Topic Selection & Policy-Question Fit (aejpol-topic-selection)
When to trigger
- You have a clean empirical result but are unsure it is "an AEJ: Policy paper"
- The project could plausibly go to J. Public Economics, AEJ: Applied, or AER and you must pick
- A referee or colleague says the question is "narrow," "not a policy paper," or "so what?"
- You can state a finding but not yet a policy question with a welfare / cost-benefit / distributional stake
The AEJ: Policy bar — lead with the policy question
AEJ: Policy publishes the economic analysis OF policy: a paper is built around a policy question ("should this tax / mandate / subsidy / regulation exist, expand, or change, and at what welfare cost?") whose answer carries a welfare, cost-benefit, or distributional implication of broad interest to the AEA readership. Two halves must both be present from the first page:
- A real policy lever. A specific instrument someone could pull — a credit, a tax schedule, an eligibility rule, an emissions standard, a transfer, a mandate, an enforcement regime. Not just "an interesting natural experiment."
- A counterfactual / welfare reading. What changes, for whom, and is it worth it — a cost-benefit ratio, a marginal-value-of-public-funds (MVPF), an incidence/distributional split, or a calibrated welfare number. A clean estimate with no policy reading is off-fit.
Policy areas in scope
Public economics & taxation · environmental & energy · health · education · labor & social insurance · regulation & antitrust · development policy · political economy of policy. Empirical (quasi-experimental / RCT) and applied-theory work both fit — provided the policy question and welfare relevance are explicit.
Fit decision table (route by the dominant pull)
| If the paper is mainly… |
It belongs at… |
Tell |
| broad-interest policy question + credible causal evidence + welfare reading |
AEJ: Policy |
the policy lesson is the headline |
| a deep field-public-finance contribution for specialists |
J. Public Economics |
broad readership would not follow the "so what" |
| identification-driven applied micro with no policy lever / welfare claim |
AEJ: Applied |
the natural experiment, not a policy, is the point |
| a first-order, general-interest result warranting top-5 length |
AER |
the contribution is larger and longer than a field-leading policy paper |
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- "We exploit a clean natural experiment" with no policy the experiment evaluates (reads as AEJ: Applied)
- A field-public-finance result with no broad-interest framing (reads as J. Public Economics)
- A descriptive or correlational "policy-relevant" topic with no credible counterfactual
- Promising a welfare/cost-benefit reading you have no way to compute
- Leading with the dataset or method instead of the policy question
Three questions that decide fit fast
Before investing in a draft, answer these in one sentence each; a "no" or "I can't" on any is a fit problem:
- The lever test — can you name the instrument a decision-maker would pull? (If it is "a shock," not a policy, lean AEJ: Applied.)
- The welfare test — can you name the welfare object you will report (MVPF, cost-per-X, incidence)? (If not, the policy "so what" is missing.)
- The broad-interest test — would a non-specialist AEA reader, not just the field, care about the answer? (If only the field cares, lean JPubE.)
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A draft estimates that a state's expansion of a childcare subsidy raised maternal employment. As "we find subsidy → employment" it is a clean applied-micro result (AEJ: Applied). Reframed for AEJ: Policy: "Is expanding the childcare subsidy a cost-effective way to raise maternal labor supply, and who bears the cost?" — now the employment elasticity feeds a cost-per-additional-worker and an incidence split across income groups (illustrative), and the paper has a policy lever, a counterfactual, and a welfare reading.
Referee pushback mapped to the fix
- "Better suited to a field journal." → Sharpen the broad-interest framing; lead with the policy lesson, not the institutional detail.
- "This is just a clean natural experiment." → Name the policy the experiment evaluates and the welfare object; if there is none, reconsider the target.
- "Interesting but so what for policy?" → Add the cost-benefit / incidence reading to the abstract, not the conclusion.
Output format
【Policy lever】instrument + affected population (one sentence)
【Policy question】stated as a question with a welfare/cost-benefit/distributional stake
【Counterfactual】what the policy is compared against
【Welfare object to report】MVPF / cost-per-X / incidence / calibrated welfare
【Fit verdict】AEJ: Policy vs JPubE / AEJ:Applied / AER + one-line reason
【Next step】aejpol-literature-positioning
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → AEJ-Economic-Policy-Skills/skills/aejpol-topic-selection/SKILL.md
1---2name: aejpol-topic-selection3description: Use when deciding whether a project fits AEJ: Economic Policy rather than J. Public Economics, AEJ: Applied, or AER, and when sharpening the policy question and its welfare stake for an AEJ: Economic Policy manuscript. Frames fit and the policy-question-first contribution; it does not design the identification or run estimation.4---567# Topic Selection & Policy-Question Fit (aejpol-topic-selection)89## When to trigger1011- You have a clean empirical result but are unsure it is "an AEJ: Policy paper"12- The project could plausibly go to J. Public Economics, AEJ: Applied, or AER and you must pick13- A referee or colleague says the question is "narrow," "not a policy paper," or "so what?"14- You can state a finding but not yet a **policy question** with a **welfare / cost-benefit / distributional** stake1516## The AEJ: Policy bar — lead with the policy question1718AEJ: Policy publishes the **economic analysis OF policy**: a paper is built around a **policy question** ("should this tax / mandate / subsidy / regulation exist, expand, or change, and at what welfare cost?") whose answer carries a **welfare, cost-benefit, or distributional** implication of **broad interest** to the AEA readership. Two halves must both be present from the first page:19201. **A real policy lever.** A specific instrument someone could pull — a credit, a tax schedule, an eligibility rule, an emissions standard, a transfer, a mandate, an enforcement regime. Not just "an interesting natural experiment."212. **A counterfactual / welfare reading.** What changes, for whom, and is it worth it — a cost-benefit ratio, a marginal-value-of-public-funds (MVPF), an incidence/distributional split, or a calibrated welfare number. A clean estimate with no policy reading is off-fit.2223### Policy areas in scope24Public economics & taxation · environmental & energy · health · education · labor & social insurance · regulation & antitrust · development policy · political economy of policy. Empirical (quasi-experimental / RCT) **and** applied-theory work both fit — provided the policy question and welfare relevance are explicit.2526### Fit decision table (route by the dominant pull)2728| If the paper is mainly… | It belongs at… | Tell |29|---|---|---|30| broad-interest policy question + credible causal evidence + welfare reading | **AEJ: Policy** | the policy lesson is the headline |31| a deep field-public-finance contribution for specialists | **J. Public Economics** | broad readership would not follow the "so what" |32| identification-driven applied micro with no policy lever / welfare claim | **AEJ: Applied** | the natural experiment, not a policy, is the point |33| a first-order, general-interest result warranting top-5 length | **AER** | the contribution is larger and longer than a field-leading policy paper |3435## Checklist3637- [ ] The policy lever is named in one sentence (instrument + who is affected)38- [ ] The policy question is stated as a question with a welfare/cost-benefit/distributional stake39- [ ] The counterfactual is concrete (what the policy is compared against)40- [ ] Broad-interest test passed: a non-specialist AEA reader sees why it matters41- [ ] Sibling check done (not JPubE field-only / not AEJ:Applied no-policy / not AER-scale)42- [ ] You can name the welfare object you will eventually report (MVPF, cost-per-X, incidence)4344## Anti-patterns4546- "We exploit a clean natural experiment" with **no policy the experiment evaluates** (reads as AEJ: Applied)47- A field-public-finance result with no broad-interest framing (reads as J. Public Economics)48- A descriptive or correlational "policy-relevant" topic with no credible counterfactual49- Promising a welfare/cost-benefit reading you have no way to compute50- Leading with the dataset or method instead of the policy question5152## Three questions that decide fit fast5354Before investing in a draft, answer these in one sentence each; a "no" or "I can't" on any is a fit problem:551. **The lever test** — can you name the instrument a decision-maker would pull? (If it is "a shock," not a policy, lean AEJ: Applied.)562. **The welfare test** — can you name the welfare object you will report (MVPF, cost-per-X, incidence)? (If not, the policy "so what" is missing.)573. **The broad-interest test** — would a non-specialist AEA reader, not just the field, care about the answer? (If only the field cares, lean JPubE.)5859## Worked vignette (illustrative)6061A draft estimates that a state's expansion of a childcare subsidy raised maternal employment. As "we find subsidy → employment" it is a clean applied-micro result (AEJ: Applied). Reframed for AEJ: Policy: *"Is expanding the childcare subsidy a cost-effective way to raise maternal labor supply, and who bears the cost?"* — now the employment elasticity feeds a **cost-per-additional-worker** and an **incidence** split across income groups (illustrative), and the paper has a policy lever, a counterfactual, and a welfare reading.6263## Referee pushback mapped to the fix6465- *"Better suited to a field journal."* → Sharpen the broad-interest framing; lead with the policy lesson, not the institutional detail.66- *"This is just a clean natural experiment."* → Name the policy the experiment evaluates and the welfare object; if there is none, reconsider the target.67- *"Interesting but so what for policy?"* → Add the cost-benefit / incidence reading to the abstract, not the conclusion.6869## Output format7071```72【Policy lever】instrument + affected population (one sentence)73【Policy question】stated as a question with a welfare/cost-benefit/distributional stake74【Counterfactual】what the policy is compared against75【Welfare object to report】MVPF / cost-per-X / incidence / calibrated welfare76【Fit verdict】AEJ: Policy vs JPubE / AEJ:Applied / AER + one-line reason77【Next step】aejpol-literature-positioning78```7980---8182**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `AEJ-Economic-Policy-Skills/skills/aejpol-topic-selection/SKILL.md`