Contents: 8 sections
What the IA is
The Internal Assessment is a portfolio of three commentaries. Each one is a short piece of analysis, a maximum of 800 words, applying economic theory to a published news article you have chosen yourself.
The three commentaries must differ from each other deliberately:
- Each is based on a different unit of the syllabus.
- Each uses a different key concept.
- Each uses an article from a different source.
Those three rules are the most common cause of avoidable mark loss, because they are checked mechanically and no amount of good economics compensates for breaking them. Plan all three together at the start rather than writing them one at a time and discovering a clash at the end.
Choosing the article: this decides your grade
More IA marks are lost at article selection than anywhere else. A weak article caps your commentary before you write a word.
A good article:
- Is recent, and published within the window your teacher specifies.
- Comes from a credible news source, not a blog, not an encyclopaedia entry, not an economics teaching site.
- Is short. A long article invites summarising; a short one leaves room for your analysis.
- Contains a clear economic event or policy, a tax introduced, a price rising, a subsidy, a merger, a currency movement.
- Lets you draw at least one diagram naturally. If you cannot see the diagram immediately, choose another article.
Avoid: articles that are already economic analysis (you end up summarising someone else's), articles with no concrete event, and anything where the economics is so obvious there is nothing to evaluate.
The test: can you name the diagram, the theory and the evaluative question in one sentence? If not, keep looking. Spending an extra hour on selection is the best-value hour in the whole IA.
What the commentary must do
Within 800 words you cannot do everything, so every sentence has to earn its place. A commentary that scores well typically allocates roughly like this:
A brief framing (short). What the article reports and which economic problem it represents. Do not summarise the article, the examiner has it. Two or three sentences.
Definitions (short). Define the key terms as you use them, not in a glossary block at the start.
A diagram, fully labelled (essential). Both axes named, curves labelled, original and new equilibrium marked, shifts arrowed. The diagram must be your own, drawn for this article, and it must be explained in the text, a diagram nobody refers to earns very little.
Analysis (the largest part). Apply theory to this article, as an explicit causal chain: cause → mechanism → consequence. Use the article's actual figures, country and industry. This is where most of your words should go.
The key concept, made explicit (essential). Name it and show how it frames the issue. Do not leave the examiner to infer which concept you chose.
Evaluation and a judgement (essential). Reason about conditions, elasticity, time frame, who gains and loses, what the policy costs, what assumptions the model makes, and end with a judgement about this specific case.
The assessment criteria, in plain terms
| Criterion | What it rewards |
|---|---|
| Diagrams | Relevant, accurate, fully labelled, and explained in the text. |
| Terminology | Economic terms used accurately and consistently throughout. |
| Application and analysis | Theory applied to this article, with explicit causal reasoning. |
| Key concept | The chosen concept named and genuinely used to frame the analysis. |
| Evaluation | Reasoned judgement about conditions, not a list of drawbacks. |
An additional set of requirements, word count, article date, source variety, unit and concept coverage, is checked separately. Breaking one of those is expensive and entirely preventable.
Making 800 words go far
The word limit is the real constraint, and it punishes the same habits every year:
- Do not summarise the article. This is the biggest single waste of words. Reference it, quote a figure, move on.
- Do not write a general essay on the topic. The commentary is about this article, not about taxation in general.
- Do not define terms you never use again.
- Cut the introduction. Get to the economics in the first two sentences.
- Use the diagram to carry explanation. A well-labelled diagram replaces a paragraph of prose.
- Put evaluation in full sentences, not a bullet list of drawbacks. Conditions need reasoning, and reasoning needs sentences.
If you are over the limit, cut summary and background first. Never cut evaluation; it is the criterion students most often under-serve, and the one that most reliably separates portfolios.
A workable process
- Plan all three commentaries together. Map unit, key concept and source for each so the coverage rules are satisfied by design.
- Hunt articles with the diagram in mind. Reject anything you cannot draw.
- Draft the diagram before the prose. It organises the analysis and shows immediately whether the article supports a commentary at all.
- Write the analysis first, then frame it. Introductions written first are almost always too long.
- Write evaluation as conditions, ending in a judgement about this case.
- Cut to length, removing summary before substance.
- Check the mechanical rules: words, date, source, unit, concept, before submitting.
Common ways students lose marks
- Choosing an article that is itself economic analysis, then summarising it.
- A diagram that is drawn but never explained in the text.
- The key concept named in the title and never used again.
- Evaluation reduced to two sentences because the word count ran out on background.
- Two commentaries drifting into the same unit or the same key concept.
- Generic theory that would read identically with a different article attached.
Practise this
The IA rewards the same core skill as every IB Economics paper: applying a diagram and a causal chain to a specific real-world situation, then judging it under conditions.
The portal's practice surfaces drill exactly that reasoning, build the chain, anchor it in a real case, and commit to a judgement, which is what turns a descriptive commentary into an analytical one.