Measuring impactāhow hard can it be? Take the world with treatment, subtract the world without this treatment, and voila, impact.
At my internship, this process looked less clear-cut. All sorts of measurements are applied to construct this counterfactual world: the number of units affected by our treatment, an evidence-based quantification of the effect experienced per unit, the monetization of this effect, and a risk adjustment based on the certainty of impact. Then, as with financial metrics, one can calculate the net enterprise impact, scale this into the impact yield, and find the impact multiple of money.
Yet I was forced to engage deeply with the concept of impact during a presentation by AEIās Chairman, Daniel A. DāAniello. I eagerly jotted down his advice, ādonāt fall in love with an assetā and ābe moved by the facts,ā but paused when I heard, ādo the right thing when the right thing existsāāa lesson that hinted at the discomfort of pursuing real-world impact, where absolute truths are rarely encountered.
This perspective was further reinforced during a policy briefing with Sita Slavov about Progressive Era economics, which clouded the self-proclaimed objectivity of my field of studyāeconomicsāand questioned the end goal it was trying to achieve. Where in the early 1900s, economics was seen as a disinterested, reliable, and even necessary guide to reform, Slavov illuminated that even today, the āscienceā is trying to manifest itself as objective despite being full of implicit value judgments.
As an example, we looked at a study that found that marginal tax rates of 79 percent for the top one percent of earners are āoptimal.ā But āoptimal,ā here, was defined as maximizing social welfareāsomething that was presented as a factual matter. What was lacking was the necessary conversation about what the goal of society may be. Individual freedom? Economic efficiency? Or some other value entirely? The āoptimalā solution is only optimal within the confines of a specific value system.
Many aspects of this summer at AEI made me think about what society should pursue and how these goals are framed within our academic and professional discourses. Christine Rosenās talk about technology made me see how the increase in productivity through the advancement of AI could replace empathy and contextual understanding provided by humans. The survey run by Daniel A. Cox made me think that weakening ties to community institutions can harm our social capital, in particular friendships. The navigating globalization course with Stan Veuger illustrated that countries can use immigration laws, tariffs, and global currencies as tools, but the crucial questions remain about the underlying goals society is striving to achieve.
This summer made the idea of ādoing the right thingā a multifaceted puzzle, forcing me to think about the human element, the values we uphold as a society, and the goals we pursue. Where my internship gave me some of the tools to ascribe impact, AEI made me engage deeply with the conversation about what impact is and what it means to make progress. Family, community, and genuine conversation are now the cornerstones I believe should guide our collective efforts in politics and broader lifeāall of which I have found at AEI.
Fien van den Hondel
January 17, 2025
aei.org