Three Functions of an Effective Think Tank
Improve policy by stopping bad ideas, supplying good ones, and informing debate
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 98%
Posen describes an effective think tank as performing three functions. First, it acts as an independent source of scrutiny by exposing known costs, overlooked consequences, and bad proposals. Second, it develops constructive ideas on a medium-term horizon, where researchers have more time and less daily political pressure than government officials. Third, it contributes evidence and judgment to public discussion, helping citizens and officials distinguish promising policies from harmful ones. The mechanism depends on transparency, intellectual honesty, and earned access rather than an assumed right to influence. Success should be measured probabilistically: institutes will not stop every bad policy or secure immediate adoption of every proposal, but sustained credible work can alter the terms of debate and eventually improve decisions.
Origin
Extracted from Masters in Business during Adam Posen's explanation of how the Peterson Institute and other credible think tanks affect policy.
Core principles
- 01Research earns influence through usefulness and credibility
- 02Preventing harmful policy is a meaningful outcome
- 03Medium-term thinking creates room for better ideas
- 04Public education is part of policy influence
- 05Changing a debate is more realistic than winning every proposal
How to run it
- 1
Establish transparent commitments
Publish the institution's agenda, funding sources, and researcher backgrounds. State the values and evidence shaping the work.
Pro tip Accept broad, nonrestricted support where possible to reduce donor control over conclusions.
Watch out Hidden incentives can destroy credibility even when the underlying research is sound.
- 2
Shoot down bad ideas
Identify proposals contradicted by established evidence and explain their costs and unforeseen effects. Perform the role of an independent economic adviser.
Pro tip Criticize mechanisms and evidence rather than relying on partisan labels.
Watch out Do not become purely reactive or let daily controversies consume the research agenda.
- 3
Generate good ideas
Study important problems on a six-month to three-year horizon and offer practical interventions. Use both research and practitioner experience to surface neglected problems.
Pro tip Choose issues where additional analytical time creates an advantage over government decision cycles.
Watch out An elegant proposal without implementation awareness may have little policy value.
- 4
Inform public discussion
Translate findings into accessible publications, media appearances, briefings, and public explanations. Discuss both beneficial and harmful policy options.
Pro tip Adapt the format to the audience while keeping the underlying claims consistent.
Watch out Accessibility should not become oversimplification or overpromising.
- 5
Earn engagement
Build enough credibility that officials and the public seek the institute's analysis. Serve as a sounding board while preserving independence.
Pro tip Engage across administrations and parties whenever substantive exchange is possible.
Watch out Access obtained by suppressing unwelcome findings is not genuine influence.
- 6
Track debate-level outcomes
Evaluate whether the institute changes policy language, assumptions, or available options over time. Treat immediate adoption as only one form of success.
Pro tip Document intermediate influence such as citations, briefings, and shifts in mainstream framing.
Watch out Expecting every recommendation to prevail encourages exaggeration and short-termism.
In the wild
Posen cites Olivier Blanchard's leadership on fiscal policy as an example of the Peterson Institute changing how policymakers discuss deficits and public spending. The influence came through sustained intellectual groundwork rather than immediate acceptance of a single proposal.
→ The debate moved away from simplistic debt thresholds toward financing conditions and the productive use of spending.
Posen says the institute was shut out of meaningful interaction with Trump administration appointees because it would not say what they wanted to hear. It accepted exclusion rather than becoming partisan.
→ The institute preserved its intellectual independence despite losing direct access to an administration.
Common mistakes
Confusing access with impact
Regular contact with officials is not useful if maintaining that access requires compromising evidence or conclusions.
Only criticizing policy
Stopping bad ideas matters, but an institute also needs constructive alternatives and a forward research agenda.
Expecting immediate wins
Policy influence often appears as a gradual change in debate rather than direct adoption of a newly published proposal.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for independent policy institutes, research centers, and public-interest organizations seeking durable influence.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for partisan advocacy groups whose primary objective is advancing a predetermined political platform.
From the transcript
“they serve three purposes first, and is they try to shoot down bad ideas.”
“The second thing you tried to do is be a source of good ideas for what are the problems, and say the six months to…”
“And then the third thing you try to do is contribute to the public discussion”
From the episode
Adam S. Posen on the Need for Fiscal Stimulus (Podcast)
Adam S. Posen