We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Unlike traditional think tanks that act like "universities without students," newer organizations like IFP and FAI are structured to achieve tangible changes in laws and regulations. Publishing a paper is just the first step in a much longer process.
A core strategy for policy impact is to make it as easy as possible for busy decision-makers to act on your ideas. This involves doing their follow-up work, aligning stakeholders, and presenting a clear path to get a decision over the finish line.
The traditional government model of setting a regulation and waiting years to assess it is obsolete for AI. A new approach is needed: a dynamic board of government, industry, and academic leaders collaborating to make and update rules in real-time.
Policymakers struggle to apply academic findings because research doesn't specify how to translate evidence into procurement documents. An intermediary is needed to bridge this gap, acting as an in-house consultant to map research to actionable implementation plans for those writing contracts.
To create lasting change in government, innovators must operate with extreme speed to "rip out old roots and plant new seeds." The goal is to replace entrenched systems and prove the value of new ones so quickly that they become resilient and difficult for a subsequent administration to undo.
Recognizing that policy change is difficult, IFP adopts a venture capital mindset. They maximize their "shots on goal" on high-expected-value policies, accepting a low success rate. The few major wins they achieve are impactful enough to justify the entire portfolio of attempts.
Engaging in polarized debates is like joining a massive tug-of-war with minimal marginal impact. IFP's strategy is to find important, orthogonal issues without a strong partisan valence, like science funding mechanisms, where they can achieve significant change.
Large, established think tanks are losing relevance due to political polarization and their slow pace. Smaller, agile think tanks with niche expertise are gaining influence by focusing on direct, person-to-person engagement with policymakers to create tangible impact, rather than just publishing books.
Effective activism doesn't try to persuade politicians or stage a revolution. Instead, it should 'inject a retrovirus': build and run privately-funded alternative institutions (like citizens' assemblies) that operate on a different logic. By demonstrating a better way of doing things, this strategy creates demand and allows new institutional 'DNA' to spread organically.
Traditional think tanks silo research, communications, and outreach. IFP believes this is inefficient. They develop staffers who handle the entire process from research to Hill outreach, which leads to more relevant research and more credible advocacy.
The common practice of project-based funding forces think tanks into a "box checking exercise" of deliverables like op-eds and webinars. This shifts focus away from achieving actual, measurable policy change, which is harder to quantify upfront.