Policy Court is a column advising America’s economic policy decisions in the format of Supreme Court resolutions. Whereas a single author offers criticisms and solutions in a traditional economics column, the authors of Policy Court assess each policy decision with a majority opinion, and are given the added flexibility to concur with that solution, concur in part and dissent in part, or dissent completely.
America trusts this format to address its most controversial legal issues because it allows for a varied interpretation of the law, building a consensus while still providing the opinions of the minority. So why not apply the Supreme Court format to economics? Given the debate over the legitimacy and application of economic theories—not to mention economists’ varied outlook on future domestic growth—it makes particular sense.
How to read the resolutions:
Each Policy Court resolution begins with the majority opinion of the court. This opinion, delivered by its primary author, offers the analysis and solutions to which the majority of the justices agree. When a justice agrees completely with the majority opinion, he or she will sign it. If a justice agrees with the solution offered in the majority opinion, but takes issue with how the court arrived at that solution, or wants to add something not included in the opinion, he or she will file a concurring opinion. When a justice disagrees with the opinion of the court, he or she will file a dissenting opinion, consisting of that justice’s own analysis of the situation and proposed economic policy solution.
With economic issues that require multiple policy solutions, a justice may concur in part and dissent in part with the court’s opinion. In these cases the justice will cite where they agree with the majority’s analysis and where they find it flawed.
