IB Economics SL Extended Essay Example

The topic is clearly communicated and economically meaningful. By linking rupee depreciation to agricultural trade flows, the student sets up a focused investigation with obvious relevance to Economics and a workable policy context.

The research question is clear, but it is still too broad because it refers to “India’s agricultural exports and imports” while the analysis later focuses only on sugar, cotton, rice, and fertilizers. Narrowing the wording to the selected commodities would make the scope more precise and improve the fit between question and evidence.

This is a strong methodological justification because the student explains why the time frame matters and identifies the key external shocks that must be considered alongside exchange-rate movements. That awareness of confounding variables strengthens the overall focus of the inquiry.

Consider revising the question so it names the exact commodities and distinguishes currency effects from other drivers, such as export bans, quotas, weather, and global prices. That would make the investigation more systematic and easier to evaluate against the data.

The primary research is very limited and highly localised. One family-linked business cannot support national conclusions about Indian agricultural trade, so the student should treat these interviews as illustrative context rather than evidence of country-wide trends.

The methodology would be stronger if the student also explained how source reliability was ranked and how conflicts between sources were resolved. A brief hierarchy of preferred sources—official statistics first, then industry reports, then commentary—would make the selection process more transparent.

This limitation is important, but it is not fully addressed in the later analysis. Because the fertilizer section relies on type-specific claims, the student should either present disaggregated evidence consistently or clearly restrict the conclusions to aggregate fertilizer imports.

The student shows awareness of the key concepts needed for the topic. Bringing policy responsiveness into the framework is a useful disciplinary move because it acknowledges that agricultural markets may not behave like simple textbook exchange-rate examples.

Good choice of source material here. DGCIS is an appropriate primary dataset for trade flows, so using it supports the investigation with relevant official evidence rather than relying mainly on commentary or estimates.

The numerical evidence and later tables are not fully consistent, which weakens the reliability of the knowledge base. Where the essay uses different exchange-rate starting points, the student should reconcile them and explain whether the figures are annual averages, year-end rates, or another measure.

This claim is too general to be convincing without immediate supporting evidence. The student should name the commodities and indicate which tables or figures demonstrate the “mixed response,” otherwise the statement reads as a summary rather than a substantiated finding.

The combined export figures are undermined by inconsistent units and mismatched commodity data elsewhere in the essay. Before making broad claims about total agricultural exports, the student needs a fully consistent dataset with identical definitions and conversion methods across all tables.

The analysis would be clearer if the student separated nominal and real effects explicitly, perhaps with a short note explaining how exchange-rate conversion can raise INR values even when physical volumes fall. That distinction would sharpen the economic argument.

The “policy elasticity” figures are not convincingly defined or comparable to exchange-rate elasticity, so the causal claim is overstated. The student should explain the formula, units, and denominator used, or avoid treating these derived values as if they were standard elasticities.

This is a major analytical gap because the essay does not show how the index was constructed or why 13% is the correct benchmark. The student should present the calculation step-by-step and justify the comparison so the result can be checked.

This is a strong attempt to connect quantitative change with a specific policy mechanism. The student does not stop at description, but explains why the observed decline could occur despite depreciation, which is exactly the kind of causal reasoning this criterion rewards.

What part of that change can truly be attributed to depreciation, and what part is better explained by the export duty introduced in September 2022? A clearer causal split would make the argument much more persuasive.

The statement is too broad for the evidence that follows, because the essay also refers to bans, market segmentation, and changing basmati performance. The student should specify which rice segment is being discussed and tie the stability claim to a precise measure.

Does the data actually reject Marshall-Lerner, or does it show that the condition is not identifiable because policy shocks and commodity-specific controls overwhelm the exchange-rate signal? Distinguishing those two possibilities would strengthen the evaluation.

The discussion becomes more sophisticated here by recognising distributional effects rather than treating trade as a single aggregate outcome. This adds depth because it shows that currency depreciation can create winners and losers within the same sector.

This is a causal claim that needs tighter support, because the figures mix exchange-rate movement, global fertilizer prices, and policy changes without isolating them. The student should avoid attributing the outcome mainly to policy unless the analysis shows how those other influences were controlled for.

The numerical expression here is internally inconsistent and the theoretical claim is oversimplified. The student should use one verified exchange-rate series and then explain why the expected symmetry may break down in a real agricultural market.

The welfare conclusion is asserted too strongly and needs more careful qualification. The student should distinguish between partial-equilibrium effects for specific stakeholders and a full welfare assessment for the economy as a whole.

A cleaner comparison would help here. The student could show a small table separating exchange-rate effects, world-price effects, and policy effects for fertilizers so that the reader can see which factor changed the most.

The report follows a conventional EE structure with clear signposting. The contents page helps the reader navigate the investigation and shows that the student has organised the argument into distinct stages.

This section title signals a more analytical approach than simple description. It prepares the reader for evaluation of who gains and loses from depreciation, which improves the coherence of the report's argument.

The table is useful in principle, but the volume and value figures across this section are inconsistent with later tables and appendices. The student should ensure that every table uses the same commodity definitions and conversion basis so the presentation supports the argument cleanly.

Consider adding a brief caption note or key under each diagram explaining what each axis and curve represents in plain economic terms. That would make the diagrams easier to read and would reduce ambiguity when they are referenced in the analysis.

The title does not match the content, since this section is about fertilizer imports rather than rice exports. Such mismatches confuse the reader and weaken the presentation because they make it harder to trust the surrounding analysis.

This comparative table is a good idea, but some of the figures appear to be derived from inconsistent sources and conversion methods. The student should standardise units and verify the arithmetic before presenting a summary table that carries so much argumentative weight.

The conclusion directly answers the research question and returns to the core debate rather than drifting into new material. That direct alignment between question and final judgement is a strong feature of the structure.