The What If Index is a data-driven research platform dedicated to the rigorous analysis of high-impact hypothetical scenarios. We believe the most important questions in public policy, economics, and society are often the ones that begin with "what if."
The world's most consequential decisions -- on climate policy, economic reform, technological governance, and social organization -- are rarely made with complete information. Policymakers, researchers, and citizens must reason about futures that have not yet occurred, drawing on incomplete data and contested models.
The What If Index exists to make that reasoning more rigorous. We take the hypothetical seriously: not as speculation or fantasy, but as a legitimate analytical method for understanding cause and effect, tradeoffs, and second-order consequences.
Every scenario we publish is grounded in peer-reviewed research, empirical data, and real-world evidence from comparable cases. We present the strongest arguments on each side with equal intellectual rigor -- because we believe that good analysis requires engaging honestly with inconvenient evidence.
"The question is not whether we will speculate about the future. The question is whether we will do so carefully."
-- The What If Index, Editorial Principles
By the Numbers
Our analytical framework is designed to be transparent, reproducible, and resistant to ideological capture. Each scenario passes through four stages before publication.
We select hypothetical scenarios that are (a) actively debated in policy or academic circles, (b) have sufficient empirical evidence to analyze, and (c) have meaningful real-world implications. We avoid scenarios that are purely speculative or lack empirical grounding.
All statistics are sourced from peer-reviewed journals, government agencies, multilateral institutions (IMF, World Bank, OECD), and established research organizations. Every data point is cited with source, publisher, and year. We do not use anonymous or unverifiable sources.
We present the strongest available arguments on both sides of each scenario. Our editorial policy prohibits advocating for any particular outcome. Pros and cons are given equal space, equal rigor, and equal citation standards. We actively seek out evidence that challenges our initial framing.
Every scenario includes a complete bibliography of primary sources. We distinguish between direct empirical evidence, model-based projections, and expert opinion. We note when evidence is contested or when studies have significant methodological limitations.
Good analysis sometimes produces conclusions that are politically inconvenient, economically uncomfortable, or socially challenging. We do not soften findings to make them more palatable. If the evidence points in an unexpected direction, we follow it.
We explicitly acknowledge when evidence is limited, contested, or subject to significant uncertainty. Projections are presented with their underlying assumptions. We would rather say "the evidence suggests" than overstate confidence in any direction.
Complex policy questions have complex answers. We do not simplify to the point of distortion, but we also do not use complexity as a shield against clear communication. Every scenario is written to be understood by an educated general reader.
The What If Index does not advocate for any political party, ideology, or policy outcome. Our role is to improve the quality of public reasoning about important questions -- not to tell people what to think.
Browse our current scenarios across Politics, Finance, Health, Technology, and Society. Each one represents hours of research distilled into a clear, balanced analysis.
Browse All Scenarios