Model Essay
Stimulus
Adapted from Thomas Hale and David Held, Handbook of Transnational Governance (2011).
For much of modern political history, formal global decision-making was dominated by sovereign states acting through treaties, intergovernmental organizations, and diplomatic negotiations. In this traditional multilateral model, governments were treated as the primary legitimate actors in international politics, while corporations, NGOs, trade unions, advocacy networks, and research institutions were often positioned outside the core structures of authority. This meant that although non-state actors could influence debate indirectly, they usually lacked the same institutional access, formal recognition, and agenda-setting power as states. As global challenges became more complex, this imbalance came under increasing criticism.
Many contemporary political problems, including economic inequality, labor exploitation, climate injustice, and digital exclusion, do not fit neatly within state borders. They are shaped by cross-border supply chains, private finance, multinational production, consumer markets, and transnational advocacy. Because of this, relying only on state-led multilateralism can leave major sources of power outside the formal governance process. A framework that excludes multinational corporations, labor organizations, and civil society groups may struggle to address inequality effectively, especially when those actors directly shape wages, working conditions, access to resources, and patterns of exclusion.
This has encouraged a shift toward transnational governance frameworks. These frameworks still involve states, but they also incorporate non-state actors into policy design, monitoring, implementation, and norm-setting. The goal is not to erase the role of sovereignty, but to recognize that more equitable global governance may require broader participation. Civil society groups can raise the concerns of marginalized communities, trade unions can represent workers affected by global markets, and researchers can provide evidence to challenge unequal policy structures. In some cases, multinational corporations are also brought into these frameworks because they control resources and supply chains that states alone cannot easily regulate. In this sense, transnational governance attempts to reduce political inequality between state and non-state actors by widening participation and by recognizing that influence over global outcomes is already distributed across many different kinds of institutions.
The stimulus highlights the way global inequality is shaped by multiple actors operating across borders rather than by states alone.
Global political challenges frequently reveal that equality is shaped by its interaction with other major political pressures and institutions.
(d) The stimulus mentions that reducing inequality increasingly depends on actors who can operate across borders. With reference to one of your researched case studies, examine the links between two HL extension topic areas (Borders, Environment, Equality, Health, Identity, Poverty, Security, Technology).
The racial wealth gap in the United States clearly shows that global political challenges around equality are inseparable from other pressures, especially identity and poverty. Although this case is rooted in one state, it fits the stimulus well because the structures that sustain inequality are not purely domestic: global finance, labour markets, investment flows, and transnational corporate practices all shape who accumulates wealth and who remains excluded from it. Examining this case therefore shows that equality is not simply about formal legal rights, but about how different groups are positioned within wider political and economic systems.
The most direct link is between equality and identity. In the United States, wealth is distributed very unevenly across racial groups, and this cannot be explained simply by differences in effort or individual choice. Racial identity has historically shaped access to land, housing, credit, education and employment. Black Americans were excluded from wealth accumulation for generations through slavery, segregation and discriminatory public policy. As a result, inequality is not random: it follows racial lines. This means that identity is not just a cultural issue, but a political and economic one. A society may claim equal citizenship in law, yet still produce unequal outcomes because institutions continue to reward some identities more than others.
This relationship is especially visible in housing and asset ownership. In the United States, home ownership has been one of the main ways families build intergenerational wealth. However, Black families were historically blocked from this through redlining, discriminatory lending and residential segregation. Even when formal discrimination was outlawed, its effects remained. Families who were denied mortgages or forced into lower-value neighbourhoods could not accumulate the same housing wealth to pass on to future generations. Therefore, identity shapes equality over time: racialized exclusion in one generation becomes a wealth gap in the next. This demonstrates an important complexity in the concept of equality. Formal equality before the law does not automatically produce substantive equality in outcomes.
There is also a political dimension to this link. Wealth affects political voice, access to influence and the ability to shape policy outcomes. Groups with fewer assets often have less capacity to fund campaigns, lobby, relocate for opportunity, or absorb economic shocks. In that sense, racial identity becomes connected to political inequality as well as economic inequality. This supports the stimulus’s argument that power is distributed across multiple institutions. Banks, employers, school districts and property markets all help reproduce inequality, even though they are not states in the traditional sense. Civil rights groups, community organizations and researchers have therefore become important non-state actors in exposing and challenging these patterns. Their role reflects the shift towards broader governance frameworks discussed in the stimulus.
The second major link is between equality and poverty. The racial wealth gap does not mean that all Black Americans are poor or that all white Americans are wealthy, but it does mean that poverty risks are structured unequally. Wealth is different from income: it provides security, buffers against unemployment, supports university education, enables business formation and helps families cope with illness or crisis. Where wealth is absent, poverty becomes more persistent and harder to escape. This means poverty is not only about low wages in the present; it is also about the absence of accumulated assets from the past. Equality and poverty are therefore closely connected because unequal wealth distribution makes poverty more likely, more durable and more intergenerational.
This is important because it challenges a narrow understanding of poverty as an individual problem. In this case, poverty is better understood as the result of structural inequality. If one community has been systematically denied access to wealth-building opportunities, then higher levels of deprivation are not accidental. They are politically produced. Poorer households also face higher vulnerability to debt, eviction, insecure work and underfunded public services, which reinforces the cycle. The case therefore shows that tackling poverty requires more than welfare transfers alone. It may require addressing the deeper inequalities in assets, housing, education and financial access that produce poverty in the first place.
There is also a clear interaction between all three dimensions: identity helps structure inequality, and inequality in turn deepens poverty. For example, racial discrimination in employment may reduce earnings; lower earnings make it harder to save or invest; lack of savings increases vulnerability to poverty; and poverty can then limit educational and professional opportunities for the next generation. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle. The value of examining the links between topic areas is that it reveals how political problems overlap. Equality cannot be treated in isolation, because it is shaped by identity-based exclusion and expressed through poverty outcomes.
At the same time, the case should not be oversimplified. Some would argue that class has become more important than race, or that anti-discrimination laws have significantly improved equality of opportunity. There is some truth in this: legal segregation has ended, and there is a growing Black middle class and elite. However, these changes do not remove the broader structural pattern. The persistence of a racial wealth gap suggests that equal rights in principle have not translated into equal material outcomes in practice. Equally, focusing only on race could obscure inequalities within racial groups themselves. A strong examination must therefore recognise that identity and poverty intersect with class, region and education, rather than operating in a single, uniform way.
Overall, the racial wealth gap in the United States demonstrates that equality is deeply interconnected with both identity and poverty. Identity matters because racialized institutions and historical discrimination shape who can accumulate wealth and security. Poverty matters because unequal wealth distribution increases vulnerability and limits life chances across generations. The case therefore supports the broader claim in the stimulus: inequality is produced by multiple actors and structures, not by states alone, and understanding it requires looking at how different political pressures interact rather than treating them as separate issues.
Tip:
The racial wealth gap in the United States clearly shows that global political challenges around equality are inseparable from other pressures, especially identity and poverty.
This is a clear controlling argument: it names the case study and the two HL extensions immediately, so the reader knows exactly what relationships the essay will trace.
The most direct link is between equality and identity.
A crisp transition like this guides the reader into the first line of argument and keeps the essay’s examination tightly organised around the chosen topic areas.
Black Americans were excluded from wealth accumulation for generations through slavery, segregation and discriminatory public policy.
This precise historical detail grounds the argument in concrete evidence rather than general assertion, showing secure knowledge of the case study.
As a result, inequality is not random: it follows racial lines.
This is strong interpretive work: the sentence moves from facts to a clear claim about pattern and causation, showing that racial identity structures outcomes.
A society may claim equal citizenship in law, yet still produce unequal outcomes because institutions continue to reward some identities more than others.
This is a sophisticated argumentative move because it distinguishes formal equality from lived equality, deepening the discussion beyond description.
This relationship is especially visible in housing and asset ownership.
This opening sentence neatly narrows the focus from the general claim to a specific mechanism, helping the paragraph develop the argument step by step.
However, Black families were historically blocked from this through redlining, discriminatory lending and residential segregation.
The use of specific mechanisms here gives the case study real precision; it shows exactly how racial identity translated into unequal access to wealth.
Therefore, identity shapes equality over time: racialized exclusion in one generation becomes a wealth gap in the next.
This is excellent close reasoning on process and effect, tracing how historical exclusion becomes intergenerational inequality rather than staying a past event.
This demonstrates an important complexity in the concept of equality.
That evaluative phrasing is worth imitating because it explicitly signals that the writer is examining nuance, not just listing examples.
There is also a political dimension to this link.
This signpost marks a development in the argument, showing the essay is widening the discussion from economic inequality to political consequences.
Groups with fewer assets often have less capacity to fund campaigns, lobby, relocate for opportunity, or absorb economic shocks.
This sentence supplies concrete, relevant detail about what lack of wealth actually limits, making the political implications tangible.
This supports the stimulus’s argument that power is distributed across multiple institutions.
A strong analytical move here connects the case study back to the stimulus, showing how the example illuminates the broader issue of dispersed power.
Their role reflects the shift towards broader governance frameworks discussed in the stimulus.
This is a skilful linking move: it reintegrates non-state actors into the discussion and keeps the essay aligned with the conceptual frame set up at the start.
The second major link is between equality and poverty.
This straightforward transition clearly signals the second strand of the essay, helping the overall structure feel balanced and deliberate.
Wealth is different from income: it provides security, buffers against unemployment, supports university education, enables business formation and helps families cope with illness or crisis.
This is strong supporting detail because it defines the concept carefully and shows why wealth matters in practical terms for poverty risk.
Where wealth is absent, poverty becomes more persistent and harder to escape.
The sentence sharply captures the causal relationship at the heart of the paragraph, moving from definition to implication.
Equality and poverty are therefore closely connected because unequal wealth distribution makes poverty more likely, more durable and more intergenerational.
This is an effective synthesis sentence: it draws the paragraph’s evidence together into a concise judgement using controlled, precise phrasing.
In this case, poverty is better understood as the result of structural inequality.
This sentence makes a clear evaluative claim, shifting the discussion away from individual blame and towards political structures.
Poorer households also face higher vulnerability to debt, eviction, insecure work and underfunded public services, which reinforces the cycle.
The list of linked pressures gives the argument breadth and specificity, showing how poverty reproduces itself through multiple connected disadvantages.
The case therefore shows that tackling poverty requires more than welfare transfers alone.
This is a strong argumentative move because it draws a policy implication from the case instead of stopping at description.
There is also a clear interaction between all three dimensions: identity helps structure inequality, and inequality in turn deepens poverty.
This topic sentence is especially effective because it explicitly threads the essay’s strands together, showing the relationships are cumulative rather than separate.
For example, racial discrimination in employment may reduce earnings; lower earnings make it harder to save or invest; lack of savings increases vulnerability to poverty; and poverty can then limit educational and professional opportunities for the next generation.
This is excellent chained evidence: the step-by-step sequence makes the cycle of disadvantage visible and easy to follow.
This creates a self-reinforcing cycle.
A concise sentence, but analytically powerful: it names the dynamic produced by the previous detail and shows why the problem persists over time.
At the same time, the case should not be oversimplified.
This transition signals a move into complexity and counterargument, which strengthens the essay’s balance and intellectual control.
Some would argue that class has become more important than race, or that anti-discrimination laws have significantly improved equality of opportunity.
Bringing in an alternative view demonstrates range and shows the writer can test the argument rather than simply assert it.
There is some truth in this: legal segregation has ended, and there is a growing Black middle class and elite.
This concession uses relevant detail to acknowledge change, which makes the overall argument more credible and measured.
The persistence of a racial wealth gap suggests that equal rights in principle have not translated into equal material outcomes in practice.
This is a strong analytical judgement because it weighs the counterargument and then explains why structural inequality still matters.
Overall, the racial wealth gap in the United States demonstrates that equality is deeply interconnected with both identity and poverty.
This concluding sentence returns to the central claim with clarity and synthesis, showing how the whole essay has built one coherent judgement.
The case therefore supports the broader claim in the stimulus: inequality is produced by multiple actors and structures, not by states alone, and understanding it requires looking at how different political pressures interact rather than treating them as separate issues.
This ending effectively broadens the case study back out to the stimulus, leaving the reader with a final integrated insight rather than a simple repetition.