Jeg Literature Positioning

---
name: jeg-literature-positioning
description: Use when positioning a manuscript within the economic-growth literature for the Journal of Economic Growth (JEG) — placing it across the theory and empirics divide that defines this specialist Springer Nature outlet. Builds the related-work spine and the marginal-step argument.
---

# 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

1. **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).
2. **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.
3. **Place your marginal step.** One sentence: "Relative to [strand], we [new mechanism / new identification / more general result / new long-run data]."
4. **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.

## 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
```