Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Nuffield Trust: 'Abolished to Perfection? Building a Better Centre for the NHS'
LONDON, England, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Nuffield Trust issued the following report on Dec. 1, 2025 by Mark Dayan, Sarah Reed, Nick Davies, Stuart Hoddinott, Nigel Edwards and Dr Becks Fisher entitled "Abolished to perfection? Building a better centre for the NHS".
Here are excerpts:
* * *
In March this year, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that NHS England - the arm's-length body overseeing, planning and funding the health service - would be abolished, with its functions brought back into the Department of Health and Social Care. He said the change would "put the NHS back at the
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Nuffield Trust issued the following report on Dec. 1, 2025 by Mark Dayan, Sarah Reed, Nick Davies, Stuart Hoddinott, Nigel Edwards and Dr Becks Fisher entitled "Abolished to perfection? Building a better centre for the NHS".
Here are excerpts:
* * *
In March this year, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that NHS England - the arm's-length body overseeing, planning and funding the health service - would be abolished, with its functions brought back into the Department of Health and Social Care. He said the change would "put the NHS back at theheart of government where it belongs, freeing it to focus on patients".
The transition is already under way: a dedicated team has been established, senior joint appointments made, and initial steps taken towards the pledged 50% headcount reduction. The change comes amid intense political and public scrutiny, with public satisfaction with the NHS at a record low, and commitments to improve the health service's performance forming the centrepiece of national government priorities.
Structural reorganisation in and of themselves are rarely the answer to deeper systemic problems facing public services. But this moment presents a key opportunity to reset the centre of the NHS - how it operates within government, but also its relationship with local systems.
This report draws on evidence from two private roundtables held by the Nuffield Trust and the Institute for Government in July this year, involving officials engaged in the current transition, individuals with experience of past reforms, independent experts, and representatives from NHS bodies and central government. It also draws on experiences of historical reorganisations to identify lessons for managing the change effectively.
* * *
View full report at: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/abolished-to-perfection-building-a-better-centre-for-the-nhs
[Category: ThinkTank]
Manhattan Institute: 'Hidden Tax on Your Power Bill: Construction Work in Progress'
NEW YORK, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following issue brief on Dec. 4, 2025 by Eric Olson, Jack Dorminey and Jason M. Walter entitled "The Hidden Tax on Your Power Bill: Construction Work in Progress."
Here is the introduction:
* * *
Construction Work in Progress, or CWIP, is the most influential energy policy term that never appears on a household utility bill. It shows up only on a regulated company's ledgers; yet the way regulators treat this line item can add real dollars to what families pay every month.
Ordinarily, large utility projects are financed the same
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following issue brief on Dec. 4, 2025 by Eric Olson, Jack Dorminey and Jason M. Walter entitled "The Hidden Tax on Your Power Bill: Construction Work in Progress."
Here is the introduction:
* * *
Construction Work in Progress, or CWIP, is the most influential energy policy term that never appears on a household utility bill. It shows up only on a regulated company's ledgers; yet the way regulators treat this line item can add real dollars to what families pay every month.
Ordinarily, large utility projects are financed the sameway as most private investments. A company raises debt and equity, builds the facility, and only after it is operational does it begin earning revenue. Investors shoulder the risk that costs may rise, schedules may slip, or demand may fall short. Customers start paying only once they receive the service.
CWIP turns that typical business sequence on its head. State commissions as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have allowed utilities to move CWIP into the "rate base." The rate base is the pool of assets on which a utility earns a guaranteed rate of return. As such, when CWIP is approved, households are no longer just consumers of energy; they also become financiers, covering the carrying costs of projects still under construction. The policy was pitched as a practical tool to encourage construction. Initially, it kept investor-owned utilities solvent while they tackled expensive long-term projects, such as nuclear plants or extra-high voltage lines. In practice, it has produced inflated budgets through undisciplined spending and pushed risk from investors onto ratepayers.
Policymakers today face a choice. They can: 1) end CWIP entirely, forcing utilities to return to traditional debt/equity financing; 2) allow CWIP only under strict budget caps set at the outset of construction, with no change orders; or 3) make CWIP rates of return performance-based, rewarding projects that finish on time and on budget while penalizing overruns.
Given the anticipated increase in electricity demand from new data centers needed to power AI, federal and state officials need to ensure that ratepayers are not financing the costs of increased energy infrastructure through premature CWIP charges.
* * *
View full issue brief at: https://manhattan.institute/article/the-hidden-tax-on-your-power-bill-construction-work-in-progress
[Category: Think Tank]
Manhattan Institute: 'Correcting the Core: University General Education Requirements Need State Oversight'
NEW YORK, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following issue brief on Dec. 18, 2025 by Neetu Arnold entitled "Correcting the Core: University General Education Requirements Need State Oversight."
Here is the introduction:
* * *
Universities across the U.S. are struggling to rebuild public trust, as many Americans are concerned about politicization and the return on investment of a college degree. At their best, universities impart knowledge and skills that students can apply both as informed citizens and in their careers. They are places of innovation, where research-driven
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following issue brief on Dec. 18, 2025 by Neetu Arnold entitled "Correcting the Core: University General Education Requirements Need State Oversight."
Here is the introduction:
* * *
Universities across the U.S. are struggling to rebuild public trust, as many Americans are concerned about politicization and the return on investment of a college degree. At their best, universities impart knowledge and skills that students can apply both as informed citizens and in their careers. They are places of innovation, where research-drivenstudents gain firsthand access to innovative technologies that shape our economy and drive our country's success.
But universities have abused their role as custodians of students and stewards of taxpayer dollars by blurring the line between education and activism, especially in introductory course work or in required courses necessary to fulfill general education requirements. One way to restore trust is for universities, as well as the public officials responsible for oversight at the state level, to revisit those general education requirements that students must complete at public universities.
This report looks at ways to reduce politicization in general education courses and streamline the options offered to students. Key points:
* Revisions to general education requirements in Florida, which this brief uses as a case study, reduced activist-oriented courses and streamlined options for students.
* Diversity requirements, whether embedded in general education programs or stand-alone graduation mandates, remain present in 12 states with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) bans on the books.
* As public institutions funded by taxpayers, universities must ensure that general education courses are academically rigorous and broadly applicable, as opposed to advancing one political worldview.
The report concludes that state lawmakers must take a more active role in revisiting general education requirements in order to restore trust in higher education.
* * *
View full issue brief at: https://manhattan.institute/article/correcting-the-core-university-general-education-requirements-need-state-oversight
[Category: Think Tank]
Investor Group on Climate Change: 'Systems Stewardship: Managing Interconnected Climate Risks for Lasting Value'
SYDNEY, Australia, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Investor Group on Climate Change issued the following report on Dec. 15, 2025 by Dr Donna Lopata, UTS entitled "Systems Stewardship: Managing Interconnected Climate Risks for Lasting Value."
Here is the executive summary:
* * *
Today's economic, environmental and social challenges are deeply interconnected. Climate change and biodiversity loss are examples of complex, system-level risks with economy-wide impacts. Addressing these risks requires systems thinking.
All sectors have a role in responding to the climate crisis. For investors seeking risk-adjusted
... Show Full Article
SYDNEY, Australia, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Investor Group on Climate Change issued the following report on Dec. 15, 2025 by Dr Donna Lopata, UTS entitled "Systems Stewardship: Managing Interconnected Climate Risks for Lasting Value."
Here is the executive summary:
* * *
Today's economic, environmental and social challenges are deeply interconnected. Climate change and biodiversity loss are examples of complex, system-level risks with economy-wide impacts. Addressing these risks requires systems thinking.
All sectors have a role in responding to the climate crisis. For investors seeking risk-adjustedreturns, the dual responsibility is clear:
* Allocating capital for long-term economic, societal and environmental good
* Safeguarding financial stability and protecting the economy by addressing system-level risk
Systems stewardship is not just compatible with fiduciary duty -- it is essential to fulfilling it and delivering stable, long-term market returns.
This study, commissioned by the Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) and conducted by the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney, examines how Australian investors are applying systems stewardship in practice.
IGCC identifies systems stewardship as one of six priorities for achieving real-world emissions reductions and aligning capital markets with a net zero future.
What is Systems Stewardship?
System stewardship is an evolution of traditional stewardship. It expands the focus beyond individual companies to the interconnected systems that underpin investment outcomes. Grounded in systems thinking, it highlights interrelationships, feedback loops and leverage points that shape long-term value creation.
It helps investors to respond to systemic risks that conventional strategies may be ill-equipped to address. These risks affect entire economies or sectors, including climate change, biodiversity loss, interest-rate shifts, and geopolitical instability.
Such risks are particularly material for universal owners such as superannuation and sovereign wealth funds, given their long-term market exposure and diversified portfolios. This study focuses on investor practices that address systemic risks through systems stewardship.
By focusing on long-term, economy-wide outcomes, systems stewardship helps protect the stability of financial market returns and the societal and environmental systems on which those returns depend.
Research Approach
The study used a mixed-methods approach (detailed in Appendix A):
* Literature review of global frameworks and practices
* Survey of IGCC asset owner and asset manager members (20 responses, around one-third of relevant membership)3
* Eight follow-up interviews for deeper insights
The findings provide a snapshot of current practice among investors actively engaged in systems stewardship.
Key Findings
Systems stewardship is growing, but implementation varies and faces barriers.
Eighty-five per cent of surveyed investors incorporate systems thinking into stewardship. They identified key system-level risks -- climate change, human rights, biodiversity loss, resource depletion and social inequality -- as material threats to long-term performance requiring coordinated, systemic action. Investors recognise that safeguarding beta-level returns helps protect the financial system and market.
Collaboration remains the dominant lever.
Ninety per cent of investors engage in alliances such as Climate Action (CA) 100+. Policy advocacy is common across national and state governments, regulators and standard-setters, with a focus on climate policy, sustainability disclosures and sectoral transition pathways. However, there is a limit to depth and frequency.
Sector and value chain engagement is emerging.
While less common, initiatives such as the Investor Mining and Tailings Safety Initiative (IMTSI) and the Steel Purchaser Framework show the potential for collective action to shift industry systems.
Asset owner and asset manager alignment is strengthening.
Asset owners are increasingly engaging managers on systems stewardship, though formal accountability remains limited.
Company engagement is evolving.
Systems stewardship expands the lens to include lobbying practices, industry standards and collaborative tools to measure impact.
Challenges to Progress
Key barriers include:
* 78% resource constraints
* 67% regulatory uncertainty
* 61% short-term performance pressures
* 50% difficulty measuring and monitoring system-level risk
* 38% lack of incentives
* 28% inconsistent terminology
Respondents also cited misalignment within organisations, among investors and across the broader financial system. Views on regulatory barriers were mixed: some see barriers as overstated and needing clearer guidance on competition law and fiduciary duty.
Systems stewardship is advancing but needs deeper integration, clearer metrics and stronger internal and external alignment to scale impact.
Strengthening systems stewardship: six key recommendations
Investors can integrate core elements of systems stewardship into their strategies through public policy advocacy, stakeholder collaboration, cross-sector and company engagement, transparency improvements, and systemic risk monitoring.
The report identifies six priorities to accelerate progress.
1. Enhance collaborative engagement to amplify impact. Focus on clear goals, strong governance and adequate resourcing. Prioritise focused, evidence-based initiatives and explore value-chain initiatives as an emerging, effective form of collaboration.
2. Clarify regulatory guidance to provide certainty. Regulators should review and modernise guidance on collective action, fiduciary duty, competition law, and long-term investment performance evaluation.
3. Align language, incentives and metrics to assess and reward outcomes. Develop shared terminology and tools for systems stewardship. Link remuneration and incentives to long-term outcomes and use qualitative case studies and activity-based benchmarks where metrics are limited.
4. Foster a culture of systems stewardship to embed practice. Embed systems stewardship across all levels of organisation, from trustees to analysts. Address culture and resource challenges -- treat them as core strategic priorities, not side activities.
5. Build sector-wide capacity to drive change. Strengthen capacity in systems literacy, system-level risks and systems stewardship.
Identify leverage points and systemic interventions to target change.
6. Signal expectations through mandates to support goal alignment. Asset owners should engage with asset managers on stewardship goals and embed systems stewardship in investment mandates to strengthen alignment and accountability.
Strengthening systems stewardship will help investors safeguard long-term returns, accelerate the net zero transition and build a more resilient, sustainable economy.
* * *
View full report at: https://igcc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/IGCC-System-Stewardship_Final-.pdf
[Category: ThinkTank]
IEEFA: 'Single-Use Plastics (SUP): Impact of a 70% Reduction Findings, Market Dynamics, and Methodology'
WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis issued the following on Dec. 11, 2025 by Todd Leahy entitled "Single-Use Plastics (SUP): Impact of a 70% Reduction Findings, Market Dynamics, and Methodology."
Here are excerpts:
* * *
Key Findings
A 70% reduction in SUP would reduce demand by approximately $138 billion per year, within an estimated $197 billion global market.
A 70% reduction in SUP would avoid roughly 3.85 million barrels per day of oil consumption, almost as much oil as Exxon produces per day.
Under this scenario, Dow's operating
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis issued the following on Dec. 11, 2025 by Todd Leahy entitled "Single-Use Plastics (SUP): Impact of a 70% Reduction Findings, Market Dynamics, and Methodology."
Here are excerpts:
* * *
Key Findings
A 70% reduction in SUP would reduce demand by approximately $138 billion per year, within an estimated $197 billion global market.
A 70% reduction in SUP would avoid roughly 3.85 million barrels per day of oil consumption, almost as much oil as Exxon produces per day.
Under this scenario, Dow's operatingincome could decline by 30% or more before mitigation efforts--based on a linear revenue to EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) relationship and expected negative operating leverage.
Executive Summary
This report provides a strategic analysis of the financial and operational implications of a potential 70% reduction in global single-use plastic (SUP) consumption. Our findings indicate a significant structural shift. A large reduction in SUP use would substantially lower plastics demand, reshape oil consumption patterns, and compress earnings for major producers. The estimates are designed to show order-of-magnitude effects, not precise forecasts.
* * *
View full briefing note at: https://ieefa.org/resources/single-use-plastics-sup-impact-70-reduction-findings-market-dynamics-and-methodology
[Category: ThinkTank]
Economic & Social Research Institute: 'Introduction to the ESR Special Issue on Energy, Environment and Climate Change Economics'
DUBLIN, Ireland, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Economic and Social Research Institute issued the following journal article on Dec. 16, 2025 by Niall Farrell, Kelly C de Bruin and Jason Harold entitled "Introduction to the ESR Special Issue on Energy, Environment and Climate Change Economics."
Here is the abstract:
* * *
This special issue contains four papers that highlight key economic issues in Irish climate and energy policy. The first paper tackles the decision to install a home energy retrofit, identifying factors that influence the financial viability of investment. The second paper quantifies
... Show Full Article
DUBLIN, Ireland, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Economic and Social Research Institute issued the following journal article on Dec. 16, 2025 by Niall Farrell, Kelly C de Bruin and Jason Harold entitled "Introduction to the ESR Special Issue on Energy, Environment and Climate Change Economics."
Here is the abstract:
* * *
This special issue contains four papers that highlight key economic issues in Irish climate and energy policy. The first paper tackles the decision to install a home energy retrofit, identifying factors that influence the financial viability of investment. The second paper quantifiesthe air pollution impacts of domestic and EU-level carbon pricing.
The third paper shifts the focus to climate adaptation, showing that firms in flood-prone areas face higher credit costs, indicating that climate-related physical risks are at least partially priced into the cost of credit for Irish firms. However, the authors find that some firms in flood-prone areas face greater difficulty in accessing credit.
The final paper of this special issue provides a comparison of Irish emissions from production and consumption-based measurement techniques, revealing that Ireland's carbon footprint is larger under consumption-based measurement, offering insights for domestic policy design.
* * *
View the full doc at: https://www.esri.ie/publications/introduction-to-the-esr-special-issue-on-energy-environment-and-climate-change
[Category: ThinkTank]
Bipartisan Policy Center: 'Charting the Course: A Blueprint for Child Welfare Financing and Accountability Reform'
WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Bipartisan Policy Center issued the following report on Dec. 11, 2025 entitled "Charting the Course: A Blueprint for Child Welfare Financing and Accountability Reform."
Here are excerpts:
* * *
Letter from the Co-Chairs
It has been an honor to serve as co-chairs of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Working Group on Child Welfare Financing and Accountability. We commend the group's steadfast commitment to improving the lives of children and families. While we bring different professional experiences and perspectives, we are united by a shared purpose: to envision
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 (TNSLrpt) -- The Bipartisan Policy Center issued the following report on Dec. 11, 2025 entitled "Charting the Course: A Blueprint for Child Welfare Financing and Accountability Reform."
Here are excerpts:
* * *
Letter from the Co-Chairs
It has been an honor to serve as co-chairs of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Working Group on Child Welfare Financing and Accountability. We commend the group's steadfast commitment to improving the lives of children and families. While we bring different professional experiences and perspectives, we are united by a shared purpose: to envisiona child welfare system that both protects children and nurtures their well-being, strengthens their connections to family, and recognizes their need for permanency in family and living arrangements. We appreciate all the work the group has done and the time it has spent on this issue, and we are excited that this report was approved on a unanimous, bipartisan basis.
We have great respect for the extraordinary expertise, dedication, and candor that each participant brought to this effort. Their time, energy, and openness in full meetings--and in countless smaller conversations--created space for honest reflection, learning, and collaboration. Through this exchange, the group has developed a thoughtful vision for reform and identified a set of policy directions to guide progress toward that vision.
Federal child welfare financing, and the accountability that accompanies it, shapes the performance of our nation's child welfare system. Allocation of federal resources signals overarching goals and priorities. Unfortunately, today's federal child welfare financing framework is grossly outdated and out of alignment with what we know about keeping children safe and promoting strong families. For decades, state leaders have pieced together fragmented and restrictive funding streams to operate state and local child welfare systems, while also complying with extensive federal rules. Navigating this maze of disparate federal funding streams has not only constrained innovation but also prevented agencies from being able to meet local needs and to drive positive outcomes for the families they serve. If we are serious about building a system that protects children and empowers families to heal and thrive, modernizing federal child welfare financing and accountability is not optional--it is essential and urgent.
* * *
View full report at: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/charting-the-course-a-blueprint-for-child-welfare-financing-and-accountability-reform/
[Category: ThinkTank]
