Evaluation and Synthesis: Weighing, Not Just Describing
The evaluative habit
Evaluation and Synthesis requires judgement supported by evidence. You are asked to compare policy options, assess the significance of a change, or reconcile competing models. The examiner wants a clear position, defended with criteria, and an acknowledgement of the limits of your own argument. Synthesis means drawing together micro and macro consequences, short and long run, efficiency and equity.
Criteria to use
Apply these tests explicitly: effectiveness (does it address the cause?), magnitude (how large is the effect?), timeliness (how quickly does it act?), targeting (who actually benefits?), cost to the budget, and unintended consequences. For monetary versus fiscal policy, contrast implementation lag, political constraints, and effectiveness when confidence is low. For microeconomic reform, weigh efficiency gains against transition costs and equity impacts.
Traps in evaluation questions
Avoid listing advantages and disadvantages without a verdict. Avoid vague phrases like 'it depends' unless you specify what it depends on. Do not claim a policy is 'always' effective. Beware of confusing correlation in stimulus data with causation, and of ignoring the counterfactual - what would have happened without the policy?
Worked example
'Evaluate whether raising the cash rate is the best response to demand-pull inflation.' A strong answer states a position, argues that monetary policy is timely and independent, but notes transmission lags of several quarters, disproportionate effects on borrowing-sensitive sectors, and that supply-side inflation would not respond well. Conclude conditionally: it is the appropriate first instrument for demand-driven inflation when the economy is near capacity, less so when the cause is a supply shock.