University of Cambridge Department of Land Economy Report of Examiner(s), Tripos Examinations 2021-22 Paper No 4 Date report Title: submitted: Land economy, development, and 18/06/2022 sustainability Maria Abreu, Sergey Kolesnikov, Colin Lizieri Examiner(s) making report: Distribution of marks: Number % 50-59% 24 39 9 33 54 13 40-49% 32-39% Below 32% TOTAL 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 100 Over 70% 60-69% Summary statistics of each question Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Freq. chosen 24 35 51 18 8 6 0 2 Percent 33% 49% 71% 25% 11% 8% 0% 3% Average Mark 65.3 68.7 66.3 64.1 66.4 67.7 n/a 71.0 Summary statistics of final marks: Total number Std. of Students Mean Dev. Min Max 72 66.7 6.2 51 78 Observations on answers to individual questions: 1 This question required students to discuss the nature (causes and consequences) of regional inequalities, and then discuss whether this might lead to political polarisation. Good answers described the problem of growing regional inequalities 2 3 4 5 in middle- and high-income countries, the twin causes of globalisation (and resulting de-industrialisation) and the after-effects of the global financial crisis, and how these shocks interact with agglomeration effects to exacerbate the inequalities. Most candidates also discussed how these trends lead to increased polarisation between young, educated, and wealthy urban areas, and “left-behind” peripheral areas. Excellent answers discussed the empirical evidence, the direction of causality, economic vs. cultural grievances, debates in the definition of populism, and whether policymakers should attempt to address these trends. This question could be addressed in two different ways. Some candidates discussed decentralisation, how to decentralise effectively, and then discussed whether successful decentralisation leads to better regional policymaking. Other candidates first discussed the challenges of regional policymaking, the role of place-based policies, and then discussed whether decentralisation improves the process. Good answers mentioned the need for local knowledge, promoting agency and local control over the policy process, and how decentralisation can go wrong (lack of human capital, corruption, need for fiscal transfers). Excellent answers discussed the need for effective coordination between local and central government, decentralisation of different powers to different spatial scales, and provided empirical and case study evidence. A few candidates lost marks for focusing excessively on a discussion of place-based vs. space neutral policies without linking it explicitly to the question asked. This question required students to describe the two policies, and to compare and contrast them, and discuss their relative merits as a policy alleviation tool (focus on equity), and in terms of efficiency. Most candidates were able to describe the policies, some with the aid of diagrams. Good candidates concluded that in financial terms the policies have an identical impact, at least for those who are in employment, and discussed the psychological and behavioural aspects of the two policies, as well as the political aspects of implementation. Excellent candidates discussed empirical evidence, case studies, as well as the differences across highincome vs. less developed countries. A few excellent answers also discussed the equity and efficiency of the tax sources that can be used to pay for the two welfare policies. This question could be answered in two ways, either by first describing the principle of regional immigration policies, and then discussing application to the UK, or by first discussing labour shortages in the UK, and then the use of regional immigration policies. Most candidates were able to describe the nature of regional immigration policies, as well as the practical difficulties (selection, retention, integration, political debates). Good answers included a discussion of case studies (e.g., Canada, Australia, New Zealand), and how the policy might be implemented in the UK (e.g., in the devolved nations). Excellent answers also discussed other options for dealing with labour shortages, and how regional immigration policies could be used to complement national ones. This question required students to discuss the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis, its limitations, and how it applied in the real world setting to chemical pollutants, particularly well-mixing air pollutants that pollute at the global scale. Good answers described the EKC and its origins, correctly interpreting the hypothesis and identifying its limitations, such as the lack of empirically observed pollution maximum in certain pollutants such as carbon dioxide, or the fact that empirical EKCs represent different countries at different levels of development, not the same country over time. Very good and excellent answers made a substantial effort to connect the EKC material to other topics of the course, such as the provision of the developmental aid in international environmental agreements (e.g., the Montreal Protocol). Another relevant 6 7 8 approach is to discuss the role of technological innovation as one of the causal mechanisms that can simultaneously provide technological solutions to chemical pollution and contribute to economic development and growth, while at the same time acknowledging the complexity of the relationship between technological innovation and sustainable development. This question required students to demonstrate good understanding of the concept of the social cost of carbon (SCC) by describing the concept without losing its important aspects. Good answers describe the economic origins and meaning of the concept, the way SCC is calculated and used, and what are important assumptions, limitations and challenges in the SCC calculation. Excellent answers further elaborate on cross-country, cross-agency or temporal differences in the SCC estimates and how politics affects these estimates. Such answers may also include an extended discussion of Integrated Assessment Models or alternative methods of carbon valuation. For section (b), candidates should demonstrate understanding of the role of discounting in SCC calculations, correctly describe the choices made by Nordhaus and Stern regarding the discount rate and the way these choices affected the SCC calculations. Excellent answers further elaborate on the descriptive vs prescriptive approaches taken by Nordhaus and Stern and the way these approaches guide and affect climate policymaking and public discussion on this topic. None of the candidates answered this question. Only a couple of candidates answered this question, but the answers were generally of a high quality. All candidates were able to correctly calculate the price the developer should offer to the landowner (part a), and to carry out sensitivity analysis with different assumptions on rent and exit yield (part b), as well as discuss how likely different scenarios are in the current economic climate. Candidates were also able to discuss the factors that might affect whether the landowner is likely to agree to the offer, such as the demand for logistics space vs. retail or office space in a post-Covid economy, whether there might be other bids from developers who e.g., anticipated the rise in prices and are ahead of the curve, and whether there would be any benefit in waiting. Was a project part of the assessed examination? If so, please comment on the quality of projects submitted Yes. In general, the overall context discussion was done well with good use of sources, both academic, professional and media. There were some very good, focused policy initiatives that did try to identify how economic benefits could be leveraged, showing awareness of constraints and potential conflicts. There were some very interesting and innovative policies, both small and large. The best answers carefully considered implementation issues, funding, delivery, and monitoring, with some providing specific metrics to measure success. Weaker efforts proposed generic solutions, many of which were infeasible or undeliverable at the scale of a small town and related more to national or regional policy Very few reports questioned whether the trend might be temporary. If it were and their policies were implemented, there would be a lot of wasted investment. Quite a few students failed to answer the question posed in the project brief, not pitching their answer to the specific policies that might be implemented within a smaller town. General observations The standard of both scripts and project reports was very high this year, and there were fewer instances of plagiarism. The more focused project task worked well, and students enjoyed working on the project. We might want to consider having an earlier deadline for the project at the start of the Lent term, to avoid students spending much of the Easter holidays working on the projects instead of revising.
