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

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

【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