Economics P4

[Tohru Kyo Sohma]

I have doubts in P41 oct/nov 2010
I HAVE DOUBT IN PART:
(a)
In the markscheme it says "really oligopoly but monopoly in legal terms." how can it be an oligopoly when there is only mention of 1 dominant supermarket that is tesco

(b)
I kindof got stuck at what the question exactly asked here. consumers are sovereign(king) in food retailing? are they asking who controls food retailing market? the markscheme in contrast gave the supermarket as the other end of the debate that conflicts with the idea of consumers being sovereign in food retailing!

Can someone take the initiative to help me out:)

[Azland]

a )

75% of the food comes from supermarkets. A third of that comes from Tesco which suggests that there are other supermarkets which provide the other 2/3rd. Other major supermarkets in the UK include Saisbury which is not mentioned in the passage but just for general knowledge. Legal definition of a monopoly is when it has 25% or more share in the market. 1/3 = roughly 33% so its monopoly in legal terms but not referred to as such because other supermarkets do exist.

b )

Sovereignty refers to who decides the production of goods. Consumer sovereignty means that buyers ultimately determine which goods and services remain in production ( Services in this case would be Branded goods, loyalty cards etc ). Think of it as a balance of power between both sides if you want. For example in a market where there is only one supplier ( monopoly ) there isnt really any consumer sovereignty. Article shows supermarkets gave consumers what they wanted which agrees with the point that consumers are sovereign ( key words like fair trade are mentioned ). Supermarkets however decided to expand, introduce new brands, controlled suppliers for cheaper prices. The article does not say that the consumers wanted any of this and even says they were criticized for expanding. Answer basically is that consumers are sovereign to some extent and do not control all the actions of producers. However the question asks if consumers are completely sovereign and so you have to disagree as a conclusion. I'm pretty sure if you even imply that that the extent of consumer sovereignty is debatable you'll get full marks. The article does not really say why consumers went along with all the actions of producers aswell which may suggest that there really wasnt any consumer sovereignty at all and the fair trade was just good will by producers.

[Tohru Kyo Sohma]

Thanks
what about part (d)
i just did it yesterday but i quite didnt get all my points right.
can you tell me how i can structure this 8 marks qns to get like atleat 6-8 marks

[Azland]

In all papers last Q of sec A, you always have to list both sides of the argument. Follow this structure

- Points Against ( Delivery to homes, Quality Control, Wider choice - most important )
- Points For ( High profits, Closure of some competitors, Destruction of environment )

- Which points are most important and why ? High profits is not very important as it does not really have an adverse effect to the customer.  Closure of competitors could mean prices are going to be even higher and wider choice which was listed as a point for may fall. Most important in points for is wide choice ( which may fall ) and quality control.

- Conclusion - You have to conclude with your opinion to get full marks. Does not really matter which side you choose as long as you justify it. In this case you could argue that Closure of competitors threatens wider choice and so the points against outweigh the points for. If you choose to support the other side you could argue based on the final comment of the article. Consumers decide where to shop and buy and so some shops would close regardless if their competitors firm is large or small.

[Alpha]

Thank you for helping Azland. That's really nice. +rep.

[Tohru Kyo Sohma]

Yes thank you so much
+rep

[Tohru Kyo Sohma]

http://www.xtremepapers.com/papers/CIE/Cambridge%20International%20A%20and%20AS%20Level/Economics%20(9708)/9708_s11_qp_41.pdf

the case study here
i don't understand the ms answer for part (b)i)

(MS-http://www.xtremepapers.com/papers/CIE/Cambridge%20International%20A%20and%20AS%20Level/Economics%20(9708)/9708_s11_ms_41.pdf )

[Azland]

http://www.xtremepapers.com/papers/CIE/Cambridge%20International%20A%20and%20AS%20Level/Economics%20(9708)/9708_s11_qp_41.pdf

the case study here
i don't understand the ms answer for part (b)i)

(MS-http://www.xtremepapers.com/papers/CIE/Cambridge%20International%20A%20and%20AS%20Level/Economics%20(9708)/9708_s11_ms_41.pdf )

Ah sorry, been away . Guess its a bit late to be answering since you mostly got the answer by now. But anyway the question is basically asking why taxes the arn't working. All government aims usually have an objective and are measured against that to see how effective they are more or less. In this case it seems that the objective of increasing revenue isnt being acheived as the tax isnt directed more towards the higher income citizens. You cant get much revenue if only the low income are paying the majority of the tax.  Keep in mind its only asking what the article means, not what you think or what other reasons might be for this.

Good luck for your exam.

[Tohru Kyo Sohma]

Ah sorry, been away . Guess its a bit late to be answering since you mostly got the answer by now. But anyway the question is basically asking why taxes the arn't working. All government aims usually have an objective and are measured against that to see how effective they are more or less. In this case it seems that the objective of increasing revenue isnt being acheived as the tax isnt directed more towards the higher income citizens. You cant get much revenue if only the low income are paying the majority of the tax.  Keep in mind its only asking what the article means, not what you think or what other reasons might be for this.

Good luck for your exam.

Nope didnt get the answer till now
thanks alot for your help!