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.
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.
The Foundation for American Innovation (FAI) takes money from over 200 donors with a relatively small average check size. This diversification means they can walk away from any single funder if missions diverge, ensuring they "can't be bought."
In a city saturated with events, being known for throwing genuinely good parties ensures high-value attendance from busy and overscheduled people. For FAI, this is a strategic tool for building relationships and ensuring influential people make time for them.
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.
Bipartisanship often results in a "mushy middle" compromise nobody loves. The Institute for Progress's "cross-partisanship" strategy finds ways for both parties to earnestly support the same policy for their own distinct reasons, creating more durable legislation.
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.
Rather than being a slogan for mass politics, the "Abundance" agenda is aimed at influential D.C. staffers. The goal is to capture their mindshare, ensuring the agenda's implementation priorities become part of the governing machine, regardless of the administration.
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.
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.
Just as drug trials use surrogate endpoints (e.g., bone density) to predict long-term outcomes, policy work can be measured by intermediate wins. This involves identifying and tracking necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions for success, like persuading a key committee.
LLMs excel at synthesizing public knowledge, threatening a core function of think tanks. The counter-strategy is to focus on generating "illegible" information that AI can't access, such as deep insights from retired civil servants or private conversations.