There is a significant gap in understanding whether elite policy education programs—particularly those targeting policymakers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)—actually lead to better career outcomes or improved economic policies. Economic growth heavily depends on effective policymaking, yet without empirical evidence, it's unclear whether investing in these programs is the most impactful way to foster development. A rigorous evaluation could help philanthropic funders allocate resources more effectively and empower policymakers with proven training.

Evaluating the Impact of Elite Policy Education

One way to assess the effectiveness of these programs would be to use a quasi-experimental design, such as regression discontinuity analysis, comparing individuals who narrowly gained admission to elite programs (e.g., Harvard's MPP or LSE's MSc in Economics and Public Policy) with those who narrowly missed out. This method helps isolate the program's impact by controlling for pre-existing differences between candidates. Additional approaches could include:

• Longitudinal tracking of alumni to measure career advancements (e.g., promotions, policy influence).
• Qualitative interviews to understand how training translates into real-world policy decisions.
• Correlating alumni policy changes with economic outcomes in their home countries.

Stakeholders like universities may initially hesitate to share admissions data, but demonstrating program effectiveness could attract more funding and prestige. Policymakers and philanthropic funders, on the other hand, would likely support the study as it aligns with their goals of improving policy outcomes.

Execution and Potential Challenges

A pilot study could begin with a single program where admissions data is accessible, later expanding to other institutions. Key challenges include securing data access and ensuring causal inference, but these could be mitigated through partnerships, anonymized data agreements, and robust statistical methods. Over time, the study could track alumni for 5–10 years to assess long-term impacts.

While primarily a research project, monetization could involve selling impact reports to philanthropic organizations or consulting for universities seeking to improve their programs. The novelty of this evaluation framework could provide a first-mover advantage in a space where most elite programs currently lack systematic impact measurement.