- Evaluation marks go to answers that test a theory against what actually happened. A real example is the fastest way to do that.
- A good example has four parts: a name, a date, one hard number and a judgement about what it proves.
- Below are 12 short, referenced cases mapped to exam topics, from the UK sugar levy to the Federal Reserve’s 2022–23 rate rises.
- Each case has an “evaluation angle”: when the theory works or fails.
- Exam point: never just name-drop. Use the case to question an assumption, then reach a conclusion.
The problem: your essay has theory but no evidence
You know the diagram. You explain why a tax on sugary drinks shifts supply left, in two clean paragraphs. The mark comes back in the middle band, with a note: “limited evaluation”.
What went wrong? Your answer stayed in the textbook world, where firms do not react and governments get exactly what they intend. Examiners want to see that you know the real world is messier. The quickest way to show it is a real case: a policy that was tried, with a date, a number and a judgement.
Compare two sentences. “A sugar tax will reduce consumption if demand is elastic.” And: “When the UK levy began in April 2018, many firms cut the sugar in their drinks to get under the 5 g per 100 ml threshold, so the tax worked mainly through reformulation, not through higher prices.” The second sentence earns evaluation credit: it tests the theory against evidence. Below you will learn to build that kind of sentence, then get 12 ready-made cases, each checked against official sources or peer-reviewed research.
How real examples earn evaluation marks
Exam boards reward three broad skills: knowledge, analysis and evaluation. The Cambridge International AS and A Level Economics syllabus (9708) describes evaluation as recognising the assumptions and limits of models, judging the strength of arguments and reaching reasoned conclusions. It weights evaluation at 25% of the marks at both AS and A Level [1].
Need real examples for essays? 100 economics case studies with data and exam guidance.Get 100 case studies · $9
A useful example has four parts:
| Part | What to write | Example (UK sugar levy) |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Who, where | UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy |
| Date | When it happened | From 6 April 2018 |
| Number | One figure you can defend | 24p per litre on drinks with 8 g or more of sugar per 100 ml |
| Judgement | What it proves, and its limit | Firms cut sugar to avoid the tax, so the price signal was only part of the story |
One accurate number beats three vague ones. If you are unsure of a figure, give the direction and rough size (“about half”). Never invent precision.
12 real case examples, mapped to exam topics
Each case gives the facts, the topic and an evaluation angle. Every fact is referenced.
1. UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (indirect taxes, PED, incidence)
Facts: From 6 April 2018 the UK charged producers 18p per litre on drinks with 5 g to under 8 g of sugar per 100 ml, and 24p per litre at 8 g or more [2]. A study in PLOS Medicine found that the share of eligible drinks above the 5 g threshold fell to 15.4% by February 2019, against about 49% had the pre-levy trend continued. Prices of high-levy drinks rose by £0.075 per litre, a pass-through of 31% [3].
Evaluation angle: The tiered design changed what firms made, not just what consumers paid: a response the simple tax diagram ignores.
2. Scotland’s minimum unit price for alcohol (minimum prices, demerit goods)
Facts: Scotland introduced a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol in 2018 and raised it to 65p after a parliamentary vote in April 2024 [4]. Public Health Scotland estimated a 13.4% fall in deaths directly caused by alcohol, a 4.1% fall in hospital admissions, and a 3% fall in alcohol consumption measured by retail sales [5].
Evaluation angle: A small fall in total drinking can still mean a large health gain, if the price floor bites mainly on the cheapest, strongest drinks bought by heavy drinkers. Unlike a tax, the extra revenue goes to retailers, not the government.
3. San Francisco rent control (maximum prices, supply in the long run)
Facts: Studying an expansion of rent control in San Francisco, Diamond, McQuade and Qian found it cut tenants’ mobility by 20%, while affected landlords cut rental housing supply by 15%, mainly by selling to owner-occupiers and redeveloping [6].
Evaluation angle: Sitting tenants gained, but supply fell, which the authors suggest likely pushed up market rents in the long run. Short-run winners, long-run losers.
4. OPEC+ production cut, October 2022 (oligopoly, cartels, collusion)
Facts: On 5 October 2022 OPEC and its non-OPEC partners agreed to cut overall production by 2 million barrels per day from November 2022, measured against required production levels for August 2022 [7].
Evaluation angle: A cartel restricts output to raise price, like a monopoly. But members have an incentive to cheat, demand is more elastic in the long run, and outside producers can expand.
5. Google Shopping fine (monopoly power, abuse of dominance)
Facts: On 27 June 2017 the European Commission fined Google €2.42 billion for abusing its dominance in general search by giving its own comparison shopping service prominent placement and demoting rivals. Google’s search shares exceeded 90% in most countries of the European Economic Area [8].
Evaluation angle: Dominance is not illegal; abusing it is. When the service is free to users, the harm shows up as less choice and innovation, not a higher price.
6. New Jersey’s minimum wage rise (labour markets, monopsony)
Facts: On 1 April 1992 New Jersey raised its minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.05 an hour, while neighbouring Pennsylvania stayed at $4.25. Card and Krueger surveyed 410 fast-food restaurants before and after. Employment in New Jersey rose by 13% relative to Pennsylvania [9].
Evaluation angle: The competitive model predicts job losses. The result fits monopsony, where a minimum wage can raise both pay and employment.
7. EU Emissions Trading System (negative externalities, tradable permits)
Facts: The European Commission reports that emissions in the sectors covered by the EU ETS are around 50% below 2005 levels, with a 5% fall in 2024 compared with 2023 [10].
Evaluation angle: A cap fixes the quantity of pollution and the market sets the price; a carbon tax does the reverse. Other forces, such as cheaper renewables, also cut emissions, so not all of the fall is due to the ETS.
8. US tariffs on washing machines, 2018 (protectionism, tariffs)
Facts: Flaaen, Hortaçsu and Tintelnot found that the 2018 US tariffs on washing machines raised washer prices by nearly 12%. Prices of dryers, which faced no tariff, rose by about the same amount [11].
Evaluation angle: Consumers paid more than the tariff diagram suggests, because the price of a complementary good rose too. Who really bears a tariff?
9. Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation (money supply, inflation)
Facts: Hanke and Kwok measured Zimbabwe’s inflation at its peak in November 2008: 79.6 billion per cent a month, an annual rate of 89.7 sextillion per cent [12].
Evaluation angle: This is the quantity theory at its most extreme: printing money to finance a deficit. But collapsing output made it worse, so the supply of real goods matters too.
10. The Federal Reserve’s tightening, 2022–23 (monetary policy)
Facts: On 16 March 2022 the Federal Reserve raised the target range for the federal funds rate to 0.25–0.50%. By 26 July 2023 it had raised the range to 5.25–5.50% [13].
Evaluation angle: Higher rates work with long and variable lags, and supply-shock inflation responds less to them than demand-pull inflation does.
11. The US CARES Act, 2020 (fiscal policy, multiplier, debt)
Facts: The CARES Act was enacted on 27 March 2020. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated it would increase federal deficits by about $1.7 trillion over 2020–2030 [14].
Evaluation angle: In a deep recession with idle resources, crowding out is weak and the multiplier larger. The cost is higher public debt.
12. Ukraine’s economy in 2022 (supply shocks, AD/AS, the costs of war)
Facts: The National Bank of Ukraine reported that real GDP fell by 29.1% in 2022, the deepest annual drop in Ukraine’s history. It pointed to the occupation of territory, destruction of infrastructure, the blockade of Black Sea ports, mass migration and power shortages after attacks on energy infrastructure [15].
Evaluation angle: War shifts SRAS and LRAS left and cuts AD at the same time. With capital destroyed and workers gone, recovery depends on reconstruction, not stimulus alone.
The Economics of War: 20 fully referenced case studies, from 2022–2026 wars to post-war recoveries.Get the book · $9
Turning a case into marks: worked examples
Write an evaluation paragraph for: “Discuss whether an indirect tax is the best way to reduce consumption of sugary drinks.”
The paragraph now contains a judgement backed by evidence.
Use the 31% pass-through on the 24p rate to say who bore the levy, and what that suggests about elasticities.
Most of the levy fell on producers, which helps explain the reformulation.
Zimbabwe’s monthly inflation peaked at 79.6 billion per cent. Roughly how often were prices doubling?
Prices were roughly doubling every day: money lost half its value overnight.
What you can do free, and what the book adds
This post gives you 12 cases with one or two facts each, enough to lift an essay, and the free guides on this site cover the theory. If you want more depth, the Economics Case Studies book has 100 fully analysed cases across 23 topic sections, each with a narrative, key data, worked maths, an expert quote, step-by-step exam guidance and academic references, in 543 pages. Flip through the free sample on the product page before you decide. For theory and diagrams, the Economics Made Simple textbook covers 30 chapters, and the Economics Made Simple Practice Questions book has 450 exam-style questions with mark schemes.
Textbook, 450 questions, 358 flashcards and 100 case studies: the Economics Made Simple Bundle for $29 (was $42).Get the bundle · $29
Practice questions
EasyQ1. Which two of the 12 cases would best support an essay on government intervention through price controls? Give one fact from each. Show worked answer
San Francisco rent control (a price ceiling): affected landlords cut rental supply by 15%.
EasyQ2. Scotland’s minimum price rose from 50p to 65p per unit. Calculate the percentage increase. Show worked answer
MediumQ3. The upper limit of the federal funds target range was 0.50% after March 2022 and 5.50% after July 2023. By how many percentage points did it rise, and why is “percentage points” the right unit? Show worked answer
Both numbers are already percentages, so the gap is a difference in percentage points. Saying “rose by 1,000%” (the proportional change) would confuse the reader.
MediumQ4. Suppose the same 31% pass-through applied to the lower levy rate of 18p per litre. How much would consumers pay, and how much would producers absorb? (Hypothetical.) Show worked answer
Producers: \( 18 – 5.58 = 12.42 \) pence per litre.
The study’s 31% applies to high-levy drinks, so this is only a what-if.
ExamQ5. Evaluate whether a minimum price is more effective than an indirect tax in reducing the consumption of a demerit good. [12] Show worked answer
Evaluation (up to 4): use evidence, e.g. Scotland’s minimum unit price was linked to a 13.4% fall in deaths directly caused by alcohol with only a 3% fall in consumption, suggesting good targeting [1]; a tax raises government revenue while a minimum price passes extra revenue to retailers [1]; the UK sugar levy shows taxes can change products, not just prices [1]; reasoned conclusion, e.g. a minimum price is better targeted at cheap, strong products, while a tax is better if revenue is needed [1].
Frequently asked questions
How many examples should I use in an economics essay?
One or two well-used examples per essay are usually enough. One case with a date, a number and a judgement beats four names in a list.
Do I need exact figures in the exam?
No, but they help when you are sure of them. Otherwise give the direction and rough size, such as “about half”. Never invent precise numbers.
Can I use examples from my own country?
Yes. Relevant local examples are welcome, as long as the facts are accurate and you link them to the theory.
Where should the example go in my paragraph?
After the analysis, as evidence for or against it: theory, then case, then judgement. Leading with the case tends to turn the paragraph into description.
References
- Cambridge International (n.d.) Cambridge International AS & A Level Economics 9708: Syllabus for examination in 2026, 2027 and 2028. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press & Assessment. Available at: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/697423-2026-2028-syllabus.pdf.
- HM Revenue & Customs (2018, updated) Check if your drink is liable for the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. London: GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-your-drink-is-liable-for-the-soft-drinks-industry-levy.
- Scarborough, P., Adhikari, V., Harrington, R.A., Elhussein, A., Briggs, A., Rayner, M., Adams, J., Cummins, S., Penney, T. and White, M. (2020) ‘Impact of the announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy on sugar content, price, product size and number of available soft drinks in the UK, 2015–19: a controlled interrupted time series analysis’, PLOS Medicine, 17(2), e1003025. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025.
- Scottish Government (n.d.) Alcohol and drugs: minimum unit pricing. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/policies/alcohol-and-drugs/minimum-unit-pricing/.
- Public Health Scotland (2023) Minimum unit pricing reduces alcohol-related harm to health. News release, June 2023. Available at: https://publichealthscotland.scot/news/2023/june/minimum-unit-pricing-reduces-alcohol-related-harm-to-health.
- Diamond, R., McQuade, T. and Qian, F. (2019) ‘The effects of rent control expansion on tenants, landlords, and inequality: evidence from San Francisco’, American Economic Review, 109(9), pp. 3365–3394. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181289.
- OPEC (2022) 33rd OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting. Press release, 5 October 2022. Vienna: OPEC. Available at: https://www.opec.org/pr-detail/73-05-oct-2022.html.
- European Commission (2017) Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service. Press release IP/17/1784, 27 June 2017. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_17_1784/IP_17_1784_EN.pdf.
- Card, D. and Krueger, A.B. (1994) ‘Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania’, American Economic Review, 84(4), pp. 772–793. Working paper version: NBER Working Paper 4509. Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w4509.
- European Commission (2025) EU Emissions Trading System has reduced emissions in the sectors covered by 50% since 2005. News, 4 April 2025. Available at: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-other-reads/news/eu-emissions-trading-system-has-reduced-emissions-sectors-covered-50-2005-2025-04-04_en.
- Flaaen, A., Hortaçsu, A. and Tintelnot, F. (2020) ‘The production relocation and price effects of US trade policy: the case of washing machines’, American Economic Review, 110(7), pp. 2103–2127. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190611.
- Hanke, S.H. and Kwok, A.K.F. (2009) ‘On the measurement of Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation’, Cato Journal, 29(2), pp. 353–364. Peak figures as restated in Hanke, S.H. (2019) How Mugabe destroyed Zimbabwe. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Available at: https://clips.cato.org/sites/default/files/Hanke_bulawayo_inflation.pdf.
- Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2022; 2023) Federal Reserve issues FOMC statement. Press releases, 16 March 2022 and 26 July 2023. Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20220316a.htm and https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230726a.htm.
- Congressional Budget Office (2020) H.R. 748, CARES Act, Public Law 116-136. Cost estimate, 16 April 2020. Washington, DC: CBO. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56334.
- National Bank of Ukraine (2023) Comment by the National Bank on the change in real GDP in 2022. Kyiv: NBU. Available at: https://bank.gov.ua/en/news/all/komentar-natsionalnogo-banku-schodo-zmini-realnogo-vvp-u-2022-rotsi.
