How Ideas Become Policy in Switzerland

Diego Taboada: Avenir Suisse has been Switzerland’s leading think tank since its foundation in 2000 — twenty-five years ago; we had our anniversary last year. Our mission is to develop free-market, classical-liberal, science-based ideas for the future of Switzerland.

We are independent and not beholden to political interests, and this independence is made possible by a growing number of donors, consisting of over 130 companies, individuals, and foundations. That allows us to choose the topics we want to work on and to work independently from all other interests.

We are a nonprofit Swiss organization and we provide evidence-based analysis of political issues, but we do not participate in political campaigns. I think it is important to note that — in the Swiss context, where we have so many political campaigns and public votes — we are part of the public policy debate, but we do not participate in the campaigns themselves. We are not implicated in the political campaigns and we do not say we have to vote yes or no, but we still want to inform the political and policy discussions by providing facts and figures as well as innovative reform proposals.

I am the Director for French-speaking Switzerland, meaning I oversee our activities across this part of the country. I represent the organization, and I share our positions and discuss our work with different stakeholders — not just the media, but also political and economic representatives, as well as donors.

We have an office in Zurich and one in Lausanne where we also produce content. We do not just translate things from German to French or French to German; we make sure that the message — the ideas we want to share — is adapted to the context and specific challenges of French-speaking Switzerland. Yes, Switzerland is one country, but sometimes the issues and the stakes are not the same. It is really important to be grounded in the region, to truly understand the debates taking place here and how we can move things in the right direction.

Avenir Suisse’s website is available in German, French, Italian, and English. How do you choose the language in which your think tank’s content is published?

Most of our content is originally written in German, simply because most of our colleagues are based in Zurich. We have 25 FTEs (Full-Time Equivalents) across the organization, who mainly write in German. Our priority is to translate most of that work into French.

Then we try to translate as much as possible into Italian — because the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland is important to us. We do not have an office there, but we still want to reach out to our Italian-speaking fellows in Switzerland.

And then there is English. Of course, we are Avenir Suisse — we focus on Swiss political issues and the Swiss context — but English remains crucial for various reasons. First, many English-speaking people live in Switzerland. Second, we regularly exchange with other think tanks and organizations around the world and in Europe. Therefore, it makes sense to publish part of our work in English, such as content that is relevant to an international audience within Switzerland or that addresses issues with a broader international dimension.

Do Avenir Suisse’s offices in Zurich and Lausanne host events that the public can attend, or is the work conducted mainly through collaborations with other organizations and media?

We host our own events. In Zurich, for example, we regularly hold brown bag lunches: informal working sessions over lunch where an invited expert presents on a topic and the floor is opened for discussion. We invite experts mainly from academia, the administration, or industry. These are internal sessions, not open to the general public.

That said, we do occasionally organise events that are open. One example is our annual seminar on the Switzerland–European Union relationship, which we co-organise with the Geneva Graduate Institute and Foraus, another Swiss think tank. That is a genuine collaboration — and an exception to our usual model, which is deliberately independent. But that does not mean we work in isolation — we exchange ideas, engage with other organisations, and participate in broader debates.

II. Target Audiences & Stakeholder Engagement

How well known is Avenir Suisse among the Swiss population, and who are your main target audiences?

There is a difference between the two main linguistic regions. Because Avenir Suisse started out in Zurich and was founded by companies and people mostly from the German-speaking world, our visibility is strongest in that part of the country. But over the last ten years, we have deliberately built a stronger presence in French-speaking Switzerland as well. And, in Romandie, the public debate has its own dynamics, its own sensitivities, its own political culture.

For example, in March 2026, we published a study on daycare. We conducted a Switzerland-wide analysis of different situations, and then investigated what exactly was happening in French-speaking Switzerland, because of specific issues in this region regarding bureaucracy for instance. Our comparison showed particularly extensive regulation in several French-speaking cantons, notably in Vaud and Geneva. By focusing on the situation in this part of the country, we managed to spark interest among the media in the region. Since then, we have been building on that momentum.

I believe we have three main audiences. The first is politics and administration, because at the end of the day our goal is to improve policies. And if you want to have an impact on policies, you need to be in contact with — and be heard by — both the administration and politicians.

The second is, of course, the media, which helps shape public debate. Because we want to engage in public debate and in political discussions about Switzerland’s future, we interact regularly with journalists.

Last but not least, business representatives in general. We are a think tank, we do research, but we want to have boots on the ground — to understand what is happening in the real world, not just in academia. Business representatives are an important source of practical insight, because they experience firsthand how policies and regulations work in practice.

Do you have a typical day, and if so, what does it look like?

I do not have a typical day. I think that is part of the job, and I love it for that reason. At the core, there is the intellectual work: reading, thinking, writing. Developing ideas, shaping arguments, contributing to studies and columns. That is the foundation.

But I also try to meet with a lot of people and stay close to what is happening. In a think tank you have something to deliver. You have content and you want to reach people with it. But if you want to deliver content that is relevant to the discussion, you need to be aware of what is going on. So I like to read the newspapers. I like to feel the political situation — what matters right now, what is moving. Only after that we can think about what to say and how to say it.

At Avenir Suisse, we have been developing a lot on the communication side. What is the best way to communicate? How do we manage our stakeholders? How can we reach the right people? That is what really drives me right now.

I also participate in major interventions, such as debates and public appearances, which take a lot of preparation. I have an amazing team that helps me prepare my strongest arguments, and how to put them across. Adapting to your audience is crucial: who are you talking to? It is not the same when you go to a political rally to present something as when you go to a business meeting on a very technical topic like health policy. It is not the same audience. So you have to adapt your message.

III. The Importance of Communication & Persuasion in Policy Work

When it comes to clear communication, how do you prepare for public engagements, and what is your advice to those who want to put their voice out there — whether in public debate, on social media, or in professional settings? Lastly, where does persuasion fit into the work of a think tank like Avenir Suisse?

It is not just about being good at it. Communication is a craft — and like any craft, you need to learn it. I try to learn from the best. And I think that is what I have come to understand over the years: we all need to deliberately learn how to communicate.

The most important thing is to ask oneself: what is the story? And what is the key message you want people to remember? Then, I seek dialogue. In Switzerland, dialogue is crucial, because we seek it even with the people who do not share the same ideas or opinions with us.

So, my advice is to ask yourself: what are the facts? What is the idea? And what is the story that connects them?

And then, once you have that clarity — you try to convince. You try to persuade. And I think persuasion, ultimately, is the most important tool of all.

IV. The Three Pillars of Impact: Credibility, Originality & Timing

What drives the people who work at Avenir Suisse, and what does it take for a think tank like Avenir Suisse to have real impact on public debate?

The good thing about Avenir Suisse is that people do not just want to write a study or an analysis because they are passionate about, say, labor market policies and are looking for a job where they can keep doing what they studied. People are genuinely committed to making Switzerland a better place. We love this country. We want to analyze its strengths and its weaknesses and think: How can we shape policy and develop solutions to prepare the country for future challenges? That is what drives us.

I think there are three aspects that matter most in an organization such as ours — and by extension in my role. The first is credibility. People may agree or disagree with our reform proposals, but we do not want the quality of our analysis to be the weak point. We do not compromise on rigor and quality, because that is our currency in public debate. Evidence-based analysis, data, and figures are very important. And I think they are more important now than ever, because we live in a world of increasingly AI-generated content. Credibility as an institution — with politicians, with the media — is very valuable.

Second, how do you persuade people? You need to be original. It is no longer enough to simply write papers and assume people will engage with them. In a world drowning in information, the creativity with which you communicate is just as important as what you say. Sometimes analysts and researchers think: I have an amazing idea, an amazing piece of analysis — but the problem is nobody will understand it, because it is too complicated or not well suited to the political moment. Even if you are a genius and you have done the best piece of work, if you do not communicate it well, it makes no sense.

Let me give some concrete examples of how we try to be original. Last summer we published a study on reforming the Swiss Post, and we sent a paper postcard to every member of Parliament. We published a report on the cost of ESG regulation for SMEs, and we printed it on seed paper — the kind you can plant and grow. And we sent a piggy bank on a tour of Switzerland to illustrate potential savings in the public budget. Creativity — how we frame the idea, analysis — are central to our work.

The third point is timing. You must put forth the right analysis and idea, at the right time — because even the most powerful idea or the most credible voice, will fail if the timing is not right. There is a quote attributed to Victor Hugo that I like: “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” In policy work, knowing when to push is just as important as knowing what to say. And that means we had to integrate this dimension — the sense of timing — into how we work. The intellectual rigor, the love of ideas and content, all are part of our DNA. But knowing when to push an idea is a skill on its own, and one we have deliberately built into our approach.

V. The Long Game Mindset: Patience, Novelty Bias, Cynicism & Empathy

What is the mindset required for a think tank like Avenir Suisse to succeed over the long term?

The first thing, I think, is patience. Not simply waiting for something to pass, but understanding that the gap between a good idea, a solid analysis, and its actual implementation can span many years — and even more so in Switzerland, where implementation famously takes time. But I think that this is actually a positive characteristic: ideas are discussed, again and again, and when something is finally decided, it tends to stick. This stability is one of Switzerland’s strengths. Nevertheless, patience is essential.

Let me illustrate this with some concrete in-house examples. At Avenir Suisse we have been advocating for individual taxation for the past twelve years — and Switzerland recently accepted it, in March 2026. Twelve years is a long time. But if you look at it on the scale of a century, it is not that long. Another example: three years ago, we came up with the idea of a “spring cleaning” of obsolete laws — a session where Parliament would meet and focus specifically on laws that are no longer necessary. A politician took up our proposal in Parliament — but unfortunately it did not pass. But it is an idea worth pursuing. And tying the retirement age to life expectancy is still a battle — but I am convinced we will get there. More recently, Parliament rejected one of our proposals to allow hospitals and insurers to negotiate quality-based tariffs, so that you can pay more for better outcomes. It was refused, but I am truly convinced this is the future of healthcare, if we want to move in the direction of value-based healthcare.

Sometimes this patience breaks down. Why? Because what I observe in research institutions — not just think tanks, but also universities — is what I call a novelty bias. When a study is published, there is a feeling that the work is done, that it is time to move on to something new. But in reality, the work has just started. Once something is out, the real job is to accompany the idea over time — to build on it, refine it, reframe it, place it in the right context as the political landscape evolves. You can move on to new things, but the job is never really over.

There is also a mindset risk I think about a great deal: the temptation of cynicism. When you follow a topic for many years, you know the arguments inside out. You have heard them all — those in favor, those against — going around in circles. And you get the impression that nothing ever moves, that Switzerland is always discussing and never deciding. But if you lose your enthusiasm for an idea you have been advocating for, how can you convince anyone else that it is the right one? If you yourself say: yes, we suggested this five years ago, it was a great idea, but I have lost faith in it — that is a real risk.

And last but not least, also a question of mindset: empathy. What do I mean by empathy? Understanding the needs of your audience — and those needs are not the same from one person to the next. A politician running for re-election needs ideas for reform that are politically viable. That is not the same as a specialist working on hospital management, who is boots on the ground and has very different needs. You may still have something valuable to offer them, but if you come up with something too inspirational or abstract, it will not land. That is what I mean by empathy. You need to communicate things differently depending on who is in the room — what will I say, how will I say it — even if the core message remains the same.

VI. Education, Career Trajectory & the Founding of Liber-thé

Looking back at your career trajectory, how did you prepare for your current role, and where did you study?

When you work in a think tank, there is the research part — analyzing and creating things. That is what I did for four years, and then progressively, over the last year in my new role, I became involved in a different kind of work: how do we reach other people with our ideas? The stakeholder management side of things.

I do not think I have a particularly unusual journey. I studied abroad and completed my master’s at the London School of Economics, a truly formative experience. One of my law and economics teachers in high school had introduced me to the great intellectual dispute of the twentieth century: Keynes versus Hayek. What is the role of the state in the economy? Should the state spend to keep the economy running — or should we be more skeptical of state intervention, in the tradition of Hayek? And then I learned that Keynes had been at Cambridge and Hayek had taught at the LSE. So I thought, I would like to study at one of those places. And I got the opportunity to do so.

I studied political economy, which is essentially the application of economic tools to understanding the mechanisms of politics and collective decision-making. But I will be honest: the curriculum itself is not entirely different from what you can find at other good universities, in Switzerland, France, or Germany. What I studied is not completely different if you compare it with other programs. The difference, I think, is the people I met. On average peers abroad are more driven and more ambitious, because they are people who have done the work to be there, to study abroad, and to get into those particular universities. And the LSE is one of the most international universities in the world — I think two-thirds of the students come from abroad — so it is a genuine exposure to different cultures and different ways of framing problems. That exposure allows you to examine your own premises. You have your own ideas about the world, your own values, your own ideology — and then you meet people who share them or who challenge them completely. And you reflect on yourself. I think that was really valuable.

The second formative experience was joining Avenir Suisse, where I realized that serious policy research is not just literature reviews, spreadsheets, or code. You need to understand the context, the people, the experts. What is really interesting about think tanks is the combination of analytical rigor with a clear narrative, a message, and a story you want to tell. And I got to meet some of the brightest minds I have ever encountered, right here at Avenir Suisse. Genuinely driven people who really want to do something good for the country. This is what keeps me going.

You co-founded Liber-thé while still at the beginning of your career. What was the idea behind it, and what did building it teach you?

I would not consider Liber-thé a career step. It was more of a bet I made with two of my friends, the co-founders. We said: “let’s try to build something to discuss classical liberal ideas.”

I learned something very useful from this project, and I was able to apply it directly to my current role, because I ran it alongside my studies and my first years at Avenir Suisse. Liber-thé taught me how to manage a team, as we were a small group working on the project. It also taught me strategic thinking, because it was not just about talking about an intellectual idea or an author. You had to ask yourself: how do we bring these ideas to people? What can we actually do? And it taught me about fundraising: how do you convince others to support you? That is an important skill. Having an idea is just the beginning. You then need to convince people not just to believe in you, but to believe in the project you are building and giving money for.

The story of how it started: I met my two co-founders — who are now close friends — at events in liberal circles. We shared an interest in classical liberal ideas and, more broadly, in the battle of ideas: the great European intellectual tradition, the values of the Enlightenment, classical liberalism not just in economics but in general. And we felt that political parties, by their nature, are about coalitions and compromises. We felt that there was no real space for genuine intellectual debate — for the ideas themselves. I understand why; political parties are something entirely different. So we said: let’s launch a platform for the contemporary liberal.

From the beginning, the question was: how do we communicate? Because this can sound like something too complex, too niche. So we decided to experiment with formats. We started with a podcast where we discussed books, concepts, and thinkers. Then we built a website and produced written content. And eventually we moved to video interviews with experts. Each format taught us something different about how ideas are shared. Communicating an idea in a podcast is not the same as developing it in a written article, which is not the same as presenting it in a video interview.

VII. Advice for the Next Generation

As we conclude the conversation, what is your advice to young professionals who are inspired by your work and would like to follow a similar path?

I would say to them: “think twice before you decide to follow in my footsteps.” Just kidding. My first advice would be to stay curious. Even if you are deeply passionate about a field — labor market policy for example — and you have written your master’s thesis or PhD on the topic, becoming an expert in the field and wanting to build your entire career around it, I would still encourage you to stay open: to read, listen, and explore other things. Because maybe the best idea you will ever have about labor market policy comes from a book on history, philosophy, or a cookbook. It is important to keep an open mind and to look beyond your own field.

A second piece of advice for young professionals and students alike would be to study abroad if they can. It is not just about having fun during an Erasmus experience, even though that is an important and genuinely valuable part of the experience. When you study abroad, you also need to step out of your comfort zone not just physically or geographically, but intellectually. When you meet someone who thinks radically differently from you — someone from Vietnam, Japan or Senegal, for example — and you hear what they have seen and what they have learned, it forces you to reflect on cultural differences and to examine your own premises. This kind of experience is irreplaceable.

And if you are Swiss and going abroad is not an option, you do not even need to leave the country. Go to the German-speaking part of Switzerland, or to the Italian one. The Röstigraben — the divide between French-speaking and German-speaking Switzerland — is a real thing. It is not just a language barrier. It is about how people think differently about the role of the state in society, about solidarity, about risk. There are cultural, institutional, and historical differences across the country. Understanding those differences can teach you an enormous amount about your own country. And even if you are not Swiss, you can come to understand some of the mechanisms of Switzerland, which I think is a unique country.

Finally whatever path you choose — academia, politics, a think tank — try at some point to get close to what is happening on the ground. Go and work in a company, a ministry, an NGO, a hospital. If you are interested in health policy, spend two months doing an internship in a hospital and understand what bureaucracy actually means when people say there is too much of it in our hospitals. That is just one example. Because policy is not just what is written in law or debated in Parliament — it has a real impact, positive or negative, on the people who work within it and on the lives of the people it affects. If you can see that with your own eyes, you will come back — whether to academia, politics or a think tank — with a fundamentally different sense of what matters.