Think Tanks

10 Key excerpts on "Think Tanks"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Think Tanks and Policy Advice in the US

  Academics, Advisors and Advocates

  • James G. McGann(Author)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  3 Think Tanks defined

  Think Tanks or public policy research, analysis, and engagement institutions are organizations that generate policy-oriented research, analysis, and advice on domestic and international issues in an effort to enable policymakers and the public to make informed decisions about public policy issues. Think Tanks may be affiliated with political parties, governments, interest groups, or private corporations or constituted as independent nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). These institutions often act as a bridge between the academic and policymaking communities, serving the public interest as an independent voice that translates applied and basic research into a language and form that is understandable, reliable, and accessible for policymakers and the public.

  Structured as permanent bodies, in contrast with ad hoc commissions or research panels, Think Tanks devote a substantial portion of their financial and human resources to commissioning and publishing research and policy analysis in the social sciences: political science, economics, public administration, and international affairs. The major outputs of these organizations are books, monographs, reports, policy briefs, conferences, seminars, briefings and informal discussions with policymakers, government officials, and key stakeholders.

  Classification

  Attempts to define and/or categorize Think Tanks, raises a debate over the meaning of such basic terms as “public policy research,” “think tank,” and “advocacy.” The subtitle of this book is intended to capture the struggle that exists among Think Tanks concerning their role in the policy-making process: Are they academics, advisors, or advocates? Can a think tank be effective if it is not an advisor or advocate? This debate reflects the inherent tension between the world of ideas and world of politics or the clash of the academic and policy cultures. The categories provided below are designed to help bring these differences into focus so that a more informed debate can occur.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Policy Analysis in Canada

  • Laurent Dobuzinskis, Michael Howlett, David Laycock(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • University of Toronto Press

    (Publisher)

  22 Any Ideas? Think Tanks and Policy Analysis in Canada donald e. abelson Introduction At different times and in different contexts, they have been described as brain trusts, idea brokers, laboratories for ideas, public policy research institutes, policy clubs, and policy planning organizations. In the main-stream media and in the academic literature, they are best known as Think Tanks. Although the vast majority of the world’s 5,000 or more Think Tanks are located in the United States, most advanced and devel-oping countries count Think Tanks among the many types of non-gov-ernmental organizations that engage in research and analysis. Along with interest groups, trade associations, human rights organizations, advocacy networks, and a handful of other bodies, Think Tanks rely on their expertise and knowledge to influence public opinion and public policy. What has distinguished Think Tanks in the past from the other organizations mentioned above is their reputation for being objective, scientific, and non-partisan. However, in recent years, as Think Tanks have become more invested in the outcome of key policy debates, their image as scholarly and policy neutral organizations has been called into question. Indeed, by combining policy research with political advocacy, it has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between Think Tanks, lobbyists, consultants, and interest groups. As Think Tanks have come to occupy a stronger presence in the policy-making community, academic interest in their role and function has intensified. While some scholars (Rich 2004; Abelson 1996, 2006; Stone 1996; McGann 1995; Ricci 1993; Smith 1991; Weaver 1989) have been preoccupied with how and to what extent Think Tanks have been able to access the highest levels of the American government, others have

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Think Tanks

  The New Knowledge and Policy Brokers in Asia

  • James G. McGann(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Brookings Institution Press

    (Publisher)

  Structured as permanent bodies, in contrast with ad hoc commissions or research panels, Think Tanks devote a substantial portion of their financial and human resources to commissioning and publishing research and policy analysis in the social sciences: political science, economics, public administration, and international affairs. The major outputs of these organizations are books, monographs, reports, policy briefs, conferences, seminars, briefings, and informal discussions with policymakers, government officials, and key stakeholders. While purely academic research is focused on creating new knowledge, Think Tanks are focused on producing research, analysis, and advice in a form that is accessible and understandable for policymakers and the public. Some of the functions Think Tanks engage in include:

  • Carrying out research and analysis on policy problems.
  • Providing advice on immediate policy concerns.
  • Evaluating government programs.
  • Interpreting policies for electronic and print media, facilitating public understanding of and support for policy initiatives.
  • Facilitating the construction of issue networks that involve a diverse set of policy actors who come together on an ad hoc basis around a particular policy issue or problem.

  Think Tanks are unique public policy research organizations in a number of ways:

  • They are more effectively future-oriented than government research functionaries, who work in an environment in which efforts at creative disposition are rarely rewarded.
  • They are more likely to generate reconfigured policy agendas, while bureaucracies thrive on a security-maximizing environment of standard operating procedures.
  • They are better able to facilitate collaboration among separate groups of researchers for a common purpose because they have no permanent vested interest in a specific domain.
  • They aid intellectual synthesis that results from breaking down bureaucratic barriers because they are better able to: disseminate information to targets; deal with the interdisciplinary nature of global policy issues; function as conveners; telescope the policy process from data collection to knowledge/policy creation; conceive the means of implementation than government bureaucracies, which may be internally segmented by department and area of specialization.92

  In light of this discussion, many of the Think Tanks in the United States and a growing number of other countries strive to be nonpartisan policy research, engagement, and formulation organizations that generate policy-oriented research, analysis, and advice on domestic and international issues, that enable policymakers and the public to make informed decisions about public policy by offering such advice in the form of intellectual argument, platforms for convocation and debate, and resources, and which have significant autonomy from government and societal interests, such as business firms, interest groups, and political parties.93

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Climate Politics and the Impact of Think Tanks

  Scientific Expertise in Germany and the US

  • Alexander Ruser(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  sources of income, spending, or recruiting practices). Moreover, the term “think tank” itself somehow falsely implies a uniformity of structure and properties that belies the true diversity of organizations that are labelled by it. In the relevant literature, the term is applied to a diverse set of research institutions, public policy institutes, and consultancies. It has been described as more or less an ‘umbrella term that means many different things to many different people’ (Stone 1996 : 9). For Thomas Medvetz, ‘the basic problem is that the central concept itself is fuzzy, mutable and contentious’ (2012 : 23) and thus the definition of what a think tank is can change over time (Medvetz 2012 : 26–28). Despite a general ‘lack of consensus (…) in defining Think Tanks’ (McGann and Johnson 2005 : 11), however, I use a working definition depicting them as ‘independent, non-profit research facilities, engaged in applied research provided to political decision makers’ (Ruser 2013 : 331). Perhaps the most elaborate definition was developed by Donald Abelson. He begins with a list of basic organizational characteristics that most Think Tanks have in common: ‘they are generally nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations engaged in the study of public policy’ (Abelson 2009 : 9). Additionally, he considers the relatively broad spectrum of think tank behaviour: Think Tanks can embrace whatever ideological orientation they desire and provide their expertise to any political candidate or office-holder willing to take advantage of their advice. […] Not all Think Tanks share the same commitment to scholarly research or devote comparable resources to performing this function, yet it remains, for many, their raison d’être

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  In Search of Academic Excellence

  Social Sciences and Humanities in Focus (Vol. I)

  • Agnieszka Gromkowska-Melosik, Bartosz Hordecki, Tomasz R. Szymczynski, Agnieszka Gromkowska-Melosik, Bartosz Hordecki, Tomasz R. Szymczynski(Authors)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Peter Lang Group

    (Publisher)

  Bomb, Bureacurats and Billionaires, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018� 7 White House, Statement by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal, 12 January 2018, https://www�whitehouse�gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-iran-nuclear- deal/ (retrieved June 22, 2021)� The Role of Think Tanks in US Policy Toward Iran 113 The Role of Think Tanks in the USA: Selected Issues Think Tanks can be defined as organizations that have “policy research functions and policy advisory practices�” 8 However, it is difficult referring to one definition, because of the complexity regarding the Think Tanks role in the American polit- ical system� One cynical opinion suggested that a think tank might be defined as “an arrangement by which millions of dollars are removed from the accounts of willing corporations, the government, and the eccentric wealthy and given to researchers who spend much of their time competing to get their names in print�” 9 The above quotation touches on one of the issues related to financing sources essential for think-tanks activity� The case of external and domestic financing raises the question of how does it sway the think tank profile? Theoretical models are seeking to define the Think Tanks place in the polit- ical system and their influential role on the decision-making processes� Joseph G� Peschek enlists three approaches applicable to Think Tanks: the elite, pluralist and institutionalist theories� 10 The elite theory derives from the seminal book of C� Wright Mills, The Power Elite� The book was written in the mid of 1950s and the author noticed the cold war developed the role of the military sector, as he pessimistically called that the American political system was being controlled largely by the military-industrial complex� 11 The American elite theory was continued by G� William Domhoff highlighted the triumph of corporate rich consist of large banks, corporations, agribusinesses, and commercial real estate developments that dominate the American economy and government� 12 Think Tanks in the elite theory are the instruments deployed strategically in the service of a ruling class� This theo- retical approach

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  How Think Tanks Shape Social Development Policies

  • James G. McGann, Anna Viden, Jillian Rafferty, James G. McGann, Anna Viden, Jillian Rafferty(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • University of Pennsylvania Press

    (Publisher)

  20 Introduction Defining Think Tanks in the Twenty-First Century Today, many components of most modern definitions of Think Tanks are not novel. Rather, they have their roots in the inaugural attempts at defining the term made by scholars such as Orlans, Dickson, and Boorstin, using many of the same characteristics as these and other predecessors. Some twenty-first-century accounts of ‘‘think tank’’ have propagated the growing tendency in the literature to borrow heavily from the defini-tions of previous scholars. 94 As evident, for example, in the definition of Montoya and Swanger, characteristics such as ‘‘non-governmental,’’ ‘‘non-profit,’’ and ‘‘evidence-based advice’’ are common terms for some twenty-first-century scholars (a more precise definition ‘‘remains elusive,’’ they add). 95 In a few cases, this borrowing amounts to rather arcane accounts of the term. Hartwig Pautz, for example, aligns his broad definition of ‘‘think tank’’ in almost perfect concordance with Weaver’s definition in his seminal article ‘‘The Changing World of Think Tank,’’ which was published sixteen years earlier. Some, however, introduce into the literature novel notions. Montoya and Swanger assert that the common output of Think Tanks is rapidly changing. Once articulated in the form of books, journal articles, congressional testimony, op-ed essays and conference papers, the policy-oriented product of public policy research organizations, these two scholars contend, is increasingly being distributed by way of electronic media, such as blogs, websites, and databases. 96 In his work Think Tanks and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Policy-maker’s Per-spective , Richard N. Haass offers substantial insight into the twenty-first-century meaning of the concept ‘‘think tank’’ through his unique approach to the term, one that could only be taken by a policymaker, not a detached scholar (Haass is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Development in the Asia Pacific

  A Public Policiy Perspective

  • Jong S. Jun(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter

    (Publisher)

  By implication, one such form of collective action concerns the role of the think tank within the processes and structures of democratic policy anal-ysis and political choice. In the ideal world, specific policy analysts are even able to assist governments to determine the calculus of effective-ness which ultimately enhances individual humanity dignity (Brewer and de Leon, 1983: 106). Such an ambition, formally stated by leading policy scientists, at least since the time of Lasswell (Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950), is surely a very high-order task for collectivities as defined by Ostrom. The task required of the policy analysts, whether resident in a formalized think tank or not, may be a sanguine view of such a collective role but it is surely not mundane. This sanguine version of policy analysis as a form of neo-rationalism, whether as public choice theory or not, (Malkin and Wildavsky, 1991), fits the more conventional version of the role of somewhat elitist Think Tanks in the U.S. (Wolf, 1980; Weaver, 1989). Using Weaver's (1989) criteria, to call such formalized institutions universities without students or even advocacy tanks implies the point that Frantzich (1983) makes - they have access; certainly to the knowledgeable, less so to the powerful. In Australia the real world is otherwise. Think Tanks are sometimes as much public relations companies as they are academically pristine. Such a range of characteristics deserves much more detailed attention and will be 26 Think Tanks and Inter-agency Policy-making in Australia 489 discussed in the next section of the article. Suffice is to say here that the U.S. models of Think Tanks now available constitute only a partially help-ful analog of behavior in Westminster style polities (Sayeed, 1973; Stone, 1991).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Think Tanks in the US and EU

  The Role of Policy Institutes in Washington and Brussels

  • Christopher Rastrick(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  First, during presidential campaigns and elections, and especially the increasingly lengthy nomination campaigns leading up to elections, Think Tanks are often viewed as a source of policy expertise. Internally, presidential campaign teams might neither have access to specific issue knowledge themselves nor possess the capacity to adequately research and analyze these issues within their campaign teams. Here, Think Tanks are able to offer themselves as sources of policy expertise which, in addition to infusing their ideological interpretation into their advice to aspiring officeholders, invites the development of a closer connection between Think Tanks and the candidate that might ascend to the presidency. Further, in the event of a successful presidential campaign, Think Tanks active in the campaign period are oftentimes ensconced even deeper in the president-elect’s policy development, particularly during the transition period into office. For example, although Donald Trump branded himself as a detached, independent outsider in formulating his American presidential campaign platform, he nevertheless sought the expertise and credibility of think tank personnel through the course of his campaign, and especially so within his transition team. Not surprising, the Heritage Foundation provided the Trump transition team with assistance, including the co-founder Edwin Feulner. Thus, if Think Tanks are able to prove their utility to presidential candidates during the campaign, opportunities may arise for individuals from these organizations to exercise even further influence within the executive branch of government.

  Second, several of the more prominent, well-funded American Think Tanks have established physical liaison offices with both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In doing so, this “allows Think Tanks to monitor and track the most important issues on the floor of the House and Senate, which, in turn, helps them to prepare the type of research policymakers require to make critical choices” (Abelson 2006, 154). Thus, by availing themselves to congressmen and senators, Think Tanks are able to entrench themselves as a reliable, convenient, and easily accessible source of policy expertise on issues critical and topical to policymakers. Finally, Think Tanks assert themselves in the formal policymaking structure by ‘placing’ think tank scholars and figures in cabinet, subcabinet, and bureaucracy positions. Though it is certainly a simplification to suggest that Think Tanks independently and autonomously ‘place’ individuals in these roles, the aforementioned connections forged between Think Tanks and policymakers, especially at the higher levels, afford a degree of repute and reliability that might encourage senior policymakers to recruit individuals from Think Tanks. This particular means of formal influence most clearly espouses the ‘revolving door’ phenomenon; there are few better ways, after all, for Think Tanks to have their voices heard by policymakers than through their affiliated scholars and staff working and interacting directly with the policymaking process they seek to influence. Following their tenure in a policymaking capacity, Think Tanks would ideally see these individuals return to their respective Think Tanks to continue their goal of influencing the policymaking process, as per the circular rhythm of the ‘revolving door.’

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Global Think Tanks

  Policy Networks and Governance

  • James G. McGann, Laura C. Whelan(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  culs-de-sac , and from bias and fads that have affected everyone else in their day, but Think Tanks have done well enough to become part and parcel of the way that government works in the United States. The reasons, however, are not all obvious, and the implications are not fully understood even by the participants in the world of Think Tanks. It turns out that the sociological impacts of Think Tanks are as crucial as any other, and the deeper sociocultural origins of Think Tanks are more important than the obvious institutional ones.

  Think Tanks in the US context

  The origin of Think Tanks in America is far more complicated than the introductory sketch given earlier suggests, and these complications deserve careful attention. In general, Think Tanks are very educational. While the vast majority of Think Tanks in the United States are focused on foreign relations and economic affairs, there is a think tank for every issue area. As more than mere advocacy groups, these Think Tanks unite scholars and policymakers to discuss and debate pressing issues in order to create relevant and applicable policies for the government to adapt.

  Think Tanks are an American invention, and their development remains largely an American phenomenon. There are about 8,200 Think Tanks in the world, including 1,872 located in the United States and 2,219 located in Europe. Think Tanks have had, and still have, a greater influence within the US policy process than Think Tanks do in any other country.

  Second, public policymaking in the United States is very porous to non-governmental influence compared to virtually all other countries. The reason is structural and quite obvious when noted. The US system of government features a much sharper division between the executive and legislative branches than in standard parliamentary systems, including that of Central America and the Caribbean. A prime minister acts both as the executive and the head of his party in the legislature; a president does not. In most parliamentary systems, initiative for legislation comes from an indistinct collusion between the head of the government, his party, and its parliamentary contingent. In the United States, on the other hand, initiative for legislation can and does come from both Congress and the White House.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Think Tanks, Foreign Policy and Geo-Politics

  Pathways to Influence

  • Donald E. Abelson, Stephen Brooks, Xin Hua, Donald Abelson, Stephen Brooks, Xin Hua, Donald E. Abelson, Donald Abelson, Stephen Brooks, Xin Hua(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  7    Think Tanks and foreign policy in the United Kingdom

  Mark Garnett and Simon Mabon

  Introduction: Influence and causation

  Early in 2015, John de Boer, a senior policy advisor with the UNU Centre for Policy Research, published an article entitled “What Are Think Tanks Good For?”. For de Boer, the raison d’etre of a think tank is “to serve as important catalysts for ideas and action” (de Boer 2015).

  Academic analysts of the increasingly dynamic and crowded world of policy advice have always faced the seemingly intractable challenge of identifying – and evaluating – “influence”. In an ideal scenario for the researcher, the role of policy-oriented institutions like Think Tanks would be direct and significant; for example, a decision-maker about to embark on a specific course of action would read a think tank publication, change his or her mind, and give the kind of public acknowledgement which is normally confined to Academy Award winners. However, even evidence like this could not be taken at face value; as David Hume warned us, causation is never as simple as it seems on the surface.

  De Boer’s reference to “catalysts” is useful to all students of Think Tanks, and is particularly relevant in the context of the present chapter. However, it does not remove the methodological difficulty since in science every catalyst is crucial; applied to policy influence, the word still implies a level of input without which decisions would have been different. Richard Higgott and Diane Stone (1994) have argued that evidence of think tank influence should not be confined to instances where decision-makers seem to have changed their minds; such institutes can also perform a “legitimising” role, lending credibility to the decisions and utterances of political actors. However, if taken too far, this approach could lead us to lower the bar for think tank influence to a point where all

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book