| name | jole-contribution-framing |
| description | Use when articulating what is new in a Journal of Labor Economics (JOLE) manuscript for a general labor-economics audience — the marginal contribution, the labor lesson, and why a labor economist outside the subfield should care. Frames the pitch; it does not run analysis. |
Contribution Framing (jole-contribution-framing)
When to trigger
- A referee or reader cannot quickly say what the paper adds to labor economics
- The result is "a coefficient" with no articulated lesson
- The contribution is over-claimed (global statement from a local estimate) or under-claimed (real lesson buried)
- You need a one-paragraph "what's new for labor" statement for the intro and cover letter
What "contribution" means at JOLE
JOLE is a general-interest labor-economics journal published for the Society of Labor Economists (SOLE), so the contribution must register with labor economists beyond your own subfield, not only with specialists on your exact policy or dataset. A JOLE contribution typically takes one of these shapes:
- A new credible answer to a first-order labor question (e.g., a returns-to-X, a labor-supply elasticity, an effect of an institution) where prior estimates were not well identified.
- A new fact about the labor market made possible by novel or newly linked data (e.g., firm–worker registers, administrative earnings), disciplined against measurement error.
- A new mechanism distinguishing between competing labor-economic explanations (e.g., taste-based vs. statistical discrimination; human capital vs. signaling).
- A theoretical advance with a labor-economic payoff (a model that reorganizes how we interpret a body of labor evidence).
The marginal contribution must be calibrated: it should match exactly what the design and sample support, because JOLE's word economy (~20,000 words) and single-blind labor referees both punish padding and over-claiming.
Framing the contribution
- One-sentence claim. "We show that [margin] responds to [variation] by [magnitude], implying [labor lesson]." If you cannot fill the blanks, the contribution is not yet sharp.
- Against the frontier, not a survey. Name the two or three closest papers and say precisely what you add (better identification, new data, new mechanism, new population) — this hands off to jole-literature-positioning.
- External relevance. State what a labor economist studying a different country/policy/firm learns from your result.
- Scope discipline. A clean local estimate (one reform, one register) is a strength; do not inflate it into a universal structural parameter without support.
- Theory vs. empirics. If the paper is theoretical, the contribution is the labor insight, not the math; if empirical, it is the identified answer or fact, not the regression count.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- "We are the first to study X" with no statement of the labor lesson
- A local estimate sold as a universal parameter
- A contribution only specialists on your exact dataset would notice
- Listing what you did (regressions, robustness) instead of what you learned
- A theory paper framing the math as the contribution rather than the labor insight
- Over-claiming that a single referee will puncture in one line
Output format
【Contribution type】new answer / new fact / new mechanism / theory advance
【One-sentence claim】margin + variation + magnitude + lesson:
【Closest papers】[2–3] — what we add vs. each:
【External relevance】beyond this setting:
【Calibration】claim matches design/sample? [Y/N]
【Next step】jole-tables-figures or jole-writing-style
