DSE Econ 時事 第8週（2026年）

Ask students to explain and evaluate the opportunity cost of using the 2025–26 operating surplus for one-off relief measures versus saving as reserves or investing in AI; require a simple diagram (e.g. PPF or cost–benefit table) and judgment on which option better achieves short-, medium- and long-term objectives.

Set a data-based question asking students to distinguish between revenue types: explain how stock market gains and bond proceeds affect the operating account and fiscal stance, and evaluate why bond proceeds may be unsuitable for funding recurrent relief measures.

Ask students to extract two positive and two normative statements from the article, explain the difference, and discuss how normative values influence budget choices and public acceptance of trade-offs.

Require students to evaluate the case for government spending on technology as a public good: define public goods, argue for/against public provision using efficiency and equity criteria, and recommend how much of the surplus should be allocated to such projects.

Ask students to draw supply and demand diagrams showing an outward shift in demand due to a larger jackpot; explain the effect on equilibrium quantity and price when ticket price is fixed, and calculate the percentage increase in turnover using the given figures (HK$62.4m to HK$402.3m).

Set a 10–mark question: define a shortage, use the article to describe the non‑price rationing observed (queues, early stop of sales), and evaluate two alternatives (raising price vs rationing by queue/limits) in terms of efficiency and equity, using supporting diagrams.

Give a scenario based on quoted spend (e.g., HK$200 and two hours waiting) and ask students to calculate the monetary and time opportunity costs (assign a reasonable hourly wage), then discuss whether such purchases can be rational despite negative expected monetary return, using marginal utility and subjective probabilities.

Pose an evaluative question: explain the function of price in allocating scarce goods, use the Mark Six example to show what happens when price is fixed, and critically assess the policy choice of keeping price constant (consider fairness, administrative ease, and social preference).

Ask students to use a supply and demand diagram to show how an increase in migrant supply affects equilibrium wage and employment; follow with an evaluative question on how minimum wage and enforcement change outcomes and on the price elasticity of labour supply for domestic helpers.

Set a case question asking candidates to explain how low labour mobility (due to language/legal barriers) can lead to exploitation, and to evaluate policies (training, translated contracts, bilateral agreements) that would improve mobility and outcomes for workers.

Design a calculation question using the statutory figures (monthly minimum HK$5,100; food allowance HK$1,236) where students compute effective monthly remuneration under different employer practices, then an evaluative part asking how weak enforcement of wage rules affects labour market efficiency and equity.

Pose an evaluative question asking how strengthening property/contract rights (mandatory translated contracts, stronger enforcement) alters incentives for employers and workers, and to weigh the costs and likely effectiveness of such institutional reforms.

Ask students to explain how restraining orders and letters of no consent affect private property rights, then evaluate whether these restrictions are justified using benefits (crime deterrence, victim compensation) versus costs (temporary loss of access, wrongful freezes); include a short discussion of safeguards (burden of proof, judicial review).

Give a numerical question: using the article’s HK$261m frozen for 7 years and a hypothetical annual interest rate (e.g., 2%), calculate the forgone interest and discuss the broader opportunity costs (administrative resources, alternative public spending) of lengthy confiscation processes in an evaluative paragraph.

Prompt students to evaluate whether current procedures improve overall efficiency: compare enforcement costs and time delays against deterrence benefits and recovered sums; ask for a short welfare analysis (qualitative or diagrammatic) that weighs enforcement-induced gains in social welfare against transaction and administrative costs.

Ask students to construct a balanced argument on the equitable use of confiscated funds: should priority go to compensating victims, funding enforcement, or general revenue? Require students to state normative criteria (e.g., utilitarian vs rights-based) and justify a policy recommendation.

Ask students to show with a diagram how a positive safety externality from robotaxis shifts social vs private marginal benefits/costs; evaluate welfare implications and recommend two government interventions (e.g. subsidy, regulation or Pigovian tax) and explain their advantages and drawbacks in Hong Kong's context.

Pose a short essay/structured response: compare two liability regimes (strict owner liability vs. manufacturer liability vs. insurer‑led compensation) using Coasean reasoning — explain how each allocation of property rights affects incentives, transaction costs and likely outcomes for safety and innovation in Hong Kong.

Set a data‑response or 12‑mark question: identify and explain three sources of monopoly power for an autonomous taxi platform; using a diagram, discuss likely effects on price, consumer surplus and social welfare; evaluate two regulatory responses (e.g. data portability mandates, open‑access rules) suitable for Hong Kong.

Ask students to draw the long‑run average cost curve showing economies of scale and explain why robotaxi services could become a natural monopoly; evaluate pros and cons of allowing a large incumbent to dominate versus promoting competition through subsidies or regulation in Hong Kong.

Provide the DSE participation figures from the article and ask students to explain the economic problem of scarcity in this context, calculate simple ratios (e.g. percentage shortfall if numbers must double), and evaluate allocation mechanisms (market signals, admission formula changes, subsidies, or quotas) to address the shortage.

Set up a comparative payoff table (expected lifetime earnings or probabilities of entry to high-paying careers) and ask students to calculate the opportunity cost of choosing non-M1/M2 pathways; include a short essay part asking whether government intervention to change incentives is justified (positive vs normative reasoning).

Ask students to draw and shift a labour-supply curve for advanced-maths-skilled workers showing the effect of policies that encourage M1/M2 uptake (e.g. admission-score weighting, curriculum changes); then analyse short-run and long-run effects on equilibrium employment, wages, and elasticity of supply.

Give a scenario where firms’ marginal product of labour increases due to wider M1/M2 uptake and ask students to show the resulting shift in labour demand, discuss impacts on wages and producer/consumer surplus, and evaluate whether investment in maths education yields positive returns for the economy.

Ask students to illustrate the negative externality with a marginal social cost (MSC) diagram, explain market failure, and evaluate a user fee (Pigouvian charge) or reservation system as corrective policies — include welfare effects and limitations.

Require a definition and classification exercise: ask students to classify Ham Tin Wan and Sai Wan, explain why rivalry and non-excludability lead to overuse, and assess how making access excludable (reservations/fees) changes the good’s properties and outcomes.

Set a policy-evaluation question where students compare the effects of a quantity quota (reservation slots) versus a price mechanism on allocation, deadweight loss, enforcement costs and equity; ask for a diagram showing restricted quantity and social welfare implications.

Ask students to model the impact of a per-visitor fee on demand for camping (use elasticity concepts), calculate likely changes in quantity and revenue, and evaluate whether a fee or quota is preferred given administrative and equity considerations.

Exam task: Explain how Article 105 constrains government acquisition and determines compensation; then evaluate the economic effects (incentives for owners, transaction costs, time delays, fairness) of a voluntary buy‑back versus compulsory acquisition, and conclude which policy is preferred from efficiency and equity perspectives.

Exam task: Define opportunity cost and analyse the trade‑offs the government faces in allocating HK$4 billion to the buy‑back rather than to other uses (e.g., healthcare, infrastructure, housing supply). Ask students to recommend a decision using cost–benefit reasoning and clearly state the assumptions.

Exam task: Identify three positive and two normative statements in the article. For one normative claim (e.g., whether taxpayers should pay), construct a balanced economic argument supporting and opposing it, and state any value judgements underlying each side.

Exam task: Using the concept of scarcity and allocation, discuss why the government might prefer a buy‑back and flat‑for‑flat scheme over on‑site redevelopment, and evaluate the short and long run implications for housing supply and affected homeowners.

Design an exam question asking students to use supply and demand diagrams to show how a policy that increases visas for non‑mainland skilled workers (or provides housing/education subsidies) shifts the supply of high‑skilled labour, and to evaluate short‑run and long‑run effects on wages, employment and Hong Kong’s comparative services advantage (10–15 marks).

Ask students to assess, with reference to opportunity cost, how allocating land and public funds to the Northern Metropolis (tech clusters, R&D labs) versus residential/housing affects productive capacity; include a short data task calculating opportunity cost given two budget allocations and a 2‑part evaluation of policy trade‑offs (15 marks).

Create a question asking students to distinguish internal vs external economies of scale using the Hong Kong–Greater Bay Area cluster example, draw average cost curves to show how firms might (fail to) move from higher to lower AC as they scale, and evaluate government measures (e.g., clustering incentives, IP financing) to facilitate scaling (10 marks).

Pose an applied question where students identify positive and negative externalities from tech clusters and IP activities, suggest two government interventions (subsidies, IP financing sandbox, coordination councils), and evaluate their likely effectiveness and unintended consequences using welfare analysis (diagram + short essay, 15 marks).

Ask students to draw diagrams showing the initial demand shock (Dec 2022) and subsequent supply expansion (2023–2025), label the equilibria, and explain the short‑run and long‑run effects on price, quantity, and producer/consumer surplus; include a short numerical part (given demand/supply equations) to calculate new equilibrium outcomes.

Set a quantitative question where students calculate the magnitude of the shortage immediately after the demand spike and the surplus after capacity expansion using provided schedules; ask them to explain market signals that resolve shortages/surpluses and evaluate firm strategies (e.g., cutting prices to defend market share).

Provide data for price and quantity changes and ask students to compute price elasticity of demand, interpret whether demand is elastic or inelastic, and discuss implications for revenue and profit when firms cut prices to maintain market share (include evaluative points on non‑price competition and time dimension).

Ask students to explain why share prices jumped then fell (linking expectations, earnings, and news/viral effects), and evaluate the extent to which stock movements reflect fundamentals versus speculation; a higher‑mark question can require linking profit forecasts to share valuation and investor behaviour.

Ask students to identify and classify three positive statements and three normative statements from the article, then explain how normative views might influence recommended policy in a short essay (10 marks).

Give figures from the article (e.g. HK$140 billion raised from bonds, HK$30 billion repaid) and ask students to evaluate the short-term benefits and long-term costs of financing spending via bond issuance versus using recurrent tax revenue (15–20 marks).

Design a data-response question where students explain how targeted one‑off subsidies or retraining subsidies could affect labour supply and unemployment in affected sectors, and assess whether such measures are likely to be cost‑effective (10–15 marks).

Ask students to compare the equity implications of raising the basic salaries tax allowance for all wage earners versus targeted increases in CSSA/subsidies for low‑income families, using distributional reasoning and welfare trade‑offs (15 marks).

Set a data-response question asking students to explain the economic role of private property rights and evaluate (using pros and cons) whether compulsory acquisition with compensation can be justified here; include a short calculation of compensation per flat and ask students to assess if compensation is economically efficient and legally acceptable.

Ask candidates to calculate the opportunity cost per household of the buyback policy given total cost (use provided HK$6.8bn and a stated number of flats) and to discuss alternative uses of public funds (e.g., rebuilding, temporary rehousing) and their economic implications in a short essay (evaluate efficiency and equity).

Require students to draw supply and demand diagrams to show how setting buyback prices at HK$8,000 or HK$10,500 per sq ft might change the quantity of flats put up for sale and market outcomes; include an extension asking how 'flat-for-flat' swap options alter effective supply in designated projects.

Pose an evaluative question asking students to identify the equity and externality issues in the case, weigh stakeholder perspectives (displaced residents, taxpayers, future residents), and recommend a policy that balances efficiency and equity, justifying with welfare arguments.

Ask students to evaluate with diagrams whether barrier-free performances should be publicly funded: identify characteristics of public vs private goods, show market failure if any, and discuss justification for government provision or subsidies (include welfare implications).

Require an analysis of positive externalities from inclusive performances: draw a supply/demand diagram showing underconsumption in private market, calculate welfare loss, and assess appropriate policy responses (subsidy, public provision, education campaigns) with evaluation of effectiveness and costs.

Design a question asking students to explain how greater access to arts and sports training might shift the labour supply or labour market outcomes for persons with disabilities; use labour-leisure choice, discuss barriers (accessibility, discrimination) and evaluate policies (training programs, grants) to increase participation.

Ask an evaluative essay: using equity-efficiency trade-offs, assess whether subsidising inclusive arts programmes is justified; include normative vs positive statements, criteria for fair allocation, and possible opportunity costs of public spending.

Ask students to draw and explain a private and social marginal cost diagram for camping at Ham Tin Wan, calculate welfare loss from the externality, and evaluate policies (HK$3,000 fixed penalty, entrance fee, or patrols) for internalising the externality—discuss strengths, enforcement costs and likely effectiveness.

Have students classify Ham Tin Wan and similar campsites using excludability and rivalry, explain the 'tragedy of the commons' in this context, and propose institutional solutions (permits, property rights, user fees) including evaluation of feasibility in Hong Kong.

Set an exam question where students analyse the effects of a fixed daily campsite quota on consumer surplus, congestion externality and enforcement costs, compare allocation methods (first-come, permit lottery, paid permits) and recommend the most equitable and efficient approach for Hong Kong.

Ask students to compare a price-based instrument (per-person entrance fee) with non-price instruments (quota, fines) using demand diagrams: show how price reduces quantity demanded, compute revenue and discuss how revenue could be used to fund cleaning/enforcement to improve welfare.

Ask students to evaluate how voluntary buybacks versus compulsory acquisition affect property rights, efficiency and equity—e.g. 'Explain how the government’s buyback proposal interacts with private property rights and analyse economic arguments for and against compulsory acquisition in this case.'

Have students assess whether converting the site into a public park is justified on economic grounds: 'Discuss the characteristics of parks as public goods and evaluate the case for using public funds to provide such facilities on the Wang Fuk Court site.'

Create a supply and demand style question: 'Explain why the private market might fail to provide buyers at market prices after the fire, and evaluate the economic effects of government-imposed buyback prices on allocation and incentives.'

Ask students to identify and weigh opportunity costs: 'Identify alternative public uses for the HK$4 billion and discuss how opportunity cost should influence the government’s decision to fund the buyback scheme.'

Ask students to analyse and illustrate (with a labour supply diagram) the short-run and long-run effects of increased labour mobility from ASEAN on Hong Kong’s wage levels, employment, and labour productivity; evaluate distributional effects and policy trade-offs (e.g., impacts on local vs non-local workers).

Require students to explain how increases in capital and human capital shift the economy’s production possibilities or firm production function, and assess implications for output, productivity and comparative advantage of Hong Kong firms in the short and long run.

Pose a question asking students to evaluate how increased capital inflows via ETFs, family offices and bond financing can affect investment in local infrastructure and firms; include diagrammatic analysis (loanable funds or supply of funds) and discuss risks and efficiency gains.

Ask students to illustrate the positive externality using MSC/MPC diagrams and evaluate government policy options (subsidies, public–private partnerships, regulation) to correct market failure and maximise social welfare, with reference to Hong Kong–ASEAN green projects.

Ask students to use a simple opportunity-cost framework or PPC diagram to compare restoring recurrent NGO funding vs investing in long-term tech/infrastructure: identify the implicit cost, show feasible allocations, and evaluate which choice better meets short-run welfare vs long-run growth objectives.

Give data (eg, estimated HK$25 billion revenue from a 5% GST, plus current retail/catering figures) and ask students to (a) explain using demand elasticity why GST revenue is uncertain, (b) draw and annotate a supply/demand diagram showing the incidence of an indirect tax, and (c) evaluate equity and efficiency effects for different income groups in Hong Kong.

Pose a question asking students to explain why the government issues bonds rather than relying on land sales, describe the short-run and long-run effects on interest rates, crowding out, and fiscal sustainability, and evaluate whether borrowing for productive investment is justified using a cost–benefit framework.

Construct a short data-based question where students analyse how a government budget cut (eg, 7% NGO funding reduction) changes labour supply/participation in the social sector, ask them to use labour-market diagrams to show unemployment and mobility effects, and to evaluate policy options (restore funding vs retraining programs) in terms of efficiency and equity.

Ask students to draw supply and demand diagrams showing the effects of (a) a reduction in transaction costs (stamp‑duty cut) and (b) lower interest rates on demand; explain movement to a new equilibrium and evaluate whether limited short‑run supply could amplify price increases. Use the article’s transaction and price changes to support a short numerical interpretation.

Compose a question requiring students to show the tax wedge before and after the policy, explain who gains (buyers/sellers) using incidence analysis, and evaluate the policy’s likely effect on market efficiency and tax revenue, referencing the article’s reported rise in transactions.

Give a calculation/problem where students compute how a fall in mortgage interest rate changes monthly payments and thus inflation-adjusted affordability; then ask for a short evaluation of how sustained lower rates versus temporary cuts would differently impact housing demand and price stability.

Provide students with the article’s percentage changes (e.g., 31% rise in transactions, 7.3% rise in prices) and ask them to estimate and interpret the (arc) price elasticity of demand or comment on supply elasticity; include evaluation of how elasticity affects tax incidence and the extent to which prices versus quantities will change.

Ask students to draw a supply and demand diagram for an attraction or hotel room, show the demand shift during Lunar New Year, explain why short‑run supply is inelastic, and analyse effects on equilibrium price, quantity (and non‑price rationing such as waiting times or queues).

Require students to assess qualitatively whether demand for Peak Tram rides, hotel rooms, and restaurant meals during Golden Week is likely price‑elastic or inelastic, and explain the revenue implications of a 20% surcharge and of raising prices versus using non‑price rationing (queues, reservations).

Ask students to identify the negative externalities shown in the article, evaluate policy options (congestion fees, quotas, timed tickets, public investment) to correct the externality, and discuss equity trade‑offs between residents’ access and tourism revenues.

Have students explain scarcity and opportunity cost in this context (e.g., opportunity cost of a resident’s decision to travel abroad versus staying and using local services), and compare allocation methods (price, queues, first‑come first‑served) and short‑run versus long‑run solutions (expand capacity).

Ask students to draw supply and demand diagrams showing the effect of a rightward demand shift for hotel rooms during the event, explain short‑run price/quantity changes, illustrate consumer and producer surplus changes, and discuss why supply may be price‑inelastic in the short run using article evidence (e.g. limited hotel capacity, many visitors not staying overnight).

Provide numerical data from the article (e.g. % increase in arrivals vs observed hotel occupancy behaviour) and ask students to estimate price elasticity of demand for hotel stays under a hypothetical price rise, interpret whether demand is elastic or inelastic, and explain implications for total revenue and pricing strategies by hotels during peak events.

Ask students to classify the fireworks (public, private, club or common resource), explain the free‑rider problem, evaluate the role of private sponsorship (Jockey Club) versus government provision, and write a short normative piece on who should fund such events and why, using efficiency and equity arguments.

Require students to identify and diagram one positive and one negative externality from the fireworks, show welfare changes on a supply/demand or marginal social cost/benefit diagram, and evaluate policy responses (e.g. subsidies, permits, crowd control) weighing efficiency and distributional trade‑offs.

Ask students to explain how scarcity of developable land in desirable locations leads to higher land bids; include a short calculation using the plot area and bid (HK$1.38bn / 130,000 sq ft) to show implied land cost per buildable sq ft and interpret the economic meaning.

Produce an exam question requiring a labelled supply-and-demand diagram for land (short-run fixed supply) showing the effect of increased developer demand and improved market sentiment; ask students to explain shifts and predict impacts on price and quantity of land transacted, and to link diagram to the article’s evidence.

Set a data-based question: using the article’s figures (land cost, estimated gross floor area, expected selling price ~HK$25,000/ft² and ~300 units), ask students to compute implied revenue, compare to land cost, and evaluate how price signals affect developers’ investment decisions and allocation of resources.

Ask students to discuss how the 50-year leasehold (grant) influences opportunity cost and firms’ willingness to bid high prices; include an evaluative part on whether lease length and secure property rights encourage or deter long-term sustainable investment as the article claims.

Ask students to draw and explain demand and/or supply diagrams showing the effect of increased outbound trips and tourist arrivals on restaurant bookings and florist sales (identify shifts, new equilibrium price/quantity) and evaluate short-run implications for firms.

Give data (e.g., 5% price rise for tables, change in bookings) and ask students to estimate qualitatively whether demand for luxury reunion dinners and for mid-range meals is price- or income-elastic, and to discuss implications for revenue and pricing strategy.

Require students to classify examples from the article (luxury restaurant tables, affordable snack shops, mid-range restaurants, orchids) as normal, luxury or inferior goods, and analyse how income and substitution effects during the holiday explain observed demand patterns.

Ask students to explain how extended holidays shift short-run labour supply in hospitality (e.g., overtime, temporary hires) and evaluate the effect on wage costs and service provision; propose short-run firm responses and welfare implications.

Ask students to draw and explain supply-and-demand diagrams showing the effect of (a) an increase in tourist demand and (b) an increase in gold costs; then evaluate the likely net impact on equilibrium price and quantity of jewellery and explain how firms might respond.

Give students percentage changes from the article (e.g., +13% visitors, +10% jewellery sales, +40–50% cosmetics) and ask them to (a) discuss what this implies about price/income elasticity for these goods, (b) calculate hypothetical revenue changes under elastic vs inelastic assumptions, and (c) explain managerial pricing/product decisions (e.g., smaller pieces).

Require students to classify items from the article (gold jewellery, cosmetics, watches) as luxury/normal/investment goods, justify their classification with reasoning from the article, and assess how that classification explains the observed sales patterns during the holiday.

Ask students to draw separate supply-and-demand diagrams: (a) for the market for investment gold showing a rightward demand shift and its effect on equilibrium price and quantity; (b) for the market for prime retail space showing how rising demand for shop space shifts equilibrium rent. Require explanation of movement vs shift, short-run vs long-run implications, and comparative statics (e.g., effect on consumer/producer surplus).

Set a question where students must define price elasticity of demand for bullion and jewellery, state likely elasticities for different buyer groups (e.g., young professionals vs expert investors), and analyse how a retailer should set premiums (mark-ups) given elasticities. Include a numerical part: given elasticities, calculate expected total revenue change when price/premium changes and comment on strategic pricing and buy-back policies.

Ask students to identify and classify the expansion (e.g., horizontal expansion into retail distribution/market diversification), evaluate the benefits and costs (market access, higher fixed rents, brand visibility), and assess short-run vs long-run effects on costs and profitability. A mark-scheme could ask for diagrammatic cost curves or break-even analysis to show viability when rents are below peak.

Ask students to explain how clearly assigned and enforced property rights (to goats, dogs and farmland) could reduce conflicts; include an application question evaluating Coase-theorem style bargaining versus government intervention (e.g. fines, compensation, better enforcement), and to assess costs/benefits using real-world constraints (transaction costs, enforcement capacity).

Provide a diagram showing the negative externality and deadweight loss from private actions (e.g. poisoning or allowing dogs to roam); ask students to identify and evaluate policy options (criminal penalties, bounties, subsidies for fencing/guard animals, NGO monitoring) and explain which reduce the externality most effectively and why.

Ask a 12-mark evaluative question: compare equity implications of enforcing strict liability on dog owners vs. government-funded animal-control programs; require students to discuss winners and losers, trade-offs with efficiency, and recommend a policy that balances equity and practicality in the Hong Kong context.

Give students the fee change (HK$180 to HK$400) and the reported 18.6% drop in semi-urgent/non-urgent visits; ask them to calculate the price elasticity of demand, interpret whether demand is elastic or inelastic, and evaluate implications for fee revenue and policy (including short-run vs long-run responses).

Require candidates to use a supply-and-demand diagram for A&E visits to show how higher user fees might reduce demand and change waiting times; ask them to discuss pros and cons of price rationing versus non-price rationing (waiting times, triage) and evaluate equity and efficiency trade-offs.

Ask students to explain whether emergency hospital services should be treated as public, private or merit goods, discuss why public hospitals faced overcrowding during holidays, and evaluate policy alternatives (higher fees, expanding family medicine clinics, subsidising private out-of-hours care) with reference to efficiency and equity.

Ask students to identify and classify the externalities, draw a diagram showing social vs private marginal cost for campsite use, and evaluate policy instruments (Pigovian tax, fines, permits, enforcement, public education) to internalise the externality; include an evaluative judgement on effectiveness and feasibility in the Hong Kong context.

Give an exam task asking students to explain why these sites are subject to congestion, classify the good(s), and suggest institutional arrangements (exclusion via permits/fees, provision of facilities, or property-rights-based management) with a discussion of trade-offs between access equity and environmental protection.

Require students to use a demand–supply diagram to show excess demand at zero price, then analyse effects of introducing an entrance fee or reservation charge (change in consumer surplus, quantity, welfare) and assess distributional and practical issues for Hong Kong policymakers.

Ask students to classify the fireworks display (and specific viewing locations) as public, private or club goods; draw and label a diagram showing non-excludability/non-rivalry; evaluate the efficiency of leaving provision to a private sponsor versus government provision and discuss free-rider problems and possible charging mechanisms.

Require students to illustrate the private and social marginal benefit/cost diagrams for the fireworks, identify welfare loss/gain from unregulated provision, and evaluate policy responses (e.g., subsidies, regulation, charging, or provision by a public authority) to internalise externalities.

Set a short essay or calculation question asking students to compare the opportunity cost of the HK$19m (e.g., alternative public uses like healthcare, transport upgrades, or charity), and to perform a simple cost–benefit framework to judge whether private sponsorship or public spending would yield higher social welfare.

Ask students to explain negative externalities, draw a supply–demand (private vs social cost) diagram for campsite use, calculate welfare loss from unmanaged littering, and evaluate three policy responses mentioned (cleaners, enforcement/fines, education) for efficiency and practicality.

Require students to classify Sai Wan Beach and campsite facilities (e.g. toilets, bins) as private, public, club or common-pool goods and then discuss how the good’s classification explains the observed crowding and littering; propose two market or policy solutions suitable for the identified type.

Pose an application question: compare outcomes under open-access (status quo) versus assigned property rights (e.g. concession to a private operator, paid permits) using incentive arguments; evaluate potential trade-offs in equity and enforcement costs for Hong Kong parks.

Ask students to draw demand and supply diagrams to show the private equilibrium and the socially optimal output when a negative externality exists; calculate welfare loss given numerical values and evaluate policy options (regulation, labelling, per‑unit tax, bans) and their likely effectiveness in this context.

Require students to explain why perfumes fit monopolistic competition, contrast outcomes (price, output, advertising) with perfect competition and monopoly, and evaluate how consumer‑safety testing and disclosure by a regulator might change firm strategies and market efficiency.

Provide a data‑based question where students calculate price elasticity of demand for a perfume before and after the watchdog report, and analyse how a fall in demand (or increased price sensitivity) affects revenue and firms’ pricing decisions; include discussion of short‑run vs long‑run effects.