Public Policy · Economic Analysis · Case Competition
Project Overview
Public policy & economic analysis case organized by CBA.
We assessed macro–micro transmission channels for alternative policy packages (stimulus mix, tax levers, sector support),
and balanced growth, inflation and distributional outcomes. Our final proposal prioritized targeted measures with clear
monitoring metrics and fiscal guardrails.
What I Did
Framed objectives and constraints: growth, price stability, employment, fiscal headroom.
Built a lightweight scenario model (elasticities + multipliers) to compare policy options and sector spillovers.
Ran distributional sense-checks (household cohorts / SMEs) and identified at-risk segments.
Outlined risk & implementation plan: data signals to watch, phase-gates, and rollback triggers.
Crafted an executive storyline and exhibits that tied numbers to concrete policy actions.
Reflection
Biggest takeaway: good policy cases are about trade-offs, not single-metric wins. Anchoring the narrative on measurable objectives (growth, inflation, inequality proxies) helped us justify why our package was targeted and phased, rather than broad-brush. Clear monitoring signals and rollback criteria made the recommendations actionable for decision-makers. Another lesson was separating ‘show’ vs. ‘signal’: we avoided false precision and used simple elasticities/multipliers with transparent assumptions, then stress-tested a few edge cases (energy shocks, SME credit tightening). That kept the model explainable while still decision-grade. Finally, packaging mattered as much as modelling. We learned to link each exhibit to a next step: which data the treasury should track, what phase-gates unlock, and what triggers pause/rollback. If iterating, I would add distributional microdata (household/firm panels) and run sensitivity on fiscal rules to quantify trade-offs under tighter headroom. This balance of clarity, humility, and execution detail is what makes a policy case persuasive.