Skills

Macroeconomic Policy Analysis

12 weeks · 0 milestones

Analyse a real central bank decision or fiscal policy event — named, dateable, and documented in official sources. Your analysis covers the policy rationale, the economic trade-offs involved, and the likely distributional effects, drawing on real economic data throughout. Proof is the written analysis plus a documented challenge session with an economist or policy practitioner who poses the question: 'What would have happened if the opposite policy were chosen?' Your written response to this counterfactual — engaging with the evidence — is required as part of the proof.

Part of: Economics · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Identify a real macroeconomic policy question and assess the evidence

4 weeks

Select a real contested macroeconomic policy question — fiscal multipliers, monetary policy transmission, quantitative easing effects, or supply-side policy — and assemble the key empirical evidence: at least four studies (two each side), their methodologies, and an initial evidence assessment. Use FRED or World Bank Open Data to produce at least one data visualisation supporting or contextualising the question.

Proof required

Evidence assessment document (600+ words) covering: the policy question, at least four studies with methodologies and findings, initial assessment of the state of evidence, and at least one data visualisation from a free public data source with explanation.

What gets checked

Policy question is empirically contested — not settled macroeconomic theory
At least four studies are identified with methodologies described — not just cited
At least one data visualisation is produced from a real free public data source with the source cited

Common mistakes

Selecting a question with overwhelming one-sided evidence and presenting it as contested
Describing studies by conclusion without describing methodology
Not using real data — a macroeconomic policy assessment without data visualisation is incomplete

Powstik Guide

A 600-word evidence assessment on a macro policy question.

Steps

State the policy question.
Pick four or more studies.
Note each study's method.
Say where evidence agrees and conflicts.

Template

Question:
| Study | Method | Finding |
|-------|--------|---------|
Agreement and conflict:

What gets sent back

Under 600 words.
Sources uncited.
Hypothetical instead of real.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Check at least one cited study is real and findings match the paper
Verify data visualisation is from a real free data source — access the cited link
Review evidence assessment — confirm it reflects the genuine state of the evidence

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Apply a macroeconomic model and derive policy implications

4 weeks

Apply a named macroeconomic framework (IS-LM, AD-AS, New Keynesian DSGE, or sectoral balances) to the M1 policy question. Derive at least two specific policy implications, identify the model's key assumptions, specify which are most likely violated in the real-world context, and explain the gap between model predictions and M1 empirical evidence.

Proof required

Policy analysis document (600+ words) naming the macroeconomic framework, deriving at least two specific policy implications with reasoning, identifying key assumptions, specifying which are most likely violated in context, and explaining the gap between model predictions and M1 evidence.

What gets checked

A specific named macroeconomic framework is applied — not generic 'economic theory'
At least two specific policy implications are derived from the model with reasoning
Gap between model predictions and empirical evidence is explicitly addressed

Common mistakes

Describing the model without applying it to generate specific predictions about this question
Treating model assumptions as background rather than potential failure sources
Not engaging with the M1 empirical evidence to explain prediction/observation gaps

Powstik Guide

A macro model applied to your policy question.

Steps

Pick the framework that fits your question and time frame.
Derive two specific implications, one step at a time.
List the model's key assumptions.
Mark which ones are most likely false here.
Explain gaps between the model and your M1 data.

Template

Framework:
Implication 1 (reasoning):
Implication 2 (reasoning):
| Assumption | Holds here? | Evidence |
|------------|-------------|----------|
Where the model and M1 data disagree, and why:

What gets sent back

The model described but not applied.
Assumptions listed as background only.
No link back to M1 evidence.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Review framework application — confirm it generates specific predictions about this question
Check key assumptions — confirm most-likely-violated assumptions are identified with reasoning
Verify engagement with M1 evidence — confirm the gap is explicitly addressed

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Defend macroeconomic analysis under economist challenge

1 week

Present the analysis to an economist or economics academic for a Q&A. The reviewer must probe model application and recommendations — 'your IS-LM assumes fixed prices — how does relaxing that change conclusions?', 'your evidence comes from one country — how does institutional context affect generalizability?', 'what would falsify your preferred policy position?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.

Proof required

Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's economics credentials, at least three specific challenges to the model application or policy conclusions with responses, and any analysis updates committed to.

What gets checked

Reviewer is an economist or economics academic
At least three specific model or policy challenges are documented
At least one analysis update is committed to based on the session

Common mistakes

Reviewer validates without probing specific model assumptions
Not being able to state what would falsify the preferred policy position
No updates after a genuine macroeconomic methodology challenge

Powstik Guide

Your macro analysis, challenged by an economist.

Steps

Write what evidence would change your policy view.
Mark your shakiest assumption.
Book an economist or economics academic.
Ask for three challenges to model and conclusions.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (a model assumption or policy conclusion):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A reviewer who doesn't probe assumptions.
No answer to 'what would change your mind?'.
No update after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm reviewer is an economist or economics academic
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific model or policy challenges are documented
Check that at least one analysis update is committed to

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Prove Your Economics Chops →Economics 3: Intermediate theory →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Identify a real macroeconomic policy question and assess the evidence

4 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Policy question is empirically contested — not settled macroeconomic theory
At least four studies are identified with methodologies described — not just cited
At least one data visualisation is produced from a real free public data source with the source cited

Common mistakes

Selecting a question with overwhelming one-sided evidence and presenting it as contested
Describing studies by conclusion without describing methodology
Not using real data — a macroeconomic policy assessment without data visualisation is incomplete

Powstik Guide

A 600-word evidence assessment on a macro policy question.

Steps

State the policy question.
Pick four or more studies.
Note each study's method.
Say where evidence agrees and conflicts.

Template

Question:
| Study | Method | Finding |
|-------|--------|---------|
Agreement and conflict:

What gets sent back

Under 600 words.
Sources uncited.
Hypothetical instead of real.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Check at least one cited study is real and findings match the paper
Verify data visualisation is from a real free data source — access the cited link
Review evidence assessment — confirm it reflects the genuine state of the evidence

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Apply a macroeconomic model and derive policy implications

4 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

A specific named macroeconomic framework is applied — not generic 'economic theory'
At least two specific policy implications are derived from the model with reasoning
Gap between model predictions and empirical evidence is explicitly addressed

Common mistakes

Describing the model without applying it to generate specific predictions about this question
Treating model assumptions as background rather than potential failure sources
Not engaging with the M1 empirical evidence to explain prediction/observation gaps

Powstik Guide

A macro model applied to your policy question.

Steps

Pick the framework that fits your question and time frame.
Derive two specific implications, one step at a time.
List the model's key assumptions.
Mark which ones are most likely false here.
Explain gaps between the model and your M1 data.

Template

Framework:
Implication 1 (reasoning):
Implication 2 (reasoning):
| Assumption | Holds here? | Evidence |
|------------|-------------|----------|
Where the model and M1 data disagree, and why:

What gets sent back

The model described but not applied.
Assumptions listed as background only.
No link back to M1 evidence.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Review framework application — confirm it generates specific predictions about this question
Check key assumptions — confirm most-likely-violated assumptions are identified with reasoning
Verify engagement with M1 evidence — confirm the gap is explicitly addressed

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Defend macroeconomic analysis under economist challenge

1 week

Proof required

What gets checked

Reviewer is an economist or economics academic
At least three specific model or policy challenges are documented
At least one analysis update is committed to based on the session

Common mistakes

Reviewer validates without probing specific model assumptions
Not being able to state what would falsify the preferred policy position
No updates after a genuine macroeconomic methodology challenge

Powstik Guide

Your macro analysis, challenged by an economist.

Steps

Write what evidence would change your policy view.
Mark your shakiest assumption.
Book an economist or economics academic.
Ask for three challenges to model and conclusions.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (a model assumption or policy conclusion):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A reviewer who doesn't probe assumptions.
No answer to 'what would change your mind?'.
No update after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm reviewer is an economist or economics academic
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific model or policy challenges are documented
Check that at least one analysis update is committed to

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.