| name | ecopol-writing-style |
| description | Use when an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's prose reads like a technical report instead of accessible policy writing. Rewrites for the EP dual audience — non-technical main text, rigor in the appendix; it does not invent evidence or citations. |
Writing Style (ecopol-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The introduction opens with the econometric specification instead of the policy question
- A policymaker would stop reading at the third paragraph because of jargon or notation
- The main text is dense with equations a policy reader cannot follow
- The abstract states what you did, not what a policymaker should now think
- The paper has rigor but not the accessible voice EP is known for
EP's defining house style: accessible main text, rigorous appendix
This is the most distinctive EP craft skill, because EP's whole identity is rigorous analysis written accessibly for economists and policymakers together. The discipline is a split: the main text is non-technical and policy-first; the technical machinery — proofs, full estimators, derivations — lives in the appendix. A reader from a finance ministry should be able to read the main text start to finish and come away with the policy conclusion and the reasoning; an economist should be able to verify everything in the appendix. Write the main text as if explaining to a smart non-specialist, not dumbing down — making the logic legible without notation.
This is a late-stage skill: do not rewrite the intro before identification, the model, and the headline number have settled.
The EP intro structure (write it in this order)
- The policy question and why it is live now — name the decision a policymaker faces.
- What we find — the magnitude, in plain units — the headline number a non-economist can repeat.
- Why it is credible — one plain sentence on the identification, no notation.
- What it implies for policy — the recommendation or the shift in the debate.
- Then the academic positioning and the road map.
Notice rigor comes after the policy payoff, not before. This inverts the typical economics intro.
Sentence- and section-level moves
- Verbs over nouns, prose over notation. "Firms above the threshold cut hiring by 8%" beats "the estimated coefficient on the treatment indicator is −0.08 (s.e. 0.02)."
- Define every term a policymaker might not know on first use, in one clause.
- Move equations to the appendix unless an equation is the clearest way to state a policy relationship; even then, gloss it in words.
- The abstract is a policy abstract: question → finding (magnitude) → implication. Confirm the exact abstract length in the live guidelines (待核实).
- Anticipate the two discussants in the writing: address the academic's likely concern in a footnote/appendix pointer and the policy reader's "so what" in the text.
- Avoid hedging fog. Policymakers need a clear bottom line with its caveats stated, not a paragraph of qualifications that obscures the conclusion.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- An introduction that leads with the model or the regression equation
- A main text so notation-heavy that the policy discussant cannot read it without the appendix
- An abstract that lists methods instead of stating the policy takeaway
- Hedging so heavy the reader cannot tell what you actually conclude
- "Dumbing down" by removing the rigor instead of moving it to the appendix — EP wants both
- Copying an AEJ:EP-style technical intro and pasting a policy sentence on the end
Output format
【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-writing-style
【Intro order】policy Q → magnitude → plain identification → implication? Y/N
【Main text legible to non-economist】Y/N
【Notation in main text】minimal / needs moving to appendix
【Abstract】question → magnitude → implication (length 待核实)
【Bottom line】one clear policy sentence present? Y/N
【Next skill】ecopol-replication-package
