Preliminary Examination in Philosophy, Politics and Economics
Trinity Term and Long Vacation 2014
Report of Chair of Examiners
BASIC STATISTICS
235 candidates sat the examination in Trinity Term 2014. One additional candidate re-sat the
Economics paper only. The results, not including this additional candidate, were as follows:
Category
Number
Percentage
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2104 2013 2012 2011
2010
Distinction 51
46
61
43
47
21.7
18.4
24.6
18.0
19.2
Pass
179
198
179
193
183
76.2
79.2
72.2
80.8
75.0
Fail 1
4
4
7
2
12
1.7
1.6
2.8
0.8
4.9
paper
Fail 2 or 3
1
2
1
1
2
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.8
papers
Total
235
250
248
239
244
100
100
100
100
100
5 candidates failed one or more papers: 3 failed Economics, one failed Politics and one failed
both Economics and Philosophy. Although only slightly, the number of failures decreased in
comparison to last year, when 6 candidates failed one or more papers: 2 failed Politics, 2
failed Economics and 2 failed both Politics and Economics.
Of the 5 failing candidates who retook one or more papers in September, 4 passed the
examination and 1 failed. The latter did pass the Philosophy and Politics papers, however,
she/he did not pass the Economics examination.
ADMINISTRATION Administrative support was provided by the PPE Administrator, Wendy Wilkin, up to July
2014 when she left for another job. Her (temporary) replacement was Armando Román
Zozaya. Both provided excellent administrative support and the examination process ran
smoothly.
There are no recommendations for next year.
Howard Smith (Chair, PPE Prelims Examiners)
Nicholas Owen, Paul Lodge, Dan Butt, William Mander, Jacinta Pires
1
DISTRIBUTION OF MARKS
Distribution of Marks for June 2014 [2013 figures in brackets]
Politics
Philosophy
Economics
Average
62.4 [61.0]
61.6 [62.0]
60.9 [60.7]
Standard Deviation
5.0 [5.8]
8.06 [6.8]
9.82 [10.6]
75+
0.4% [0.0%]
7.23% [2.8%]
6.8% [7.2%]
70-74
9.4% [3.2%]
8.08% [9.6%]
12.3% [11.2%]
60-69
67.6% [62.8%]
42.6% [54.4%]
42.6% [41.6%]
50-59
20.4%[30.8%]
39.5% [28.8%]
23.0% [26.4%]
40-49
1.7% [2.4%]
2.12% [4.5%]
12.7% [11.2%]
37-39
0.42% [0.0%]
0.0% [0.0%]
1.7% [0.0%]
Less than 37
0.0% [0.8%]
0.42% [0.0%]
0.85% [2.4%]
Total
100%
100%
100%
The average mark for Politics was higher than in 2013. This is the case for Economics as well,
although the increase in the Economics averages between 2013 and 2014 is very modest. Also, as for
last year, Economics had the lowest mean score. Philosophy’s average for this year is slightly lower
than for 2013.
2
GENDER BREAKDOWN
Female June 2014
Male June 2014
Category
[2013 figures in brackets]
[2013 figures in brackets]
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Distinction
11 [10]
12.8% [11.6%]
40 [36]
26.8% [22.0%]
Pass
70 [73]
81.4% [84.9%]
109 [125]
73.2% [76.2%]
Fail 1 paper
4 [2]
4.6% [2.3%]
0 [2]
0.0% [1.2%]
Fail 2 or 3
1 [1]
1.16% [1.2%]
0 [1]
0.0% [0.6%]
papers
TOTAL
86 [86]
100%
149 [164]
100%
Gender distribution of Marks June 2014
[2013 figures in brackets]
Politics
Philosophy
Economics
Female Average
62 [60.9]
59.7 [61.3]
59.3 [58.5]
Male Average
63.1 [61.0]
62.7 [62.3]
61.8 [61.9]
Overall Average
62.4 [61.0]
61.6 [62.0]
60.9 [60.7]
Female Standard Deviation
5.7 [5.6]
7.7 [5.6]
10.8 [10.3]
Male Standard Deviation
5.2 [5.9]
8.1 [7.4]
9.1[10.6]
Overall Standard Deviation
5.0 [5.8]
8.06 [6.8]
9.82 [10.6]
% of Female cohort achieving >=70
5.8% [2.3%]
7% [3.5%]
20.9 [14.0%]
% of Male cohort achieving >=70
12% [3.7%]
20.1 [17.1%]
18.1 [20.7%]
3
Report on Introduction to Philosophy paper (June 2014)
This is the report on the
Introduction to Philosophy paper taken at PPE Prelims. Logic was set
and marked by Dr Alexander Paseau, General Philosophy by Dr Paul Lodge, and Moral
Philosophy by Dr William Mander.
Section 1: Logic
Question 1: One of the most popular questions, generally well done. A small, but non-
negligible, percentage of answers did not give the correct textbook definitions for parts (a)-
(e).
Question 2: One of the most popular questions. Part (b) was generally well answered.
Candidates did not approach the questions in part (c)sufficiently critically. Part (a) was
answered poorly: candidates did not seem to appreciate the consequences of the fact that the
language Noquotelish lacks quotation marks.
Question 3: A popular and generally well answered question. Most candidates fell down on
3(b)v and 3(c)iv but otherwise did well.
Question 4: A less popular question. Candidates payed insufficient attention to the
meanings of the English sentences.
Question 5: A less popular question but mostly well answered.
Section 2: General Philosophy
Overall the standard of answers was reasonably good, given the fact that the majority of
students would have had little formal exposure to material of this kind. Most showed an
understanding consistent with 2.1 marks in the FHS, and some were clearly indicative of 1st
class potential. There was relatively little difference in the mean score for most of the
questions that was answered by more than 5 candidates, although the mean score for
question 8a was somewhat lower than for the others. The most frequent weaknesses that
were found were the perennial ones: failure to engage with the details of the question asked;
the tendency to try to include superficial discussion of as much material as possible rather
than selecting material that would help with the particular foci of the questions; and failure
to display a firm grasp of key concepts.
In setting this paper, it was noticeable (as it had been in 2013) that the portions of the
syllabus represented by questions 1 and 11 covered significantly more material (arguably
two distinct topics in each case, viz. knowledge
and scepticism and the ontological argument
and the problem of evil respectively, rather than the single topic covered by the other
questions). The Faculty may wish to consider the extent to which this asymmetry might
affect the number of options available for students who have prepared different topics for
the exam.
4
Yet again, few students chose to answer questions in ways that displayed any significant
acquaintance with historical material. This seems to raise serious doubts about the extent to
which the general philosophy syllabus is actually being studied in an explicitly historical
way. Furthermore, it seems that students may have been somewhat disadvantaged by
attempting to answer questions for which their limited acquaintance with historical texts
had left them inadequately prepared, simply because these questions were closest to the
issues with which they felt most comfortable.
Given the extra resource cost entailed by the bifurcated syllabus in connection with
lecturing, teaching and examination setting, it may be that the Faculty should revisit the
issue of whether the general philosophy syllabus need have any greater historical focus than
it did before the last change in syllabus. If, as it seems, students at the Prelims stage are not
generally willing to engage with historical texts other than as springboards for
contemporary approaches, then the Faculty might consider removing this route through the
general philosophy syllabus, with a view to bolstering the place of history of philosophy by
reform of the Early Modern option at Finals.
Comments on particular questions
Please note that, to ensure anonymity, comments are not provided on questions answered
by 5 candidates or fewer.
6a What bearing do considerations concerning clairvoyance have on what it is to know
something?
Total answers 20; mean 62.40; SD 1.24
The better answers to this question were those that did not restrict the focus of their
discussion exclusively to externalism (often Nozick’s conditional theory) but considered
how clairvoyance might bear on internalist accounts as well. The other main distinguishing
feature between candidates’s answers was between those which offered a critical assessment
of Bonjour’s account of the clairvoyant rather than just presenting it as a problem or non-
problem.
6b If you don’t know you are not dreaming right now then you don’t know that you have
hands right now. So do you know whether you have hands right now?
Total answers 48; mean 61.33; SD 1.41
Most candidates used the question to display knowledge of Nozick’s conditional theory of
knowledge, with most also providing some discussion of Moore. The better answers did full
justice to both sections of the question, rather than simply determining whether the
dreaming argument poses problems for empirical knowledge more generally.
7a Does Hume provide a satisfactory solution to the problem of induction that he raises?
Total answers: 7; mean 64.00; 0.53
Answers to this question showed reasonable understanding of the problem as Hume
conceives of it. However discussion of the solution tended to be relatively unsophisticated
5
and this had an inevitable knock-on effect when it came to the critical appraisal. The range
in quality was considerably less variable than with any other question.
7b Are any of our inductive beliefs justified?
Total answers: 37; mean 63.24; SD 1.20
Most answers were couched in terms of Hume’s discussion of induction and candidates
considered selections from the ‘classic’ responses that have been offered. The most
sophisticated answers also showed some sensitivity to the issue of what it would be to
provide a justification.
8a Is there a compelling case against Cartesian Dualism?
Total answers 28; mean; 57.57; SD 1.40
This question was the one that was least well answered. Most candidates failed to tackle the
question head on and used it as an excuse to display a reasonable acquaintance with the
‘argument from doubt’, the ‘argument from clear and distinct perception’ and the problems
that can be raised for those arguments. The better answers explained what Cartesian
Dualism is and considered a range of standard problems that can be raised for the position.
However, very few candidates’ answers evidenced close attention to the content of the
question.
8b Does the knowledge argument show us that there is more to the world than the
physical facts?
Total answers 24; mean 62.50; SD 1.70
This question produced answers which ranged most widely in terms of quality. Some
candidates displayed a poor understanding of the knowledge argument and received the
equivalent of third class FHS marks. Others used the question to display a sophisticated
grasp of these difficult issues and were able to construct careful arguments for their views.
9a Does Locke have an adequate account of what it is to be the same person over time?
Total answers 28; mean 61.57; SD 1.26
Many candidates received reasonable marks on this question because they were able to
discuss a number of the standard concerns regarding psychological accounts of personal
identity and use them to produce a coherent answer to the question. However, these
answers were generally preceded by very sketchy accounts of Locke’s views, with next to no
attention to central issues such as the fact that Locke regards personal identity as a forensic
notion. There was generally little evidence that candidates had focussed on Locke other than
giving the relevant section of the essay a cursory reading as the starting point for
contemporary discussion.
9b Will you be the same person as you are now when you have finished this exam?
Should you care about the answer that question?
Total answers 47; mean 61.19; SD 1.35
This question enabled candidates to utilize standard material concerning personal identity
and survival in a number of ways. Whilst there were a few very good answers, most did not
pay much attention to the specific form of the question itself (in particular, there was little
philosophical reflection regarding the second part in most answers) and rehearsed standard
positions and objections with varying degrees of success.
6
10a Can we learn anything significant about freedom from Hume?
Total answers 2
10b Should we be compatibilists about freedom?
Total answers 81; mean 62.03; SD 1.61
By far the most popular question. Candidates often relied on critical discussions of Van
Inwagen’s argument for incompatibilism and then opted either for incompatibilism, or more
often their favoured version of compatibilism. The better answers were those that showed a
better understanding of the nature of the reasons one might not be persuaded by Van
Inwagen’s argument.
11a Does Descartes manage to prove that God exists in Meditation V?
Total answers 1
11b Should the existence of extreme human suffering lead a religious believer to abandon
her faith?
Total answers 37; mean 62.92; SD 0.91
The quality of the answers to this question was more consistent than for most of the other
questions. Candidates generally displayed a good grasp of the main responses to the
‘logical’ problem of evil. The better answers engaged with the fact that the question focussed
attention on how serious the problem would be from the epistemic situation of a religious
believer rather than from a more neutral perspective.
Section 3: Moral Philosophy (Mill’s Utilitarianism)
Two general comments. (i) The considerable ignorance of what Mill actually said was
disappointing and suggests that candidates spend but little time reading
Utilitarianism itself.
There was much speculation about what he
would or
might have said on various points,
when the text itself would have told them exactly what he
did say. (ii) A general failing was
that essays tended to be very one sided. Too often they failed to put the other side, or to
volunteer possible objections against their own views.
12. Mill’s ‘proof’ of utilitarianism fails because what we ought to do is not a matter that
could ever be settled by mere ‘observation and experience.’ Is this correct?
(49 answers) Many of the answers to this question were disappointing. Candidates seem to
have thought little about what it might mean to establish a moral theory, empirically or
otherwise. Not a few seemed quite unaware of what Mill himself maintained about the
status of his own proof, and even where it was known what he said, only minimal efforts
were made to really understand what he might have meant by it. Many thought it enough to
reference the difference between
desired and
desirable, but left it unclear what connection this
had to ‘observation and experience.’ Quite a few others (closely following Crisp) urged that
Mill was not ‘proving’ but merely ‘offering evidence’, but there was a widespread
assumption that if that was indeed the case, it must be an alright thing to do. The meta-
ethical question of just how empirical evidence could lend support to a normative theory
was rarely touched on, but the best answers did explore this point in interesting ways.
7
Having dealt with the first, most people rushed on to consider the second and third steps,
but by this time they appeared to have wholly forgotten the issue of observation and
experience, and the answers tended merely to repeat standard analyses.
13. Do utilitarian make good friends?
(101 answers) One of the two overwhelmingly popular questions, this was by and large well
done. Most people thought that utilitarians had difficulty with the partiality and loyalty
aspects of friendship; their commitment to universal utility maximization seems to rule out
special affections and they would not necessarily respect promises or keep secrets. Rather
fewer people saw that unselfish concern for other people's happiness, and their commitment
to promoting whatever generates happiness (as friendship surely does) would make them
rather good friend-material. Many thought that discussion of act-utilitarianism, rule-
utilitarianism, multi-level-utilitarianism or sophisticated utilitarianism would help, but since
often enough these discussions proceeded either wholly without reference to friendship or
with only rather vague reference to it, they largely gave the impression of set-piece work —
pre-prepared essays to which this question seemed the best fit. Only a handful of the better
answers saw that rules telling us to honour friends because that is what promotes overall
happiness were themselves rather at odds with the spirit of genuine friendship, or that rules
insisting promises be kept and truths told could themselves be very damaging to
friendships. Many got so caught up in criticising their potential utilitarian friends that they
seemed to forget that the duties of friendship are
always limited by other moral concerns.
Occasionally putting other needy people before you is hardly unique to the utilitarians
among one’s friends, nor indeed in itself a bad thing. Given their complaints about
utilitarianism, it was ironic how instrumental many people were about what makes a good
friend; only rarely did one encounter the notion of an intrinsically valuable bond of
commitment between unique individuals held, not because of, but even in spite of, its
hedonic upshot.
14. Is love a higher or a lower pleasure?
(78 answers) The second of the most popular questions, again, this was generally well done.
Unfortunately, no one realised that Mill himself offers an answer to this question, clearly
putting pleasures of ‘the feelings’ and the ‘moral sentiments’ into the higher category.
Similarly many pointed out that love can be a source of very great pain, apparently unaware
that Mill himself points out that the higher our faculties the more acute our capacity for
suffering thereby. Focusing on the judges criteria, it was widely allowed that for most
human beings to love and be loved is a highly preferred state, making it a pretty high
quality pleasure. Stronger answers explored the kind of reasons that might lead judges to
make a different ranking. Focusing on Mill’s more descriptive criteria, most people
recognised that love involved ‘higher faculties’, although there was little discussion of just
how or why any faculty might be deemed 'higher'. It would have been good to see more
discussion of the differences between, and respective values of, sensations, emotions and
thoughts. Better answers saw that the sensory, biological, or even instinctive, nature of love
meant that there was also a case for calling it a lower pleasure, and drawing on Mill's talk of
animal pleasures there were a handful of interesting discussions of love in the animal
kingdom. Only a few of the best answers wondered about how these two sides of love might
fit together, or noted that love was just one member of a larger group of 'mixed pleasures'.
Although this was a popular question, many candidates went to considerable effort to avoid
8
answering it. Noting that there are many different kinds of love, rather than pick out some
and ask the question of them, many thought it better just to say the question was
unanswerable. Similarly, noting that the judges test requires a contrast, rather than suggest
some interesting comparisons, again many candidates thought it easy just to give up. The
worst of these non-answers simply attacked the distinction itself in wholly general terms,
and thereby decided there was no need to even to think about the phenomena of love.
15. Is Mill’s universal hedonism undermined by his own psychological egoism?
(8 answers) Very few candidates answered this. Since much of the material about the
alleged fallacy of composition that was awkwardly inserted in answer to question 12 would
have been very apt in response to this question, I can only conclude the question itself was
not understood. If that is correct, it is concerning.
16. Can Mill make adequate sense of the interest we typically pay to people’s motives?
(20 answers) Pressing a standard line that utilitarians don’t care about motives, rather too
many candidates were unaware of what Mill himself says about the importance of motives
in assessing agents, or about the difference between motives and intentions, or saw fit to
bring in his views about the importance of virtue. While most who answered this thought
that motives were very important, none seemed able to say why or to explain in any detail
the nature of this special value to which the utilitarian was so insensitive. For example, few
even drew out explicitly the connection between motive and responsibility.
17. “the sentiment [of justice] itself does not arise from anything which would commonly,
or correctly, be termed an idea of expediency; but… though the sentiment does not,
whatever is moral in it does.” (Mill, Utilitarianism, ch.5) Discuss
(10 answers) By the few who tackled this it was generally well done, though people had
clearly though more about expediency than about the sentiment of justice.
W. MANDER
A. PASEAU
P. LODGE
9
Report on the Introduction to Politics paper (June 2014)
This was the last year of the ‘old syllabus’ for Section B. The problems that have prompted
its revision were apparent in the scripts. As in previous years, candidates using
comparative analysis to answer Section B(i) questions tended to argue more persuasively
than those who chose to answer with reference to one of the set countries. This was
especially so when the set country chosen was a poor case study for the question.
Candidates attempting to answer single country questions in Section B(ii) often
strengthened their answers when included comparative insights. The best answers in both
sections managed to combine comparative analysis with empirical evidence.
As in previous years, students were notably conservative in their question choices,
gravitating toward a small number of popular questions.
We are pleased to report that no candidate fell foul of the country-coverage rubric in its final
year.
Overall, there were few really poor performances, with only one failure among the 274 PPE
and HPOL candidates in June 2014. The average mark for the PPE Politics paper was 62.4,
slightly higher than the typical average mark in recent years. The average mark for the
HPOL ‘empirical’ paper was also 62.4.
Comments on specific questions
NB: The reported numbers of takers for each question are for
PPE only (235 candidates) in
Section A, and for both
PPE and HPOL (274 candidates) in Section B, because only Section B
questions are taken in common.
SECTION A (Questions 1 – 12)
1. ‘Political theory is pointless unless it is realistic.’ Discuss. (6 takers)
Too few answers for comment.
2. Is Rousseau’s Social Contract consistent with constitutional democracy? (59 takers)
A popular question with a wide range of quality in the answers. Poorer answers tended to
focus on whether Rousseau could be viewed as a democrat. Better answers were able to define
“constitutional democracy”, and to explore tensions between constitutionalism and the
sovereignty of the general will.
3. Is democracy a uniquely fair way of reaching political decisions? (43 takers)
Another popular question which attracted a range in quality of responses. At the bottom end,
responses tended to offer a general discussion of what justifies democracy and whether this is
on grounds of fairness. Better answers concentrated on the putatively fair character of
democracy but the term ‘uniquely’ was, unfortunately, largely ignored.
10
4. In what sense, if any, can Marx be described as a democrat? (13 takers)
Not a lot of answers, and a tendency to focus on the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
but also some impressive knowledge of a wide range of Marx’s works.
5. Does democracy distribute political power equally? (31 takers)
A mixed bag of responses. The best answers distinguished between the concept of democracy
and the distribution of political power in real-world democracies. Not enough attention was
paid to ‘political’ power as distinct from other forms.
6. Can ideological disagreements be resolved rationally? (3 takers)
Too few answers for comment.
7. ‘Not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his
descendants, and separates his contemporaries from him; it throws him back forever
upon himself alone.’ Critically assess De Tocqueville’s discussion of individualism.
(12 takers)
Answers were polarised into poor or very good ones. Weaker answers offered largely
descriptive accounts of Tocqueville’s views on individualism whereas the better answers
discussed ways of challenging Tocqueville’s account.
8. Does a vibrant civil society improve the quality of democratic policy? (13 takers)
With a couple of exceptions, this question attracted mostly solid but unspectacular responses
which offered general discussion of possible positive effects from civil society. Little attention
was paid to different ways civil society might be ‘vibrant’.
9. Is there a fair and rational way to aggregate voter preferences to reach a social
decision? (7 takers)
Too few answers for comment.
10. Are positive and negative understandings of freedom answers to two different
questions? (70 takers)
This question was the most frequently answered, but for the most part this was done
relatively poorly with a large number of stock discussions of whether or not there is more than
one concept of liberty. Few considered what it means for ideas to be answers to different
questions, or thought insightfully about what those questions might be: unsurprisingly, those
that did tended to produce superior answers. Candidates also frequently confused concepts
and conceptions of liberty.
11. Do Mill’s views on voluntary slavery undermine his case for the Harm Principle? (54
takers)
11
A very popular answer with a wide range in the quality of answers. The poorest offered
general discussions of the harm principle with only fleeting attention to the issue of voluntary
slavery; the best explored differences and commonalities between voluntary slavery and other
self-affecting action. Most answers, however, did show a good working knowledge of Mill’s
broad position on the subject in question.
12. ‘The real threat to freedom of expression comes not from the state but from the
tyranny of prevailing opinion.’ Discuss. (43 takers)
Another popular answer which was occasionally answered well, but for the most part
candidates did not adequately discuss why prevailing opinion might be seen as a threat to
freedom of expression. The best answers offered some discussion of, and substance to, what it
means to be the ‘real’ threat.
SECTION B (i) (Questions 13-20)
13. ‘Differences between presidential and parliamentary democracies are much less
important for political outcomes than differences within parliamentary and
presidential democracies respectively.’ Discuss. (36 takers)
Answers varied in quality. Stronger answers clearly defined the core institutional differences
between parliamentary and presidential systems, and clearly articulated the alleged links
between these features and relevant outcomes weighing these against internal variation in
types. Weaker answers often failed to define core differences, and tended to uncritically repeat
one set of claims (e.g. Linz) about variation.
14. ‘Single country case studies tell us something about the country at hand but little
else.’ Discuss. (17 takers)
Answers varied in their approach, with uneven results. Better answers defined what a case
study involves, and then engaged with questions about knowledge generation and
generalization, drawing on key examples. Weaker answers fell into two groups; some
discussed case studies in an ad hoc way, failing to engage with the methods literature or the
broader issues it raises; others discussed generic methodological issues in the study of political
science but failed to really engage with the role of case studies or provide any empirical
examples of case studies.
15. ‘Without strong party discipline, legislatures are disorganized; but with strong party
discipline, legislatures are the puppets of the executive branch.’ Discuss. (50 takers)
There were many solid answers to this question. Many answered this question with a UK-US
paired comparison and engaged well with the literature on legislative politics. Stronger
answers defined the concept of ‘disorganization’ and ‘puppet’ carefully, and probed whether
there is a tradeoff (theoretically or empirically) between disorganization and executive control.
12
16. ‘Ideological cleavages matter far less than electoral rules in shaping the party
system.’ Do you agree? (125 takers)
This question was very popular and answers were generally strong. Most answers worked
through the debate between institutional and more ‘bottom up’ approaches to party systems,
engaging with the core literature on these questions. The best answers not only defined the
key terms, but probed the idea of what it means for an explanatory factor to “matter less”,
setting out clear evaluative criteria for the analysis.
17. ‘Judges are only as powerful as political actors allow them to be.’ Discuss. (67 takers)
This question was very popular. Most answers defined power, some in clearer and most
sophisticated terms than others, and probed the link between the power of judges and the
political process. Some answers engaged more extensively with the theoretical literature on
courts, others drew on case material. The latter approach yielded uneven results, with some
using careful engagement with the cases to really flesh out the relative power of different
actors, while others fell short in failing to engage with the theoretical question at hand.
18. Why do some countries have centralized governments and others decentralized
governments? (26 takers)
Relatively few answers to this question, but those that did generally showed good knowledge
of the literature on federalism and decentralization. Many answers tended to be quite
functionalist (countries decentralize because they need to decentralize) without really
acknowledging or probing this logic.
19. Do parties represent voters or act largely to preserve their own interests? (6 takers)
Too few answers for comment.
20. ‘The idea that political institutions create political stability is naïve. Some countries
are inherently unstable, regardless of institutional design.’ Discuss. (22 takers).
Answers varied dramatically in how they defined this question, with a number of successful
approaches. Some answers used careful case analysis, looking at institutional change in
France, working through the ways in which institutions do (or do not) create stability. Others
examined broader literatures (e.g. the debate on presidentialism). Stronger answers in both
groups clearly defined and problematized the idea of stability and the mechanisms linking
stability to political institutions.
13
SECTION B (ii) (Questions 21-28)
21. Is the U.S Supreme Court above politics? (65 takers)
A very popular question which was generally well done. Most candidates were very familiar
with the work of the Supreme Court, and gave capable assessments of its political role.
Weaker answers were either imprecise about what it might mean to be ‘above politics’, or
dated – in some cases very dated indeed – about what the Court had been up to since the
1970s.
22. ‘Effective American presidential leadership is mostly a matter of the personal skills
of the incumbent’. Do you agree? (78 takers)
Another very popular question. Most answers were well-informed and relevant, although a
surprising number of answers treated the President as an entirely solitary figure, neglecting
to mention the political or bureaucratic resources on which incumbents could draw in office.
23. ‘Party competition in France is more about the presidential race than about
ideological and social differences.’ Discuss. (8 takers)
Too few answers for comment.
24. Is the French Prime Minister more than the parliamentary agent of the French
President? (59 takers)
Some very strong answers to this question, which defined the term ‘agent’ and provided good
evidence both for and against the proposition. Weaker answers tended to reproduce a tutorial
essay on cohabitation, and said too little about other periods.
25. If the UK Parliament is constitutionally sovereign, why do so many analysts argue
that it is politically weak? (66 takers)
A popular question. Stronger answers engaged with the puzzle in the question, and defined
the key terms - ‘sovereign’, ‘weak’ - carefully. Weaker ones considered first whether or not
the UK Parliament was constitutionally sovereign, and then whether or not it was politically
weak, but failed to link their conclusions. The weakest ones just considered whether or not it
was politically weak.
26. Who has gained and who has lost from constitutional reform in the UK? (68 takers)
A very popular question, but no consensus whatsoever on the answer. The better answers
tended to be those which explained precisely how specific measures had strengthened or
weakened specific institutions. The weaker answers tended to reflect too broadly on the
historical trajectories of the reformed institutions, without stopping to think whether the
constitutional reforms were the best way to explain them.
14
27. Is the power of the German Chancellor exercised through leadership or co-
ordination? (23 takers)
Some excellent answers, which distinguished carefully between ‘leadership’ and ‘co-
ordination’, and provided persuasive bodies of evidence for their relative value as descriptive
terms. The weaker answers were too descriptive and insufficiently analytical.
28. How should we explain the decline in the electoral dominance of Germany’s mass
parties (
Volksparteien)? (9 takers)
Too few answers for comment.
Recommendations for 2014-2015
The Politics preliminary examination was set and marked by a team of two examiners (N.
Owen, D. Butt) and two additional assessors (J. Gingrich, G. Elford). We think this four-
person arrangement worked well this year, so we recommend that it be continued.
D. BUTT
N. OWEN
G. ELFORD
J. GINGRICH
15
Report on Introductory Economics (June 2014)
The Introductory Economics paper was taken by 348 candidates (236 PPE, 82 Economics and
Management, 13 History and Economics, 17 E(M)EM). The paper generated a good
distribution of marks. There were some very good scripts, but also a large number
demonstrating worrying gaps in knowledge of rather basic concepts.
This examination was the first since the changes to the microeconomics part of the course,
which were designed to improve students’ economic intuition and grasp of basic concepts.
Answers to parts of questions which required explanation and exposition of economic ideas
were marginally better than last year but candidates were still more comfortable in the parts
which required standard calculations.
As was emphasised in previous examiners’ reports and in the document “Advice for
Undergraduates Preparing for Examinations in Economics”, answers to problem questions
should contain full explanations and economic interpretation. Too many candidates
continued to ignore this advice and the weights and instructions given in the paper. As a
result many scripts had little or no explanation of their workings, commented too briefly or
not at all on their results, or gave extremely short answers even when explicitly asked to
explain “carefully”. Candidates should be aware that without explanations or sufficiently
detailed discussion the answer cannot be considered complete and will be marked down.
Comments on Individual Questions
Part A (candidates must answer three out of six multi-part questions)
1. Intertemporal Consumption (35% of candidates)
Most candidates correctly put a kink in the budget constraint in question (i a) but a
surprisingly high number did not. Finding an algebraic expression for the budget
constraint also proved challenging for some. It was very surprising and
disappointing that only a very small minority of candidates even mentioned, let
alone properly explained, income and substitution effects in their answers to part
(iii). Overall the question discriminated well between candidates.
2. Supply and Demand (68% of candidates)
A popular question - perhaps because it is close to one that appeared last year -
which most answered well. Weaker candidates did not calculate the effect of the tax
on price correctly, and drew the wrong diagram in (iv, c) [e.g. using a parallel shift of
the supply curve]. Apart from this, most candidates performed calculations correctly
but few presented well-structured algebraic answers, where the relevant steps were
included in order to give clarity to the answers provided. The parts that required
more economic intuition were less well answered. For example, definitions and
explanations of consumer and producer surplus were too short and superficial,
failing to demonstrate a clear understanding of these concepts. Most candidates
identified the importance of relative elasticities of demand and supply in their
answers to part (vi); the best answers gave some intuition and used relevant
diagrams to give a full explanation, rather than simply stating the result.
16
3. Production (82% of candidates)
This question was very popular and discriminated well between candidates. Most
were able to define increasing and decreasing returns to scale, but fewer were able to
explain the difference between a SRAC and LRAC, and to draw them correctly. A
surprising number of candidates failed to use a standard isoquant diagram to show
the optimal input choices in (iv). In part (v) the best marks were allocated to those
who explained carefully the intuition behind the results they were deriving.
4. ISLM/Mundell-Flemming (88% of candidates)
This was an extremely popular question with an extremely wide range in the quality
of answers. There were some excellent answers, clearly explaining concepts and
intuition behind the shifting of the relevant curves; some also using appropriate
algebra even when not explicitly asked to. Poorer answers just showed shifting of
curves with hardly any explanation. A significant number failed to explain basic
concepts such as the IS and LM curve.
Some candidates were unable to derive the multiplier for the balanced-budget case
in question (i b). Part (iii) was poorly answered. Candidates failed to identify the
sensitivity of money demand to changes in income when explaining the horizontal
shift in LM. In part (iv) candidates referred to crowding out of investment, but very
few actually explained well the adjustment mechanism between the two equilibrium
points. Only a few candidates mentioned in part (vii) that monetary policy may be
ineffective when interest rates are close to the zero lower bound. A few candidates
did not know the Mundell- Fleming model and had very poor diagrammatical
illustrations.
5. AS-AD model (5% of candidates)
This was an unpopular question. Candidates did not attempt to derive an expression
for Aggregate Demand which could then be used to answer the question more
accurately. Instead, most candidates identified the positive signs to all parameters,
but struggled to explain the first term of the AD curve. Most candidates provided
good algebraic answers to part (ii). Parts (iv) and (vi) elicited some good
diagrammatical illustrations, but in part (vi) candidates failed to discuss the possible
effects upon the LRAS. Some candidates had difficulty in deriving the correct
expression for the effect of a supply shock in part (iv). The best answers were able to
explain in words the intuition for what they had derived algebraically.
6. Money (22% of candidates)
This question was moderately popular and discriminated well between the
candidates. The final part of the question gave students the opportunity to evaluate
the strengths and weaknesses of the model when applied to current policy questions.
Most candidates derived the expression provided relating M with B. Fewer provided
good explanations of fractional reserve banking. Many candidates struggled with
part (iv), as they failed to correctly define cr and rr. In part (v), most candidates
provided the quantity equation, MV=PY, but many failed to successfully convert the
17
equation into its percentage-change/growth rate form. In part (vi), most candidates
referred to the inflationary consequences of printing money to finance the deficit.
The rationale for a budget deficit (as opposed to a balanced budget) and the size of
deficits were also discussed by many candidates. The best answers had a good
discussion of seigniorage and the different options for financing Government
spending.
Part B (candidates had to answer one out of four essay questions)
7. (Monopoly)(72% of candidates)
This was easily the most popular essay question. Most candidates concluded that
monopoly was not always bad for society, and mentioned natural monopoly, price
discrimination, and patents. The best answers used careful economic analysis to
make the argument. There were, however, many superficial answers where the
welfare analysis was rather sketchy. It was also not always clear what outcome
monopoly was being compared with.
8. Externalities (11% of candidates)
Relatively few candidates answered this question, and most opted to discuss market
failures in the environment rather than healthcare. Candidates varied in their ability
to use economic modelling to answer the question; candidates who chose the
environment scored better in this respect. In answers dealing with the environment,
Pigouvian taxation was generally competently discussed. Some candidates discussed
trade permits as well. Only the best answers discussed clearly the relative merits of
the two.
9. Inflation Targeting (11% of candidates)
Most answers focused on whether the target for inflation should be higher,
discussing the zero lower bound for the nominal interest rates and the costs and
benefits of inflation. Better answers also discussed the Inflation targeting framework.
Many candidates made reference to the recent financial crisis and policy responses.
Weaker answers seemed to confuse short run and long run and made erroneous use
of the Phillips curve. The Fisher equation was also often misinterpreted.
10. Fiscal Policy and Productivity)(7% of candidates)
Relatively few candidates answered this question. Some candidates offered a
thoughtful discussion of what data on poor productivity may mean for the estimate
of current and future output potential, and consequent implication for the
desirability and sustainability of fiscal stimulus. The best answers did so with a clear
reference to standard AS-AD models, and with the help of relevant
diagrams/equations. Some weaker answers failed to discuss the connection between
productivity and the position of the aggregate supply function. Many weaker
answers just treated the questions as an excuse to discuss fiscal policy in very broad
terms with little or no reference to the question asked.
H. SMITH , J. PIRES
18
