Economic Policy (economic-policy)

Journal positioning

Economic Policy is a leading European policy-oriented economics journal that publishes rigorous-but-accessible analysis intended to inform European and international policy debate. Its distinctive feature is the Economic Policy Panel: papers are typically presented at the Panel meeting and reviewed there, with the aim of producing timely, authoritative, policy-relevant work that economists and policymakers can both read. What wins here is serious economics on a live policy question, written so a policy audience can use it — analytical depth without becoming a narrow technical paper.

The route runs through the Economic Policy Panel. Papers are commissioned / selected and presented at Panel meetings, where they are discussed before publication; the path in is often a proposal or invitation rather than a routine open submission. Treat this skill as a fit check for a proposed Economic Policy paper and a guide to its house style.

This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before proposing or submitting, re-check the live author / Panel instructions on the Economic Policy / publisher site.

When to trigger

• The author names Economic Policy as the target venue or hopes to present at the Panel.
• A policy-relevant economics paper needs the accessible, debate-informing Economic Policy framing.
• A technical applied paper needs re-framing toward a European / international policy question and audience.
• The author needs this venue's expectations and a credible policy-economics alternative list.

Scope & topic fit

• Topical European and international economic-policy questions across macro, public, labor, trade, finance, and regulation.
• Empirical and analytical work that bears directly on current policy choices and institutions.
• Assessment of policies, reforms, and shocks with clear lessons for policymakers.
• Cross-country and EU-level questions are especially welcome, but the lens is policy relevance, not a region per se.

Method & evidence bar

• Rigorous economics with policy payoff: credible identification or careful measurement, but always tied back to a usable policy conclusion.
• Inference at current standards for the relevant data; honest treatment of uncertainty and external validity.
• The analysis must support a clear, defensible policy reading — not method for its own sake.
• Engagement with the policy and institutional context, not only the academic literature.

Structure & house style

• Papers are presented at the Panel and discussed; write anticipating informed critique and a policy-literate readership.
• The introduction should state the policy question, the approach, the headline finding, and the policy implication early and accessibly.
• Keep technical machinery proportionate; relegate derivations and robustness to appendices so the main text stays readable.
• Follow the current Economic Policy formatting, abstract, and exhibit conventions; magnitudes and policy stakes should be legible.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked.
• Because the venue is Panel-driven, first confirm the route (proposal / invitation / Panel meeting); search the live site for "Economic Policy submission / Panel / instructions for authors" and the current process and timeline.
• Re-check word/figure limits, abstract format, reference style, anonymization expectations, and disclosure-of-interest.
• Re-check the current data and code availability / replication policy.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• One sentence stating which European / international policy debate this informs and the usable conclusion.
• The contribution is stated as a policy-relevant finding / assessment, not as statistical significance.
• The technical content is proportionate and the main text is readable by a policy audience.
• Methods, magnitudes, and uncertainty are transparent; the policy reading is defensible.
• The Panel / proposal route and timeline are confirmed.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A narrow technical paper with no clear policy question or usable conclusion.
• A pure-theory or methods paper with no policy relevance.
• A US-centric or region-specific paper with no European / international policy angle.
• Ignoring the Panel workflow and writing an inaccessible, jargon-heavy main text.

Re-routing decision

• US-centric macro-policy, conference-driven → brookings-papers-on-economic-activity; international / open-economy macro → imf-economic-review.
• Core public-finance policy → journal-of-public-economics; applied micro policy → aej-economic-policy.
• Development-policy questions → world-bank-economic-review or world-development; general-interest economics → american-economic-review.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Economic Policy
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <does the analysis clear this venue's rigorous-but-policy-relevant bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <Panel/proposal route / timeline / abstract / data-code / disclosure>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>