From jue-skills
Guides building spatial-equilibrium, sorting, or quantitative spatial models for JUE manuscripts. Helps choose model scope and argue invariance for counterfactuals.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jue-skills:jue-theory-modelThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- A reduced-form spatial result needs a mechanism that interprets the magnitude
JUE is empirically led, but referees expect theory to discipline interpretation, not decorate it. Match the model to the claim:
| The claim is... | The model you need | Pitfalls |
|---|---|---|
| "this amenity/disamenity is valued at X" | Rosen–Roback capitalization, wages + rents jointly | using only prices ignores the wage margin and the worker indifference condition |
| "agglomeration raises productivity by Y" | sharing/matching/learning micro-foundation; sorting vs spillover decomposition | attributing sorting of high types to true agglomeration |
| "policy/infrastructure changes welfare by Z" | quantitative spatial model with mobility, trade/commuting, housing | counterfactual not invariant to the policy; ignored general-equilibrium reallocation |
| "households sort on local public goods" | Tiebout / discrete-choice sorting model | treating sorting as exogenous; no equilibrium in prices |
| "market access drives outcomes" | gravity/market-access (Donaldson–Hornbeck, ARSW) | endogenous network; access measured without the structural weight |
JUE accepts both calibrated and estimated spatial models, but the referee asks the same question: what disciplines the parameters? For a calibrated QSM, cite the external estimates each elasticity comes from and report counterfactual sensitivity to the least-credible one. For an estimated model, name the moment or reduced-form variation that identifies each parameter (this hands off to jue-identification). Either way, the counterfactual's credibility is only as strong as the weakest-identified elasticity — surface it rather than hiding it in an appendix.
A recurring JUE referee question is whether your setting is an open city (migration equalizes utility, so local shocks capitalize into land and dissipate in welfare terms) or a closed economy (population fixed, effects fall on prices and quantities differently). The choice changes the sign and incidence of your comparative statics: in an open-city model a local amenity gain is fully capitalized into rents with no utility change, whereas in a closed model it raises resident welfare. State which assumption you make and defend it for your geographic scale — a single metro is more open than a national system. Getting this wrong is a common interpretation error referees flag.
A paper estimates that a zoning relaxation raised housing units in treated tracts. Reduced form alone cannot say whether welfare rose, because households re-sort and rents adjust elsewhere. The JUE theory move: embed the estimate in a small spatial-equilibrium model with mobility and housing supply, calibrate the supply elasticity to the reduced-form response and the migration elasticity to prior estimates, and report the welfare counterfactual with sensitivity to the migration elasticity (the least-identified parameter). The model shows the local rent decline is partly undone by in-migration — a comparative static the data then supports.
JUE referees punish theory that is either missing or overgrown. A reduced-form paper usually needs only a compact framework — a few equations stating the indifference/zero-profit conditions and the comparative static the data tests — placed before the empirics so the estimate has meaning when it arrives. A structural paper carries a fuller model but should still front-load the intuition and relegate derivations to an appendix. The test in both cases: remove the model and ask whether any estimate changes meaning. If nothing changes, the model is decoration; if the magnitude becomes uninterpretable, the model is load-bearing and belongs in the main text.
【Claim type】capitalization / agglomeration / QSM-counterfactual / sorting / market-access
【Model chosen】one line — and why this much model
【Equilibrium conditions】indifference / zero-profit / clearing respected? [Y/N]
【Incidence】land / labor / firms
【Run vs long-run】short-run (fixed location) vs long-run (re-sorting)
【QSM params → data】each elasticity tied to a moment; sensitivity reported?
【Comparative static tested】[...]
【Next skill】jue-robustness
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jue-skillsCrafts theoretical frameworks for Journal of Economic Geography manuscripts, bridging formal NEG models and conceptual human geography frameworks.
Guides whether a research question fits the Journal of Urban Economics by testing spatial mechanisms, equilibrium, and marginal contribution. Useful for boundary decisions with sibling venues like RSUE or JPubE.
Builds and disciplines an explicit economic model or mechanism for a Journal of Political Economy manuscript. Provides minimal-model discipline for empirics-led papers and full-model rigor for theory-led or structural papers.