Home › Learning Hub › IB DP Economics › The internal assessment (IA)
IA

The internal assessment: portfolio of commentaries

Assessment · SL and HL

The internal assessment (IA) in Economics is a portfolio of three short commentaries, each analysing a recent news article through economic theory and one of the nine key concepts. It is the same task at SL and HL, worth 30% of the SL grade and 20% of the HL grade, and it is the one component you control completely. Most lost marks come from the rubric (wrong sources or dates), not from economics, so read the rules first.

🎯What this page covers

  • The portfolio rules: articles, units, sources, dates, word limit and what counts towards it.
  • The nine key concepts and how to use one as a “lens”.
  • The six assessment criteria (A–F), in plain language.
  • A step-by-step method and a worked commentary plan.

📚The requirements

Three commentaries
one on each of Unit 2 (microeconomics), Unit 3 (macroeconomics) and Unit 4 (the global economy). Unit 1 cannot be used.
Maximum 800 words each
moderators stop reading at 800 words.
45 marks in total
14 marks per commentary (criteria A–E) × 3 = 42, plus 3 marks for the whole portfolio (criterion F).

The articles:

  • From a newspaper, journal or the internet; not from television or radio.
  • Published no earlier than one year before you write the commentary.
  • Each from a different source (three different publications).
  • You choose them yourself; the teacher cannot hand an article to the class. Commentaries are individual work.
  • Short articles are best; if an article is long, highlight the section you are commenting on. If the article is in another language, include an accurate translation of the whole article and the original.

On each commentary record: the article’s title, source (with date of access for web sources), date of publication, date the commentary was written, word count, the unit of the syllabus, and the key concept used.

Not included in the word count: acknowledgments, contents page, diagrams, labels of five words or fewer, diagram headings of ten words or fewer, tables of statistics, equations, formulae and calculations, citations in the body, and references in footnotes or endnotes. Included: definitions and quotations in the body. Footnotes may only be used for references.

Your teacher can read one draft of each commentary and give advice, but cannot edit it. The next version is the final one.

The nine key concepts

Each commentary must use a different key concept as the lens through which you analyse the article. Using the same concept twice costs up to 3 marks on criterion D; three times, up to 6.

Scarcity · Choice · Efficiency
Equity · Economic well-being · Sustainability
Change · Interdependence · Intervention

Choose the concept that genuinely fits the article, and build the whole commentary around it, not a sentence at the end. For example, an article on a fuel subsidy cut might be read through equity (who bears the cost?), efficiency (does the subsidy cause overconsumption?) or intervention (should the government set fuel prices?). See 1.1 for the concepts.

The assessment criteria (in plain language)

A. Diagrams (3 marks)
Relevant diagrams that are accurate and correctly labelled, and fully explained in the text with reference to the article. An unexplained diagram scores low however neat it is.
B. Terminology (2 marks)
Economic terms relevant to the article used appropriately throughout, not just defined once.
C. Application and analysis (3 marks)
Relevant theory applied to the article throughout, with effective analysis: why and how things happen, linked to the facts in the article.
D. Key concept (3 marks)
A key concept is identified and its link to the article fully explained. Zero if it repeats a concept from another commentary.
E. Evaluation (3 marks)
Judgments supported by effective and balanced reasoning: consequences for stakeholders, short versus long run, assumptions, alternatives, and a conclusion.
F. Rubric requirements (3 marks, whole portfolio)
One mark for each: every article from a different unit; every article from a different and appropriate source; every article published no more than a year before the commentary was written.

A method that works

  1. Find the article. Look for a short, recent news story about one clear economic event or policy: a tax, a price change, a central bank decision, a tariff, an exchange rate move. Opinion pieces with no facts are hard to use; long reports are hard to cover in 800 words.
  2. Identify the theory that explains it (usually one main diagram, sometimes two) and the key concept that best fits.
  3. Plan about 800 words: introduction and definitions (~100), theory and diagram(s) applied to the article (~350), key concept woven through, evaluation (~300), conclusion (~50).
  4. Draw the diagram with real labels from the article (the actual market, the actual tax) and explain every shift in the text.
  5. Evaluate using the article’s facts: who gains and loses, what could go wrong, what else could be done.
  6. Check the rubric: dates, sources, units, concepts, word count, cover information.

✏️Worked commentary plan

Suppose you find a recent online news article reporting that a province heavily dependent on tourism has introduced a compulsory levy on each foreign visitor, with the revenue earmarked for protecting the environment and local culture, and that tourism businesses fear fewer arrivals. Plan a Unit 2 commentary.

Unit: 2, microeconomics (market for tourism services; government intervention). Key concept: sustainability. (Alternatives: intervention, equity.)

Introduction (~100 words): summarize the article’s facts (the levy, its size, what the revenue is for). Define a per-unit indirect tax, externalities and sustainability.

Theory and diagrams (~350 words):

  • Diagram 1: the levy as a per-visitor tax: supply of tourism services shifts up by the levy; price paid by visitors rises; number of visits falls; revenue rectangle (2.7).
  • Diagram 2: mass tourism causes negative externalities of consumption (waste, water use, congestion, damage to reefs and cultural sites); MSB below MPB; overconsumption; the levy moves visits towards the social optimum, and the earmarked revenue funds clean-up (2.8).
  • Link each step to the article (quotes, figures) and to sustainability: preserving the natural and cultural resources the industry depends on for future generations; beaches and reefs as common pool resources.

Evaluation (~300 words): demand for a long-haul holiday is likely price inelastic for a small levy relative to the total trip cost, so arrivals may fall only slightly (little effect on behaviour, but good revenue); impact on stakeholders (hotels, guides, visitors, local residents, the provincial government); whether the revenue is actually spent on sustainability (governance, transparency); collection problems and evasion; alternatives (regulation of development, visitor caps at sensitive sites, education); short run versus long run.

Conclusion (~50 words): a judgment on whether the levy is likely to make tourism more sustainable, and under what conditions.

Check it. Is every diagram explained using the article’s own facts? Is sustainability discussed throughout, not only in the last line? Does the evaluation weigh arguments and reach a judgment? Is the article less than a year old, from a source you have not used for the other two commentaries?
Writing an essay about the topic instead of a commentary on the article. The IA is about this article: every paragraph should connect theory to its specific facts. Generic textbook paragraphs score poorly on criterion C.

📝Checklist questions

Use these on each draft.

1. My article is 14 months old but very relevant. Can I use it?
No. It must be published no earlier than one year before the commentary is written; otherwise you lose a criterion F mark for the whole portfolio. Find a more recent article on the same issue.
2. Two of my articles are from the same newspaper but different sections. Is that allowed?
No: each commentary needs a different source. Different sections of the same publication count as the same source.
3. Do my diagrams count towards the 800 words?
No. Diagrams, short labels (five words or fewer) and headings (ten words or fewer) are excluded, as are tables of data, equations and calculations, and references. But the explanation of the diagram in the text does count, and it is what earns criterion A marks.
4. Can I use “intervention” in two commentaries if they are about different policies?
No. Each commentary must use a different key concept; repeating one loses marks on criterion D. Look for a different lens for the second article (equity, efficiency, economic well-being…).
5. How many diagrams should a commentary have?
Usually one or two relevant, well-explained diagrams. More diagrams do not earn more marks; each one needs full explanation in the text, which uses words.
6. My article is an opinion column arguing for a policy. Is that a problem?
It can work, but only if it contains enough economic facts to analyse (a specific policy, figures, effects). A news report of an event or decision is usually easier: you supply the analysis and evaluation, rather than responding to someone else’s.

🔗Go deeper — other people’s work

These are external resources, not mine. If one stops working, tell me and everything above it on this page still stands.

  • Your teacher and the IB’s Economics guide — the full criteria and the teacher support material.
  • Reuters, the Jakarta Post, The Guardian, Bloomberg and the BBC News website — reliable, dated online sources.
  • Google News with date filters — to check that an article is within the one-year limit.