C.D. Howe Institute Submission Guidelines

Key Takeaways

• The C.D. Howe Institute publishes through several distinct series, and each carries different length, review, and lead-time expectations. Choosing the series comes before writing.
• Outside authors are read, but they compete with commissioned work. A two-page proposal that names the policy question, the data, and the recommendation gets a faster answer than a finished manuscript.
• Research publications go through internal and external review. Budget for at least one substantive revision and three to nine months from accepted proposal to release.
• Non-partisanship works as an editorial rule at the Institute. Drafts that read as advocacy for a party, an industry, or a funder get returned for rewrites.
• Authors without a doctorate publish with the Institute regularly. What reviewers test is command of Canadian institutional detail and whether the evidence supports the claim.

1. Introduction

A researcher finishes a paper on provincial electricity pricing, or a consultant builds a model of child-care subsidy take-up, and then faces a question with no obvious answer: where does this go? Academic journals take a year or more and reach few people who write policy. Newspapers cut 4,000 words to 800. Posting a PDF on a personal site reaches almost nobody in government.

The C.D. Howe Institute sits in that gap. It is a Toronto-based independent, non-partisan research institution, founded in 1958, whose stated purpose is to improve the economic and social well-being of Canadians. Its publications land on the desks of federal and provincial officials, regulators, bank economists, and reporters. Getting a paper into that stream is a realistic goal for outside authors, but the Institute's standards differ from a journal's in ways that trip up first-time contributors.

This guide covers what the Institute publishes, how a proposal moves through review, what its editors expect from a draft, and how it compares with other Canadian and international policy outlets. It is written for economists, consultants, civil servants, lawyers, and academics who have something to say about Canadian policy and want a realistic sense of the path from idea to publication.

2. Publication formats and the readers behind them

Match the format to the strength of your evidence. The Institute's series differ in how much review they carry and how quickly they appear, and picking the wrong one costs months.

The main formats:

Exact limits shift as series evolve, so confirm the current expectation with the program director before you commit to a length.

The audience shapes the writing more than the format does. Institute readers mostly hold economics, law, or public administration degrees, work in finance ministries, central banks, regulators, or industry associations, and read on a phone between meetings. They will not work through a literature review to find your point. A former deputy minister reading your E-Brief needs the recommendation, the size of the effect, and the cost within the first page.

Program areas at the Institute group the work: fiscal and tax policy, monetary policy, financial services, international trade, energy and environment, health, education and social policy, immigration, Indigenous policy, and innovation. Identify the program that owns your topic, then the format. A paper on securities regulation belongs with financial services staff; the same paper sent to the health program will be forwarded and delayed.

Practical advice: read the three most recent publications in your target program area before you write your proposal. You will learn the house structure, the length reviewers consider normal, and whether your angle duplicates something published six months ago. If it does, say in your proposal what your work adds.

3. How a submission moves through the Institute

The process starts with a proposal. Finished manuscripts arrive later, after a program director agrees the topic is worth the review time.

A typical sequence runs like this:

1. Proposal. You send a short document, two pages at most, to the relevant program director or research staff.
2. Internal screening. Staff weigh fit with the program, whether the question matters now, whether the Institute has covered it recently, and whether the author has access to the data required.
3. External review. Most research publications go to one or more outside referees with expertise in the area. Referees comment on method, data, and whether the conclusions follow from the evidence.
4. Revision. You respond to comments in writing and revise the draft. This round is where most of the calendar time goes.
5. Editorial and production. Copy editing, chart preparation, and formatting to house style.
6. Release. Distribution to members and media, often with an op-ed placement or a briefing, and occasionally testimony before a legislative committee.

A proposal that moves quickly usually contains seven things:

• The policy question in one sentence.
• Why now: the budget, consultation, data release, or court decision that makes the timing relevant.
• Method and data, including whether you already have access.
• Expected findings and the recommendation you believe they support.
• Target format and approximate length.
• A realistic timeline.
• A short biography, relevant publications, and any funder or conflict of interest.

Two failure modes are common. The first is sending a 40-page draft with a note asking whether the Institute is interested. That reverses the order the Institute works in and signals unfamiliarity with its process. The second is pitching a topic with no decision attached. "Canada should think about productivity" is a theme; "the capital cost allowance for manufacturing should be extended because the 2021 change produced these measured effects" is a proposal.

Boundary conditions matter here. The Institute's non-partisanship means it avoids work that reads as campaigning for a bill or a party position, and it will push back on drafts where the conclusion arrives before the evidence. Analysis that points toward a specific policy change is welcome. Advocacy for a predetermined outcome is not.

4. Writing to the Institute's editorial standard

The Institute's readers are busy generalists, and review exists to make your work usable for them. Drafts that fail review usually fail on readability or evidence, not on ambition.

Put the recommendation in the first paragraph, with the magnitude and the cost. If your proposal would raise the federal deficit by a stated amount in the first two years, say so early. Reviewers treat buried conclusions as a sign the author has not decided what the paper argues.

Write in plain language without simplifying the analysis. Technical derivations belong in an appendix. Explain provincial institutional detail that readers from other provinces will not know, such as how a specific transfer formula or regulatory tribunal works. Define terms the first time you use them.

Show your sources. Statistics Canada tables, Bank of Canada data, federal and provincial budget documents, and OECD or IMF datasets give reviewers a way to check your numbers. Charts should each carry one message, with the source printed on the exhibit and the units labeled.

Reviewers at the Institute ask about distributional effects. Who pays, who benefits, and how much, stated in dollars or percentage terms. A recommendation that ignores the losers will come back with a request to address them.

5. Key comparison: how C.D. Howe fits among policy outlets

Not every paper belongs at the C.D. Howe Institute, and the differences between policy outlets are large enough to change where you send your work.

Four questions sort the choice. Do you need academic credit for a tenure file, which pushes you toward a peer-reviewed journal? Is the issue moving within the next two quarters, which pushes you toward a memo or a shorter brief? Does your argument depend on a specific ideological frame, in which case an outlet with that frame will place it faster? And do you need French-language reach or a specific regional audience, which changes the calculus again?

Many authors publish in more than one place on the same body of work: a short memo for timeliness, an E-Brief for the policy audience, and a journal article for the academic record. Disclose the overlap to each editor and check the copyright terms before you sign.

6. FAQ

Q1. Does the C.D. Howe Institute accept unsolicited submissions?

Research staff read proposals from authors they have not worked with before, and a meaningful share of publications comes from outside contributors. Commissioned work also fills the calendar, so an outside proposal competes on topic fit and timing. A two-page proposal sent to the program director covering your subject performs better than a completed manuscript sent to a general inquiries address.

Q2. How long does the review take?

A decision on a proposal usually arrives within a few weeks to a couple of months. A full study with external review commonly takes three to nine months from acceptance to release, with at least one revision round. Intelligence Memos and E-Briefs move faster because they carry lighter review. Plan your own deadlines around the slower end of that range.

Q3. Do I need a PhD to publish with the Institute?

No. Contributors have included civil servants, management consultants, industry economists, lawyers, and graduate students working with a senior co-author. Reviewers test whether you understand the institutional mechanics of the policy area and whether your evidence supports your conclusion. Co-authoring with someone who has published in the area is a practical route for first-time contributors.

Q4. Can I republish the same work elsewhere?

The Institute normally holds copyright on work it publishes, and reuse requests are handled case by case. Raise your plans before signing: a journal submission, a book chapter, or a course reading list all touch the same agreement. Ask specifically whether your target journal would treat the Institute version as prior publication, since that answer varies by field.

7. Conclusion

The C.D. Howe Institute suits work that answers a live Canadian policy question with data and a specific recommendation, written so a deputy minister can act on it. If the main value of your paper is theoretical, or if your goal is to argue for an outcome rather than to test one, another outlet will serve you better.

The path is short to describe and slower to walk. Identify the program area that owns your topic, read its recent output, and write a two-page proposal that states the policy question, the evidence you have, and what you think should change. Confirm the Institute's current format requirements on its website before you send anything, since series lengths and review practices shift over time. Authors who treat the proposal as the real work, and the manuscript as the response to review, tend to move through the process with fewer surprises.