Regulatory Consulting at Niskanen Center

Overview

The Niskanen Center is a Washington think tank occupying an unusual ideological position — rooted in libertarian economics but willing to accept an active government role where markets alone fall short, a ‘moderate libertarian’ posture that shapes its emerging AI-governance work. Rather than defaulting to either heavy regulation or a purely hands-off approach, Niskanen’s AI analysts focus on empirical questions: is state-level AI policy actually functioning as the ‘laboratories of democracy’ federalism ideal promises, or is a fragmented patchwork genuinely harmful to innovation and compliance? That inquiry places Niskanen squarely inside the federal-preemption debate that also animates ITIF, R Street, and CAP elsewhere in this directory, but with a more explicitly empirical-economics lens brought by scholars trained in political science and public policy.

AI-Focused Regulatory Work

Niskanen’s most direct contribution to the AI-policy conversation is ‘Making AI Policy: Are We Falling Behind or Rushing In?’ — a dialogue-format analysis (featuring Chinnu Parinandi) that takes the federalism question seriously rather than assuming an answer. The discussion lays out the best case for state-level AI policy variation as genuine laboratories of innovation: states retain real economic diversity — Michigan’s manufacturing base, for instance, brings implementation knowledge (how to build AI-enabled autonomous vehicles) that complements Silicon Valley’s software expertise — meaning state variation in AI regulation could reflect meaningful economic specialization rather than mere regulatory chaos. At the same time, the analysis takes the contrary case seriously: that a genuinely fragmented 50-state patchwork could impose disproportionate compliance costs that fall hardest on smaller AI developers, echoing concerns raised more forcefully by R Street and ITIF. That even-handedness — presenting both the pro-federalism and pro-preemption cases with real intellectual weight rather than picking a side reflexively — is Niskanen’s distinguishing contribution to a debate elsewhere prone to ideological shorthand. For a directory reader mapping the full spectrum of the state-versus-federal AI regulation fight, Niskanen is a useful, more dialectical counterpart to the sharper advocacy positions of ITIF, R Street, and CAP.

Notable AI Policy Work

• Published ‘Making AI Policy: Are We Falling Behind or Rushing In?’ — a dialogue-format analysis examining whether state-level AI policy variation functions as genuine ‘laboratories of innovation’ or harmful regulatory fragmentation.
• Analyzed how state economic diversity (e.g., Michigan’s manufacturing and autonomous-vehicle implementation expertise alongside Silicon Valley’s software expertise) could make state-level AI policy variation economically meaningful rather than arbitrary.
• Engages the federal-preemption debate with a more dialectical, both-sides-argued approach than the more advocacy-oriented positions taken elsewhere in the AI-policy think-tank landscape.
• Brings a ‘moderate libertarian’ lens to AI governance — market-friendly by default but willing to accept a real government role where markets alone are insufficient.

Thought Leadership

1. Making AI Policy: Are We Falling Behind or Rushing In?
   A dialogue-format Niskanen analysis weighing whether state AI policy variation is a genuine federalism laboratory or harmful fragmentation — argued from both sides.

Clients

Nonpartisan think tank (‘moderate libertarian’ orientation); no commercial clients. Engages congressional offices and state policymakers on federalism, immigration, climate, and increasingly technology and AI governance.