Literature Positioning (jleo-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- A referee or coauthor says "what is new here relative to the existing institutional-economics literature?"
- The paper cites the canon (Williamson, Coase, Hart–Moore, North–Weingast) but does not say where it sits among them
- The contribution reads as "first to study X in setting Y" rather than a conceptual advance
- The literature review is a list of papers, not a map with the paper's coordinates marked
- You are unsure whether the relevant frontier is the TCE/firm-theory literature or the PPE/institutions literature
How to position at JLEO
JLEO's readers are institutional and organizational economists and PPE scholars. A contribution lands when it is placed precisely on the right frontier and named as one of a small number of recognized move-types. Work through this:
- Pick the frontier, not "the literature." JLEO spans at least four conversations: (a) transaction-cost economics / governance choice; (b) theory of the firm and contracts (property rights, incomplete contracts, residual control); (c) positive political economy (legislatures, courts, bureaucracies, federalism, separation of powers); (d) institutions and economic performance (credible commitment, rule of law, development). State which conversation you are joining; secondary frontiers come second.
- Name the canonical anchors. Position relative to the load-bearing references — Coase, Williamson, Klein–Crawford–Alchian, Grossman–Hart–Moore, Holmström, North, North–Weingast, McCubbins–Noll–Weingast, Tirole. Not as a name-drop, but as "the closest prior result is ___; I differ because ___."
- Classify your contribution. JLEO rewards: a new mechanism, a new institutional comparison (governance form A vs. B), a formalization of a previously verbal institutional argument, a credible empirical test of a previously untested institutional prediction, or a measurement of an organizational object. State which.
- Distinguish from the price-theory and org-theory neighbors. Make explicit why this is JLEO and not JLE (market/price effects), Org Science (behavioral org-theory), or a pure-theory journal.
Contribution-type table
| Contribution type |
What the positioning must show |
JLEO referee's question |
| New institutional mechanism |
The mechanism is absent from the named anchors |
"Is this genuinely new, or a relabeling of hold-up/agency?" |
| New governance comparison |
Why form A vs. B was not previously adjudicated |
"Is the comparison clean, or confounded by selection?" |
| Formalizing a verbal argument |
The prior argument was informal; your model adds discipline |
"Does the model deliver predictions the words could not?" |
| Testing an institutional prediction |
The prediction was untested with credible design |
"Is the test a fair test of the theory?" |
| Measuring an organizational object |
The object was unmeasured / poorly measured |
"Does the measure capture the governance construct?" |
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- "First to study X in country/industry Y" as the whole contribution — JLEO wants a conceptual delta
- A literature review that lists papers without marking the manuscript's own coordinates
- Citing Williamson/North as decoration while the actual frontier is a narrow applied-micro literature
- Claiming novelty against a frontier you have not actually surveyed (the assigned referee wrote it)
- Positioning against JLE's price-theory literature when the paper is organizational, blurring the boundary
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A paper on franchising contracts starts its positioning as "we study franchising in retail" — a setting, not a frontier. The fix names the conversation (transaction-cost / contract-theory on the make-or-buy and royalty-vs-fee margin), then the two closest anchors: the prior TCE work explaining ownership by outlet monitoring cost, and the agency work explaining royalty rates by effort substitutability. The delta is stated in one line each ("we differ because we observe a within-chain shock to monitoring cost that prior cross-sectional work could not exploit"), and the contribution is classified as a test of a previously cross-sectional governance prediction. Now a JLEO referee can place the paper and judge the test, instead of asking "what is new?"
Output format
【Journal】The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (JLEO)
【Skill】jleo-literature-positioning
【Frontier joined】TCE / theory-of-the-firm / PPE / institutions-and-growth
【Closest prior (2-3) + delta】___ ; I differ because ___
【Contribution type】mechanism / governance comparison / formalization / test / measurement
【Canonical anchors engaged】Coase / Williamson / GHM / North-Weingast / ...
【Sibling boundary】why JLEO and not JLE / Org Science / pure theory
【Verdict】pass / revise / reroute
【Next skill】jleo-identification
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Journal-of-Law-Economics-and-Organization-Skills/skills/jleo-literature-positioning/SKILL.md
1---2name: jleo-literature-positioning3description: Use when staking a Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (JLEO) manuscript's contribution against the new-institutional / positive-political-economy frontier — locating it relative to Williamson/North/Weingast and to sibling journals. Sharpens the contribution claim; it does not write the literature review prose.4---5
6
7# Literature Positioning (jleo-literature-positioning)
8
9## When to trigger
10
11- A referee or coauthor says "what is new here relative to the existing institutional-economics literature?"
12- The paper cites the canon (Williamson, Coase, Hart–Moore, North–Weingast) but does not say where it sits among them
13- The contribution reads as "first to study X in setting Y" rather than a conceptual advance
14- The literature review is a list of papers, not a map with the paper's coordinates marked
15- You are unsure whether the relevant frontier is the TCE/firm-theory literature or the PPE/institutions literature
16
17## How to position at JLEO
18
19JLEO's readers are institutional and organizational economists and PPE scholars. A contribution lands when it is placed precisely on the **right frontier** and named as one of a small number of recognized move-types. Work through this:
20
211. **Pick the frontier, not "the literature."** JLEO spans at least four conversations: (a) transaction-cost economics / governance choice; (b) theory of the firm and contracts (property rights, incomplete contracts, residual control); (c) positive political economy (legislatures, courts, bureaucracies, federalism, separation of powers); (d) institutions and economic performance (credible commitment, rule of law, development). State which conversation you are joining; secondary frontiers come second.
222. **Name the canonical anchors.** Position relative to the load-bearing references — Coase, Williamson, Klein–Crawford–Alchian, Grossman–Hart–Moore, Holmström, North, North–Weingast, McCubbins–Noll–Weingast, Tirole. Not as a name-drop, but as "the closest prior result is ___; I differ because ___."
233. **Classify your contribution.** JLEO rewards: a new mechanism, a new institutional comparison (governance form A vs. B), a formalization of a previously verbal institutional argument, a credible empirical test of a previously untested institutional prediction, or a measurement of an organizational object. State which.
244. **Distinguish from the price-theory and org-theory neighbors.** Make explicit why this is JLEO and not JLE (market/price effects), Org Science (behavioral org-theory), or a pure-theory journal.
25
26## Contribution-type table
27
28| Contribution type | What the positioning must show | JLEO referee's question |
29|-------------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------|
30| New institutional mechanism | The mechanism is absent from the named anchors | "Is this genuinely new, or a relabeling of hold-up/agency?" |
31| New governance comparison | Why form A vs. B was not previously adjudicated | "Is the comparison clean, or confounded by selection?" |
32| Formalizing a verbal argument | The prior argument was informal; your model adds discipline | "Does the model deliver predictions the words could not?" |
33| Testing an institutional prediction | The prediction was untested with credible design | "Is the test a fair test of the theory?" |
34| Measuring an organizational object | The object was unmeasured / poorly measured | "Does the measure capture the governance construct?" |
35
36## Checklist
37
38- [ ] The exact frontier (TCE / firm-theory / PPE / institutions-and-growth) is named, not "the literature"
39- [ ] The two or three closest prior papers are named, with the delta to each stated in one line
40- [ ] The contribution is classified as one recognized move-type, not "first to study"
41- [ ] Canonical anchors (Williamson/Coase/GHM/North-Weingast etc.) are engaged, not just cited
42- [ ] The positioning makes clear why JLEO and not JLE / Org Science / a pure-theory outlet
43- [ ] No invented citations; exemplar papers verified before being named
44
45## Anti-patterns
46
47- "First to study X in country/industry Y" as the whole contribution — JLEO wants a conceptual delta
48- A literature review that lists papers without marking the manuscript's own coordinates
49- Citing Williamson/North as decoration while the actual frontier is a narrow applied-micro literature
50- Claiming novelty against a frontier you have not actually surveyed (the assigned referee wrote it)
51- Positioning against JLE's price-theory literature when the paper is organizational, blurring the boundary
52
53## Worked vignette (illustrative)
54
55A paper on franchising contracts starts its positioning as "we study franchising in retail" — a setting, not a frontier. The fix names the conversation (transaction-cost / contract-theory on the make-or-buy and royalty-vs-fee margin), then the two closest anchors: the prior TCE work explaining ownership by outlet monitoring cost, and the agency work explaining royalty rates by effort substitutability. The delta is stated in one line each ("we differ because we observe a within-chain shock to monitoring cost that prior cross-sectional work could not exploit"), and the contribution is classified as a *test* of a previously cross-sectional governance prediction. Now a JLEO referee can place the paper and judge the test, instead of asking "what is new?"
56
57## Output format
58
59```text
60【Journal】The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (JLEO)
61【Skill】jleo-literature-positioning
62【Frontier joined】TCE / theory-of-the-firm / PPE / institutions-and-growth
63【Closest prior (2-3) + delta】___ ; I differ because ___
64【Contribution type】mechanism / governance comparison / formalization / test / measurement
65【Canonical anchors engaged】Coase / Williamson / GHM / North-Weingast / ...
66【Sibling boundary】why JLEO and not JLE / Org Science / pure theory
67【Verdict】pass / revise / reroute
68【Next skill】jleo-identification
69```
70
71---
72
73**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Journal-of-Law-Economics-and-Organization-Skills/skills/jleo-literature-positioning/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain