Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Migration and urbanisation – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers from your board or school.

These questions use the topic Migration and urbanisation from the Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025), section 3 topic list, to practise the skills in section 2 (AO1, AO2, AO3) and section 4. Questions 1-8 are source-based skills practice in the style the syllabus describes for Component 1 Written Exam; questions 9 and 10 practise planning for Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. The syllabus states that knowledge of content is not assessed, so answer from the sources, not from what you know about migration.

All places, people, organisations and figures in the sources are fictional. Revise first with the study guide and revision notes. See also the Global Perspectives hub and the 0457 checklist.

The sources

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge (fictional data)

Tessaly is a fictional city.

Year	Population	Share of population living in informal settlements
2005	1,200,000	18%
2015	1,900,000	26%
2025	2,800,000	31%

City planners estimate that more than half of each decade’s growth came from people moving in from rural districts.

Source B – original text written for Marlbridge (fictional)

Harbourline Developments, which hopes to build apartments on the site of the Riverside settlement, issued this statement: “Our survey of 150 shoppers at Central Mall found that 123 of them (82%) support clearing the Riverside slum so that modern homes can be built. The people of Tessaly have spoken: this eyesore must go.”

Source C – original text written for Marlbridge (fictional people)

Ama, a street vendor who moved to Tessaly six years ago: “There was no work in my village after the harvest failed twice. Here I earn enough to send my daughter to school. Our street floods every rainy season and we buy water from carts, but I would not go back.”

Councillor Dreyer, Tessaly City Council: “The council fitted 40 public water points in Riverside last year, for around 8,000 households. But we cannot keep up. Every month more families arrive, and the roads, schools and clinics are full. Growth must be slowed.”

Tomas, a volunteer with a local housing charity: “Residents are not the problem; the lack of affordable land is. When people have secure title to their plot, they improve their own homes.”

Source D – original text written for Marlbridge (fictional country, Rendovia)

Argument 1, an official at Rendovia’s health ministry: “Last year 600 of our nurses left to work abroad, out of 1,500 who qualified. Our hospitals already have vacancies. Wealthy countries are stealing our skilled workers. If this continues, our rural clinics will close within five years.”

Argument 2, an economist at a Rendovian bank: “Money sent home by Rendovians working abroad equalled 9% of our national income last year, more than twice the 4% we received in aid. Families spend it on school fees and small businesses. Migration is good for everyone. Many nurses also return later with new skills.”

Source E – original text written for Marlbridge (fictional study)

Researchers at Riverside University interviewed 60 people who had moved to Tessaly within the last two years. Interviewees were recruited at the city’s main job centre. 45 of them (75%) said they were better off than before they moved. The researchers concluded: “Most migrants to Tessaly are better off.”

Questions

1. Using Source C, identify one fact and one opinion. [2]

2. Using Source A, describe how the population of Tessaly and its informal housing changed between 2005 and 2025. [3]

3. Using Sources A and C, explain one cause and one consequence of the growth of informal settlements in Tessaly. [4]

4. Read Source B.

(a) Identify the vested interest in Source B. [1] (b) Explain two weaknesses in the way the survey in Source B was carried out. [4] (c) Identify one example of loaded language in Source B and explain its effect. [2]

5. Read Source E.

(a) Evaluate the research in Source E as evidence for the claim that most migrants to Tessaly are better off. [6] (b) Suggest how you could research the claim “Most migrants to Tessaly are better off” more reliably. [6]

6. Using Source C, explain why Ama and Councillor Dreyer have different perspectives on migration to Tessaly. [4]

7. Read Source D. Evaluate the two arguments about emigration from Rendovia. Which argument is better supported? Give reasons for your judgement. [12]

8. Three actions have been proposed for the Riverside settlement in Tessaly:

• Action 1 (City Council): move Riverside households to 5,000 new flats at Greyfield, 18 km from the city centre, and clear the site.
• Action 2 (housing charity): keep residents where they are and upgrade Riverside with drains, piped water and legal titles to plots.
• Action 3 (national government): invest in rural roads, irrigation and jobs to reduce migration into Tessaly.

Using all the sources, which action would be most effective in responding to the issue? Explain your judgement with reasons and evidence. [16]

9. A student plans an Individual Report with the draft title “Migration in cities”.

(a) Explain why this title is not suitable as a global research question. [2] (b) Suggest a better global research question on this topic, and identify two perspectives at different levels that the report could explore. [4]

10. A team wants to complete its Team Project on Migration and urbanisation.

(a) Suggest a local issue and an action the team could carry out. [2] (b) Explain how the team could evidence the action and measure its success. [4]

Answers

1. Fact: “The council fitted 40 public water points in Riverside last year” (this can be checked) [1]. Opinion: “Residents are not the problem” or “Growth must be slowed” [1]. [2] Examiner insight: quote the exact words; a paraphrase can turn an opinion into something that reads like a fact.

2. Population rose from 1.2 million to 2.8 million, an increase of about 133% [1]. The share in informal settlements rose from 18% to 31% [1]. So the number living informally rose about fourfold, from about 216,000 to about 868,000, faster than the population as a whole [1]. [3] Examiner insight: the third mark comes from combining the two columns; describing each column separately misses the key pattern.

3. Cause: rural in-migration, which Source A says made up more than half of each decade’s growth; Ama moved after harvests failed [1]. Population grew faster than formal housing, so arrivals settled informally [1]. Consequence: residents lack services, buying water from carts and facing floods (Ama) [1]. This strains the council: 40 water points for around 8,000 households is about 200 households per point (Dreyer) [1]. [4] Examiner insight: each point needs a link to a named source detail; a general cause such as “poverty” with no source reference earns little.

4. (a) Harbourline Developments wants to build apartments on the site, so it would profit from the settlement being cleared [1]. [1] (b) Only shoppers at one mall were asked, probably excluding Riverside residents, so the sample is unrepresentative [1]. So the claim that the city “has spoken” generalises from 150 people [1]. The question wording is not given, so it may have been leading [1]. If so, the 82% may reflect the wording rather than real opinion [1]. [4] (c) “Eyesore” (or “slum”) [1]. It presents the settlement negatively, so clearance seems obviously right without residents’ views [1]. [2] Examiner insight: name the weakness, then explain its effect on the conclusion; “small sample” alone is an identification, not an explanation.

5. (a) Strength: it asks recent migrants directly, giving first-hand evidence [1]. Strength: a university may have less vested interest than a developer [1]. Weakness: 60 people is a small sample for a city of 2.8 million [1]. Weakness: recruiting at a job centre may miss migrants who are struggling elsewhere [1]. Weakness: “better off” is undefined and self-reported [1]. Judgement: some recent migrants feel better off, but this cannot support a claim about “most migrants” [1]. [6] (b) Use a larger sample from several areas, including informal settlements [1]. Include people who arrived at different times, not only in the last two years [1]. Define “better off” with measurable indicators such as income, housing and school access [1]. Compare with their situation before moving, or with similar people who stayed [1]. Add a few in-depth interviews to understand reasons [1]. Publish the questions so the method can be checked [1]. [6] Examiner insight: in (b), each suggestion should fix a specific weakness you identified in (a); generic advice such as “ask more people” earns less than saying who and where.

6. Ama speaks from personal experience: migration gave her an income and her daughter’s schooling [1]. So she judges it worth the flooding and water costs [1]. Dreyer speaks from the council’s responsibility for city-wide services, which are full [1]. So he sees the cost to the system rather than the gain to individuals [1]. [4] Examiner insight: the marks are for explaining why each person holds the view (their role and experience), not for restating what they think.

7. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point. The points below show the kind of content that would be credited.

Argument 1 gives a specific figure: 600 of 1,500 qualifying nurses, about 40%, left [1]. This is relevant evidence on health staffing [1]. But it gives no vacancy figures, or whether those nurses had jobs at home [1]. “Stealing” is loaded: it implies wrongdoing when nurses choose to leave [1]. The five-year clinic prediction has no supporting figures [1]. The ministry may want to explain its own shortages, a possible vested interest [1]. Argument 2 compares remittances (9% of national income) with aid (4%) [1]. It explains how the money is used, linking evidence to claim [1]. But “Migration is good for everyone” is a generalisation that ignores patients losing nurses [1]. “Many nurses return” has no figure [1]. A bank may gain from remittance flows, a possible vested interest [1]. Judgement: Argument 2 is slightly better supported, but neither proves its conclusion because each looks at one consequence only [1]. [12] Examiner insight: the strongest answers compare the two arguments on the same criteria (evidence, reasoning, language, vested interest) and reach a judgement that follows from that comparison.

8. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point. These indicative points show what would be credited.

Judgement stated: Action 2 (upgrading) is likely to be most effective in the short to medium term [1]. It tackles the flooding and water costs Ama describes [1]. It keeps residents near their work (Ama is a vendor) [1]. Tomas says secure title leads people to improve homes, so benefits may grow [1]. But Tomas gives no evidence for this claim [1]. And upgrading does not address monthly arrivals (Dreyer) [1]. Action 1 provides planned homes [1]. But 5,000 flats house only 62.5% of around 8,000 households, leaving 3,000 [1]. Greyfield is 18 km away, so vendors like Ama may lose income [1]. Source B supports clearance, but is weak evidence given the developer’s interest [1]. Action 3 targets a cause: over half of growth came from rural in-migration (Source A) [1]. Irrigation might address harvest failure like Ama’s [1]. But it is long-term and does nothing for current residents [1]. It assumes people would stay; Ama “would not go back” because of schooling [1]. Weighing: Action 2 best meets effectiveness and fairness now; Action 3 is the most sustainable long-term [1]. Conclusion: Action 2 is most effective if land rights are secured and Action 3 follows over time [1]. [16] Examiner insight: every action must be judged using evidence from the sources; an answer that discusses only the action you prefer cannot show a comparison.

9. (a) It names a topic, not a question, so there is nothing to answer or reach a conclusion on [1]. It does not point to an issue that divides opinion, which the syllabus requires [1]. [2] (b) A suitable question, for example: “Should fast-growing cities upgrade informal settlements rather than clear them?” [1]. It is open, divides opinion and leads to a course of action [1]. Perspective at the local level: residents of a named informal settlement or a local council [1]. Perspective at the global level: an international body or a researcher comparing approaches across several countries [1]. [4] Examiner insight: the perspectives must be clearly at different levels and clearly different from each other; two local groups that agree do not meet the requirement.

10. (a) Local issue: students who join the school mid-year after moving to the area feel isolated [1]. Action: set up and run a trained buddy scheme for new arrivals for one term [1]. [2] (b) Evidence: photographs of the training session and a leaflet given to new students, produced during the action [1]. Measure success with a short survey of new students before joining the scheme and after six weeks [1]. Compare the results, for example the number who say they have someone to sit with at lunch [1]. Record how many buddy pairs were set up and still meeting at the end of term, so success is measured against a clear target [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Evidence of Action must come from the action itself, not from research or planning meetings; and a measure of success needs a before-and-after comparison or a stated target.

Where marks are usually lost

• Bringing in outside knowledge about migration instead of using the source details.
• Identifying a weakness (“small sample”) without explaining how it affects the conclusion.
• Calling a source biased without naming the vested interest or quoting loaded words.
• In extended answers, discussing only one action or one argument, so there is no comparison.
• Giving a final judgement that does not follow from the reasoning, or no judgement at all.
• Coursework planning that names a topic rather than a question, or an action with no way to measure success.

Next steps

• Check your weaker skills with a short diagnostic.
• Practise more unseen sources with Global Perspectives practice.
• Plan your coursework with Individual Report practice and Team Project practice.
• Book a free trial class to work through a source-based paper with a tutor.

Official syllabus

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025), published by Cambridge University Press & Assessment.