---

name: worlddev-topic-selection description: Use when deciding whether a development question fits World Development (WD) and which sibling journal it really belongs to. Tests scope, relevance, and outlet fit; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Topic Selection (worlddev-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• A development paper exists but it is unclear whether WD or a sibling (JDE, WBER, JDS, EDCC) is the right home
• A reviewer or coauthor says the question is "interesting but not development" or "too narrow / too local"
• The paper is methodologically strong but its real-world development stakes are implicit
• The contribution is a clean estimate with no obvious audience beyond the method's specialists
• A qualitative or single-country study needs to argue why it travels beyond its case

What WD actually selects for

WD is a multidisciplinary journal. The desk-screen question is not "is the identification clean?" but "does this advance how we understand or improve development in low- and middle-income contexts, and will a multidisciplinary readership care?" Three things must be present, in roughly this order:

1. A development problem that matters — poverty, inequality, livelihoods, institutions, governance, aid/NGOs, food and agriculture, health, education, conflict, gender, environment-development. Stated as a problem in the world, not as a gap in a model.
2. A defensible way of learning about it — credible for the method used. Econometric papers need an identification logic; qualitative papers need a transparent inferential logic; that is the next skill, but topic selection confirms the method is fit for the question.
3. Relevance that travels — what a policymaker, practitioner, or development scholar elsewhere takes away. WD rewards papers whose lessons are not trapped inside one program evaluation.

Is this WD, or a sibling? A boundary table

If the paper is best described as…	Lean toward
Frontier development econometrics; the contribution IS the identification/method	Journal of Development Economics
Economics-centric, often Bank-data or Bank-policy framed, technical economics audience	World Bank Economic Review
Interdisciplinary but more political-science / sociological / area-studies framing	Journal of Development Studies
Long-run growth, culture, demography, economic history of development	Economic Development and Cultural Change
Broad development relevance, methodologically pluralist, equity- and institution-aware, policy-facing	World Development ✓

The WD-defining move: a paper that a development economist and a development sociologist would both want to read, because the problem and its implications outrun any single method. If only one specialist audience cares, reconsider the venue.

A worked selection (illustrative)

"A cash-transfer RCT in one district raises school enrollment by 6pp." On its own this is a clean estimate that JDE would judge on design. To become a WD paper it must answer "so what for development?": does the effect persist, who is left out, what does it cost relative to alternatives, and what does it reveal about the institutions delivering it? The WD version foregrounds the mechanism and the implementation context — the RCT becomes evidence in a broader argument about how transfers interact with local institutions, which is what makes it travel.

Five screening questions before you commit

Run these in order; a "no" sends you back to reframing, not forward.

1. The headline-without-method test. Can you state the finding in one sentence that omits the technique and still matters to a development audience? If the sentence collapses without "we use an RDD," the contribution is the method — reroute to JDE.
2. The cross-table test. Would a development economist and a development sociologist both put this on a reading list? If only one would, the framing is too narrow for WD's multidisciplinary remit.
3. The equity question. Does the paper say something about who gains, who is excluded, or how a constraint binds for the poor? WD's readership expects distributional and institutional texture, not just an average effect.
4. The travel test. If the result is from one country/program, name two other contexts where the lesson plausibly applies — and the scope condition that would break it. Cannot do it? The relevance may be local.
5. The actionability test. Can a policymaker, donor, or practitioner do something differently because of this? WD rewards work that informs action, even when the implication is "this popular intervention does not work as believed."

Checklist

• The development problem is stated as a problem in the world, with stakes a non-specialist grasps
• The contribution is legible to BOTH an economist and a non-economist development scholar
• The paper is distinguished from JDE (method-first) and from the relevant sibling explicitly
• The method is appropriate to the question (causal design OR transparent qualitative logic), not chosen for prestige
• Single-case or single-country work argues why its lessons travel (external relevance, not external validity alone)
• Process facts cited are in resources/official-source-map.md or marked 待核实
• The deliverable names the next decision, not just prose edits

Anti-patterns

• Pitching a pure methods contribution to WD — that is JDE; WD will ask "so what for development?"
• Equating "rigorous" with "fit for WD" — a flawless local estimate with no broader relevance gets desk-screened
• Dressing a generic applied-micro paper in development vocabulary without a development stake
• Assuming a qualitative paper is automatically "softer" — WD judges it by transparency and relevance, not by sample size
• Inventing editor names, fees, or word limits instead of marking 待核实

Output format

【Journal】World Development (WD)
【Skill】worlddev-topic-selection
【Verdict】fit / reroute / sharpen
【Development stake】the problem in the world, one sentence
【Audience】who across disciplines cares, and why it travels
【Sibling boundary】why WD not JDE / WBER / JDS / EDCC
【Source status】verified URL / 待核实 / not asserted
【Next skill】worlddev-literature-positioning