Economics Marathon 2014 anyone??? (1 Viewer)

[mreditor16]

lol I'm terrible at micro policy, but here goes

Deregulation is the removal of government intervention in the operation of markets with the objective of promoting efficiency and productivity. Deregulation has occurred in Australian markets since 1983 to increase efficiency, productivity and to promote technological innovation.

In 1992, Telecommunications industry underwent deregulation where Telstra was privatised and was no longer owned by the government. This reduced government expenditure in this industry, resulting in reallocation of government’s resources to other sectors of the economy. Since private companies are more interested in making profits (unlike government owned enterprises), Telstra underwent rapid increases in efficiency through reducing costs to increase its profitability and increasing productivity, which increased productivity growth in the economy.

In 1991 under the Prices Accord, there was the introduction of enterprise bargaining. Enterprise bargaining agreements are made by negotiation between employers and employees with the potential advantage of employees being offered minimum pay rates which are above the employment conditions in awards. Enterprise bargaining is also efficient because wage rises are linked to productivity increases, and thus employees are indirectly paying for their wage increase, also preventing cost – push inflation from rising.

With enterprise bargaining however, there is the problem of the greater labour market segmentation where employees on higher incomes have a higher bargaining power than low income earners. Nevertheless, this encourages those on low incomes to increase their skill levels, allowing them to increase their bargaining power. Increased bargaining power can result in increased productivity and thus wage rises can be offered via enterprise bargaining. In effect, this would further increase productivity growth in the Australian economy. As a result, productivity increased from 1.3% in 1983 to 2.1% in 1990s.

Some feedback

* the bolded part is too specific and is probably wrong. there may be some deregulation that has happened prior, but we don't know about it. so don't make any sort of generalisation like that, which can annoy the marker.

* you've largely answered the Q as if it was asking for X examples of deregulation in the Aus economy. but the Q is asking what are the effects of deregulation. so examples/'case studies' like that you have provided should be used to back up your points, not to be the substance of your answer, which is what has happened in your answer. so try to fix that up

* you definitely need to explain the green part more clearly. it is a very good point, but it hasn't been fleshed out enough.

* try tying back your 3rd paragraph to the Q more strongly.

* the red part is pretty much irrelevant and adds nothing to your answer, especially in terms of answering the Q

* the blue part sounds like a sweeping generalisation, and defs needs to be explained more

* the purple stat is relevant, but your use is dodgy. you can't just imply that what you talked about in your last paragraph is the reason why that change in productivity occurred. try phrasing it such that you say it contributed

Overall though, a decent answer. The first two paragraphs were quite strong but it fell apart a bit at the end. so I would say 3/5

 

[enigma_1]

Some feedback

* the bolded part is too specific and is probably wrong. there may be some deregulation that has happened prior, but we don't know about it. so don't make any sort of generalisation like that, which can annoy the marker.

* you've largely answered the Q as if it was asking for X examples of deregulation in the Aus economy. but the Q is asking what are the effects of deregulation. so examples/'case studies' like that you have provided should be used to back up your points, not to be the substance of your answer, which is what has happened in your answer. so try to fix that up

* you definitely need to explain the green part more clearly. it is a very good point, but it hasn't been fleshed out enough.

* try tying back your 3rd paragraph to the Q more strongly.

* the red part is pretty much irrelevant and adds nothing to your answer, especially in terms of answering the Q

* the blue part sounds like a sweeping generalisation, and defs needs to be explained more

* the purple stat is relevant, but your use is dodgy. you can't just imply that what you talked about in your last paragraph is the reason why that change in productivity occurred. try phrasing it such that you say it contributed

Overall though, a decent answer. The first two paragraphs were quite strong but it fell apart a bit at the end. so I would say 3/5

Ohh ok thanks heaps for the feedback!!

 

[mreditor16]

Deregulation involves the steady removal of government intervention into Australian markets. In order to improve productivity, the government can deregulate factor markets. Deregulation of labour market institutions, such as the national award, allow firms greater ability to employ and retrench workers alongside economic conditions. As such, labour market deregulation directly improves the dynamic efficiency of businesses. Deregulation of resource use also allows firms greater ability to make production decisions, based upon market conditions, while allowing firms greater access to all resources to fulfill demand, thus improving both dynamic and allocative efficiency. Deregulation in product markets, such as the legal disbandment (?) of natural monopolies, increase the ability of firms to enter the market. As such, greater competition in these markets provide greater incentive for the innovation of new production methods, thus increasing technical efficiency. The Australian government's deregulation agenda in both factor and product markets in the past two decades has underpinned the productivity growth rate average of 2.21% in this period.

Overall, quite a good answer. Packs a good punch and moves from each point to another quite seamlessly. Exhibits the trademark of a band 6 student And tries to stay quite close to the Q, which is quite tough. Definitely a 4/5 answer - just some inconsistencies in your answers, which I have discussed below.

Some quick pointers -

* you might want to properly explain what is "deregulation of resource use"

* I think the underlined part is misleading - in that you are suggesting that a) the national award is deregulation (which I don't think is right) and b) you are suggesting that national award system "allow firms greater ability to employ and retrench workers" (again I don't agree) - so correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that underlined part is quite flawed

* for the green part, I wouldn't call it "deregulation in product markets".... but then I still wouldn't know what classification to put it under :/

* and the rest of your answer is great, especially the last two sentences - real band 6 material

great work, repped for an answer which very nearly reaches 5/5 standard

 

[Cleavage]

* I think the underlined part is misleading - in that you are suggesting that a) the national award is deregulation (which I don't think is right) and b) you are suggesting that national award system "allow firms greater ability to employ and retrench workers" (again I don't agree) - so correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that underlined part is quite flawed

Thanks for all the feedback

With the point you make above, I think i explained it incredibly poorly. What i meant to suggest was that the deregulation of the national award, as an example of labor market deregulation.

 

[seventhroot]

If the government deregulates stuff then that will promote growth in the economy which will lead to a higher Australian dollar

can I have some feedback too

 

[mreditor16]

Not an easy one but I'll give it a go.

Deregulation is the eradication of government involvement in domestic markets or industries. This is employed to increase competition in domestic markets, and promote productivity through the govts disengagement with, or alleviation of funding to, domestic industries.

With reference to productivity growth, the 1983 floating of the exchange rate by the Hawke-Keating government allowed the RBA to conduct monetary policy more effectively with demand and supply forces determining the exchange rate. Paul Keating considered this deregulation as the greatest structural change in the Australian economy - with a move towards the exchange rate being determined more efficiently.

On the other hand, in recent decades, there has been a move towards a decentralised or deregulated industrial relations system. This promotes productivity in the Australian economy by wages being determined at the enterprise level. Despite the Fair Work Australia’s increase in the minimum wage rate by 4.8% in 2010 ($26 a week), a decentralised wage determination system provides an incentive for employees to work by linking wages with productivity. This reduces demand inflation, as in the long-term, the labour market becomes more capable to match their supply with demand.

Not expecting a full

hmm a sorta wishy-washy answer, which sorta doesn't go anywhere nor hit the Q much. nothing you really say is wrong. but it reads like info dump, with a dodgy link here or there to the Q. try to make sure your response hits the Q and shapes your answer. not dumping some info and then trying to make tenuous links to the Q.

currently reads as a 2 or 3 out of 5. try to have another go at the Q, and if you do, approach it with the Q at the fore of your mind.

 

[Intrinsic]

hmm a sorta wishy-washy answer, which sorta doesn't go anywhere nor hit the Q much. nothing you really say is wrong. but it reads like info dump, with a dodgy link here or there to the Q. try to make sure your response hits the Q and shapes your answer. not dumping some info and then trying to make tenuous links to the Q.

currently reads as a 2 or 3 out of 5. try to have another go at the Q, and if you do, approach it with the Q at the fore of your mind.

Thanks for your time repped

 

[GOsie]

Okay here's a toughie.

For 5 marks, answer this short answer Q - Explain how deregulation may promote productivity growth in the Australian economy.

Rep on offer for answers which I judge to be 4 marks or higher (i.e. 4/5 or 5/5)

If you're still marking...

The Australian Government can deregulate product and factor markets to promote growth in productivity and efficiency.

An example of deregulating the product market is removing tariffs on imports. If the government removes this form of protection, the affected industry is no longer given an artificial advantage which gives them international competitiveness. This means that structural change must occur in order to regain a comparative advantage. To structurally change, the industry must become more technically efficient which will increase growth in productivity. The removal of the tariff could also improve allocated efficiency as resources may move to where there is a comparative advantage. This allows for more specialisation and therefore higher productivity growth.

An example of deregulating the factor market is the decentralisation of the wage system. As Australia moves towards a more individual bargaining system instead of awards, an incentive to work harder and be more efficient and productive is created. This occurs as wages may be increased if labour is more productive. This means that employees may become more productive to receive higher wages. Thus deregulating the labour market can promote productivity growth, and has been mostly effective as seen by Australia's labour market productivity growth, which has exceeded 2% per annum over the past 5 years.

 

[avi888]

Whats the current question?

 

[GOsie]

Whats the current question?

Easy one:

Explain how the Reserve Bank of Australia can influence the exchange rate. (5 marks)

 

[GOsie]

Bump. Any takers?

 

[mreditor16]

GOSIE, expect feedback sometime today

 

[GOsie]

GOSIE, expect feedback sometime today

What's next for you? Chem?

 

[mreditor16]

What's next for you? Chem?

3U maths and then phys

 

[mreditor16]

Okay here's a toughie.

For 5 marks, answer this short answer Q - Explain how deregulation may promote productivity growth in the Australian economy.

Rep on offer for answers which I judge to be 4 marks or higher (i.e. 4/5 or 5/5)

Just as some help to everyone - this was actually a past HSC Q. So, here is what the markers said:

"Better responses were concise but detailed, commonly starting with a definition of
deregulation. Labour market reforms, financial sector reforms and trade reforms were used in
better responses as examples to illustrate the links between deregulation and productivity
growth. Efficiency was a central concept in better responses. Weaker responses were
superficial and did not make reference to the Australian economy"


Try to take this on board.

 

[mreditor16]

If you're still marking...

The Australian Government can deregulate product and factor markets to promote growth in productivity and efficiency.

An example of deregulating the product market is removing tariffs on imports. If the government removes this form of protection, the affected industry is no longer given an artificial advantage which gives them international competitiveness. This means that structural change must occur in order to regain a comparative advantage. To structurally change, the industry must become more technically efficient which will increase growth in productivity. The removal of the tariff could also improve allocated efficiency as resources may move to where there is a comparative advantage. This allows for more specialisation and therefore higher productivity growth.

An example of deregulating the factor market is the decentralisation of the wage system. As Australia moves towards a more individual bargaining system instead of awards, an incentive to work harder and be more efficient and productive is created. This occurs as wages may be increased if labour is more productive. This means that employees may become more productive to receive higher wages. Thus deregulating the labour market can promote productivity growth, and has been mostly effective as seen by Australia's labour market productivity growth, which has exceeded 2% per annum over the past 5 years.

Some feedback:

* Nice, would have never thought of talking about trade policy as deregulation, but it works

* It does not "give them" - it encourages them to develop international competiveness. If tariffs on imports were removed and a domestic firm did diddly-squat, their competiveness would go down. So, essentially, removing tariffs in a sense makes it harder for domestic firms to stay ahead, as the playing field has been evened up - this encourages domestic firms to up their game in order to keep up and this is how international competiveness is promoted - it isn't something that just 'happens'. You do go on to sorta say thus, but an expression lapse like this suggests lack of sophistication and limitations to your economic knowledge.

* Besides this problem, your first 'body paragraph' reads quite well, integrates relevant economic concepts and answers the question well.

* It would be highly preferable to properly explain and elaborate upon the bolded part in the second 'body paragraph'.

Overall - a great answer, not much to improve on, maybe give me a bit more detail (especially in the second body paragraph) to just guarantee the 5th mark. It is quite an impressive answer. 4/5 and if you're lucky, would be full-marks. repped btw for a good response

 

[GOsie]

Some feedback:

* Nice, would have never thought of talking about trade policy as deregulation, but it works

* It does not "give them" - it encourages them to develop international competiveness. If tariffs on imports were removed and a domestic firm did diddly-squat, their competiveness would go down. So, essentially, removing tariffs in a sense makes it harder for domestic firms to stay ahead, as the playing field has been evened up - this encourages domestic firms to up their game in order to keep up and this is how international competiveness is promoted - it isn't something that just 'happens'. You do go on to sorta say thus, but an expression lapse like this suggests lack of sophistication and limitations to your economic knowledge.

* Besides this problem, your first 'body paragraph' reads quite well, integrates relevant economic concepts and answers the question well.

* It would be highly preferable to properly explain and elaborate upon the bolded part in the second 'body paragraph'.

Overall - a great answer, not much to improve on, maybe give me a bit more detail (especially in the second body paragraph) to just guarantee the 5th mark. It is quite an impressive answer. 4/5 and if you're lucky, would be full-marks. repped btw for a good response

Thanks for the feedback!

My wording for the first bolded part was very clumsy. The message I had intended to put across was that the tariffs is what had given them the artificial comparative advantage. I was trying to say that removing the tariff removes the advantage. I then, as you pointed out, tried to explain that the industry can then chose to become more productive to gain the comparative advantage, else resources will be reallocated away.

I'm quite poor on my labour market policies. How can I elaborate on the second point? When writing the response initially, I was going round in circles saying "higher wages gives the incentive to be more productive to receive the higher wages. Therefore they work harder to gain wage increases." I don't really know how to word it :/

Thanks again! Good luck for 3u and physics

 

[mreditor16]

Thanks for the feedback!

My wording for the first bolded part was very clumsy. The message I had intended to put across was that the tariffs is what had given them the artificial comparative advantage. I was trying to say that removing the tariff removes the advantage. I then, as you pointed out, tried to explain that the industry can then chose to become more productive to gain the comparative advantage, else resources will be reallocated away.

I'm quite poor on my labour market policies. How can I elaborate on the second point? When writing the response initially, I was going round in circles saying "higher wages gives the incentive to be more productive to receive the higher wages. Therefore they work harder to gain wage increases." I don't really know how to word it :/

Thanks again! Good luck for 3u and physics

No worries. It's good you identified this limitation of your answer. But don't worry too much - as a whole, your response was great.

For the second paragraph, you could add something like - "As the enterprise bargaining system involves the determination of wages at a workplace level, this encourages workers to adopt more efficient work practices, since increased efficiency can be used as a means by which employees can negotiate increased wages." and go on from that or similar. Just maybe flesh it out a bit more maybe, also consider talking about a new aspect...

 

[GOsie]

No worries. It's good you identified this limitation of your answer. But don't worry too much - as a whole, your response was great.

For the second paragraph, you could add something like - "As the enterprise bargaining system involves the determination of wages at a workplace level, this encourages workers to adopt more efficient work practices, since increased efficiency can be used as a means by which employees can negotiate increased wages." and go on from that or similar. Just maybe flesh it out a bit more maybe, also consider talking about a new aspect...

Thanks!!! Saving my HSC
Not allowed to rep you more

 

[mreditor16]

Thanks!!! Saving my HSC
Not allowed to rep you more

haha no worries. good luck man