At his website, http://studyingcomparative.blogspot.com/ , Ken Wedding continues his list of FRQ, in which he is giving pencils and feedback on submitted answers, here is a list of some of he Q & A:Question 6 was: Since independence, the distribution of oil revenues has been one of the most contentious issues in Nigerian politics. Identify two factors that make the issue contentious and explain why those factors impede resolution of the conflicts.
Anonymous 2's answer is:
"6. The distribution of oil revenues in Nigeria has been a particularly contentious issue because oil is Nigeria’s largest source of revenue. It has also been a source of foreign investment and multinational corporate presence which has integrated Nicaragua into the world market as a marginalized and vulnerable power. Both these factors have contributed to Nigeria’s dependence on the volatile oil market for income.
"The oil revenues themselves are distributed very unevenly, often falling into the pockets of politicians instead of being spent on the public welfare.
"Prebendalist values have only been further entrenched and practiced in Nigerian society due to loose or nonexistent oil revenue distribution policy. Corporations have been accused of disproportionately low wages for workers, and the abuse of human rights. Nigeria’s dependence on oil and the foreign presence that it has brought to the country makes the distribution of these lucrative and essential profits a largely controversial topic. The well-established prebendalist values and the lack of coherent or stable policies regarding the official distribution of these finances only impedes the path to resolving this conflict."
Ken Wedding says:
This is a four point question. One point for each of two factors causing contention over the distribution of oil revenues and one point for each of two reasons those factors impede the resolution of the contentious issues.
Causes of contention include :
- geographic location of oil and gas fields
- income and wealth disparities between regions of the country
- governments' reliance on oil revenues for more than 75% of of their revenues
competition among states for revenue - large-scale coincidence of ethnic group (nations) boundaries with state boundaries
prebendalism - corruption and lack of transparency in distribution of revenues
The reasons must logically and accurately explain why each cause makes resolution difficult (coincidence of ethnic and state boundaries) or impossible (geographic distribution of oil fields).
Anonymous 2's answer earns a point for the statement that "oil is Nigeria’s largest source of revenue..." The rest of the paragraph is not relevant to the question.
The answer earns a second point for the statement in the second paragraph that revenues regularly end up in "the pockets of politicians..."
Next, the rubric requires that the answer explain why those causes of contention impede resolution of the conflicts.
What reasoning does Anonymous 2 offer for why the reliance on oil revenues and corruption make conflict resolution difficult or impossible?
The third paragraph mentions prebendalism, the lack of revenue distribution policies, and the policies of corporations, but neither of the causes identified in the first two paragraphs.
NOTE: This is one of those times when paraphrasing the question as an introduction to an answer might have helped. What if the first paragraph began with the sentence, "Two factors that make the issue of distributing oil revenues contentious are..." and the last paragraph began, "Those factors impede resolution of the conflicts because..."? Starting the paragraphs that way reminds you of exactly what you're supposed to write about and keeps you focused on responding to the question and not getting lost in other ideas that come to mind.
This answer earns two of four possible points. Anonymous 2 does, however, win a pair of WYNTK pencils. BTW, the answer was numbered. It's always a good idea to number your answers.
_______________________
Question 13 was:What are two reasons it's useful to comparative political scientists to distinguish between regime and government?
Will's answer is:
"The study of comparative government makes a distinction between regime- the underlying structure, written or unwritten constitution, etc. of a state- and government- the person, group, or party that exerts control over that state. There are several important reasons for this distinction.
1. A government and its rule may often be largely different from the underlying regime because they do not follow the ideals laid out in the country's constitution. For example, the government in Russia is as important a topic as the regime because Putin and United Russia have exerted powers that extend beyond those laid out in Russia's constitution, and the elections in Russia may be largely fixed."
2. A state can change its government without changing regime. Tony Blair's idea of what role the government should play in the United Kingdom and Margaret Thatcher's idea of the same are two very different things. However, when the Labour Party took control of Parliament in the UK, the underlying regime of the country did not change."
Ken Wedding says:
This would be a two-point question.
A vital task for political scientists, like any other scientists, is to precisely define the topics they study. Basic definitions, like regime and government are among the most important for political scientists. Why? Because if you're trying to make generalizations, find correlations and causations, or make predictions about political systems, you need to be as precise as possible or you might be trying to find similarities in groups of unalike things, describing causations when you're looking at correlations, and making faulty predictions.
As Will's response indicates, regime describes structure and process of governance. Government identifies the people and groups that have public authority.
Here are the reasons in my rubric for distinguishing between regime and government.
- A regime is relatively stable while government may change frequently therefore variables are more likely to found in government
- Regime is usually an expression of cultural values; actions of government can confirm or contradict the validity of those expressed values
- Governments can be evaluated by how "faithful" they are to the goals, institutions, and processes defined by the regime
- Governments and political actors can be compared over time to their predecessors operating within the same regime
- Changes in government can bring about significant changes in laws and policies without changing the regime allowing comparative case studies to be made within a regime
Will's response earns two points. His first reason matches my rubric's second point. His second reason would fit within my last point.
Will's introduction, which includes basic definitions of regime and government, is probably more elaborate than necessary. If you have time to do that much, it's not a problem.
However, his statement that "There are several important reasons for this distinction." is an important element to his answer. Since both elements asked for by the question fall into the same category, the exam rubric might not require an identifying label like that, but it might.The numbering of his two reasons is a nice touch. It helps the exam reader recognize the important elements of the answer.
________________
Question 7 was: What is one economic change instigated by the Thatcher or Major governments that was continued by the Blair government and why was it continued?
What is one economic change instigated by the Thatcher or Major governments that was reversed or changed in a major way by the Blair government and why was it reversed or changed?
Anonymous 2's answer is:
"Margaret Thatcher’s programs of neoliberalism were continued by the Blair administration because by promoting competition among businesses without significant government intervention, and by attracting foreign investment, considerable economic growth and stability was achieved. Thatcher’s policies of traditional monetarism, on the other hand, were significantly changed when the New Labuor Party came into power. Monetarism was characterized by reducing social expenditure and privatizing or decreasing the work force of the public sector. Blair increased spending on social policies instead of cutting taxes such as the National Health Service. This change was made because New Labour was a more liberal party than Thatcher that stressed social policy and believed that the government had a more immediate responsibility to provide public services than to decrease taxes."
Ken Wedding says:
This is a four point question. One point is earned for the identification of an economic policy begun by either Thatcher or Major and largely continued by Blair. One point is earned for the identification of an economic policy begun by either Thatcher or Major and significantly changed by Blair.
Two more points can be earned by accurately and logically explaining a motive for each of the policy choices by Blair.
My rubric describes economic policies that Blair essentially continued as:
• giving more monetary policy independence to the Bank of England
• privatizations of formerly public businesses
• reduction of the power of trade unions
• sale of public housing to residents
• resisting monetary union with the EU
Thatcher/Major policies that were reversed or essentially changed by Blair include:
• Thatcher/Major's reduction of taxes
• Thatcher/Major's reduction of government spending (especially in health and education)
• Blair's introduction of a minimum wage
• Blair/Brown's increases in social security (welfare) spending
Anonymous 2's answer to this question identifies Thatcher's general economic policy direction as "neoliberalism" which is correct, but is not a specific policy identification. The supply-side concept of reducing government regulation, described in the answer, played a minor role in Thatcher and Major's economic policies.
Monetarism is defined as "characterized by reducing social expenditure and privatizing or decreasing the work force of the public sector." In fact, monetarism refers to manipulation of money supply and interest rates, which Thatcher did early in her government to control inflation.
The answer argues that Blair continued the policies of "neoliberalism" and "monetarism" because by "promoting competition among businesses... and by attracting foreign investment, considerable economic growth and stability was achieved." Major's government oversaw a rather nationalistic economic policy that discouraged foreign investment and by the end of Major's government, the economy was in trouble. That was a significant reason for Blair's election.
Anonymous 2's answer earns a point for correctly noting that, "Blair increased spending on social policies instead of cutting taxes..."
The answer also asserts that, "This change was made because New Labour was a more liberal party than Thatcher that stressed social policy and believed that the government had a more immediate responsibility to provide public services than to decrease taxes."
The problem with this assertion is the ambiguity of the term "liberal." The Economist, a British publication, might well describe Thatcher's policies as more liberal (in a classical and British sense). The use of a different term, populist, for instance, might have made a difference.
And a second point could have been earned by explaining that inflation, increased costs, and slowly increasing government expenditures on medical care and schools had created widely accepted perceptions of declining quality in both areas.
This essay earns 1 point.
If you're asked a question like this, be very careful how you describe the policy positions you discuss. Be as specific as you can. And keep your explanations as closely tied to the examples as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment