Jep Narrative Arc

Narrative Arc for JEP (jep-narrative-arc)

When to trigger

• The draft is organized like a survey ("Section 2 reviews X, Section 3 reviews Y")
• A reader can't say what the argument is, only what topics are covered
• The piece has no hook and no payoff — it informs but does not move
• You have takeaways from the proposal but no through-line connecting them

The JEP arc

A JEP article is an essay with an argument, not a catalog. The reliable arc for a broad economist audience:

1. Hook — a concrete puzzle, surprising fact, vivid example, or live debate that a non-specialist immediately feels. Open with the question, never with "the literature on X is large."
2. Stakes / "why now" — why this matters and why now, in a paragraph anyone in the AEA can follow.
3. Tension — the central disagreement, puzzle, or shift the article will resolve or illuminate. Synthesis is interesting only when there is something at issue.
4. Synthesis — the body: organized by ideas and the argument's logic, not by paper or by author. Each section advances the through-line; evidence is recruited to the argument (see jep-evidence-without-equations), competing views are weighed (see jep-balance-and-objectivity).
5. What we don't know — honest open questions; JEP readers trust an author who marks the edges of knowledge.
6. Takeaways — the 3–5 memorable points (from the proposal) landed explicitly. The reader should be able to repeat them at a seminar.
7. Brief close — the broader lesson and why it travels beyond the immediate setting.

Organize by argument, not by literature. "Three forces explain the puzzle" beats "Author A found…, Author B found…". The papers serve the argument; the argument does not serve the papers.

Structural tests

• The elevator test: can you state the through-line in one sentence? If not, there is no arc yet.
• The section-title test: do section titles name ideas ("Why the effect fades over time") rather than topics ("The empirical literature")? Idea-titles signal an argument.
• The deletion test: could a section be cut without breaking the argument? If yes, it's a survey appendage, not a load-bearing beam.
• The takeaway test: does each takeaway clearly emerge from a section? Orphan takeaways mean the body and the conclusion disagree.

Symposium-aware structuring

If the article is part of a symposium, its arc should occupy its assigned angle and gesture to the companion pieces rather than re-cover their ground — the symposium, not the single article, carries the full picture. Confirm scope with jep-editor-strategy.

Checklist

• Opens with a hook (puzzle/fact/example/debate), not "the literature on…"
• Central tension stated early — there is something at issue
• Body organized by ideas/argument, not by paper or author
• Through-line stateable in one sentence (elevator test)
• Section titles name ideas, not topics
• "What we don't know" section present
• 3–5 takeaways land explicitly and each traces to a section
• Close states the lesson that travels

Anti-patterns

• A literature-review skeleton ("Section 2: prior work") masquerading as an article
• No hook; opening with definitions or a history of the field
• Synthesis with no tension — a tour of findings that resolves nothing
• Burying the takeaways or never stating them
• Hiding all uncertainty to make the argument look cleaner (also a balance failure)
• In a symposium piece, re-covering a companion article's territory

Output format

【Through-line (one sentence)】[...]
【Hook】[puzzle / fact / example / debate]
【Tension】[what is at issue]
【Body sections (idea-titled)】1) … 2) … 3) …
【What we don't know】[...]
【Takeaways (3–5)】[...]
【Lesson that travels】[...]
【Next step】jep-accessibility-and-translation