---
name: worlddev-writing-style
description: Use when the prose, intro, or abstract of a World Development (WD) manuscript fails to reach a multidisciplinary, policy-oriented, global readership. Tunes voice and structure to the WD reader; it does not invent evidence or citations.
---

# Writing Style (worlddev-writing-style)

## When to trigger

- The intro opens with a methods or literature gap rather than a development problem
- The prose is dense with one discipline's jargon (econometrics or critical-theory) and shuts out the rest
- The abstract reports techniques but not the "so what for development"
- The discussion stops at "we find X" without saying what it means for policy or practice
- The paper reads as written for the author's subfield, not for WD's global, cross-disciplinary audience

## Writing for the WD reader

WD is read by economists, political scientists, sociologists, geographers, public-health and practice communities, and policymakers across the global South and North. The house voice is **clear, evidence-driven, and accessible across disciplines without being shallow.** Two failure modes bracket it: economics papers that read as technical reports with no human or institutional texture, and critical/qualitative papers that disappear into theoretical vocabulary. The WD register sits between — rigorous, but legible to a reader from the next discipline over and useful to someone who must act on the finding.

### The intro WD rewards (a sequence)

1. **Open on the development problem in the world** — concrete, with stakes (who, where, why it matters), not a literature gap.
2. **The tension or puzzle** — what is unsettled, contested, or surprising in current understanding.
3. **What you do and find**, in one paragraph, in plain language and real magnitudes.
4. **How you know it** — the design or inferential logic, stated plainly, not buried in citations.
5. **Why it matters for development** — the contribution to understanding AND to policy/practice. WD intros that skip this read as venue-mismatched.

### Abstract discipline (verify limits)

- **≤250 words** (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准); **3–6 keywords**, in English.
- Unstructured, single paragraph; state purpose, approach, key result with magnitude, and the development implication.
- Avoid undefined abbreviations and in-text references; the abstract must stand alone.
- Lead with the finding and its stakes, not the method. A WD abstract that never states what was learned about development is a desk-screen risk.

### Cross-disciplinary legibility

- Define discipline-specific terms on first use; assume the reader is smart but from another field.
- Prefer plain causal language calibrated to the warrant ("we find evidence that…", "is associated with…") over both econometric hedging and unearned certainty.
- Name the country/region and context early and concretely; WD readers expect grounded place, not "a developing country."
- Translate every headline number into something a non-economist feels — share of household income, days of schooling, distance to a clinic.

## A worked rewrite (illustrative)

Weak: "We exploit a regression-discontinuity design to estimate the LATE of a transfer on log consumption." WD: "Did a national cash-transfer program actually reach the poorest, and did it change their lives? Comparing households just above and below the program's eligibility cutoff in [country], we find consumption rose 18% for those just inside — enough to move a typical family above the food-poverty line — while the very poorest, who lacked the documents to enroll, were left out." Same design; now a cross-disciplinary reader and a policymaker both stay.

## Checklist

- [ ] Intro opens on a development problem with stakes, not a literature gap
- [ ] Method stated plainly; jargon from any single discipline is defined or removed
- [ ] Every headline number is translated into human/policy-relevant terms
- [ ] Discussion states the implication for policy or practice, not just the finding
- [ ] Abstract ≤250 words, 3–6 keywords, finding-first, stands alone (limits re-verified)
- [ ] Country/region/context named concretely and early
- [ ] Causal language matches the warrant established in identification

## Anti-patterns

- A literature-gap opening that delays the development stakes to page 3
- One-discipline jargon (technical econometrics OR dense critical theory) that excludes the rest of the readership
- A discussion that restates results without a "so what for whom"
- An abstract that lists methods but never states what was learned about development
- "A developing country" abstraction instead of a named, situated context

## Output format

```text
【Journal】World Development (WD)
【Skill】worlddev-writing-style
【Verdict】reader-ready / revise
【Intro opening】development problem / literature gap (fix if the latter)
【Abstract】≤250 words, finding-first, stands alone? [Y/N]
【Cross-disciplinary legibility】jargon defined; numbers translated? [Y/N]
【Policy implication】present in discussion? [Y/N]
【Source status】verified URL / 待核实 / not asserted
【Next skill】worlddev-replication-package
```