Supply-Side Policies: Interventionist Approaches and Evaluation - Worksheets, Questions and Revision

7 original exam-style questions - 2 pages of questions with a full mark scheme - free printable PDF.

Download PDF Jump to mark scheme (page 3)Supply-Side Policies: Interventionist Approaches and Evaluation revision guide

This topic is chapter 4 of A Level Economics: Macroeconomics Practice Book 2.

Next in this strand

2.18 Supply-Side Policies: Interventionist Approaches and Evaluation

AQA 7136 · Calculators not allowed · about 60 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

Answer all questions. Full sentences are required for the 25-mark essay question only. Time guidance: 120 minutes. Do not use a calculator.

Equity versus efficiency trade-off: explain one way interventionist supply-side policies can improve equity but possibly reduce allocative efficiency in the UK economy.

(Total for Question 1 is 3 marks)

Evaluate the view that interventionist supply-side policies are more likely than market-based measures to raise UK productivity and sustainable long-run growth. In your answer discuss cost to the government, time lags before productive capacity rises, and the equity versus efficiency trade-off. Use diagrams where appropriate and reach a supported judgement.

(Total for Question 2 is 25 marks)

Public investment in transport infrastructure: explain how new government investment in roads and rail in the UK can influence productive capacity and shift LRAS over time.

(Total for Question 3 is 2 marks)

Subsidies for research and development (R&D): explain how R&D subsidies provided by the state are intended to change the UK economy's long-run aggregate supply and technology frontier.

(Total for Question 4 is 2 marks)

State provision of business incubators and regional development agencies: explain how these interventionist measures might affect LRAS and regional productivity in the UK context.

(Total for Question 5 is 2 marks)

Direct state ownership or partial nationalisation of key utilities: explain one way this interventionist approach might increase LRAS compared with leaving utilities entirely private in the UK.

(Total for Question 6 is 2 marks)

Explain one cost to the UK government of pursuing interventionist supply-side policies such as large-scale infrastructure programmes and R&D subsidies.

(Total for Question 7 is 3 marks)

Mark scheme · 2.18 Supply-Side Policies: Interventionist Approaches and Evaluation

Question 1

M1 identifies equity benefit, e.g. targeted education or regional grants can reduce inequality and support disadvantaged groups
M1 identifies potential efficiency cost, e.g. government interventions can distort market signals, leading to misallocation of resources or support for non-viable firms
A1 explains trade-off, e.g. policy improves distributional outcomes but may reduce overall efficiency and raise long-term costs
Answer: Targeted intervention can improve equity by supporting disadvantaged regions or groups, but by distorting prices and supporting potentially inefficient firms it can reduce allocative efficiency and raise long-term economic costs.

Question 2

Level 1 (1-5): Basic statements about interventionist and market-based supply-side policies with little development, limited or no use of diagrammatic support, and a weak or no judgement.
Level 2 (6-10): Some developed analysis of how interventionist policies and market-based measures affect productivity, some reference to cost, time lags or equity-efficiency trade-offs, limited diagram use, and a partial conclusion.
Level 3 (11-15): Clear analysis and evaluation of interventionist versus market-based approaches, with diagrams suggested and developed, discussion of costs, time lags and equity-efficiency trade-offs, and a reasoned judgement supported by evidence and examples.
Level 4 (16-20): Well developed and balanced evaluation that considers multiple strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, integrates diagrams to show effects on LRAS/AD, weighs empirical and theoretical arguments on cost, lag and distributional impacts, and reaches a well-supported judgement.
Level 5 (21-25): Excellent, coherent evaluation showing sophisticated understanding: analyses how interventionist policies can correct market failures and target productivity bottlenecks while recognising high fiscal cost, long lags and potential inefficiency; compares these factors precisely with market-based incentives, uses diagrammatic reasoning, discusses who gains and who loses, and reaches a balanced, justified conclusion about the relative merits for UK productivity.
Indicative content:
- Define interventionist policies and market-based supply-side measures succinctly, and state the productivity objective (shift LRAS rightwards).
- Application: examples of interventionist policies from the pack, e.g. education spending, infrastructure, R&D subsidies, business incubators, state ownership choices.
- Explain how interventionist policies can raise productivity: correct market failures (externalities, provision of public goods), target sectors or regions, create complementarities (skills and capital).
- Explain drawbacks: fiscal cost, opportunity cost, risk of government failure, crowding out, and administrative inefficiency if badly targeted.
- Time lags: education and infrastructure take many years to affect LRAS, political cycles may impede sustained policy, compare with faster behavioural response to market-based incentives.
- Equity versus efficiency: interventionist policies can improve distribution and access, but may reduce allocative efficiency and create moral hazard; market-based measures may be more efficient but less redistributive.
- Diagram suggestion: draw LRAS shifting right for successful policies; show AD curves only if discussing demand-side interactions or crowding out.
- Evaluation points: consider the current state of the UK economy (e.g. skills shortages, regional imbalance) and whether targeted intervention might be more effective than blanket market reforms; consider scale and targeting, and the role of hybrid approaches combining incentives with targeted support.
- Consider empirical evidence and plausibility: some interventions (high quality training, well-chosen infrastructure) have high social return, whereas poorly targeted grants can waste resources.
- Conclude with a balanced judgement about to what extent interventionist policies are more likely to raise UK productivity than market-based measures, recognising context, timing and implementation quality.

Question 3

M1 identifies effect, e.g. better transport reduces travel times and logistics costs
A1 explains link to LRAS, e.g. lower costs and improved connectivity raise productive capacity so LRAS shifts right
Answer: Improved transport lowers costs and boosts connectivity and efficiency, raising productive capacity and shifting LRAS to the right.

Question 4

M1 identifies mechanism, e.g. subsidies lower firms cost of innovation, increasing R&D activity
A1 links to LRAS, e.g. more innovation raises productivity and technology, shifting LRAS rightwards
Answer: R&D subsidies lower innovation costs and increase technological progress, raising productivity and shifting LRAS to the right.

Question 5

M1 identifies effect, e.g. incubators reduce start-up costs and support knowledge sharing and entrepreneurship
A1 explains link to LRAS/region, e.g. higher firm formation and diffusion of skills raise local productivity and contribute to a rightward shift in national LRAS
Answer: Incubators and regional agencies support start-ups and knowledge sharing, boosting regional productivity and contributing to a rightward shift in LRAS over time.

Question 6

M1 identifies a potential mechanism, e.g. state control can prioritise long-term investment in capacity and maintenance over short-term profit
A1 explains effect, e.g. sustained investment improves infrastructure reliability and capacity, raising productive potential and shifting LRAS right
Answer: State ownership can prioritise long-term investment and maintenance over short-term profit, improving infrastructure reliability and capacity and shifting LRAS right.

Question 7

M1 identifies a cost, e.g. direct fiscal cost: increased government spending or borrowing required to fund programmes
M1 explains the consequence, e.g. higher borrowing leads to higher debt servicing costs or crowding out of private investment if financed by bond sales
A1 links to supply-side aim, e.g. this cost can reduce net benefit to taxpayers and may require future tax rises or spending cuts elsewhere
Answer: Large infrastructure and R&D programmes require significant upfront government spending or borrowing, raising debt and interest costs and possibly crowding out private investment, which can reduce the net benefit and require future fiscal adjustments.

Supply-Side Policies: Interventionist Approaches and Evaluation - Worksheets, Questions and Revision

Next in this strand

Related topics

2.18 Supply-Side Policies: Interventionist Approaches and Evaluation

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Mark your answers

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7