Guide for writing the introduction to an academic economics paper. Use this skill whenever the user asks for help writing, drafting, revising, or structuring an introduction to an economics paper - whether empirical micro, development economics, applied economics, or related fields. Also trigger when the user mentions "intro," "introduction section," "opening paragraphs," or asks how to motivate, frame, or present their research question in a paper. This skill synthesizes best practices from David Evans (CGDev), Keith Head, Claudia Sahm, Marc Bellemare, and Deirdre McCloskey.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Guide for writing the introduction to an academic economics paper. Use this skill whenever the user asks for help writing, drafting, revising, or structuring an introduction to an economics paper - whether empirical micro, development economics, applied economics, or related fields. Also trigger when the user mentions "intro," "introduction section," "opening paragraphs," or asks how to motivate, frame, or present their research question in a paper. This skill synthesizes best practices from David Evans (CGDev), Keith Head, Claudia Sahm, Marc Bellemare, and Deirdre McCloskey.
How to Write the Introduction of an Economics Paper
You win or lose your readers with the introduction. Research shows that economics papers with more readable introductions get cited more. The introduction is where you lay out your research question, your empirical strategy, your findings, and why it all matters - succinctly.
This skill is based primarily on David Evans' analysis of introductions in top economics journals (AER, QJE, AEJ: Applied, etc.), supplemented by Keith Head's "Introduction Formula," Claudia Sahm's advice for job market papers, and Marc Bellemare's "Middle Bits Formula."
The Core Structure
Papers in top journals largely follow this pattern. There is variation, but the skeleton is remarkably consistent:
Motivate with a puzzle or a problem (1-2 paragraphs)
Clearly state the research question (1 paragraph)
Describe the empirical approach (1 paragraph)
Present detailed results (3-4 paragraphs)
Establish value-added relative to related literature (1-3 paragraphs)
A typical introduction in a top journal runs about 10-15 paragraphs. It front-loads the paper's own contribution and pushes detailed literature discussion toward the end.
Section-by-Section Guidance
1. The Motivation (1-2 paragraphs)
Open by convincing the reader that the topic matters. The first paragraph should hook the reader with one of the following strategies:
A big development or economic problem, then a specific angle:
Start with a broad fact or policy issue, then narrow to the specific aspect you study.
Example pattern: "X is a widespread problem affecting Y. Yet we know surprisingly little about Z."
A puzzle or tension in existing evidence:
Present two facts or findings that seem at odds.
Example pattern: "Standard models predict A. But empirical evidence shows B. This paper helps reconcile..."
A policy-relevant fact or debate:
Open with a concrete policy that is being debated or scaled.
Example pattern: "Governments across N countries have adopted X policy, spending $Y annually. Yet evidence on its effectiveness is..."
A striking statistic or fact:
Lead with a number that grabs attention and sets up the importance of the topic.
What to avoid:
Do NOT open with a literature review ("A large literature studies X..."). Literature comes later.
Do NOT use the "all my friends are doing it" motivation - the mere fact that other people have written about the topic is not itself a motivation.
Do NOT do a bait-and-switch - promising an interesting topic but delivering something narrow and unrelated.
A few references in the opening paragraphs are fine to establish facts, but the focus should be on the economic problem, not on what other papers have done.
A few papers skip motivation entirely and dive straight into the research question. This is acceptable but less common.
2. The Research Question (1 paragraph)
State clearly and directly what the paper does. The reader should come away with a crisp understanding of the question you are answering.
Good phrasing options:
"This paper asks whether..."
"In this paper, I study the effect of X on Y."
"This paper answers the question: [actual question]." (Claudia Sahm's favorite)
"My paper [studies / quantifies / evaluates / tests] ..."
Lead with YOUR question. Then, if useful, briefly position it within the most relevant literature in a sentence or two. But the paragraph's job is to state what you do, not to review what others have done.
Be specific. Not "I study education policy" but "I estimate the causal effect of class-size reduction on test scores in rural Kenya using random assignment of teachers across schools."
3. The Empirical Approach (1 paragraph)
Explain how you answer the research question. Be concrete about:
The identification strategy (RCT, difference-in-differences, IV, RD, etc.)
The data source and setting
The key features that make this approach credible
This paragraph does not need to be long, but it needs to be clear. The reader should understand the basic design without reading the rest of the paper.
Example patterns from top journals:
"To shed light on the issue, we combine [specific data] with [specific identification strategy]."
"My first econometric strategy exploits the plausibly exogenous [variation source]."
"We use a randomized controlled trial to study..."
Even if the paper is not an RCT, state the empirical approach clearly.
4. Detailed Results (3-4 paragraphs)
This is often the longest section of the introduction. Report your main findings with specificity:
Include key point estimates, magnitudes, and economic significance.
Cover the main results first, then important heterogeneity or mechanisms if space allows.
Be precise: "We find that X increases Y by Z percent" is better than "We find a positive effect."
Do not be vague here. The introduction should let a reader who reads nothing else walk away knowing what you found.
Robustness checks can appear here or in their own paragraph. If you include them, keep it brief - one or two sentences noting the most important checks and that results are robust.
5. Value-Added Relative to Related Literature (1-3 paragraphs)
This is where the detailed literature discussion belongs - NOT at the beginning. The point of positioning it late in the introduction is that by now the reader already knows what you did and what you found, so they can properly appreciate how your work extends existing knowledge.
Structure each paragraph around your contribution, not others' papers:
Lead with a sentence stating one of your contributions.
Then follow with 3-4 sentences explaining how this extends the literature.
The most important contribution should come first (or last, if logic demands it).
Key principle: The contributions must be about new economic knowledge, not just new methods or new data (though these can be secondary contributions).
In lower-ranked journals, papers are more likely to have literature review paragraphs early in the introduction (second or fourth paragraph). Papers in top journals hold off on detailed literature discussion. This does not mean top-journal papers are building on less literature - they just sequence the discussion differently.
6. Optional Paragraphs
After the results and value-added, some papers include one or more of the following:
Policy relevance: "Our results are directly relevant to policy debates on..." This is especially useful if there is a live policy discussion your findings speak to.
Limitations: Briefly acknowledge the most important caveats. This signals honesty and self-awareness.
Mechanisms or interpretation: If your results speak to a particular theoretical channel, a paragraph explaining this can be valuable.
External validity: A sentence or two about generalizability, if relevant.
7. Roadmap (1 paragraph)
A brief paragraph listing the structure of the rest of the paper: "Section 2 describes the institutional background. Section 3 presents the data..."
On roadmaps: They are conventional and most papers include them. However, Deirdre McCloskey argues they kill momentum and most readers skip them. Include one because referees expect it, but keep it short and do not invest creative energy here.
General Principles
Front-load your own work. The introduction is about YOUR paper. Lead with your question, your approach, your results. Other people's work supports and contextualizes, but it should not dominate.
Be specific. Vague introductions signal vague thinking. Specific research questions, specific methods, specific results.
Be concise. A good introduction in a top journal is typically 3-5 pages (double-spaced). If yours is running to 8+ pages, you are likely including too much detail that belongs in the body of the paper.
Readability matters. Simpler words, shorter sentences, and clear structure are associated with more citations. Do not confuse obscurity with rigor.
Every paragraph should earn its place. If a paragraph does not advance the reader's understanding of what you did or why it matters, cut it or move it to the body.
Write the introduction last (or rewrite it last). Many experienced economists write the introduction after the rest of the paper is done, when they fully understand what the paper's contribution is.
Common Mistakes (and How to Fix Them)
Mistake
Fix
Opening with literature review
Open with the economic problem or puzzle
Vague research question
State exactly what you estimate or test
No results in the introduction
Include specific magnitudes and findings
Literature review before your results
Move literature to after results (section 5)
Too long (8+ pages)
Cut to 3-5 pages; move detail to body
No clear empirical strategy
Add a paragraph on identification
"All my friends are doing it" motivation
Motivate with economic significance
Roadmap that takes a full page
Keep to 3-4 sentences
Checklist Before Submitting
Use this checklist to audit a draft introduction:
Does paragraph 1 make the reader care about the topic?
Is the research question stated clearly and specifically?
Can a reader identify the identification strategy from the intro alone?
Are the main results reported with magnitudes?
Is the value-added relative to existing literature clear?
Is YOUR work front-loaded, with literature discussion coming after your results?
Is the introduction under 5 pages (double-spaced)?
Would a non-specialist economist understand the main contribution?
Is there a roadmap at the end?
When Helping a User Draft an Introduction
When a user asks for help writing or revising an introduction, follow this workflow:
Ask what they need: Are they starting from scratch, revising a draft, or restructuring an existing introduction?
Gather the key ingredients: What is the research question? What is the identification strategy? What are the main results? What is the key related literature?
Draft following the structure above: Motivation -> Question -> Approach -> Results -> Value-Added -> (Optional) -> Roadmap.
Use the checklist to audit the draft.
Iterate based on feedback.
If the user provides a draft, diagnose it against the structure. Common problems include: literature review appearing too early, vague research question, no results in the introduction, or being too long.
When writing, use clear and direct language. Avoid jargon where plain language works. Prefer active voice. Keep sentences short enough that a reader can parse them in one pass.
