Two Think Tanks Publish Opposite Conclusions From the Same Data Using the Same Method, Declare Each Other Dangerously Wrong

WASHINGTON — Two of Washington's most prominent policy research organizations released competing economic analyses on the same Tuesday morning last month, a coincidence that quickly became less of a coincidence when it emerged that both reports were examining the same dataset, deploying the same analytical framework, citing the same academic sources, and arriving at conclusions that could not both be true.

The Hamilton Growth Institute, a center-right think tank whose donor list is described in its annual report as "a broad coalition of forward-thinking stakeholders," published a 612-page report concluding that current federal economic policy had produced measurable harm to middle-income households and required immediate structural reform.

The Meridian Policy Foundation, a center-left think tank whose donor list is described in its annual report as "a diverse network of civic-minded partners," published a 608-page report concluding that current federal economic policy had produced measurable benefit to middle-income households and required continued institutional support.

Both reports cited, among other sources, a 2019 paper by University of Michigan economists Drs. Patricia Cho and James Weller. Dr. Cho, upon learning of this, sent an email to both organizations asking them to stop.

The Footnote Question

The most direct point of analytical divergence, according to three economists who reviewed both reports for this publication and requested anonymity because "being associated with either of these documents is professionally embarrassing," concerns footnote 34 of the Cho-Weller paper.

The footnote reads, in full: "Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding baseline wage elasticity; see Appendix C."

The Hamilton Growth Institute interpreted this footnote as a caution against drawing strong positive conclusions from the data, and used it to support its finding that the evidence for policy success was weak.

The Meridian Policy Foundation interpreted the same footnote as an acknowledgment that the methodology was robust enough to warrant Appendix C, and used it to support its finding that the evidence for policy success was strong.

"They read the same seven words," said one of the reviewing economists, who asked to be identified only as "someone who studied for eight years to not deal with this," "and extracted from them two mutually exclusive epistemological positions. That's genuinely impressive, in the way that a very complicated car crash is impressive."

Appendix C, for what it is worth, is a table of regression coefficients that neither report discusses in its main text.

The Press Conferences

Hamilton Growth Institute President Dr. Robert Ashford held a press conference at 10 a.m. to present his organization's findings, describing the Meridian report as "an example of motivated reasoning dressed in the clothing of empirical analysis."

Meridian Policy Foundation President Dr. Claire Okonkwo held a press conference at 11 a.m. to present her organization's findings, describing the Hamilton report as "an example of ideologically predetermined conclusions retrofitted onto a statistical framework."

Both press conferences featured identical slide decks, structurally speaking: an opening graph showing the same dataset rendered in different colors, three pages of methodology validation, and a closing call to action involving a QR code that linked to a donation page.

A reporter who attended both asked Dr. Okonkwo whether she was concerned that two organizations using identical methods had reached opposite conclusions. Dr. Okonkwo said this proved that methodology alone was insufficient and that "interpretive context" was essential. A reporter who had also attended the Hamilton press conference noted that Dr. Ashford had said the same thing, with the interpretive contexts reversed.

Dr. Okonkwo said that was "a very interesting observation" and moved to the next question.

The Experts Attempt Reconciliation

By Thursday, the discrepancy had attracted enough attention that a third organization, the nonpartisan National Institute for Policy Clarity, convened an emergency roundtable to "facilitate productive dialogue between the two analytical communities."

The roundtable lasted four hours. A summary document released afterward noted that participants had "identified several areas of shared methodological commitment" and "acknowledged the value of continued engagement." It did not identify any areas of substantive agreement.

Dr. Cho, the co-author of the paper both think tanks had cited, attended the roundtable and spent much of it looking at her phone.

"I want to be clear that our paper does not support either conclusion," she said, during a brief moment when she was asked to speak. "Our paper is about wage elasticity in the manufacturing sector between 2004 and 2016. That's it. That's the whole paper."

Dr. Ashford thanked her for the important context, which he said "underscored the complexity of the issue."

Dr. Okonkwo also thanked her, noting that the complexity underscored "the need for more comprehensive analysis."

Dr. Cho left early.

The Fundraising

By the following Monday, both organizations had launched Phase Two fundraising campaigns.

Hamilton Growth Institute's campaign, sent to its mailing list under the subject line "They Don't Want You to See This Data," seeks $2.4 million to fund a follow-up report examining why the Meridian Foundation's methodology produced incorrect results. The email described the Meridian report as "a direct attack on evidence-based policymaking."

Meridian Policy Foundation's campaign, sent under the subject line "The Research They're Trying to Bury," seeks $2.1 million to fund a follow-up report examining why the Hamilton Institute's methodology produced incorrect results. The email described the Hamilton report as "a direct attack on evidence-based policymaking."

Both emails were sent within forty minutes of each other. Both featured the same photograph of Capitol Hill at dusk, licensed from the same stock image provider.

"This is, in a technical sense, the policy research ecosystem functioning as designed," said Dr. Marcus Webb, a political science professor at American University who studies think tank incentive structures. "Each organization needs the other to be wrong. The wrongness is the product. The 600-page report is just the packaging."

Dr. Webb has been invited to join the advisory boards of both organizations. He has declined both invitations. He expects to receive them again in approximately six months.

What the Data Actually Shows

The dataset at the center of both reports is a quarterly economic survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics between 2018 and 2024. The BLS, asked by this publication whether the data supported either report's conclusions, released a statement noting that the data was "descriptive in nature" and that "causal interpretation requires additional analytical steps not reflected in the raw figures."

It also noted that both organizations had filed public records requests for the dataset in the same week, eleven months ago, and had apparently not communicated with each other since.

The Phase Two reports are expected in the spring. They will almost certainly cite each other.