ecopol-writing-style

Writing Style (ecopol-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The introduction opens with the econometric specification instead of the policy question
• A policymaker would stop reading at the third paragraph because of jargon or notation
• The main text is dense with equations a policy reader cannot follow
• The abstract states what you did, not what a policymaker should now think
• The paper has rigor but not the accessible voice EP is known for

EP's defining house style: accessible main text, rigorous appendix

This is the most distinctive EP craft skill, because EP's whole identity is rigorous analysis written accessibly for economists and policymakers together. The discipline is a split: the main text is non-technical and policy-first; the technical machinery — proofs, full estimators, derivations — lives in the appendix. A reader from a finance ministry should be able to read the main text start to finish and come away with the policy conclusion and the reasoning; an economist should be able to verify everything in the appendix. Write the main text as if explaining to a smart non-specialist, not dumbing down — making the logic legible without notation.

This is a late-stage skill: do not rewrite the intro before identification, the model, and the headline number have settled.

The EP intro structure (write it in this order)

1. The policy question and why it is live now — name the decision a policymaker faces.
2. What we find — the magnitude, in plain units — the headline number a non-economist can repeat.
3. Why it is credible — one plain sentence on the identification, no notation.
4. What it implies for policy — the recommendation or the shift in the debate.
5. Then the academic positioning and the road map.

Notice rigor comes after the policy payoff, not before. This inverts the typical economics intro.

Sentence- and section-level moves

• Verbs over nouns, prose over notation. "Firms above the threshold cut hiring by 8%" beats "the estimated coefficient on the treatment indicator is −0.08 (s.e. 0.02)."
• Define every term a policymaker might not know on first use, in one clause.
• Move equations to the appendix unless an equation is the clearest way to state a policy relationship; even then, gloss it in words.
• The abstract is a policy abstract: question → finding (magnitude) → implication. Confirm the exact abstract length in the live guidelines (待核实).
• Anticipate the two discussants in the writing: address the academic's likely concern in a footnote/appendix pointer and the policy reader's "so what" in the text.
• Avoid hedging fog. Policymakers need a clear bottom line with its caveats stated, not a paragraph of qualifications that obscures the conclusion.

Checklist

• [ ] Intro opens with the policy question, not the specification
• [ ] Headline finding stated as a magnitude in plain units within the first page
• [ ] Identification explained in one notation-free sentence in the main text
• [ ] Policy implication stated explicitly, with caveats but a clear bottom line
• [ ] Equations/proofs/full estimators relegated to the technical appendix
• [ ] Jargon defined on first use; a non-economist could follow the main text
• [ ] Abstract is question → magnitude → implication (length per guidelines — 待核实)

Anti-patterns

• An introduction that leads with the model or the regression equation
• A main text so notation-heavy that the policy discussant cannot read it without the appendix
• An abstract that lists methods instead of stating the policy takeaway
• Hedging so heavy the reader cannot tell what you actually conclude
• "Dumbing down" by removing the rigor instead of moving it to the appendix — EP wants both
• Copying an AEJ:EP-style technical intro and pasting a policy sentence on the end

Output format

【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-writing-style
【Intro order】policy Q → magnitude → plain identification → implication? Y/N
【Main text legible to non-economist】Y/N
【Notation in main text】minimal / needs moving to appendix
【Abstract】question → magnitude → implication (length 待核实)
【Bottom line】one clear policy sentence present? Y/N
【Next skill】ecopol-replication-package