---
name: ecopol-literature-positioning
description: Use when staking an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's contribution against the live policy debate and the adjacent academic literature. Sharpens the policy-and-academic positioning; it does not invent evidence or citations.
---

# Literature Positioning (ecopol-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The contribution is clear to specialists but the *policy* novelty is fuzzy
- A reviewer/discussant could say "we already knew this" or "this is just AEJ:EP / J.Pub.E. material"
- The draft cites the academic frontier but ignores the policy-debate frontier (think tanks, central banks, the Commission)
- You cannot say in one sentence what the paper changes for the policy conversation
- The framing leans on one country/episode and a discussant will ask "why does Europe/the world care?"

## EP positions on two frontiers at once

Most economics journals ask you to position against one literature — the academic frontier. EP asks for **two simultaneous positions**, because the paper is published with two discussants (one academic, one policy) and read by both audiences:

1. **The academic frontier** — the peer-reviewed work on the mechanism/method. Standard, but keep it lean: EP prose is accessible, so the lit review is a paragraph that names the gap, not a survey.
2. **The policy-debate frontier** — what policymakers, central banks, the European Commission, the IMF, the OECD, CEPR/CESifo policy outlets currently believe and argue. EP rewards a paper that moves *this* conversation. Cite the live debate (a Commission proposal, an ECB position, a current reform) so the policy discussant sees you in their world.

The contribution sentence must land both: "The academic literature establishes A; the policy debate currently assumes B; this paper shows C, which implies the policy stance should shift from B."

## Positioning moves by situation

| Situation | Positioning move |
|-----------|------------------|
| Result confirms what economists suspected | Lead with the **policy-debate** novelty — quantifying or settling a contested policy claim is itself the contribution |
| Result is academically novel but niche | Lead with the **policy stakes** — show why the niche mechanism drives a first-order policy magnitude |
| Crowded empirical area | Position on **the policy lever you can move**, not on a marginally better estimate |
| Cross-country / EU paper | Position against the **comparative/institutional** literature; show the European/global generality |

## Sibling boundaries (write these into the intro)

- **AEJ: Economic Policy** — AEA, anonymous refereeing, more technical; rewards identification rigor for a broad economics audience. EP wants the same rigor but *in an appendix*, with the policy decision foregrounded for a policy reader.
- **Brookings Papers on Economic Activity** — the closest cousin: also panel-presented with discussants, but US-centric and macro-leaning. EP is the European/global, CEPR-CESifo-Sciences Po analogue.
- **Journal of Public Economics** — field journal, standard refereeing, no panel; theory/empirics of public finance. EP differs by timeliness, policy audience, and the panel/discussant lifecycle.
- **IMF Economic Review / World Bank Economic Review** — institution-anchored, development/IMF-program focus. EP is independent, non-partisan, European-led.

## Checklist

- [ ] One contribution sentence that moves **both** the academic and the policy-debate frontier
- [ ] The live policy debate is cited (Commission/ECB/IMF/OECD/CEPR-CESifo), not just journals
- [ ] Academic lit review is lean and accessible — a gap statement, not a survey
- [ ] At least one explicit sibling boundary (vs AEJ:EP, Brookings, or J.Pub.E.) is in the intro
- [ ] Cross-country/EU framing earns its "European/global" claim
- [ ] Every cited source is real and verified — no invented references

## Anti-patterns

- A lit review that satisfies the academic discussant but leaves the policy discussant unsure why it matters now
- Positioning only against journal articles when the relevant debate is in policy reports
- A bloated survey-style review — incompatible with EP's accessible house style
- "First paper to…" claims that a discussant can puncture with one citation
- Letting the paper read as an AEJ:EP submission with a policy abstract pasted on top

## Output format

```text
【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-literature-positioning
【Contribution sentence】academic frontier A + policy-debate frontier B → C
【Policy debate cited】Commission/ECB/IMF/OECD/CEPR/CESifo source
【Academic gap】one-paragraph gap statement
【Sibling boundary】why EP not AEJ:EP / Brookings / J.Pub.E.
【Verdict】positioned / sharpen / reroute
【Source status】verified / 待核实
【Next skill】ecopol-identification
```