RI 2019 Prelim CSQ by Daryl

daryltanph — 2021-06-12 03:01:24 UTC

2021-06-12 04:27:16 UTC

i) From Chart 1, the Gini Coefficient has decreased in Singapore while the Gini Coefficient has increase in Norway from 2008 to 2017. In addition, the Gini Coefficient of Norway is lower than that in Singapore.

ii) One reason can be a progressive tax and means-tested subsidies which improves the income inequality in both countries.

2021-06-13 15:16:53 UTC

The government does not need to provide pre-school education free of charge as pre-school education is not considered a public good, a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
A good is non excludable when it it not feasible for the provider to prevent non payers from enjoying the good, once it is provided. Education can be excludable since barriers such as school fees might prevent students from taking up the education.
A good is non-rivalrous when the consumption of it by one additional person does not affect the consumption of another person. Education can be rivalrous as the class intake is limited and an additional student who gets into a class would cause another student to not get into a class.

2021-06-13 15:45:56 UTC

Thesis: Private pre-school operators will be driven out of the market by the Singapore's government if they are currently earning normal profits. As more government funded pre-schools enter the market, small private pre-school operators might not be able to maintain their revenue earned as more people would shift towards the government funded pre-schools due to its lower cost. Eventually, the private operators will not earn enough average revenue (AR) and start to incur more average cost (AC) such as appliances and teacher's wages. In addition, some of these operators might not be very niche to attract parents to put their children in such a high costing pre-school. As a result, they start to earn subnormal profits in the long run where AR

Anti-Thesis: Private pre-school operators will not be driven out of the market by the Singapore's government if they are currently earning supernormal profits. Similar to those private pre-school operators who have seen a stagnant increase in AR, their AC would also see an increase. However, bigger operators who are currently earning supernormal profits are able to pay for the extra costs that are incurred, which in turn would cause such operators to earn normal profits in the long run where AR=AC. They can therefore still be able to operate in the market without shutting down. In addition, some of these more well known operators possess several incentives which can attract some parents to put their children to their pre-schools. These can include bilingual specialties or even add cultural references in the way they teach the students. Hence, they would not be driven out in this instance.

2021-06-21 12:16:35 UTC

From chart 2, it shows that education in Singapore takes up around 16%, other sectors such as healthcare 12%, defense 18% and social protection & development 3% along with the non social spending taking up the highest percentage of 51% of the government expenditure in 2018. In chart 3, education in Norway takes up around 11%, healthcare 17%, defense 4% and social protection 39% and non social spending 29%. Putting more investment into pre-school education would cause Singapore and Norway to lose out on expenditure for important sectors such as defense and healthcare and even social protection. However, Singapore's government spends more on education as compared to Norway which in turn causes the opportunity cost in Singapore to be relatively higher. One example is healthcare in Singapore being a smaller percentage of the government's expenditure as compared to Norway of 12% to 17%. However, sectors such as defense is seen to be more spent on in Singapore of 18% compared to Norway's defense sector of only 4%.

2021-06-21 12:44:50 UTC

Thesis: Singapore's government should follow Norway's maximum price legislation/price ceiling in the market of pre-school education if the government wants to encourage more parents to sent their children to pre-schools by making the school fees more affordable with the price ceiling. A price ceiling is a form of price control imposed by the government where it prevents a price from rising above a certain level. This is imposed as a result of high school fees that private pre-school operators have been setting that has drawn parents away from sending their children to pre-schools. With this price ceiling implemented, parents would no longer have to pay for the high school fees which would have taken up a large proportion of their income especially families in the lower income bracket. This would also improve the inequality for education in Singapore as mentioned in Extract 3 in hoping to "give every child a good start and chance to succeed right from the beginning" such as pre-school education.

Anti-Thesis: Singapore's government should not follow Norway's maximum price legislation/price ceiling in the market of pre-school education as there are several costs that come along with imposing a price ceiling. The imposition of a price ceiling would result in a decrease in the Qs and an increase in the Qd for pre-school education. As seen in the figure below, at the Pc, Qd>Qs, creating a shortage. This shortage of pre-school education means that it would eventually lead to a first-come-first-served basis and the student intake becomes limited, which goes against the government's hopes in that every child can get early education. Moreover, with the price ceiling in place, operators can no longer set higher prices and thus the shortage cannot be eliminated.

Synthesis: Though a price ceiling can cater to more parents to put their children to early pre-school education, it does not cater to all children nationwide as there is a shortage of schools that can intake the students. As such, the Singapore government should consider other measures such as subsidies. Subsidies can bring about similar benefits that price ceilings can bring but without the potential costs it can bring about. In fact, subsidies would raise the supply for pre-schools while reducing the cost of production such as school fees.

2021-06-26 06:54:18 UTC

i) The trade balance for Singapore and UK are similar as they are both improving from 2014 to 2018. However, Singapore's trade balance is always in a surplus while UK's trade balance is always in a deficit.\

ii) As the trade balance in Singapore improves, the economic growth seems to get worse. This might be due to the

2021-06-26 07:03:17 UTC

i) The UK pound is depreciating against the Singapore dollar from 2014 to 2019.

ii) As the UK pound is depreciating, the exports from UK to Singapore will become cheaper to Singapore firms. As mentioned in extract 7, " exports and imports between the EU including UK and Singapore will be cheaper and subject to less restrictions and requirements. " Singapore firms can now import more equipment and machinery which can help to lower their cost of production due to the more efficient production units. As such, the AS of Singaporean firms would rise, leading to higher employment rates and further potential growth.

2021-06-26 09:50:13 UTC

The multiplier shows the number of times by which national income changes when there is an autonomous change in AD. Its size is determined by the size of the withdrawals and leakages from the economy with k = 1/mpw.
I feel that the size of multiplier in Singapore is relatively small due to the large size of the Marginal Propensity to Save (MPS) as it can be inferred from its relatively low private consumption expenditure in Table 1. This can be due to policies which forces consumers in Singapore to save such as the Central Provident Fund (CPF). In addition, Singapore is heavily reliant on imports from other countries due to its lack of natural resources, giving rise its MPM.
As for UK, from Table 2, its high private consumption expenditure shows that the saving rate in UK is low, its trade balance is also negative, representing a deficit.

2021-06-26 16:25:47 UTC

Thesis: Small and open economies should approach globalization differently from large economies due to its low levels of domestic consumption and lack of natural resources.

Anti-thesis: Small and open economies should approach globalization similarly from large economies.