I’m less familiar with the EU, but I can give my big picture overview of the “be in the room to shape decisions” theory of change versus “prepare great policy proposals to have ready on the shelf” theory of change. I think both are valuable and are sometimes two sides of the same coin. (In my experience) legislative staffers and key decision makers are busy, putting out five different fires at once and moving between various portfolios. They’re really sharp generalists who pull from outside expertise- sometimes from think tanks with capacity to do the deeper research and find the policy levers. Both are important, but to assess the need you might ask yourself “do we have a dearth of excellent policy proposals in a well-communicated package? or do we have many of them, but they aren’t breaking through to key decision makers?”
Also, a lot of this should come down to your personal fit: do you have more of a comparative advantage in generalist quick decision making, writing succinct action-relevant memos, acting as a ‘node in a network’ of other experts, using lots of social stamina, etc? If so, maybe working within established legislative/government role makes sense for you. Or do you think you’d be better at longer horizon research, deep wonky details, communicating technical insights to a broader audience, etc? Then maybe think tanks might be the right fit. I’d recommend looking at the job postings for roles in both areas and checking where your skills fit in.
I should note there can often be overlap and this is just a general picture—many civil servants are deep researchers, some legislative staffers’ jobs are different from how I described, etc. I really like this “testing your fit for policy” guide from EmergingTechPolicy.org to assess where your skills might best fit.
I’m less familiar with the EU, but I can give my big picture overview of the “be in the room to shape decisions” theory of change versus “prepare great policy proposals to have ready on the shelf” theory of change. I think both are valuable and are sometimes two sides of the same coin. (In my experience) legislative staffers and key decision makers are busy, putting out five different fires at once and moving between various portfolios. They’re really sharp generalists who pull from outside expertise- sometimes from think tanks with capacity to do the deeper research and find the policy levers. Both are important, but to assess the need you might ask yourself “do we have a dearth of excellent policy proposals in a well-communicated package? or do we have many of them, but they aren’t breaking through to key decision makers?”
Also, a lot of this should come down to your personal fit: do you have more of a comparative advantage in generalist quick decision making, writing succinct action-relevant memos, acting as a ‘node in a network’ of other experts, using lots of social stamina, etc? If so, maybe working within established legislative/government role makes sense for you. Or do you think you’d be better at longer horizon research, deep wonky details, communicating technical insights to a broader audience, etc? Then maybe think tanks might be the right fit. I’d recommend looking at the job postings for roles in both areas and checking where your skills fit in.
I should note there can often be overlap and this is just a general picture—many civil servants are deep researchers, some legislative staffers’ jobs are different from how I described, etc. I really like this “testing your fit for policy” guide from EmergingTechPolicy.org to assess where your skills might best fit.