| name | qje-literature-positioning |
| description | Use when staking a Quarterly Journal of Economics (QJE) manuscript's contribution against the frontier — what it builds on, what it overturns, and why it belongs in a general-interest journal. Positions the contribution; it does not write the full literature survey. |
Literature Positioning (qje-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The contribution-relative-to-literature is fuzzy or buried
- The intro lists references but never says what is new
- A coauthor or reader asks "how is this different from [recent paper]?"
- You are unsure which literatures the paper should speak to
QJE positioning principle: contribution, not catalog
QJE intros do not open with a freestanding "literature review" section. The contribution is woven into the introduction: the big question, the setting, the design, the headline result, and then a tight paragraph (or two) placing the paper in the literature, in author-date (Chicago) style. The job is to make one of QJE's five Harvard-based Editors see, in the first two pages, that the answer is new and important — because they desk-decide in ~2 weeks and desk-reject the majority. A survey-style "Section 2: Literature Review" is a field-journal habit and reads as off-template here. The model is how QJE landmark papers position: Mankiw, Romer & Weil (QJE 1992) staked their claim directly against Solow-model skeptics; Chetty–Hendren–Kline–Saez (QJE 2014) positioned against the whole intergenerational-mobility literature in a few paragraphs.
The four positioning moves
- Anchor to a big literature. Name the broad question your paper advances (e.g., intergenerational mobility; the long-run effects of institutions; the welfare effects of a policy). Speak to a literature a general-interest reader recognizes.
- Name the frontier. Cite the 3–6 most relevant recent papers precisely. QJE referees are often the authors of those papers; misciting or ignoring the frontier is fatal under double-blind review where you cannot know who is reading.
- State the delta. In one or two sentences: what does this paper do that the frontier did not? New variation? New data? A previously untestable mechanism? A reconciliation of conflicting findings?
- Bound the claim. Say what the paper does not establish. Calibrated humility reads as strength and pre-empts the "they over-claim" report.
Positioning patterns
| Pattern | One-line frame |
|---|
| New variation, old question | "Prior work could not isolate X; our [natural experiment] does." |
| New data, settled-seeming debate | "Using [novel data] we revisit [debate] and find ..." |
| Mechanism made testable | "The literature posited X; we provide the first direct test." |
| Reconciliation | "Findings A and B conflict; we show both hold under [condition]." |
| Magnitude that matters | "Estimates existed but were imprecise/biased; ours is clean and large." |
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- A standalone "Literature Review" section that catalogs without positioning
- "To the best of our knowledge, we are the first ..." with no engagement of close work
- Ignoring or under-citing the very people likely to referee the paper
- Positioning only within a narrow subfield (fails the general-interest test)
- Claiming a delta the design cannot deliver (over-claiming the contribution)
Output format
【Big literature】the broad question this paper advances
【Frontier】[3–6 closest recent papers]
【Delta】what this paper does that the frontier did not
【Bound】what the paper does NOT establish
【Positioning pattern】new-variation / new-data / mechanism / reconciliation / magnitude
【Next step】qje-identification
