The IB's 2026 examiner instructions specify three commentaries of up to 800 words each, one per different syllabus unit and with articles drawn from three different sources. For each commentary, diagrams and analysis should respond to the specific article, not a textbook scenario. These are the 2026 instructions; students working under a later revised syllabus must verify the requirements for their examination session.
First, reject articles that will produce a generic commentary
Imagine finding a short story with the headline Central bank weighs interest rate change. It mentions inflation but gives no decision, no dates, no affected group, and no economic reasoning. You can draw an aggregate-demand diagram, but it would say little that is specific to this piece of journalism. The problem is not that monetary policy is a bad topic. The article is a weak foundation for your analysis.
Compare that with an article stating that a central bank increased its policy rate from 4.5% to 5.0%, amid falling consumer spending and persistent services inflation. Those figures are a fabricated teaching scenario, not a real article. It contains a clear intervention, a direction of change, conflicting objectives, and groups who may be affected differently. You can analyse the transmission mechanism and then test its limitations using the article's actual evidence.
A completed three-publisher article-selection audit (October 2026)
The following are real dated articles, not fictitious article titles. They are examples of what a student could screen today, not pre-approved IA sources. The articles should be opened and read in full, checked for the permitted publication window, and approved with a teacher before the student commits to a commentary. Article relevance is different from automatically earning IA marks.
| Check | A: Microeconomics | B: Macroeconomics | C: Global economics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual story and date | AP, October 10, 2026: Brazil temporarily reduces fuel taxes and adds diesel support | Reuters, October 7, 2026: Fed minutes describe a September rate rise and debate over inflation | The Guardian, June 25, 2026: UK halves tariff-free steel-import quotas and doubles duty above quota |
| Publication/source independence | Associated Press | Reuters | The Guardian |
| Policy or market event | A temporary fuel-tax cut; distinguish tax removal from diesel subsidy | A previously announced central-bank rate rise; distinguish decision date from later minutes | A 50% duty above a reduced tariff-free quota; not a uniform tariff on all steel |
| Named figure supported by report | Diesel subsidy is reported as an additional 1.40 reais per litre; the measures are time-limited | A quarter-point rise is reported; do not infer a guaranteed decline in inflation | The new quota is reduced by 51% and above-quota duties double to 50% |
| Model worth testing | Price and quantity under a lower per-unit tax or a targeted subsidy; do not mix the two diagrams | AD/AS and monetary transmission; real-world lags and expectations matter | Tariff-plus-quota restrictions; a single tariff-only diagram may omit an essential part of the policy |
| Main evaluation tension | Relief for consumers versus fiscal cost and distributional effects | Price stability versus output and employment | Domestic steel employment versus higher costs to steel users |
| Why it could fail selection | Temporary tax decisions may have little price pass-through data | Meeting minutes are retrospective; verify that the chosen text reports enough original context | Compound quota/tariff rules need more explanation than the available 800-word commentary allows |
Worked decision: I would provisionally shortlist A and B and place C on HOLD. AP offers a product-specific intervention; Reuters identifies the monetary decision but may need extra context to make a non-generic commentary. The Guardian story offers a concrete trade restriction, but the simultaneous quota and above-quota duty complicate a standard tariff diagram. A student who cannot explain both parts accurately should replace C rather than draw the wrong model. The decision is a teaching judgment, not an official IB verdict. Each commentary must use a distinct syllabus unit and key concept; check the current Economics guide for article age and selection requirements.
Turn one report into an argument, not a retelling
Take the hypothetical rate increase. A weak opening merely repeats that the central bank raised rates to reduce inflation. A stronger analysis traces a sequence: a higher policy rate may raise borrowing costs; weaker credit-financed consumption and investment may shift aggregate demand left; the resulting lower demand-side price pressure may involve a cost in output and employment. That is a mechanism, not a guaranteed outcome. The link to observed facts must come from the chosen real article.
The evaluation then asks what could interrupt the mechanism. Fixed-rate borrowers may see no immediate change. Supply-driven inflation may persist even if demand weakens. The policy may operate with lags. Do not write these as a generic final paragraph: identify which limitation is supported by your article, which is economic inference, and what further data would change your judgment.
| Claim you plan to make | Evidence needed | What you can safely conclude |
|---|---|---|
| Borrowing costs will rise | Policy decision and lenders' actual rate responses | Policy transmission is likely, not automatic or immediate |
| Inflation will decline | Inflation series and a justified causal mechanism | Demand pressure might ease; other factors can dominate |
| Households lose | Debt exposure and income distribution | Effects differ across savers, borrowers and workers |
One useful final test
Hide the name of the country and every numerical fact in your draft. If the commentary reads exactly the same, it is probably too generic. Restore the specific decision, values, context, affected groups and uncertainty. Conversely, if every paragraph retells the news and never explains a model, build the economic chain from the beginning.
Before submission, cross-check the article's age, article reproduction and portfolio rubric requirements in the full school-supplied Economics guide. The examiner instructions are authoritative on the points above but do not replace the full guide.
Primary sources and transparency
- IB 2026 Economics examiner instructions, internal assessment and criteria A–F: https://ibpublishing.ibo.org/exinst/apps/exinst/index.html?chapter=3&doc=EX_instructions_2026_e&part=10
- IB Diploma Programme Economics overview and actual portfolio purpose: https://ibo.org/programmes/diploma-programme/curriculum/individuals-and-societies/economics/
The quarter-point and fuel-subsidy figures above come from the named contemporary news reports; the earlier 4.5%-to-5.0% scenario remains explicitly fictitious. The selection judgments are examples, not teacher or IB approval. For draft feedback and existing IB tools, visit ibacalao.com.
Continue with related guides
Check your assessment session against the linked official IB sources. Read our editorial policy and sourcing method.