brycewang-stanford Literature Positioning (jeg-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The introduction lists papers but does not say where yours sits or what it adds
- A referee might ask "how is this different from the standard endogenous-growth / unified-growth account?"
- You are unsure which strands of the growth literature you must engage
Why JEG positioning is distinctive
JEG runs both theory and empirics in growth, so a paper must be located on two axes at once: (1) the substantive growth strand (neoclassical, endogenous, unified, institutions, human capital, fertility, trade, finance, migration), and (2) the methodological mode (formal theory, cross-country/panel empirics, calibrated quantitative model). Reviewers are growth specialists; vague gestures at "the growth literature" will not satisfy them.
Build the spine
- Name the strand and its canonical mechanism. State the workhorse account you are speaking to (e.g., the human-capital channel for cross-country income gaps, the demographic-transition mechanism in unified growth theory, the role of R&D in endogenous growth) without misattributing specific papers — verify any citation against the actual source (待核实 if unsure).
- State the tension or gap. Empirical: an unresolved identification or measurement problem; a contradicted prediction. Theory: an assumption that is too strong, a result that does not generalize, two mechanisms not yet reconciled.
- Place your marginal step. One sentence: "Relative to [strand], we [new mechanism / new identification / more general result / new long-run data]."
- Bridge theory and empirics where JEG expects it. Many JEG papers pair a model with a calibration or a reduced-form test; if yours is one-sided, say why that is sufficient and what it leaves open.
Engage the right neighbors
- Cite the growth-theory lineage and the empirical-growth lineage your claim touches, even if your paper is one-sided — JEG referees come from both camps.
- Distinguish your contribution from neighboring field journals' versions (development, macro): why is this a growth-mechanism contribution belonging in JEG?
Anti-patterns
- A literature review that is a chronological list with no organizing tension.
- Citing only your own methodological camp (theory-only or empirics-only) when the strand spans both.
- Attributing a famous result to JEG (or any journal) without checking the actual outlet — verify, mark 待核实 otherwise.
- Overclaiming a "first" without bounding the claim to the specific strand and data.
Strand triage before drafting
| Your claim touches | Lineage to engage | What your delta must show |
|---|---|---|
| Deep determinants / persistence | institutions-geography-culture debate; historical natural experiments | a new shock, a new mechanism layer, or a channel overturned |
| Unified growth / demography | demographic transition; fertility-education trade-off | a dynamic mechanism the canon cannot generate |
| Endogenous growth / ideas | R&D-based growth; scale effects; technology diffusion | a generalization or a test that discriminates between models |
| Structural transformation | sectoral reallocation; agriculture-to-industry dynamics | new long-run evidence or a quantified reallocation mechanism |
If the paper touches two rows, pick the row where your delta is largest and treat the other as a secondary audience — split positioning reads as unfocused to growth specialists.
Worked vignette — placing a structural-transformation paper
Draft claim (illustrative): railway access accelerated the farm-to-factory shift in one country, 1880-1940. Positioning steps: (1) name the strand — structural transformation and market integration, not transport economics; (2) state the tension — existing accounts attribute reallocation to agricultural productivity growth, while your shock isolates falling trade costs; (3) place the marginal step — "Relative to productivity-push accounts, we show a trade-cost channel that explains an illustrative 30% of the observed sectoral shift"; (4) build the bridge — a two-sector model rationalizes why the channel bites hardest in land-scarce regions, handing the calibration a testable cross-region prediction. Without step 4 the manuscript reads as economic history; with it, the growth-mechanism fit is legible to both referee camps.
Output format
【Strand】+ canonical mechanism it relies on
【Tension/gap】one sentence
【Marginal step】"Relative to X, we ..."
【Theory↔empirics bridge】present / one-sided-and-justified
【Neighbors to distinguish】[...]
【Next skill】jeg-contribution-framing