| name | ecj-literature-positioning |
| description | Use when writing or repairing the introduction and related-work framing for a The Economic Journal (EJ) manuscript — situating the contribution for a broad economics readership with author-date citations. Frames positioning and the intro arc; it does not run the empirics or build the model. |
Literature Positioning & Introduction (ecj-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The related-work section reads as an annotated list ("X did A. Y did B.")
- The introduction never states crisply what economics learns from this paper
- A reader outside your subfield cannot tell which literature the paper contributes to or why they should care
- You are unsure whether you have engaged the work the result speaks to across fields, not just your niche
What EJ wants from positioning
EJ introductions are economic arguments aimed at a broad international readership, not literature catalogs for a subfield. Because EJ's defining bar is broad interest plus a substantial contribution, the intro must make a generalist economist — not only your closest five competitors — finish the first pages knowing: the economic question, why it matters widely, what was already known, the precise gap, and what you do about it. Positioning is judged on whether you placed the paper against the right literature and explained the stakes in terms a non-specialist grasps.
A frequent EJ failure is an intro written for the subfield: dense with niche citations and acronyms, with the broad relevance assumed rather than argued. Connect to the wider economic conversation (the theory or policy question the result bears on), then locate the precise contribution. EJ has a long history across all fields, so the canonical antecedent may be foundational and decades old — engage it, do not only cite the recent applied frontier.
The EJ introduction arc (five moves)
- Hook / question — the economic question and why it matters, in plain terms a generalist grasps in one paragraph.
- What we know — the established understanding and the framing theory (author-date: the canonical references plus the live frontier), with enough context for an outsider.
- The gap / tension — the specific thing prior work got wrong, conflated, or left untested. Be precise: a conflated channel, an untested prediction, a missing force.
- This paper — what you do (model and/or identification), in two or three sentences, mechanism first.
- Findings + contribution — the result, its economic interpretation, and the broad, portable lesson. Preview the mechanism evidence, not just the headline number.
A short "related literature" paragraph can follow, but the contribution must already be clear from moves 1–5. For a short paper (AER:Insights-style), compress this arc to roughly one page — the moves stay, the scaffolding shrinks.
Positioning checklist
Anti-patterns
- A "related work" list with no synthesis and no stated tension
- An intro written for the subfield that assumes broad relevance instead of arguing it
- Citing only the recent applied frontier while ignoring the foundational theory the result confirms or overturns
- Overclaiming "first to show" when prior theory predicted it — credit the prediction, claim the test
- Strawmanning the closest competitor to manufacture a gap
- An intro that explains what you did before establishing why economics needed it
Output format
【Target literatures】1... 2...
【Broad-relevance hook】why an outsider cares (one sentence)
【Framing theory engaged】refs (author-date; canonical antecedent if any)
【Gap / tension】the precise economic shortcoming in prior work
【Closest 3 papers】and how this differs from each
【Intro arc check】moves 1–5 present? [y/n each]
【Length mode】full-length / short-paper (one-page) intro
【Next】ecj-identification (or ecj-theory-model if model leads)
