Rubric · canonical · ECONOMIC-REASONING-v1

Economic reasoning under empirical evidence

For arguments that deploy economic analysis — markets, incentives, distribution — to support a conclusion. Scores reasoning quality, not whether the assumed welfare function is the right one.

Status canonical Criteria 4 (equally weighted) Updated May 2026

When this rubric applies

The argument’s case rests on economic reasoning — an effect on prices, supply, demand, employment, deadweight loss, distributional incidence, or strategic behavior. The disagreement turns on whether the argument’s economic analysis is sound, not on legal interpretation or value choice alone.

Not appropriate when: the case is primarily about whether a policy’s benefits exceed costs given a value hierarchy (use POLICY-TRADEOFF), or about an empirical claim that isn’t economic in nature (use SCIENTIFIC-CLAIM).

Criteria

1. Identification of relevant economic mechanism

weight 25%

Does the argument name the specific economic mechanism it relies on (price elasticity, externality, principal-agent problem, etc.) and apply it to the facts?

10Names the mechanism, identifies the relevant elasticities or coefficients qualitatively, and explains how it produces the predicted effect. 7Names the mechanism but doesn’t scope its magnitude. 4Refers loosely to "market forces" or "incentives" without identifying the specific mechanism. 1Asserts an economic effect without any mechanism.

2. Use of empirical economic evidence

weight 25%

Are predicted effects supported by named studies, comparable cases, or quantitative estimates — or asserted on first principles alone?

10Cites named studies or comparable jurisdictions; quantifies effect sizes where possible. 7Cites real evidence applied to a different context without acknowledging the gap. 4Predicts effects from theory alone; no empirical anchor. 1Predictions contradict the available evidence.

3. Acknowledgment of distributional effects

weight 25%

Does the argument identify who gains and who loses, and weight that distribution explicitly?

10Identifies the affected groups, traces incidence (who pays vs. who benefits), and weights distribution explicitly. 7Acknowledges distribution but treats efficiency and distribution as separable. 4Reports aggregate efficiency only; distributional effects ignored. 1Asserts aggregate gains in ways that obscure who pays.

4. Treatment of second-order consequences

weight 25%

Does the argument acknowledge unintended consequences, behavioral adaptation, or general-equilibrium effects?

10Names the most likely behavioral or general-equilibrium responses and engages each. 7Mentions one second-order effect; ignores another that’s clearly relevant. 4Treats the policy as if first-order effects were the whole story. 1Asserts the policy works as designed without engaging behavioral response.

Version history

v1May 2026 · initial publication