Paper 4 — The Global Economy

Vocabulary Precision List

FORGE · WEC14 Vocabulary Precision List — compiled 2026-09-29, drawing on research/veridian/WEC14-verified-facts.md (14 real exam series, October 2020–January 2025, plus one narrower June 2025 pass, independently verified there against primary Pearson PDFs) and on the trap-taxonomy already built into content/veridian/curriculum/wec14/'s seven lesson files. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Pearson Edexcel. Any directly quoted fragment below stays under ~15 words with its own citation; everything longer is paraphrased.

#WEC14 Vocabulary Precision List (Unit 4: Developments in the Global Economy)

#How to use this document, and how it differs from what's already built

This is not a fourth definitions list. content/veridian/technique-hub/wec14/codex-definitions-and-application-bank.md already defines every named term on the spec, section by section. forge-exam-technique-guide.md already covers the tariff-by-tariff marking mechanics (which parts want evaluation, timing, bullet-point format) and cross-references the curriculum's 40-item trap-taxonomy rather than repeating it. Each curriculum lesson already carries its own trap-taxonomy entries in full depth, with worked chains.

What none of those documents does is put the pairs in one place, organised by the pair rather than by lesson, compressed to what a candidate needs in the last ten minutes before the exam: the two terms, the exact line between them, and why blurring it costs a specific mark — not the full derivation. That's this document's one job. Every entry below is a compression of, and cites, a fuller treatment that already exists in the curriculum or technique-hub files named inline; nothing here is re-derived from scratch, and nothing here is invented to fill space. Citations use the series and question the way the rest of this technique hub does (e.g. "January 2021, Q7(c)").

#Part 1 — Command words: what each one actually buys on this paper

WEC14's mark schemes are precise about which of a small set of command words appears where, and the word itself is a weaker signal than the mark allocation printed next to it. Checked directly against the 14-series archive:

"Explain what is meant by [term]" — Section B's 4-mark part. Knowledge 2 + Application 2; no evaluation is credited or expected. The two application marks require two distinct pieces of data from the source booklet — naming the term and supplying only one supporting fact caps the answer at half marks (January 2021, Q7(c), relative poverty).
"Explain the difference between [X] and [Y]" — the same 4-mark shape, but naming the command word's real target directly: two paired definitions, not one term. Confirmed on the balance-of-trade deficit/surplus pair (June 2024, Q7(b)) — candidates who reversed which definition belonged to which side scored zero, even where both sentences were individually well-written.
"Analyse two [benefits/effects]" and "Examine two [problems/effects]" at 6 marks — this paper uses the two words interchangeably at this specific tariff: Knowledge 2 + Analysis 2 + Application 2, and nothing else. Evaluation is not merely unnecessary here — it earns zero, stated directly twice, four years apart: "evaluated their analysis points... not credited" (January 2021, Q7(b)) and "evaluation is not required and should not be included" (January 2025, Q7(c)).
"Examine two [problems/effects]" at 8 marks — the identical word, "examine," reused at a different tariff: the same K2+AN2+AP2 core plus 2 Evaluation marks, and here evaluation is required, not optional (January 2025, Q7(d)). The word alone never tells you which shape you're in — only the mark allocation printed next to the question does, and it moves between letters (b)/(c)/(d) from series to series.
"Discuss [with reference to the source and your own knowledge]" — Q7(e), 14 marks. Its own separate ladder, KAA out of 8 and Evaluation out of 6, and — unlike every other command word on this paper — neither half can reach Level 4 at all. A heavier-sounding command word than "evaluate," with a lower ceiling than the Section C essay gets.
"Evaluate [...]" — Section C, 20 marks. KAA out of 12 (Level 4 available), Evaluation out of 8 (capped at Level 3). Carries the country-gate and, on development questions, a second independent gate for conflating growth with development (see Part 2 below).

A bounded negative finding, worth stating because other IAL Economics papers use a wider command-word set: the 14-series archive checked for this course contains no instance of "distinguish between," "assess," "outline," "compare," or "to what extent" as a Section B or Section C command word. WEC14's own evaluative vocabulary in the sampled archive is just two words — "discuss" (Q7(e) only) and "evaluate" (Section C only) — and its non-evaluative vocabulary is "explain" and "analyse"/"examine." Don't import a command-word convention from a different paper.

#Part 2 — Technical term-pairs the mark schemes are precise about

Each entry: the pair, the exact line between them, and the citation. Full derivations, diagrams and worked chains live at the file named in brackets — this is the compressed lookup, not the lesson.

#4.3.1 Globalisation

Causes vs effects. A question asking for the causes of increased globalisation (trade liberalisation, trading blocs, political change, transport/communication costs, TNC significance) is not answered by describing what globalisation then does — confirmed directly: candidates "discussed the effects of globalisation instead" (January 2022, Q8). The reverse also happens: asked for the costs side of a benefits-vs-costs question, some candidates instead re-explained why globalisation happened, going "tangential" (October 2022, Q9). Both directions are independently confirmed, in different series. [globalisation.ts, trap explains-effects-when-asked-for-causes / explains-causes-when-asked-for-costs]

#4.3.2 Trade and the global economy

Comparative advantage vs absolute advantage. Absolute advantage — who produces more per hour — is not the decision rule for who should specialise in what; comparative advantage — who gives up less of the other good — is. October 2024's weakest MCQ turned on reading an opportunity-cost table the wrong way round: candidates couldn't identify "a lower opportunity cost in the production of watches" correctly from the given data (October 2024, Q4). [trade-theory-and-comparative-advantage.ts]
Patterns-of-trade factors vs comparative-advantage causes. A question on factors influencing patterns of trade between countries (trading-bloc size, protectionism, exchange rates, competitiveness, FDI, deindustrialisation) is a different question from comparative-advantage causes generically — confirmed as the weakest of three Section C questions in January 2024, where candidates conflated the two. [Q9]
Trade creation vs trade diversion. Trade creation is the comparative-advantage-based efficiency gain from joining a bloc; trade diversion is importing from a less efficient bloc member instead of a more efficient outside producer, purely because the tariff makes the outside producer artificially dearer. Trade diversion is consistently the top evaluative counterpoint credited against trade creation on trading-bloc essays (January 2023, Q8, full 11-bullet KAA / 10-bullet Evaluation indicative content).
Customs union — the definition needs both halves. Free trade between members is only the free-trade-area half; a customs union additionally requires a common external tariff on imports from outside the bloc. Confirmed directly: candidates who supplied only the free-trade half scored one of the two marks on offer (January 2022, Q7(c)). [terms-of-trade-and-trading-blocs.ts, trap customs-union-needs-both-halves-of-the-definition]
A tariff diagram has (at least) four distinct areas, not one. Government tariff revenue is a rectangle, and October 2020's weakest MCQ showed candidates computing it on the wrong volume. Consumer surplus lost and producer surplus gained are two different trapezoids on either side of the new price, and October 2021's examiner report gives the single most direct instruction in this whole archive: "Distinction between consumer and producer surplus needs to be covered" (October 2021, Q4). Two separate series, two separate areas on the same diagram both confirmed as weak spots. [terms-of-trade-and-trading-blocs.ts, traps tariff-diagram-area-reading / consumer-surplus-vs-producer-surplus-on-a-tariff-diagram]

#4.3.3 Balance of payments, exchange rates and competitiveness

Devaluation/revaluation vs depreciation/appreciation. The first pair belongs to a fixed or managed regime — a deliberate, announced change; the second belongs to a floating regime — the same directional move happening through market forces, with no single decision-maker choosing it. Confirmed as a recurring MCQ-distractor trap across three separate series (October 2020, January 2021, January 2022).
Which account moves first after a depreciation. The instinct is to reach for the current account (where Marshall-Lerner and the J-curve live), but portfolio and speculative capital can move within hours while trade volumes take months to adjust. Confirmed directly: candidates failed to identify "an improvement in the capital and financial account" as the most likely first effect of a depreciation (January 2021, Q3 MCQ).
Monetary policy vs fiscal policy, specifically inside FX intervention. Interest-rate changes and quantitative easing are monetary tools set by the central bank; government spending and taxation don't intervene in the FX market directly at all. Confirmed: candidates who "confused fiscal policy with monetary policy" on a central-bank-intervention question scored zero for that content (October 2022, Q7(d)).
Balance of trade deficit vs surplus. Deficit is imports greater than exports, (X − M) negative; surplus is the reverse, (X − M) positive. Confirmed directly on the paper's own "explain the difference" version of this pair (see Part 1, item 2): candidates "simply reversed the definitions" (June 2024, Q7(b)).
National debt vs current-account deficit. A stock (everything ever borrowed and not yet repaid) versus a flow (one year's trade-and-income imbalance) — genuinely different measurements, not two names for the same thing. Confirmed directly: candidates who "confused national debt with current account deficit" on this exact pairing scored zero (June 2022, Q7(b)). [balance-of-payments-exchange-rates-and-competitiveness.ts, trap debt-is-not-the-deficit]
IMF vs World Bank — confirmed twice, in two different source-booklet contexts. The IMF lends short-term to fix a balance-of-payments or currency crisis, usually with policy conditions attached; the World Bank funds long-term development projects. Confirmed independently in a growth-strategies essay ("confused about the roles of the IMF and the World Bank and flipped them", June 2023, Q9) and, separately, inside a balance-of-payments-crisis source booklet ("confused role of the IMF with the World Bank", October 2023, Q7(d)). The same June 2023 report adds a related, distinct error: TNCs are not international institutions and score zero if listed as one — "Focus on World Bank, IMF, WTO and NGOs."

#4.3.4 Poverty and inequality

Absolute poverty vs relative poverty. Absolute poverty is a fixed real threshold (unable to meet basic necessities); relative poverty is pegged to the median of the country's own income distribution, not a fixed line. This is the single sharpest failure rate in the whole archive: only 6% of candidates attained full marks on relative poverty, with a common wrong answer defining it as "below the median" outright, and some candidates confusing it directly with absolute poverty (January 2021, Q7(c)).
Causes of inequality vs policies to reduce it. A question asking for government policies to reduce income inequality is not answered by explaining why inequality exists in the first place. Confirmed directly: "Those who mentioned causes of income or wealth inequality did not attain any marks" (June 2022, Q10).

#4.3.5 The role of the state in the macroeconomy

Defining a term vs explaining a change in it. A question asking what would reduce a fiscal deficit, or what a smaller deficit means, is not answered by defining fiscal deficit itself. Confirmed directly: candidates who defined the term but never addressed the change scored no marks for it (October 2020, Q7(c)).

#4.3.6 Growth and development in developing, emerging and developed economies

Harrod-Domar model vs Lewis dual-sector model — a genuinely two-way confusion. Harrod-Domar is about the savings ratio and capital-output ratio driving a growth rate; no labour market or two-sector structure appears in it. Lewis is about surplus labour moving between two named sectors at a wage; no savings ratio appears in it. Confirmed both directions, a year apart: on a question whose answer was Lewis, "many confused this for the Harrod-Domar model" (January 2022); on a question whose answer was Harrod-Domar, candidates named Lewis instead (January 2021).
Economic growth vs economic development. Growth is a rise in real GDP; development is the broader improvement in health, education and capability that growth makes possible but doesn't guarantee — a real divergence, not just a theoretical one: the same period saw South Sudan's HDI fall from 0.43 to 0.39 while its GDP moved independently of that trend. Confirmed directly: "Some candidates were also confused between economic growth and economic development" (January 2024, Q10) — a question that also carries a second, independent mark-scheme gate purely for this substitution, stacked on top of the usual country gate.
Market-orientated vs interventionist strategies. This is the single cleanest, most-repeated zero-credit trap in the archive, confirmed in two separate series: naming an interventionist strategy (state-run infrastructure, a national development bank) inside an answer that specifically asked for market-orientated strategies scores zero for that content, not partial credit. June 2024 names the exact example candidates keep reaching for — infrastructure spending (roads, airports) — and confirms "those who explained the latter, attained no marks". January 2024 confirms the same zero-credit pattern independently. A stand-alone MCQ version of the same confusion appears too: candidates mistook buffer stock schemes (state/agency-run) for a market-orientated strategy on an October 2021 Niger question, where the correct answer was microfinance.
Foreign currency gap — a two-part definition, not "low reserves." The credited definition is a flow comparison — currency inflows less than currency outflows — not the stock of reserves on hand. Confirmed directly: most candidates who attempted this "explain it in terms of lack of foreign currency reserves" and lost half the marks for supplying only one side of the comparison (October 2023, Q7(b)).

#Paper-wide, not tied to one topic

Analysis vs copying the source. A sentence that would be exactly as true with the source booklet closed is not earning an analysis mark. Confirmed in near-identical wording across two series on two different topics: candidates "copied paragraphs from the extract and were not able to obtain analysis marks" (October 2021, Q7(d); repeated word for word, June 2024, Q7(d)).
Evaluation vs proposing a solution. A question asking to examine problems or discuss strategies actually used is not the same question as "what would you recommend" — proposing your own fix instead of evaluating what's already in front of you scores zero for evaluation, however sound the fix is. Confirmed in the same two series above, on the adjacent evaluation-band content: candidates "gave solutions to these problems rather than directly answering the question" (October 2021, Q7(d); June 2024, Q7(e)).
Percentage change vs percentage-point change. The single most repeated calculation error on the paper, confirmed across at least four distinct question types and series: a terms-of-trade index calculation (October 2020, Q7(a)); a UK Bank Rate move from 4% to 3.5%, where candidates wrote "a 0.5% fall and not a 0.5 percentage point fall" (October 2020, Q7(d)); an income-tax MCQ moving 45%→47%, where the examiner report states plainly candidates should know "the difference between percentage change and percentage point change" (January 2022, Q4); and a repeated pattern on further terms-of-trade calculations (January 2023, October 2023). A rate change is a percentage-point figure; a change expressed relative to the starting value is a percentage change, and the two numbers are only equal when the starting value happens to be 100.
Paired "X vs Y" definitions get reversed under pressure — the general pattern behind several entries above. Confirmed independently for two structurally unrelated pairs on this exact paper: absolute vs relative poverty (January 2021) and balance-of-trade deficit vs surplus (June 2024, "simply reversed the definitions"). Any paired definition on this spec is a real reversal risk worth a deliberate, separate check before writing either half down — not just the two pairs directly confirmed.

#Flagged, not confirmed

Consistent with this course's own standing discipline: one further pair sits directly next to a confirmed one in the spec's own wording and is plausible by the same logic, but has no examiner-report quote behind it for this specific pair. poverty-and-inequality.ts's own trap-taxonomy already states this honestly, and this document repeats that framing rather than upgrading it: wealth inequality vs income inequality (a stock of assets minus debts, vs a flow of earnings over a period) sits next to absolute/relative poverty in spec 4.3.4, and the general reversed-definitions pattern above would predict it as a risk — but no examiner report in the 13 read names this exact pair as a confirmed candidate error. Listed here as a real, named risk, not a verified one.

#Sources used

research/veridian/WEC14-verified-facts.md (primary, provenance-checked source, 14 series' worth of question papers and mark schemes, 13 with a matching examiner report, October 2020–January 2025, plus a narrower June 2025 pass); the trap-taxonomy blocks of all seven files in content/veridian/curriculum/wec14/ (globalisation.ts, trade-theory-and-comparative-advantage.ts, terms-of-trade-and-trading-blocs.ts, balance-of-payments-exchange-rates-and-competitiveness.ts, poverty-and-inequality.ts, the-role-of-the-state.ts, growth-and-development.ts), read directly for this document rather than trusted from summary; forge-exam-technique-guide.md for the tariff-by-tariff command-word/mark-allocation mapping in Part 1. No claim above is made about any series or question not already cited in one of those files.