"Think tanks" may have historically overstated (or over-estimated) their position of importance in the big scheme of policy making. The fact that the current trend in TTs is to opt for op-ed pieces and blogs may be a tacit ackowledgement of this notion. By going to the "24 hour new cycle" format they reach the general population in a way that in-depth studies and books may not be able to, for better or worse. Consider the blog or the op-ed the academic's answer to talk-radio in that if its powers are harnessed it can affect policy through popular demand.

The public has the capacity to appreciate soundbites but it does not have the capacity to appreciate substance. The incentives will always be great for policy institutes to cater to the public’s appetite for soundbites. If they don’t, surely the (ideological) enemy will fill the void.

Thanks for this interesting discussion of the value of think tanks, including the suggestion that there may be a trend whereby "communications and PR sides receiving a much larger share of the pie relative to the policy wonks."

I am director of communications at the Center for Global Development, a small think tank that nonetheless produces the full range of outputs you discuss, from scholarly studies through blogs.

For us at CGD, it's crucial that we have both solid, peer-reviewed research AND effective tools for reaching (and hearing) policy makers. Blogs seem to be a perfect addition to our tool kit. My guess is that the think tanks that learn to use blogs well without foresaking their committment to solid research will be the ones that that gain influence and prosper.

For Heritage, at least, your co-panelist's observation doesn't really hold. By all appearances, we are conducting and publishing more research now than at any time in the tank's history, and much of that increase is driven by our in-house data analysis shop.

Another datum: Heritage's standard policy paper for years has been the "Backgrounder," which ranges between 4 and 15 or so pages. (Some make it to 20, but very few.) A few years ago, Heritage created a new series of reports from our data analysis center that range from 10 to 25 pages. Just this year, we've had to create another series, "Special Reports," that, with one exception, start at 50 pages. This is in addition, of course, to the books that we regularly publish.

Bottom line: we're putting out more shorter materials, probably, but that's because we're putting out more of everything.

As for CAP, the couple policy papers of their that I've seen have been rehashed from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, sometimes with new tables and graphs tacked on.

Cato does seem to be putting out lengthier works less often, though they still do publish plenty. This may have to do with the Social Security push earlier this year--Cato had already published most of the extensive research that it planned to by the time the policy roll-out commenced.

I won't defend all think tanks. Some hire distinguished scholars, others have been formed recently with the explicit purpose of advancing the interests of a political party. So there's a wide range. But I reject the suggestion of Dan Drezner -- and of Andrew Grossman -- that Cato is any way moving away from books and serious studies. We're not a university; our forte has always been more in the direction of translating academic works into a more accessible form. But our recent books such as "Water for Sale" and "Cowboy Capitalism" and "Saving Our Environment from Washington" are serious contributions to policy debate. Pat Michaels has a polemical style, but he's a top climatologist whose books present a cogent argument on global warming in a lively way. In the spring we'll publish an original book on constitutional history by Richard Epstein. Regulation and the Cato Supreme Court Review offer serious academic analysis, written in a style accessible to the serious layman, of the topics they cover. The next issue of the Cato Journal includes three Nobel laureates writing about economic development. Not Guilty.

As a Heritage Foundation research fellow, I find that think tank analysts - unlike most university scholars - put a premium on policy formation. So does the media, and so does Congress, but they have very different incentives. And who watches the watchmen? It is challenging enough to shame Congress away from its instinct for comfy incumbency, but harder still to puncture the myths of the MSM. And it would be nice if academic institutions took on that role, but they don't.

For example, the MSM continues to peddle the myth that enlistees in the Army are underprivileged. There are no facts to back this claim, but it goes out unchallenged simply because it was asserted and never disproven. Where are the academic studies on this one (or isn't that a tenurable topic, perhaps)? You see, there are holes in the academic community as well, and gaps on what it studies due to its own institutional limitations. But I can tell you that we are about to publish a major study on troop demographics, and guess what? The MSM is dead wrong. Not only is the Army not disproportionately underprivileged, it is in fact disproportionately overprivileged.

One way to think about think tanks is from the perspective of a young scholar who faces the choice: (1) academic career or (2) policy career. For me at least, I didn't have confidence that I would be happy at a university, especially since teaching well is not rewarded. And I have no interest in writing dry papers for dusty journals. I didn't have confidence that those institutions reward activism, and may even punish it. Dan should know this, given his musing about blogging and tenure.

It seems quite an error to hint that think tanks are hollow of genuine scholarship, when they seem to be rather inspiring as one of the few institutions where free inquiry is still rewarded. We shouldn't presume the academics own the moral high ground on thoughtful research. I mean, isn't it funny that Krugman - a brilliant scholar and hero of mine at one point - skewered policy scholars (entrepeneurs, he called them) in a book a few years ago, and now is one of the most intellectually dishonest ideologues in the arena?