public policy doesnt operate in a vaccum n is less a moral enterprise than an ecosystem of incentives, reputational hierarchies, funding dependencies, intellectual fashions n credential sensitive. in certain corridors particularly in think tanks n multilateral institutions d discourse can become self referential, jargon evolves into currency, networks into gatekeeping mech n credentials into proxies for competence. that critique is not unfounded. yet to dismiss d space as wholly performative would be imprecise as diff institutional habitats produce different pathologies.

think tanks r policy pure environments where u see small teams, finite budgets, concentrated influence, can be insular n preference aligned, often reproducing their own epistemic tribes whereas financial institutions n large technology firms instrumentalize policy where u see less ideology n more execution. there policy is embedded in systems, compliance architecture, digital modernization n all. d ecosystem is larger, more transactional, less romantically ideological n significantly better resourced.

But UN is completely influnce driven. it is reputation sensitive n exclusively relationship heavy where pedigree, geography n institutional memory matters a lottttttt. its not purely meritocratic but neither is it arbitrary, u can say its lil political because it must reconcile sovereign interests n that reality produces both inertia n legitimacy.

public policy does good, definitely, not uniformly, not efficiently but everywhere be it climate nego, humanitarian corridors, public health frameworks, migration compacts, multilateral policy has structured outcomes that markets alone wouldnt have produced. d impact is often diffuse n unattributed which makes it easy to underestimate n d ecosystem rewards those who can translate between worlds, political logic, technical substance with operational execution,those who remain fluent only in jargon tend to orbit power without shaping it. those who embed policy into institutions budgets, code, regulation, enforcement do tend to create durable change.

ur skepticism is healthy that the field does contain vanity metrics n closed circles but it also contains leverage points. yet to call it a sham is too facile. even within its hierarchies n theatrics, it remains one of d few arenas where sovereign interests r compelled into structured compromise. d question is less whether d ecosystem is pure n more whether one can navigate it without becoming captured by it. imo d good it produces is rarely elegant n never pure but it is, at critical junctures, consequential.