Guide for writing the abstract of an academic economics paper. Use this skill whenever the user asks for help writing, drafting, revising, or structuring an abstract for an economics paper - whether empirical micro, development economics, applied economics, or related fields. Also trigger when the user mentions "abstract," "paper summary," or asks how to compress their findings into a short description. This skill synthesizes best practices from David Evans (CGDev), Marc Bellemare, and patterns observed in top economics journals (AER, QJE, AEJ: Applied, etc.).
A lot of people will read no further than the abstract of your paper to decide whether it is worth reading, sharing, or citing. Some will not even get past the title. The abstract is your most compressed sales pitch: it must tell the reader what you did and what you found, clearly and fast.
This skill is based primarily on David Evans' analysis of abstracts in top economics journals, supplemented by Marc Bellemare's writing advice, empirical research on abstract readability, and common patterns from AER, QJE, and AEJ: Applied papers.
Before getting to structure, two empirical facts worth knowing:
Readability predicts citations. Dowling and others examined abstracts in Economics Letters and found that abstracts with simpler words and shorter sentences were associated with more citations. As Bellemare puts it: do not confuse lack of intelligibility with intellectual rigor.
Accessibility expands your audience. Bellemare's rule of thumb: if your title is not repellent and your abstract is intelligible to people outside your narrow subfield, you have expanded the scope of your citations tenfold - because many people cite papers they have only read the abstract of.
Abstracts in top economics journals follow a compressed version of the introduction formula. Evans identifies five ingredients of a good introduction (motivation, research question, empirical approach, detailed results, value-added). The abstract squeezes a subset of these into 4-7 sentences. The typical pattern:
That is the whole formula. Notice what is NOT in this list: sentences dedicated to the existing literature. The abstract is not the place to review what other people have done. That belongs in the introduction.
The most common opening for abstracts in top journals is to jump straight into the research question, often incorporating the empirical design in the same sentence.
Pattern A - Lead with the research question and method combined:
Pattern B - One sentence of motivation, then the question: Some papers open with a single sentence of motivation before pivoting to the research question. Evans found that no paper in his sample used more than one sentence for motivation in the abstract.
Examples of single-sentence motivations:
Each of these is exactly one sentence, and then the next sentence states the research question and design.
What to avoid:
On average, top-journal abstracts devote at least half their sentences (about 54 percent in Evans' sample) to describing results. This is where the abstract does its real work.
Be specific. About half of top-journal abstracts include specific point estimates. Even those that do not still go into substantial detail. "We find a positive effect" is not enough. "We find a 25 percent decrease in child malnutrition" is the standard to aim for.
Structure your results logically:
Example of well-structured results (from Ashraf et al., 2020, AER):
Three out of four sentences in that abstract are about results. That ratio is typical for top journals.
Some abstracts close with a sentence about policy implications or broader significance. This is optional. If you include it, keep it to one sentence. If your results speak for themselves, you can skip it.
Typical length: 4-7 sentences for papers in top journals. Shorter abstracts (4-5 sentences) and longer abstracts (6-8 sentences) follow the same basic structure, with longer ones simply having more room for results.
Journal word limits vary:
Even when there is no word limit (as with working papers), resist the urge to write a long abstract. The discipline of compression forces clarity. If you cannot summarize your paper in 150 words, that may signal a problem with the paper itself, not just the abstract.
Here is the formula laid out as a template:
For a 4-sentence abstract (tight, AER-style):
For a 6-sentence abstract (more room):
For a working paper abstract (7-8 sentences):
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Opening with literature review | Open with research question or one sentence of motivation |
| Multiple motivation sentences | Cut to one sentence maximum |
| Vague results ("we find a positive effect") | Include magnitudes, point estimates, specific findings |
| No mention of empirical approach | State the identification strategy in the first 1-2 sentences |
| Too much space on method, too little on results | Aim for 50%+ of sentences on results |
| Dedicating sentences to existing literature | Remove entirely; literature belongs in the introduction |
| Abstract reads like a table of contents | The abstract reports findings, not paper structure |
| Jargon that only specialists understand | Use simpler words; readability predicts citations |
Use this checklist to audit a draft abstract:
When a user asks for help writing or revising an abstract, follow this workflow:
If the user provides an existing abstract, diagnose it against the formula. The most common problems are: too much motivation, literature review sentences that do not belong, vague results, and missing empirical approach. Flag these and suggest specific rewrites.
Key editing principle: Every word in the abstract competes with every other word. If a word does not help the reader understand what you did or what you found, cut it.
The abstract is a compressed version of the introduction. If the econ-intro-writing skill is also available, use both together. The introduction follows the full 7-part structure (motivation, question, approach, results, value-added, optional, roadmap). The abstract compresses this into 4-7 sentences, dropping the value-added/literature discussion and roadmap entirely, and keeping motivation to one sentence at most.
Think of it this way:
The results in both should be consistent and specific. The abstract should never promise something the introduction does not deliver, and vice versa.