jde-writing-style

Writing Style (jde-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The abstract states a setting but not a finding with a magnitude
• The introduction buries the development question under methods or data description
• The prose mixes American and British English, or reads inconsistently
• Identification and contribution are settled and the paper needs its final polish

The JDE prose bar

JDE readers are development economists; the writing has to make a first-order development question and its answer land quickly, with policy stakes explicit. Principles:

• Abstract states the finding with a number. Lead with the development question, the design in a

phrase, and the headline effect in welfare-relevant units — not just "we study X in country Y."

Regular submissions have a 250-word abstract cap; pre-results Stage 1 proposals cap the abstract at

150 words.

• Introduction as an argument. Question → why it matters for development → setting and design in a few sentences → headline result with magnitude → contribution relative to the frontier → roadmap. Avoid a literature-survey opening.
• Policy and welfare made visible. Translate effects into terms a development economist and a policymaker can weigh (poverty gap, cost-effectiveness, test-score SDs).
• Honest scope. State external-validity limits plainly; development referees reward calibrated claims and punish overreach.
• Language consistency. Write in either American or British English, not a combination — JDE requires one consistent variant. Use author-date citations consistently (single author: name + year; two: both names + year; three or more: first author + "et al." + year). JDE accepts any consistent reference style at submission and applies its own at the proof stage, so prioritize consistency over house formatting.

Tactics

• Cut throat-clearing; the first paragraph should already pose the development question.
• Prefer concrete institutional detail over abstract generality — context is part of the contribution in development work.
• Define constructed variables and indices in words before the reader meets them in a table.
• Keep the conclusion to what the design supports plus honest open questions.

Abstract rewrite (worked, illustrative)

Hypothetical: a cluster-randomized teacher-incentive experiment in a low-income setting.

• Weak: "We study a teacher-incentive program via a randomized experiment and discuss policy implications." Names a topic, states no result.
• JDE-shaped: "In a cluster-randomized trial across 200 schools, performance pay raised test scores 0.16 SD (≈ a half-year of learning, illustrative); effects faded once incentives ended — pay shifts teacher effort, not durable capital." Design, welfare-unit magnitude, mechanism, scope.

Prose pushback and the fix

| Referee/editor reaction | The JDE-prose fix |

|------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

| "The abstract states a topic, not a finding" | Lead with the headline effect in welfare-relevant units |

| "A survey delayed the question" | Open paragraph one with the development question itself |

| "Is 0.16 SD meaningful?" | Anchor to a policy benchmark (years of learning, cost) |

Calibration anchors (hedged)

• Regular submissions have a 250-word abstract cap; pre-results Stage 1 abstracts cap at 150 words.

Anti-patterns

• An abstract that names a topic but states no effect size
• A survey-style introduction that delays the question and result
• Mixing US and UK spelling/usage in the same manuscript
• Inflated external-validity language unsupported by the design

Style execution pass for Journal of Development Economics

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the development constraint, identification, welfare or distribution margin, and implementation context; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: development economists who expect a development mechanism, credible design, and policy-relevant external validity.

• Do the pass: Rewrite the first two pages so each paragraph starts from the venue-level claim, not from chronology or method inventory; preserve exact source-map limits and move technical overflow to appendix or supplement.
• Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
• Sibling guard: compare against World Development for broader policy audience, JPubE for fiscal/public-finance mechanisms, AER/AEJ Applied for field-wide reach; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
• Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Output format

【Abstract】states finding + magnitude in welfare units? [Y/N]
【Intro arc】question → stakes → design → result → contribution? [Y/N]
【Policy framing】effects in comparable units? [Y/N]
【Language】consistent US or UK English? [Y/N]
【Citations】consistent author-date? [Y/N]
【Next step】jde-replication-and-data-policy