, which suggests the level of understanding of this topic is not as high as hoped by the question-setters. Parts (ii) (iii) were generally better than (i).

- 48 -

Good responses to (ii, iii) applied the notion of first and second order stochastic dominance to structure their answers. 6] Answered by about 20% candidates Only candidates very well-versed in the Rothschild-Stiglitz (1976) model appeared to have self-selected into this question and so reasonably well answered although many candidates tended to spend time and space regurgitating the textbook version at the expense of answering the question. The latter part of the question regarding monopolisation was evidently more challenging, with most candidates unclear about the effects. 7] Answered by about 30% candidates Moral hazard was described well across the board, though the intuition behind the agency cost and some of the factors affecting it was far less clear. For instance, very few, if any, answers made it clear that the agency cost was not merely a transfer from the principal to the agent, but an efficiency loss. Stronger candidates supported their arguments with formal analysis, discussing the participation and incentive compatibility constraints etc. Few candidates constructed suitable diagrams to illustrate the agency cost. Part B: Applied 8a] Answered by about 25% candidates Answers tended to be somewhat superficial, with a lack of examples/cases and inadequate reference to UK/EU law. The overall standard was disappointing. 8b] Answered by about 20% candidates Answers tended to be “chatty’’ discussion about the general evils of Microsoft with little structure. 9a] Answered by about 60% candidates Very popular but often poorly answered with candidates having little idea of the empirical strategies used in the literature for identifying private or social rates of return (especially for identifying social spillovers) and therefore little ability to critically evaluate them. 9b] Answered by about 10% candidates Labour and capital market failures were well-discussed, but relatively few candidates discussed the statement in relation to British training policy, in particular. 10] Answered by about 20% candidates Quite good answers showed a good level of familiarity with the history of income inequality measures over the last 25 years. Good answers to the second part often focussed on skills biased technical change and the changing distribution of female/male labour force participation over the period. 11a] Answered by about 65% candidates

- 49 -

Generally well-discussed, with use of formal analysis as in Stern (2006), discussion of how the expected welfare calculations may be affected by discounting assumptions and familiarity with the arguments put forth by Stern’s critics. 11b] Answered by about 20% candidates Responses emphasized efficiency considerations of climate change policy as evidently candidates were particularly familiar with the arguments of Weitzman (1974). Equity considerations and the role of side payments between nations and between generates were poorly addressed. Very little discussion was offered on the role of side payments in sustaining international cooperation in climate change policy, collective action towards the development of new technologies, development assistance to poorer countries whose growth prospects may be jeopardized by climate change policy etc. Hence, typically much of the question remained unanswered. 303 Economic Theory Twenty (20) candidates sat the paper. The examiners awarded 3 firsts, 12 upper seconds, and 5 lower seconds. Overall, the quality was good. All questions were attempted: question 7 was the most popular (with 13 attempts) and question 6 the least popular (with 1 attempt). Question 1: (4 attempts) Candidates who answered this question successfully described the Nash bargaining solution and Rubinstein's alternating offer game, but not all candidates were able to show convincingly the similarities and differences between the predictions of the two models. Therefore, these candidates were not able to fully address the question. 2: (9 attempts) The first part of this question was well answered. Most attempts used a good example to explain purification (usually directly from the lecture notes). However, the second part was less well answered (if at all). Often candidates spent only a paragraph on this latter part, with a rather brief discussion of the possible issues. 3 Either: (3 attempts) Candidates were able to state the two axioms correctly, although the discussion of their plausibility was less good. 3 Or: (2 attempts) Again, the explanation of risk pooling and spreading was reasonable, but the answers lacked a convincing discussion of their importance for expected utility theory. 4: (7 attempts) This question received a couple of very good answers, although some attempts did not provide a correct definition of the Intuitive Criterion. Most candidates however were able to provide a good example and use it to illustrate the criterion.

- 50 -

5: (6 attempts) Candidates often discussed the model presented in the question without providing any analysis of their own. As a result, the question was not, only the whole, very well answered. 6: (1 attempt) The single attempt at this question did not go much beyond what might be expected from an answer to a question in the Microeconomics paper, and in particular did not address the second part of the question convincingly. 7: (13 attempts) Although very popular, this question proved algebraically difficult. Candidates had a tendency to multiply out expressions too early and thus overcomplicate their workings. Many did successfully find the mixed strategy equilibrium, and were good on definitions. However, a great many attempts involved a "proof" that strategy R is not used in any equilibrium by showing R is dominated. This led to some confusion, as R is not dominated, as stated in part (d)! Moreover, there was a good deal of confusion when candidates attempted to argue that R is a best reply to something because R is not strictly dominated (this of course is not necessarily true when there are more than 2 player - the whole point of the question). On the whole, answers to this question were therefore a little disappointing. 8: (4 attempts) Both parts of this question were, on the whole, very well answered. 9: (5 attempts) Again, this question was very well answered, with more than one candidate able to get all the way to the end correctly. Some candidates stumbled at part (d), usually seeming unaware of the method they should apply to get the solution (a graphical argument would suffice - although the candidates might have used constrained optimisation methods with care). 10: (4 attempts) The first part of the question was very well answered, part (d) often received a wordy answer, when candidates might have used an application of the implicit function theorem. The second part was less convincing, although it did receive some good attempts. 11: (2 attempts) This question was not well answered. Candidates did not seem able to get much beyond part (a) with any degree of success.

- 51 -

304 Money and Banking I marked 9 PPE scripts for Money and Banking. Candidates were asked to answer three questions and at least one from each section (section A contained two short answer questions and section B contained 10 essay questions). Eight candidates answered one question from section A and two from section B, and one candidate answered two questions from section A and one from section B. The distribution of essays by question was as follows: Distribution of questions answered: Question Number

1 2 3 4 5a 5b 6 7a 7b 8 9 10 11 12


8 2 0 5 4 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

305 Public Economics There were 58 scripts, one student withdrew. The quality was generally high. I gave an average mark of about 65, 8 1st class papers (14%) and 5 Iii’s (9%) the rest were all Iii’s (77%) Of the 12 questions, all were attempted. Question 9 was the most popular attracting over 70% of candidates. Question 8 was the next most popular. These were somewhat open questions about the organisation of education and health markets and the students clearly felt comfortable in having something to say. By and large the candidates were well informed. In general there was relatively little emphasis on explaining models, more on discussing the conclusions. It was nice to see both in some of the better scripts. Distribution of paper attempts: Question Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of attempts

9 19 8 2 6 8 13 25 42 15 21 6

I didn’t discern any particularly well versus badly answered questions. By and large it was a fair paper which allowed the candidates to display their knowledge. 306 Economics of Industry 66 candidates took the paper (23 PPE, 43 E&M). The distribution of the marks was as follows. 18% of scripts were awarded first class, 47% upper second, 29% lower second, and 6% 3rd. Ten questions were set. All were

- 52 -

answered. Students spread themselves evenly across the questions (with the exception of the first two questions). In general the answers fell into three broad categories. At the bottom end, a substantial number failed to show knowledge of the relevant models. In the middle were answers that showed knowledge of models but didn't make much reference to the question. At the top end were the scripts that were answers to the actual question posed, using theory and evidence, in a way that demonstrated depth of understanding. The better scripts showed evidence of the student having carefully studied the articles mentioned in lectures or on the reading list (i.e. having gone further than lecture notes and basic texts). When empirical studies are mentioned, the better scripts were able to say something more than just the study's headline conclusion. Comments on specific questions follow. 1. (3 answers). The most unpopular question. One answer was excellent, using insights from Sutton, and Bresnahan and Reiss. 2. (6 answers). For the empirical part of the question, few people mentioned the problem that the number of entrants in a market is likely to be endogenous and positively correlated with the error term in a profits regression. 3. (19 answers). A popular question but some people thought this was an entry deterrence question, rather than one about the socially optimal number of entrants in differentiated or homogeneous product markets. 4. (15 answers). The vertical part of the question was poorly answered with too many students missing a good explanation of the finiteness property. 5. (35 answers). This was very popular. The good answers didn't just run through the maths of the Butters model but could demonstrate an understanding of the result and its lack of robustness. 6. (32 answers). This was popular and produced variable quality answers. The good answers were able to draw on their understanding of a number of oligopoly models and used both theory and evidence. 7. (20 answers). Well enough answered but some regurgitated too closely to lectures or basic texts. 8 (13 answers). Some impressive answers showing knowledge and understanding of the literature. 9 (25 answers). This question was quite narrow and successful answers required a good depth of understanding. 10 (30 answers). Candidates that engaged well with the questions were the most successful.

- 53 -

307 Labour Economics and Industrial Relations See report for Politics paper 222. 308 International Economics 65 candidates sat this paper, 42 from PPE and 23 from Economics & Management. Overall, candidates did well. There were few really outstanding papers and also few really poor papers. The answers were concentrated on rather few topics: on currency crises; alternative exchange rate regimes; regionalism in trade; and free trade and economies of scale. There were a smaller number of answers on two questions on trade theory and on two questions on macroeconomics (on the effects of devaluation and on currency overshooting), and there were very few answers on other questions. Comments on particular questions 1. 12 answers. (Heckscher Ohlin theorem) A reasonable distribution of answers. Few candidates gave a correct answer to (ii). The factor price equalization theorem requires (a) and (c) but does not require (b). 2. 14 answers. (Protection) There were a number of different ways to answer to this question – making references to specific factors, rent-seeking and political economy. Protection could cover both tariffs and quotas. 3. 7 answers. (Wage levels) This was a difficult question, answered by few people. An answer requires one to explain the effect of each of these things on real wages and then to make an empirical judgment about which is likely to be more important. 4 Either only 2 answers 4 Or only 2 answers 5. 21 answers. (Free trade). Good answers discussed the optimum tariff argument as well as new-trade-theory arguments for protection. 6 Either only 2 answers 6 Or. 28 answers (Regionalism) Many answers going over a range of arguments; it proved possible to discriminate good answers from bad ones. 7. Either. 39 answers. (Currency crises) Good answers focused on the issue concerning reserves asked in the question; many poorer answers merely provided a list of theories of currency crises. Some candidates made a mistake in the analysis of the Krugman model, in which the timing of crisis does not depend on the size of the stock of reserves.

- 54 -

7 Or only two answers 8. 35 answers (Exchange rate regime choice) There were a number of good answers to this question 9. only three answers 10 Either. 12 answers (Devaluation) A good answer required one to give an exposition of a model with non-traded goods and show how devaluation affected outcomes in such a model – and few people knew how to do this. 10 Or 12 answers (Overshooting). A good answer required one to show that overshooting may happen if currency markets adjust fast and some other part of the economy adjusts slowly; this happens in the Dornbusch model if prices adjust slowly in response to a monetary shock and can happen in response to a change in fiscal policy, but only if something else adjusts slowly – e.g. if the response of net exports to the real exchange rate is gradual. 11. only 4 answers (Policy Coordination). A difficult question – it can be answered by arguing that the coordination might mean merely the sharing of information, or actual cooperation in the pursuit of shared objectives. That then enables one to argue that the cooperation in the pursuit of shared objectives may be necessary in some circumstances but not in others. 12. only 3 answers. 309 Command and Transitional Economies 22 candidates sat this paper, 9 from PPE and 13 from EM. Exam performances were good and resulted in a classification distribution with four First Class marks, seventeen Upper Second and one Lower Second.

1. How instrumental were (a) Stalin’s industrialisation strategy AND (b) state paternalism in causing ‘overfull’ employment in the Soviet economy? (8 answers)

There was a significant variation in the quality of the answers. Better candidates noted that ambitious output targets set for industrial firms led them to increase employment much beyond the point where MRPL = W. They also, when addressing part (b) of the question, referred to Kornai’s analysis of the shortage economy in terms causal links between five blocks of variables. According to this analysis, state paternalism can be seen as the major cause of labour shortage only if we allow for indirect causation.

2. “The central planners had to rely on the ratchet mechanism to mitigate the consequences of informational asymmetries between themselves and the enterprise managers.” The central planners had to eliminate the ratchet mechanism from the

- 55 -

managerial incentives system to avoid technological stagnation.” Adjudicate. (3 answers)

The ratchet mechanism was well explained. The candidates then argued that developments within the R&D sector were also an important determinant of technological progress.

3. “In the command economies soft budget constraints were generated by the central planners while in the transitional economies they have been generated by the banks.” How accurate is this statement? (5 answers)

Answers to this question were not particularly good. Most candidates noted that under central planning banks did not have sufficient autonomy to initiate sizeable lending expansions. However they did not note that during the early transition period state banks re-financed their debtors in order to hide non-performing loans on their books. Candidates should have noted that the logic of the Dewatripont and Maskin model applies to independent commercial banks in the same as it does to the central planners.

4. What does the post-1990 debate about viability of market socialism tell us about the factors that undermined the effectiveness of market-oriented reforms in the command economies? (10 answers)

Well answered question. It was correctly emphasised that the debate revolved around the issue to what extent state-owned firms can be insulated from political pressures.

5. EITHER Why was it a mistake for policy makers responsible for privatisation in Russia and Eastern Europe (a) to allow the insiders to become dominant owners, AND (b) to allow financial intermediaries to emerge as important actors in corporate governance? (16 answers)

This was generally well answered. Candidates showed that insider ownership makes it difficult to raise finance required for restructuring and allows overmanning to continue. They noted that greater reliance on financial intermediaries creates longer agency chains and then outlined Stiglitz’s argument that these cannot be effective without well established institutions. Those candidates who had a more detailed knowledge of financial systems in the transitional economies were able to produce a more in-depth analysis of the issues in question.

OR “Privatisation has occurred in all but name in China.” Do you agree? (2 answers)

Candidates chose to focus on analysing the process of relative decline of the state industrial sector.

- 56 -

6. In what ways and how substantially have the transitional economies of Eastern Europe benefited from liberalisation of their foreign trade and the reduction of their country risk premia due to their accession to the EU? (2 answers)

Candidates noted that trade liberalisation entailed geographical re-orientation of trade with the attendant benefits. They then analysed the effect of lower country risk premia on the cost of capital and FDI.

7. To stabilise the price level the policy makers in Russia and Eastern Europe adopted different nominal anchors at different stages of transition. How appropriate have their choices of the anchor been? (7 answers)

There was a considerable variation in the quality of the answers. Better candidates knew well the sequence in which different nominal anchors were adopted. They also provided a good list of advantages and disadvantages of the fixed exchange rate/crawling peg regime and a good discussion of preconditions required for successful adoption of inflation targeting.

8. What are the key features of a gradualist approach to transition? Use examples from China’s reform period from 1979 onward. (6 answers)

Better candidates incorporated into their answers the major points raised in the gradualism vs. big bang debate. They also showed good knowledge of the sequence of Chinese reforms.

9. What accounts for the rise of barter in the Russian economy in the 1990s and its rapid decline thereafter? (4 answers)

Candidates accounted for the rise of barter more fully than for its subsequent decline. They did not outline carefully enough the effect of the 1998 ruble devaluation and real wage decline on the liquidity of industrial firms.

10. What can we learn about the process of restructuring in the transitional economies of Russia and Eastern Europe from their employment ratios? [Table A refers.]

TABLE A: Employment/Population (15-64 years old) Ratio (%) 1990 1994 2000 2005 2007 Czech Republic 77 69 65 65 67 Hungary 69 54 56 57 56 Poland 67 58 55 53 56 Russia 71(1991) 68 63 66 68 Source: OECD Employment Outlook Not a single candidate answered this question despite a very clear support given by the data in the table for the hypothesis that defensive restructuring was dominant in

- 57 -

the early transition period while in the most recent period strategic restructuring has gained ground.

11. What generates corruption in the transitional economies? How can the governments influence this? (1 answer)

This answer was not without merit but the analysis would have been better focussed had it been developed in closer reference to formal modelling of corruption, particularly that by Hoff and Stiglitz (2004).

12. How vulnerable are the Russian and East European economies to the malfunctioning of the domestic and international credit markets? (2 answers)

The answers were good. Candidates were well aware that the more sophisticated financial instruments have not yet become widespread in these economies and that, although they experienced high growth rates of household debt in recent years, the ratio of this debt to GDP remains relatively low. 310 Economics of Developing Countries There were 77 candidates (51 in PPE and 26 in E&M), making it the most popular Economics option paper. (?) The most popular questions were 2or (subsidies to education), 8 (doubling of aid), 6 (value of growth models), and 3or (relative sizes of urban sectors). Only 2either (subsidies to health care) was not attempted; 10 (market failure and the environment) and 12 (response to a negative trade shock) attracted few answers. Candidates were generally well informed. The main weaknesses were in the application of knowledge to the precise question: weaker candidates wrote discursively around the subject. There was also a tendency to be uncritical in the use of evidence. Questions 6 (too much exposition of standard growth models) and 3or (too little on the relationship between the informal sector and unemployment) were commonly not well answered. Distribution of answers: Question Number

1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of candidates

13 0 35 4 27 8 20 28 17 32 17 2 25 3

311 British Economic History since 1870 In general the examinations reached a good quality. There were few answers that did not achieve a 2:1 standard.

- 58 -

The questions answered concentrated on a relatively small number of questions which the students seem to anticipate. Thus 22 of the candidates from all schools taking the paper answered question 4 on late nineteenth century British and American firm characteristics and their implications for entrepreneurial failure in Britain. Similarly 22 candidates answered question 7 on the return to gold following the First World War and British interwar unemployment. In contrast, no candidates answered questions 2 (on the Treaty of Rome), 9 (on free trade and growth in the twentieth century) and 10 (the impact of the Second World War). Questions 5 (on fiscal policy in the 1930s), 6 (on post-First World War inflation) and 11 (comparative post-Second World War growth) were each answered by between a quarter and a third of the candidates. In general, the quality of the answers was good. In some cases, particularly question 7, there was evidence that tutorial instruction had provided clear and precise coverage of the question. As a result, the answers tended to be rather disturbingly similar. However, this is hardly a surprising result since the teaching for the paper had been centralized and for some topics a single tutor had provided the teaching. 312 Classical Economic Thought Seven candidates took this paper this year. The most popular questions were no. 3 (division of labour in Smith and Marx), no 1 (value theories of Smith, Ricardo and Marx) and no. 2 (the law of the falling rate of profit in Marx). Three questions (nos. 4, 9, 12) were not attempted by any of the students. As lectures and tutorials had to be given by different lecturers following the sudden death of Andrew Glyn, this somewhat unbalanced distribution probably reflects the students’ desire to go for the safer questions. The strongest scripts showed command of the arguments of the authors considered, and of the analytical issues raised in the secondary commentaries, combined with a clear focus on the question at hand. The weaker candidates were shaky in their exposition and did not effectively deploy what they knew to answer the specific questions at hand. 313 Statistical Methods in Economics

40 candidates took the Statistical Methods in Economics paper. 6 were in EMEM, 1 in History and Economics, 8 in PPE and 25 in E & M. The paper generated a wide mark range, with 12 getting initial marks of 70+, 14 getting 60 –69, 12 getting 50 – 59 and 2 getting 49- (based on the initial marks of one examiner).

One candidate failed, but generally the lower marks came from candidates who made a large number of completely unnecessary mistakes, even when they knew the theory, the formulae and the methods of approach. The examiners urge candidates not just to rely on lecture attendance but to practise past papers to eliminate mistakes in execution.

The questions were structured so that correct completion of the early parts would produce a second class mark. This worked out well, with two or three candidates

- 59 -

managing to get to the end on all the questions they tackled, and scoring in the upper 70s or 80s

The questions chosen were spread widely, but with a concentration of essays on three topics (measurement of inflation, size concentration in industry and inequality of welfare) that had been mentioned in the lectures.

The usual pattern was to choose three problems and only one essay. Of the four who chose to do two essays there was only one strong candidate.

The examiners were satisfied with the overall standard.

314 Econometrics There were nine, equally-weighted questions on the paper. Candidates were required to answer three with at least one from each part. Part A: Theory

1. The most popular question (18%) on the paper and generally fairly well done. There were some mathematical mistakes made in formulating the log likelihood in the conditional model (f) and little discussion of the need for numerical solution for the parameters.

2. Another popular question (15%) but answered disappointingly. Good answers in part (a.ii) pointed out the relationship between OLS and MLE under normality of the errors and also discussed GMM. Answers to (a.iv) dwelt on the requirements for best-linear-unbiasedness and confused small and large sample properties. In (b.i) there was again much discussion of Gauss-Markov assumptions for OLS which missed linearity and plausible exogeneity of the regressors. (b.ii and iii) Many candidates missed the simple t-test on the output coefficient, did not know what homogenous of the degree one meant and made errors in the formula for the F test.

3. No one answered this question.

4. Generally popular (14% ) presumably due to the element of choice. (i) Generally well answered; failure to notice that the difference in plims in the denominator is zero. (ii) Generally well answered with candidates able to

PART A Qu. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of answers 11 22 28 3 13 14 25

PART B Qu. No 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Number of answers 10 2 21 1 8 2 0

- 60 -

derive the reduced form and show the cause of endogeneity. (iii) Reasonably well-answered but candidates confused the notation for the observed and true values and consequently tended to use the wrong form for the F-test. (iv) Generally straightforward intuitive answers.

Part B: Applied

1. An unpopular question. Only one student answered it, too few to draw conclusions.

2. A popular question. Answers to parts (a) and (b) tended to rely on statistical arguments about violation of the Gauss-Markov conditions rather than giving much economic intuition. In part (e) candidates misinterpreted the coefficients because they missed the fact that the dependent variable was in logs.

3. An unpopular question. Only one student answered it, too few to draw conclusions.

4. Popular (17%). Generally reasonable answers. A few candidates mistook the standard errors for t-values. There were a few problems with the formula for the F test. Answers to part (f) were a little disappointing with mainly intuitive rather than statistical/formal arguments used.

315/225 Comparative Demographic Systems Overall mean 63.5; standard deviation 11.6 (first marker’s marks) Question Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

No. of candidates

0 0 1 4 7 6 0 4 2 1 7 0

Mean - - 61 66 62 57 - 66 54 56 79 - There were 12 candidates, 8 from PPE (two Politics, six Economics) three from Economics and Management and one from Modern History and Economics. The overall average was a satisfactory 63.5, very similar to previous years. E&M candidates did better on average than PPE as last year (67 compared with 62) but the difference was not statistically significant. In this examination candidates are required to answer two essay questions, and one quantitative question on demographic analysis. In the latter, 65% of the marks are given for the quantitative answers and 35% to comments on the significance of the results and other tests of demographic understanding. All average marks cited here are from the first marker only.

- 61 -

Results were rather polarised. Three candidates gained first-class marks (2 PPE and 1 E&M) while one candidate managed only a third-class mark and two others a 2.2. In the essay questions the favourite topics were Q5 (prospects of permanent low birth rates, 7 answers), Q6 (global improvements in mortality, 6 answers). Answers to Q5 seldom exceeded the satisfactory, most paying little attention to the distinctive patterns of marriage, and the confinement of most fertility to marriage, in the regions in question. In answers to Q6 on mortality, too many candidates concentrated only on mortality improvement in the developed world, ignoring the substantial and partly different obstacles to mortality improvement in the developing world. Only one answer addressed both aspects well. The rather taxing q4 on population policy attracted some well-informed and imaginative responses. Q8 on births outside marriage was generally well done, although some candidates gave answers that were descriptive rather than explanatory. There were insufficient answers to the other essay questions to justify any comments. The responses to the quantitative questions were mixed. The average mark was 68; higher than for the essays (62). As last year the standard deviation was much higher (17 compared with 7). Some scored very high marks. One candidate achieved fail marks, and another, marks of only 3rd class standard. Q11 requiring fertility analysis and projection of 19th century English population was generally very well done, the best answers providing excellent comments on the data and results, where candidates often do badly. Question 10 based on life table and actual population of a 1950s African village was much less well done, although to the assessors it seemed to present, and was intended to present, a similar level of difficulty to q 11. In retrospect, the latter question may have been too easy. Q12, a two-part question on fertility and mortality, was shunned although it was probably the most straightforward of all. The paper was marred by errors, two in q 11 and one in q 10. These provoked four complaints in all to the Proctors. In question 11.4, the setter intended the projection requested to be for the usual 5-year period of time. Instead 10 years were requested on the paper. This was feasible but would have taken more time. In question 11.3, the target date for a simpler projection was incorrectly stated. These errors were corrected during the examination within a short time of being reported. Some diversion of effort was noted on two scripts. Both of these answers scored a first-class mark as they stood. However an appropriate adjustment was made. In q 10.8 the age-groups required for an answer were incorrectly stated to be 0-20 and 21-59, instead of the convention universally employed in demography that age-groups begin with – 0 or - 4 and end in -5 or -9. This was not noticed during the examination but came to light later following a complaint. No confusion was evident on any of the scripts, however: candidates appeared to have taken the age groups to have been the intended 0-19 and 20-59. The first of these errors was also present in the (near-identical) Human Sciences demography paper, having eluded the examiners even though the answers to all questions had been calculated in advance by them. The other two were noted and

- 62 -

corrected in the revision of that paper. The setter for PPE believed that these corrections had also been incorporated in the revised version delivered to Economics but clearly had failed to do so. 316 Economics of OECD Countries 35 candidates (15 E & M, 19 PPE, 1 H&E) with the distribution of marks clustered around 2.1 . Final distribution of marks was probably fairly standard with the usual number of firsts but on first reading it was hard to spread marks sufficiently. Almost all candidates performed quite well but few were outstanding and few really weak. Questions 1,2 and 4 accounted for nearly 70% of answers with question 2 the most popular question. Question 1 on the end of Golden Age growth generated fairly predictable answers with a reasonable awareness of cross-country differences and the patterns of output and productivity growth over time. There was some, but not overly heavy, use of standard Solow diagrams. Question 2, on comparing differences in labour performance between EU and US, was well done though generally reflected just a few of the major articles in the field. There was some good use of the standard Macro material on NAIRUs and quite good knowledge of institutional details on labour market reforms in the major countries. The fact that country knowledge was displayed in this question somewhat compensated for the fact that answers were clustered in the general section of the paper (Part A) with relatively few attempts at country specific questions from Part B. Question 4, on whether the lessons from the inflation of the 1970s had been learned so that stagflation could be avoided in the current circumstances was attempted by 15 candidates most of whom were more sanguine than they might have been a few weeks later. The answers reflected a strong message that must have been conveyed in both this paper and the Macro paper that CBI and inflation targeting and, in particular, the BOE operating methods, are so superior to what has gone before that problems are unlikely. A more nuanced approach to the teaching seems called for in both papers. Question 11 on inequality was attempted by 7 candidates and was done quite well. The questions on Japan (13 6 answers, 14 5 answers and 15 3 answers) were all done well by candidates who seemed to have had a broader interest in Japan and had covered more material than just that in the lectures. Questions 5, 6, 7, 9 and 12 were not attempted by any candidate. 374 Finance No report was received for this paper.

fhs ppe report 2008

Documents