How we work.

We select policy topics based on three criteria: (1) the policy is economically significant — it materially affects the welfare of a large number of people; (2) there is a meaningful body of economic research that can inform the analysis; and (3) the topic is frequently misrepresented in public debate, making clear explanation genuinely valuable.

We prioritize depth over breadth. It is more useful to explain five policies thoroughly than fifty policies superficially. Our current focus areas — housing, labor, antitrust, privacy, and education — were chosen because they represent areas where law and economics intersect most directly in ways that affect ordinary people.

Each explainer is grounded in peer-reviewed academic research, government data, and analysis from reputable nonpartisan research institutions. We prioritize published research over working papers, and empirical research over theoretical modeling where possible.

We do not rely on advocacy documents, press releases, or politically affiliated think tanks as primary sources. When we cite think tanks, we note their ideological orientation where relevant.

All sources are listed at the bottom of each explainer with links to the original publications.

Many policy questions have genuinely contested empirical answers. We handle this in three ways: (1) we describe the state of the evidence accurately, including where experts disagree; (2) we note the strength of the evidence base (e.g., "strong consensus," "contested," "limited research"); and (3) we explain why disagreements persist — often because studies use different methods, examine different contexts, or measure different outcomes.

We do not manufacture false balance. Where there is a genuine scientific consensus — as there is about rent control reducing housing supply — we represent that consensus accurately, even if it is politically inconvenient.

Every policy involves tradeoffs. We are committed to making those tradeoffs explicit rather than presenting policies as unambiguous goods or bads. This means:

— We always ask: who benefits, and who bears the cost? — We distinguish between short-run and long-run effects, which often diverge. — We note targeting efficiency: does the policy reach those it is designed to help? — We consider opportunity costs: what else could achieve the same goal more efficiently?

We do not tell readers what policy they should support. We give them the information they need to form their own views.

We do not accept advertising or sponsored content. We do not have any institutional affiliations with political parties, government agencies, or industry groups. We do not publish analysis of specific legislative proposals or take positions on electoral issues. We do not engage in advocacy.