By the end of the night, she had done three papers. Her room was a sea of diagrams, evaluation points, and examiner’s notes scribbled in red. But something had changed. The exam was no longer a monster hiding in the dark. It was a predictable machine. Paper 1 was always theory and evaluation. Paper 2 was data response and real-world application. Paper 3 (HL) was calculation and policy.
On exam day, Maya walked into the hall not with fear, but with familiarity. When she opened Paper 1 and saw a question on indirect taxes and subsidies, she smiled. She had written that exact evaluation point about the regressive nature of taxes three nights ago.
Next, she pulled out Paper 2, November 2022. The insert was a news article about rising coffee prices in Vietnam due to a drought. The questions were brutal: calculate the PED, explain two supply-side factors, and evaluate the effectiveness of a price ceiling. Ib Econ Past Papers
When she finished with ten minutes to spare, she leaned back. The student next to her was still erasing furiously.
Then she wrote: “While demerit goods (e.g., cigarettes) generate negative consumption externalities, taxation is not always the optimal solution. If demand is inelastic, the tax may not reduce quantity significantly, and deadweight loss may be small, but the tax becomes regressive.” She cited a real-world example: Singapore’s high tobacco taxes versus the black market in e-cigarettes. By the end of the night, she had done three papers
When the timer buzzed, her hand was cramped, but her confidence was not. She compared her answer to the markscheme. She had missed one key point: the role of cross-elasticity of demand for substitutes. A point lost, but a lesson learned.
Looking into IB Econ past papers hadn’t just taught her the syllabus. It had taught her the exam’s personality —its love for diagrams, its obsession with evaluation, its hatred for one-sided arguments. And in doing so, it had turned a stressed student into a strategist. The exam was no longer a monster hiding in the dark
She didn’t stop there.
She wrote steadily. Diagrams first. Then definitions. Then real-world examples: carbon taxes in Sweden, sugar taxes in Mexico. For evaluation, she used the “depends on” framework: “The effectiveness depends on the elasticity of demand, the presence of merit good alternatives, and the government’s ability to enforce the tax.”