June 2025: Paper 3

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Candidates were generally able to show an understanding of a social optimum and contrast this with a private or market equilibrium. Many repeated elements of the question as part of their analysis. Most answers discussed the reasons why people prefer unhealthy food rather than healthy food. Several candidates did attempt to include more than one factor. A few candidates misinterpreted the text, and in particular the phrase ‘less healthy products’ was interpreted to mean that healthy products were not being promoted when it actually referred to unhealthy foods. However, when the Extract was read as a whole it was clear that the unhealthy food was being taken away from the checkouts rather than being made more prominent for shoppers. This short answer scores well below the average for this simple starter question. Ap - government regulation to limit location of unhealthy foods (1) K/An - like eating unhealthy food - BOD (1) 1K + 1AP = 2 marks Application is worth 2 marks so scour the data for ideas to use. Make sure you look at the key words - 'less than', and 'social optimum'. Usually in a question such as this, a diagram can add a mark or even two. However, it must be linked to the question and must be correct! Diagram is incorrect - do not award K/An - positive consumption externality (1) K/An - prices are higher than HFSS food (1) Ap - multi-buy deals on unhealthy food (1) K/An - lack of information on unhealthy foods (1) people are not aware of the health risk (1) Ap - unhealthy food constantly advertised (1) An - healthy foods are rarely advertised so not bought as often (1) 3K/An and 2Ap = 5 marks It is normal to see some labelling errors on diagrams, such as the MSB MPB the wrong way, or downward sloping MPC curves. However, you do not lose marks for an incorrect diagram - you can find the marks another way if needed, as here. Short answers can perform very well. K/An - Knowledge gap (1) Ap - ‘advertising of HFSS foods’ (1) Ap - ‘set to ban advertising before 9pm’ (1) K/An - An advertising caused consumers to swap out healthy foods (1) Ap and An - diagram (1 + 1) - Social Optimum is clear on diagram 3K/An and 2 Ap = 5 marks Do not use the number of lines as a guide to the length of your answer. Just follow the system for the Assessment Objectives that are required.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• define the social optimum vs market equilibrium
• reasons: information gaps (benefits not perceived), positive consumption externalities, irrational habitual/herd behaviour, cheap unhealthy food
• use Extract A (BOGOF, HFSS rules) for application
• 'less healthy products' refers to unhealthy food
• max 2 for a diagram, which must be correct

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

The knowledge, application and analysis (KAA) in this question was mainly very well answered, with many scoring the full 6 KAA marks. However, evaluation was either not attempted or was very limited. The extract made it easy to pick out KAA points, and most candidates were able to come up with two points and explain them. Some candidates are very concise and gained all the marks in a very short two paragraphs of systematic writing, for example with point, explanation, example and evaluation twice over. Candidates need to practise how to evaluate factors/reasons and not just to give subsequent points (KAA) albeit with a ‘however’ at the start of the concluding sentence. On 8-mark questions that require more than one point, make sure you make two separate application comments too. K - due to low supply of labour/labour shortages (1) An - market equilibrium is above NMW (explained & with diagram) (1) Ap - awarded on the diagram by showing ‘We’ above £10.42 K - response to trade union behaviour (1) Ap - ‘taking industrial action Ext 13’ (1) An - pay higher wages to be able to keep operating (1) Note - lots of application but 1 mark Ap per knowledge point No evaluation 2K, 2Ap, 2An = 6 marks 8-mark questions need you to examine - which means there are two marks for evaluation. This is a good example of how to respond to an 8-mark question in a very efficient style. K - to be more competitive (1) An - need to compete for staff to get ahead of rivals/have better quality labour (1) Ap - wages over £11 per hour (1) Ev - higher costs could decrease competitiveness (criticism of their KAA point) (1) K - due to pressure from trade unions (1) Ap - industrial action and ‘strikes’ (1) An - Meeting wage demands keeps workers satisfied and working effectively (1) Ev - likely due to other reasons and NMW moves with inflation anyway (1) 2K, 2Ap, 2An, 2Ev = 8 marks Again, it is very clear that short answers can score full marks, as long as they are systematic in their coverage of the assessment objectives.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• two reasons (labour shortages, union pressure/industrial action, cost of living crisis, competition for workers in an oligopoly) each with its own Extract B application (Tesco £11.02, Aldi £11.40)
• labour market diagram can show W above £10.42
• evaluation often missing

Quantitative skills: QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Candidates drew some very good payoff matrices, but there were many very confused or non- sensical ones too. Many were able to draw a generic payoff matrix, but responses were mixed in terms of application to context, or clear analytical explanation linked to collusion. It is important to explain the process of the payoff matrix, for example starting with the collusive outcome and then explaining what happens when one firm undercuts the agreed high price. General problems with this question: • Several responses were more focused on market structure/oligopoly and its characteristics, rather than the focus of the question itself, which was evidence of collusion. • There are some gaps in the understanding of the dynamics of game theory. Many matrices were only partially correct and many had no dominant strategy. Whilst this wasn’t fully required for the questions, there are some pre-learned numbers that were not put in the context of price changes or supermarkets, but this is evidence of misunderstanding of the numerical relationship in the Prisoners' Dilemma, and the explanation of how firms reach Nash equilibrium (although the term 'Nash' is not required). This is an answer which is limited to Level 2 KAA but it does scrape into Level 2 for evaluation. No game theory - limit to Level 2 KAA Para 1: Level 2+ KAA Para 2: Level 2 EV. It is not collusion based on price leadership and same market conditions. Reference to the prisoner’s dilemma is not sufficient for game theory reference. Para 3: Level 2 KAA further development - more evidence of collusion here referring to market share and high profits. Level 2 KAA 5 marks + Level 2 EV 3 marks = 8 marks Only one evaluation point was made (with standard development) - so just Level 2 EV overall with 3 marks. Try to use a pay-off matrix and explain why the numbers are chosen. Payoff matrix is not accurate - low price does not gain a first mover advantage (Limit to Level 2 KAA). Para 1: Level 3 KAA Para 2: Level 2 EV. SR V LR & 'typically will breakdown'. Level 2 KAA 5 marks and Level 2 EV 4 marks = 9 marks KAA kept at maximum of Level 2. Make sure you know how a payoff matrix works. This response has an unusual payoff matrix with no numbers - but makes sense (allow). Para 1: Level 3+ KAA. Clear explanation & use of data Para 2: Level 2 EV. Could just be due to competitive nature of market e.g. price wars (both drop prices)/is it not collusion - one well developed point. One very well-developed evaluation point is sufficient for all the EV marks. Level 3 KAA 8 marks & Level 2 EV 4 marks = 12 marks With this question, remember one written paragraph of KAA is fine. There is no expectation to make two KAA points. You must have game theory within the answer to achieve Level 3 KAA.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• game theory required (payoff matrix: collusive high price vs incentive to undercut)
• evidence: similar price patterns in Figure 1, margins 22p vs 7p, profits doubled to 8%
• against: same costs and wholesale prices, competitive pricing
• many matrices were confused or had no dominant strategy
• focus on collusion, not oligopoly characteristics

Quantitative skills: QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This question was very similar to one in June 2019 Paper 2. There is a significant difference, however, and the microeconomic effects are very rarely rehearsed. Generally, the micro answer given by candidates was valid, and tended to involve AC/MC diagrams, and when linked to fixed incomes, a decrease in AR/MR. Macro points were either very good, focused on real wage falling, or export competitiveness falling etc was common but many candidates just said AD falls, as consumption falls and drew a diagram. Some candidates talked about factors which were essentially reasons for inflation, some focused on positive impacts of low unemployment but were not well answered. • A few candidates clearly misinterpreted the question and made the classic mistake of switching ‘effects’ with ‘causes’ of inflation. • Most candidates were using indirect chains of analysis rather than direct ones which led to muddled analyses of both macro and micro points. • Often candidates discussed the impact of government or MPC policies to reduce inflation (raising IR etc.) instead of the impact of inflation, failing to really grasp the question. • Evaluation was seen as the weakest area, as candidates were suggesting solutions for inflation and the chains of reasonings were shallow without using any extract. • Many evaluation attempts are weak because they tend to summarise the arguments or merely conclude rather than making a clear judgement with critical distance. Quite a few answers including analysis of the effects of higher interest rates or weaker currency values without explicit link to why inflation might cause these factors in the economy. Every step in the chain of reasoning should be spelt out clearly, and no connections should just be assumed. Make sure the Marshall-Lerner condition is only used for the impact on the current account when the exchange rate changes. Para 1: MIC Level 4 KAA. Clear use of cost/rev diagram to show wage bargaining claims on profits, in context. Just slightly lacks further development of the further consequences. Para 2: Level 3 EV. Clear evaluation of how the extent to which profits falls depends on PED. Para 3: MAC Level 3+ KAA. Clear explanation of the link to current account & FDI. Para 4: Level 2 EV. Depends on elasticity of UK exports (Marshall Lerner not relevant). Judgement - just repetition. KAA Level 4 13 marks and EV Level 2+ 6 marks = 19 marks Level 3 evaluation is not sustained throughout. Your evaluation is not a conclusion or a repeat of your points. It must be critical distance. This candidate makes good use of one MIC point at Level 4 and one MAC point at Level 4. An excellent way to structure an answer for 9EC0 03. Para 1: MIC Level 4 KAA clear link to costs, use of cost/rev diagram and link to profits. Some parts of the development feel bolted together and not fully built/developed as a chain of reasoning. Para 2: Level 2+ EV e.g. depends on PED of product (lots of points that are not linked). Para 3: MAC Level 4 KAA clear link to AD/AS diagram & model. Developed chains of reasoning. Para 4: Level 3 EV positives arising from high interest rates/currency appreciation. Judgement with reasoning and long term issues identified in context Level 3. KAA Level 4 15 marks and EV Level 3 8 marks = 23 marks Level 3 Evaluation awarded as judgement is sufficient to justify Level 3 EV sustained throughout. Look at answers like this to inform your own responses. Often causes and effects are the wrong way round. Para 1: MIC KAA Level 2. Causes & effects muddled, lacks in concepts, mis-application of the data. Para 2: Level 2 EV. Lacks context and development. Para 3: MAC Level 1 KAA. Just simple identification/knowledge. KAA Level 2 5 marks and EV Level 1+ 3 marks = 8 marks Level 1 EV as not sustained throughout. When evaluating, you cannot use effects as an evaluation of cause. Answer the question!

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• Level 4 needs at least one micro and one macro effect with reference to the UK or another developed economy
• micro: costs, revenues and profits of firms
• macro: real wages, competitiveness, uncertainty, investment
• do not discuss causes of inflation or policies to reduce it

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Many candidates had a stock or pre-formulated answer. Micro - AR/MR shift right was often well explained, and another common discussion was investment in R and D for example leading to dynamic efficiency. The most effective macro answer tended to have had a fall in tariff or trade creation diagram, and often there were AD shifts right. Very many examiners commented that this was an area with more successful responses Make sure there are plenty of secure steps or links in your chain of reasoning. Para 1: MIC Level 2+ KAA. Static diagram is not used, and short chains of reasoning. Para 2: Level 3- EV. Developed & well applied to the extract. Para 3: MAC Level 3 KAA. Developed chains of reasoning, some concerns over inflation section. No application. Explanation is not secure enough for Level 4. Para 4: Level 2- EV. Very simple development of idea. Para 5: judgement does not add anything new. Level 2 - EV KAA Level 3- 9 marks and EV Level 2+ 6 marks = 15 marks Level 3 evaluation is not sustained hence Level 2. Application is key. Remember that for 9EC0 03 there will be plenty of application in the data provided in the separate booklet. The data is there as a 'friend' to support you! Cost curves are a useful analysis tool, but make sure you are very careful to find the two MC=MR outputs and link to the correct AC in each case, as here. The examiners will check your diagram very carefully. Para 1: MIC Level 4 KAA. Distinction between SR and LR is not clear at the end of the paragraph. Para 2: Level 3 EV. Good explanation and use of extract. Para 3: MAC Level 4+ KAA. Well explained, diagram and further development. Para 4: confused with ER movements Level 2- EV. Only benefit in LR as sense of tied into contracts is worthy of credit. Para 5: Just repetition of previous points (not a judgement). KAA Level 4 16 marks and L2+ EV 6 marks = 22 marks Level 3 evaluation is not sustained throughout. Make sure the evaluation is sustained.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• Level 4 needs a micro and a macro effect and use of Extract D (rules of origin, administrative costs)
• micro: lower costs, higher revenues and profits, more choice
• macro: trade creation/diversion, AD, growth, employment
• evaluate with rules of origin and the position of the UK outside a customs union

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Candidates were confident in drawing a diagram showing a rightward shift in supply. However, some were unable to indicate the price the producer receives, and as a result, not many were able to show the cost of the subsidy in terms of what the government pays. • Many examiners observed that some candidates who were able to draw a more complex subsidy diagram, correctly showing the total area of government cost, were sometimes receiving 4 marks when they only quoted once from the data than others who got 5 but who only drew the simpler supply curve shifts right diagram but then had quoted the 2 billion cost in the drop in poverty figure and then knew that a subsidy was a grant paid by the government. • It was surprising to see so many candidates draw the subsidy diagram incorrectly. An effective method for application to a diagram is to show the monetary cost of subsidy but surprisingly few could do this, by showing the value of the subsidy per unit, multiplied by the new number of units sold. • Use of data gained a relatively easy 2 marks although for some it was hard to find the second application mark. • Most candidates identified opportunity cost and understood what a subsidy is. The effect of the subsidy was generally well answered and annotated on the diagram, although some had difficulty identifying the total subsidy area. This diagram clearly shows the cost of the subsidy. K/An diagram 2 - right shift (1) lower price (1) cost area to gov (1) - maximum of 2 diagram marks achieved. 1 Ap for $2.3 million (1) K/An change of the gov area written analysis (1) 3 K and An 1Ap Short answers can be very effective. This one just cut short the application (1/2 AP). A good diagram such as this is very pleasing to see, as a marker. K/An definition of subsidy (1) K/An diagram 2 - right shift (1) cost to gov area (1) lower price (1) subsidy per unit (1) - maximum of 2 diagram marks achieved 2 Ap marks - “$2.3 million” (1) 14.6% improvement (1) Note - if these numbers had been shown on the diagram they could still be awarded. K/An 3 Ap 2 Use the diagram to illustrate your point. Make the diagram answer the question about the cost and not a different question - many just showed what a subsidy is. K/An clear definition of subsidy (1) K/An diagram 2 - right shift (1) lower price (1) cost area to gov (1) - maximum of 2 diagram marks achieved “$2.3 million” (1) 14.6% improvement (1) K/An 3 Ap 2 Short answers such as this easily earn the 5 available marks.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• supply shifts right by the subsidy per unit
• the cost to government = subsidy per unit x new quantity (area between the two supply curves)
• opportunity cost
• quote the $2.3 million subsidy
• report: "not many were able to show the cost of the subsidy in terms of what the government pays" and "so many candidates draw the subsidy diagram incorrectly"

Quantitative skills: QS 4 (construct and interpret a range of standard graphical forms); QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Solid knowledge of HDI was shown, but some candidates were not awarded application marks because the relevant application/data were not used and many just used the data provided on poverty. Poor use and interpretation of data was in evidence in many responses, for example in thinking that an increase in the HDI was a concern for the Indian economy and showing a confusion between HDI and Gini index numbers. Sometimes knowledge points and analysis points overlapped but those who fully understood the composition of the index could make helpful observations about life expectancy and number of years of schooling (expected or reflective) and put them in contrast with GNI per capita as an income measure. Some candidates failed to evaluate - rather they were repeating knowledge points or offering a third observation on HDU. Some candidates were not aware that they should develop an evaluation point. Try to make two clearly distinct points. K - more accurate Ap - life expectancy An - how good the healthcare system is/gov policy K - BOD composite as uses the phrase ‘also analyses’ An - whether education needs to improve Ev - still high inequality 2K, 1Ap, 2AN, 2Ev Short answers can be very effective.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• advantages: composite measure (health, education, income) better than GDP alone, comparable data
• quote HDI (0.611 to 0.633)
• some used only the poverty data or confused HDI with the Gini coefficient
• evaluate rather than add a third point

Quantitative skills: QS 11 (understand composite indicators); QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

In general, candidates demonstrated a good understanding of the buffer stock system. However, not many were confident in drawing a buffer stock diagram, even though this was not in itself needed to achieve full marks. A lot of candidates clearly didn’t know how a buffer stock system worked and tried to extrapolate it from the extract. Clearly a well-used diagram can save a very long explanation of the problems of buffer stocks, one of the main ones in practice is the setting of intervention prices too high to favour the sellers. This can be shown extremely effectively on a diagram showing the buying and selling revenue for farmers or government and one of the main reasons why buffer stock systems run out of cash. Many used storage costs and opportunity cost identified as problems. Some candidates wrote a lot about the operation of the buffer stock scheme which was irrelevant. Many of them only discussed one problem of the scheme despite the question asking for a discussion of the problems in plural. Evidently some candidates did not manage their time properly and could not finish the question, and rush this and subsequent questions. Some candidates concentrated more on how the buffer stock works and not the disadvantages. Although a diagram is always useful, and can be very effective, for example to show that intervention prices are subject to influences that benefit the sellers. This can effectively be shown with revenue areas shown on buffer stock diagrams with vertical lines showing the short run supply curves, and the quantity that the government, in this case, either buys or sells in order to maintain the price range. Candidates seemed to be able to access data and evaluation marks (despite not fully understanding what a buffer stock is) by reading and using the extract. Many didn’t seem to understand it was set up to stabilise prices and incomes for the benefit of farmers, not the government. Many also took the approach that if they were receiving a minimum price for excess produce, they were being ripped off by the government. Agricultural and commodity markets need to be given a little more emphasis in the syllabus, as they are quite complex in practice. The question is about the problems, but you can use the benefits as your evaluation, as here. Para 1: Level 3. Well explained. Para 2: Level 2 EV. Benefit given/food supplies. Para 3: Level 3. Well explained cost argument/opp cost. Para 4: Level 2 EV. Removed price volatility. KAA Level 3 8 marks and Level 2 EV 4 marks = 12 marks A diagram is not needed for full marks, but it is often a useful tool to reach this. In this case the candidate manages perfectly well without one. As the question refers to ‘Problems’ - candidates must identify more than one point but we do not expect as much depth for each problem. Para 1: Level 3 KAA. Para 1 (end): Level 1 EV. Simple evaluation point identified (not developed). Para 2: L1 KAA. Confused with a benefit of a buffer stock (not a problem). They do identify ‘not enough stock’. Para 2 (end): Level 2 EV. Large production will work to ensure they can feed everyone. KAA Level 2 5 marks and Level 2 EV 3 marks = 8 marks Underline the key words in the question. If the question is about problems, then focus on the problems.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• problems in plural: storage costs, perishability, fiscal/opportunity cost, intervention price set too high, runs of good or bad harvests, distorted price signals, unsustainable overproduction (Extract F)
• describing how the scheme works earns little
• a buffer stock diagram helps but is not required

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

It was good to see that the vast majority of candidates didn’t confuse macro arguments with micro arguments, and that they demonstrated good understanding of the question. Many candidates demonstrated solid analysis in their arguments, but some responses failed to access marks in Level 4 due to skipping chains of analysis and/or limited economic theory shown. Some candidates focused on the impacts of a decrease in poverty rather than reasons for the fall. Many examiners observed that there was too much generic answering of the two essays - sometimes using subsidy and buffer stock arguments from previous answers. Some responses discussed the effects of lowered poverty instead of giving reasons why poverty fell. Although the analysis was well developed, the focus was wrong. Some candidates mixed up reasons and effects from the two essay questions and therefore lost marks. It was very encouraging to see many very effective, dynamic diagrams for both macro and micro analysis. It is very difficult to evaluate reasons. The pitfall is trying to evaluate the effects instead. This is capped at Level 2, and this in itself is generous marking! Para 1: MAC Level 3 KAA. NMW introduced/well developed/diagram/linked at the end to purchasing necessities. Para 2: EV is criticism of NMW not an evaluation of the reason for the fall in poverty. This is capped at Level 2 EV where EV is not of the reason. Para 3: MAC Level 4 KAA. NMC/FDI/hot money flows/AD - chains of reasoning & diagram. Para 4: Developed EV but not of the reason. Cap Level 2 EV. Para 5: Judgement attempted (does not add to EV level). KAA Level 4- 13 marks and Level 2 EV (Cap) 6 = 19 marks Underline the key word, reasons. In your evaluation you should argue whether this is a significant reason, or the reason is likely to change. Do not evaluate the effects. For Level 4 we are looking for substantial chains of reasoning. Para 1: Level 4. Government spending - CORs are substantial and diagram adds to the argument. Level 3 EV Para 2: Mac. Increased MNC investment and FDI, with application to lower corporation taxes and human capital, with data. Para 3: Lack of savings continues the argument (not eval) and gives LRAS shift right, so award Level 4. Eval is eval of MNCs and their side effects, not on how significant this is as a factor reducing poverty, so cap Level 2 EV. Level 4 - 15 marks Eval mid Level 3 - 7 marks Total: 22 marks Diagrams often add to the argument.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• reasons for the fall in poverty (55.1% to 16.4%), not its effects
• micro: wages/minimum wage, mobility, access to water, food and banking
• macro: growth, FDI, education, infrastructure
• Level 4 needs a micro and a macro reason and reference to India

Quantitative skills: QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Candidates were confident in shifting cost and revenue curves which led to some high scoring. Most of the candidates performed well in this question, the only issue was some analysis lacked details and development. Some very good answers included a labour supply analysis or some other relevant analysis. Many candidates focused on supply side changes in the labour market, without considering the changes in demand. This was also the case when it came to AS/AD analysis and impact on macroeconomy. Some commentators observed that they would have liked a little more data in the question on the macroeconomy to inform their analysis! Examiners use positive marking when choosing KAA between Level 3 and Level 4, so this gets Level 4. Para 1: MAC KAA Level 4. Consumption/AD/application/diagram/chains of reasoning. This is enough for Level 4. Para 2: Level 2+ EV. Needs further development/reason why for Level 3. Para 3: MIC Level 3 KAA. Higher demand, revenues, profit. Diagram is incorrect. Para 4: Level 2 EV. Greater competition (quite generic). Para 5: Not a judgement - just a repeat. Level 4- KAA 13 marks and Level 2+ EV 6 = 19 marks Do not use the evaluation opportunity as a repetition of your previous points. You need to answer the question, with carefully weighed up judgement. The response has outstanding KAA - probably more than you could expect. Para 1: MIC Level 4+ KAA. Developed arguments using labour markets & cost/revenue diagram. Para 2: - Level 3+ EV. Para 3: MAC Level 4+ KAA. Developed argument using AD and LRAS, with accurate diagrams and context. Para 4: Level 3 EV. Discussion about risk of inflation/use of diagram/shape of LRAS argument. Para 5: Judgement - effectively looks at the extent to which they will benefit Level 3 EV. Level 4+ KAA 16 marks and Level 3+ EV 9 marks = 25 marks Look at answers such as this that score full marks as a way to develop your own skills. Outstanding example of KAA - rare to see as much depth as Para 1 Para 1: MAC KAA L4+ higher consumption/AD/diagram/investment/growth arguments - well developed with lots of application Para 2: L3+ EV wage pressures/education arguments Para 3: MIC KAA L4- profit/sales/economies of scale - but context of India is not totally clear Para 4: L3+EV threat of large MNCs to local firms Para 5 - Judgement - link to poverty/macro more significant Level 4 KAA 15 and Level 3+EV 9 = 24 marks Make sure you use the context as clearly as you can.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• micro: labour supply shifts right, lower wages, higher product demand and revenues
• macro: demographic dividend, AD and LRAS, unemployment, pressure on public services
• consider demand as well as supply
• Level 4 needs a micro and a macro effect for India