---

name: ecopol-topic-selection description: Use when judging whether a topic is a timely, important policy question the Economic Policy (EP) Panel would commission and want to debate. Tests Panel-worthiness and policy timeliness; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Topic Selection (ecopol-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• You are deciding whether a question is worth pitching to Economic Policy or developing for a possible commission
• A coauthor asks "is this an EP paper, or a field-journal paper dressed up as policy?"
• The topic is technically interesting but you cannot name the decision a policymaker faces
• The question risks reading as last decade's debate rather than a live European/global policy issue
• You need to know which of the two likely discussants (academic vs. policy) would find it worth their time

The EP topic bar: would the Panel commission this?

Since the 2025 relaunch, EP is commissioned and online-only — the Managing Editor invites papers on the journal's thematic priorities; unsolicited papers are not accepted (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). In practice the realistic route is to become the obvious person to commission: circulate a working draft, pitch the Managing Editor, or get visible inside the CEPR/CESifo/Sciences Po networks. So topic selection is really Panel selection: would the Panel put this in front of two discussants and a room of economists and policymakers?

A topic clears the EP bar when it satisfies all four:

1. Timely and live. There is a current policy decision, reform, or debate on the table — not a settled question. EP's subtitle is Papers on European and Global Issues; a European or global policy hook is a strong signal.
2. Important. The stakes are first-order — money, welfare, institutions — large enough that a finance ministry or central bank would care about the answer.
3. Tractable with credible evidence. There is identifying variation or a disciplined model that can actually answer it, not just describe it.
4. A clear decision-relevant takeaway. You can state, in one sentence, what a policymaker should do (or stop doing, or reconsider) if your result holds.

Branch by what kind of policy question it is

If the question is…	The Panel will want…	The desk-reject risk
Evaluation of an enacted policy	a credible counterfactual + a magnitude that matters	"interesting estimate, no policy lever"
A proposed/forthcoming reform	a forward-looking, model-disciplined projection with stated assumptions	"speculation without discipline"
A macro/fiscal/monetary diagnosis	timeliness + a number a central bank/ministry can act on	"commentary, not a paper"
A cross-country / EU-institutional issue	comparable data + a genuinely European/global "so what"	"one-country study with EU branding bolted on"

How to sharpen a weak topic

• Write the headline policy sentence first: "Policy X raised/lowered Y by Z; therefore a policymaker should ___." If you cannot fill the blank, it is not yet an EP topic.
• Identify the two audiences in the panel room: name the academic discussant's subfield and the policy discussant's institution. A topic that excites only one is at risk.
• Pressure-test timeliness: is the decision being made now, or did it close? EP rewards papers that arrive while the debate is open.
• Separate the novel finding from the novel question. EP can reward a sharp answer to an old question if the policy moment is live, but the policy relevance must be unmistakable.

Checklist

• One-sentence headline that names a policy decision and a magnitude
• The question is live — a current European or global policy debate, not a closed one
• Stakes are first-order; a ministry/central bank/Commission would care about the answer
• There is credible identifying variation or a disciplined model, not just description
• Both panel personas (academic + policy discussant) would find it worth debating
• It is distinguishable from an AEJ:EP / J.Pub.E. field paper — the policy decision, not the method, is the point
• Process facts (commissioned-only, online-only) cited from resources/official-source-map.md or marked 待核实

Anti-patterns

• A clean estimate with no policy lever — EP is not a field journal that rewards identification for its own sake
• A topic pitched purely to economists, ignoring the policy discussant who will be in the room
• Branding a single-country study as "European" without a comparative or institutional payoff
• Reviving a settled debate with no live decision attached
• Assuming you can submit unsolicited — confirm the commissioning route (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
• Inventing editor names, conference dates, or fees instead of marking 待核实

Output format

【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-topic-selection
【Headline policy sentence】<decision + magnitude + recommendation>
【Timeliness】live debate? (which current policy decision)
【Panel personas】academic discussant subfield / policy discussant institution
【Verdict】Panel-worthy / sharpen / reroute to field journal
【Sibling boundary】why EP not AEJ:EP / Brookings / J.Pub.E.
【Source status】verified URL / 待核实
【Next skill】ecopol-literature-positioning