Conference Address An economist delivered the following speech at an international development summit. Free trade agreements are often presented as engines ...

(a) Two claims the speaker makes about free trade [2]

Any two of the following earn 1 mark each:

• The volume of goods traded between wealthy and lower-income nations has more than tripled since 2001.
• Income inequality between the richest and poorest 20% of countries widened by 11% over the same period.
• Wealthier nations tend to export high-value manufactured goods and services, while many developing economies remain locked into exporting raw materials at volatile prices.
• Globalisation will continue to benefit those who already hold economic power unless trade rules address the structural imbalance.

(b) How the speaker's background as an economist might affect reliability [4]

The speaker's professional background has both positive and negative implications for reliability. Award 1-2 marks for positive effects and 1-2 marks for limitations.

Positive effects on reliability:

• An economist has specialist training in interpreting trade data, economic models, and statistical evidence. This expertise lends authority to the claims made about trade volumes, inequality percentages, and structural imbalances in exports.
• Economists are trained to support arguments with evidence, and this speech cites a World Bank analysis and specific data points, suggesting a research-based rather than purely emotional approach.

Limitations on reliability:

• Economists frequently hold particular ideological positions. Some favour free markets and minimal regulation, while others advocate for government intervention and protectionism. The speaker's interpretation of the data may be shaped by which school of economic thought they belong to. The same statistics about trade volumes and inequality could be used by another economist to argue that free trade has lifted millions out of poverty.
• The context matters: the speaker is addressing an international development summit, where the audience is likely sympathetic to critiques of inequality. This setting may encourage a one-sided presentation that emphasises problems with free trade while omitting its benefits, because that framing will resonate most with the listeners.

(c) Does globalisation benefit all countries equally? [8]

Evidence that globalisation does NOT benefit all countries equally:

• From the speech: Income inequality between the richest and poorest 20% of countries widened by 11% despite trade volumes tripling. If globalisation benefited all countries equally, increased trade should narrow inequality, not widen it.
• From the speech: Developing nations remain "locked into" exporting raw materials at volatile prices. This means their export earnings fluctuate unpredictably (depending on commodity markets), while wealthy nations sell stable, high-value manufactured goods and services. This structural difference means the gains from trade are unevenly distributed.
• From the speech: The speaker argues that trade rules themselves favour established economies. Countries that set the rules of international trade (typically wealthy nations through institutions like the WTO) can design terms that protect their own industries while requiring developing nations to open their markets.

Evidence that globalisation CAN benefit developing countries:

• Own knowledge: Several East and South-East Asian nations (South Korea, Vietnam, China) have used globalisation to transform their economies. By attracting foreign investment in manufacturing, they moved beyond raw material exports and built industrial capacity. This demonstrates that globalisation can be a pathway to development, though it requires specific conditions.
• Own knowledge: Trade creates employment in developing nations. Factory work, while often criticised for low wages, provides income in regions where subsistence agriculture was previously the only option. Over time, rising demand for labour can push wages upward.
• Own knowledge: Consumers globally benefit from lower prices on goods produced through international supply chains, and developing countries gain access to technologies, medicines, and educational resources they could not produce domestically.

Conclusion: The key qualifier in the question is "equally." The evidence strongly suggests that globalisation does not benefit all countries equally. Benefits exist, but they are unevenly distributed, tending to favour countries that already have industrial capacity, strong institutions, and influence over trade rules. The speech is persuasive in diagnosing the structural imbalance, though it understates the cases where globalisation has enabled significant development.

Award 7-8 for a well-structured evaluation that draws on both the speech and own knowledge with a clear conclusion; 5-6 for a competent discussion with some evidence; 3-4 for basic points; 1-2 for vague assertions.