Capturing the Political Imagination

Think Tanks and the Policy Process

Diane Stone

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136309045
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Think tanks are proliferating. Although they are outside of government, many of these policy research institutes are perceived to influence political thinking and public policy. This book develops ideas about policy networks, epistemic communities and policy learning in relation to think tanks.

1 Identifying Think-tanks

There is a body of literature which discusses a group of organisations variously known as ‘imperial brain trusts’ (Shoup and Minter, 1977), ‘public policy research institutes’ (Polsby 1983; McGann, 1992; McDowell, 1992), ‘policy discussion groups’ and ‘research institutes’ (Domhoff, 1983), and ‘policy planning organizations’ (Peschek, 1987) or ‘independent public policy institutes’ (Stone, 1991). More often than not they are called ‘think-tanks’. Yet, the study of think- tanks is not as extensive as the proliferation of labels. In the literature that does exist there are different disciplinary approaches, differences of opinion on their role as well as a lack of definitional clarity and agreement as to what is a think-tank. The term is problematic. ‘Think-tank’ was first employed as a nickname in the 1940s for the brain - ‘brain box’ - but acquired new meaning in the 1960s when it appeared in magazine and newspaper articles as a description for the RAND Corporation (Dickson, 1971). This organisation is atypical of contemporary policy institutes because of its vast size and budget, its scientific and technical focus as well as close ties to the Pentagon. ‘Think-tank’ is an umbrella term that means different things to different people. It has been used to describe central government policy units (Blackstone and Plowden, 1988), the Congressional Research Service in the USA (Robinson, 1992), government research bureaux and advisory bodies as well as commercial research organisations. The term is over-inclusive and evokes images of science, detachment and objective expertise. It is a label sometimes rejected by policy institutes. In the USA, for example, the Aspen Institute denies in all its promotional material that it is a think-tank, while Will Marshall of the Democrat affiliated Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) refers to his ‘analytic guerrilla group’. The disadvantage of dispensing with the term is that a commonly acceptable replacement has not been forthcoming. In the popular lexicon ‘think-tank’ is too well entrenched. The different meanings attached to the term are not an insuperable barrier to analysis provided it is used precisely, as it is here, to mean independent policy research institute.

There are two types of literature seeking to define or categorise think-tanks. One set of writing investigates all manner of organis- ations engaged in policy and scientific research, either independently of, or for government and business. Paul Dickson was the first to write a book on think-tanks but the organisations he studied included scientific laboratories, consultancies and other American research bodies. The following year, Harold Orlans (1972) published a book on non-profit research institutes. Both books were important for addressing systematically a hitherto unassessed phenomenon and for providing a framework to identify different kinds of research institutes. More recently some have applied the term specifically to policy research organisations but this includes university, public sector and private sector research bodies alike (see Marsh, 1991; McDowell, 1994). The independent policy research institute – described by Dickson as the ‘free advice brigade’ - is only one category of organisation among the gamut of think-tanks. Accordingly, while this earlier body of literature identifies an important organisational phenomenon, it has not addressed in any detail the diverse forms and activities of the independent policy research institute.

The second set of observers have attempted to define more precisely the independent policy research institute. While these efforts are individually useful, collectively these discussions confuse rather than clarify understanding. The use of different terms and criteria for identification create contradictions and confound efforts to establish a unifying concept of think-tank. Although authors are usually describing the same organisational creatures, and their typologies in many cases overlap, each stress different attributes. Nelson Polsby (1983) distinguishes between ‘public policy research institutes’ and what he calls ‘true think-tanks’. Policy institutes are defined by their politically attuned research agendas and regular impact on policy whereas the pure think-tank allows researchers to pursue their own intellectual agendas with little regard for policy relevance. In a similar vein, Evert Lindquist argues that the term ‘think-tank’ is too grand and that institutes should be called ‘policy clubs’ to reflect their limited aspirations, specific audiences and amateur interests (1993: 476). In his paper on British think-tanks, Simon James (1993) argues that think-tanks must be multi-disciplinary, thereby eliminating many institutes from further consideration.

Instead of trying to define and categorise existing think-tanks, Yehezkel Dror (1980) builds a model of an ideal think-tank. First, he argues that think-tanks have a mission of undertaking inter- disciplinary, science based contributions to policy-making. Second, they need a critical mass of about 15 to 20 professionals from a range of disciplines. Third, these research professionals employ research methods that characterise the organisation as a ‘thinking outfit’. Fourth, they are characterised by research freedom - although this may conflict with the fifth feature which is clientele dependency for financing, information and feedback. Lastly, think-tank outputs and impacts have bearing on the policy process. Although Dror's model helps us identify policy-oriented organisations, his model is rigid. The ideal is also heavily influenced by American experience. Dror has in mind large operations prevalent in the USA prior to the 1980s, whereas some organisations discussed here are considerably smaller. For instance, his ‘critical mass’ criterion would exclude from analysis many American as well as non-American think-tanks. Small policy institutes often have part-time and voluntary staff whose activities are cross subsidised by universities, private companies or bureaucracies. Furthermore, advances in communications technology as well as inter-organisational networks reduce the necessity for Dror's critical mass. Dror also stresses that the ideal think-tank makes ‘rational’ or ‘scientific’ contributions to policy formulation. He does not consider their ideological and political functions. By contrast, Winand Gellner (1990: 5) defines research institutes by their political rather than intellectual relevance of generating ideas and ideologies, aiding net- working and assisting political parties in the recruitment and training of political élites.

Samantha Durst and James Thurber (1989) identify traits that are attributable to policy research institutes but not to other research organisations, thereby adding more detail to the character of independent policy research institutes. They note, first, that the majority of them are non-profit organisations. Second, these think- tanks have minimal levels of government funding. Indeed, many reject it as a matter of principle. Third, the primary orientation of these organisations is research. Fourth, unhindered research requires independence. As Dickson notes:

Their finished work is usually never proprietary in the industrial sense and never has the secret stamp of an agency affixed to it. As a class they try to influence decisions, not in the vested role of contractor, but from the outside (1971: 261).

Fifth, they stress a strong scholarly or analytic orientation. Yet, Durst and Thurber's framework would not meet the satisfaction of all. While some institutes are highly academic, not all are ‘real researchers’ but act as ‘policy boutiques’ (Coleman, 1991: 439). Many think-tanks regurgitate research conducted elsewhere in a simplified form. Similarly, it is not clear that policy research institutes function more independently with low proportions of government funding. Diverse funding sources may well enhance the legitimacy of research results but it is also commitment to professional standards that ensures the standing of research. Although their study indicates that Washington DC think-tanks do not have significant government funding in practice and generally as policy, it does not mean that this has always been the case or that it is applicable outside the USA.

Other analysts of think-tanks avoid the dilemmas of models or formal typologies by limiting their definition to one or two sentence descriptions. John Gaffney, for example, defines the essence of British think-tanks as ‘intellectually informed policy proposal structures with the express intention of gaining direct access to government’ (1991: 2). James Smith refers to American think-tanks as ‘private, non-profit research groups that operate on the margins of … formal political processes’ (1991a: xiii). Similarly, Hames and Feasey (1994: 216) describe a think-tank as a ‘non-profit public policy research institution with substantial organisational autonomy’. In his study of Washington think-tanks, David Ricci merely states that with a wide spectrum of institutes there is a ‘need for generalisation’ (1993: 20–21). While avoiding the problems of categorisation, such definitions do not help in establishing the boundaries between independent policy research institutes and other organisations.

In sum, there is no accepted definition of the independent policy research institute. Minimalist definitions allow researchers considerable flexibility in application, but can be too broad and encompassing. Attempts to build models of the type produced by Dror are problematic. The organisational features of independent policy research institutes are too diverse and constantly evolving to be so precisely defined. A flexible model that recognises diversity among policy research institutes would seem more appropriate. One way to conceptualise this body of organisations is to determine from the outset what they are not. Once the distinctiveness of think-tanks from other research-related bodies is established, then it is possible to outline a set of features that characterise the organisations under analysis.

Independent policy research institutes are not interdisciplinary units of the type that are found in universities although they have been referred to as ‘universities without students’ (Gray, 1978; Critchlow, 1985: 4; Weaver, 1989; Ricci, 1993: 20). While think-tanks are engaged in research and other scholarly activities they do not mimic the universities. They are not involved in undergraduate teaching and do not have the same disciplinary range. Research fellows are employees and not free to ‘follow their intellectual priorities without constraint’ but are required to pursue organisational objectives (Polsby, 1983:16). It does not follow that academic freedom is circumscribed. Policy relevance is emphasised over pure research, but researchers are generally able to come to their own conclusions. Policy research institutes are also distinguishable from philanthropic foundations which tend to fund research rather than do it themselves. ‘Operating foundations’ such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Russell Sage Foundation (RSF) are different from foundations that make grants as they use their own funds to conduct policy analysis and research. Although consultancies conduct policy research they operate on a ‘for-profit’ basis. The product of their research can be, but is not always made public. It is often held to be ‘commercial in confidence’ for the client who determined the nature of the research enterprise in the first instance. The research agenda of policy institutes is determined by the organisation's research committee, rarely by outside interests. The primary motivation of the policy research institute is research not profit.

They are also very different from advocacy groups, interest groups and lobbies. As Carol Weiss notes, while many of these groups undertake extensive analysis, it ‘is intended primarily to advance the cause of the association and to give them ammunition to use in the policy wars’ (1992a: xiii). A former Director of the Policy Studies Institute in London, Bill Daniels, makes a clear distinction between his organisation and interest groups, stating that ‘We have no set programme or policies to promote. We have no basic political position or philosophy underpinning our work, other than empiricism and pragmatism’ (1989: 24). Nevertheless, policy research institutes are similar to some public interest groups that have a research component to their activities and it can be difficult to distinguish between the two types of organisation. However, the public interest group is more interested in grass-roots activity and advocacy whereas the policy research institute is first and foremost a research outfit. While the line between analysis and advocacy does become blurred, policy institutes aspire to be rigorous and balanced. Or in Weiss's words, they ‘do not sweep uncongenial information under the rug’. Instead, they treat data systematically and apply research methods in a consistent fashion. ‘[I]f the answer is always cut-and-dried before inquiry starts’, she says, ‘it probably should be classed as an advocacy organization’ (1992a: xiii-xiv). It is the case that some policy research institutes such as the Heritage Foundation or Adam Smith Institute (ASI) have predictable policy positions. In spite of their conservative or libertarian positions, the source of predictability is not vested interest. It arises from a consistent set of principles or underlying ideology.

Think-tanks are also unlike government advisory organisations such as policy units, task forces and commissions of inquiry. These government bodies often have short life spans and are established at the behest of government for the purposes of solving a specific problem. Government research bureaux, while they may have some independence, remain tied to government objectives and dictates and, hence, can be regarded as part of the bureaucratic machinery. Colin Gray (1978) also makes a distinction between the policy research organisation, of which there are few, and the more technical and defence-oriented organisations in the USA. The latter tend to be profit-making bodies and have been pejoratively referred to as ‘Beltway Bandits’ operating on the outskirts of Washington DC (inter alia, Gray, 1978; Sharkansky, 1989; Ricci, 1993). Public policy institutes are not military research institutes engaged in technical or defence related work – which often maintain a close link with the bureaucracy and armed forces – as part of what Dickson (1971) refers to as the ‘military intellectual complex’. Nevertheless, many of the independently funded policy research institutes also engage in studies of strategy, logistics and armaments. The difference is the independence of the policy research institute from government dictates whereas ‘federal contract research organisations’ are usually entirely dependent on Department of Defense funding.

While think-tanks have many features in common with other research organisations, they are different from university centres, government agencies, consultancies and interest groups. Accordingly, a number of criteria are outlined below as defining characteristics of independent policy research institutes. None of the following criteria are sufficient in themselves but they provide a guide to some of their predominant features and distinguish them from other policy- oriented research bodies.¹

i) Organisational Independence and Permanency. Policy research institutes usually have formal legal status as an entity outside the public sector and independent from corporate and other interests. Independence can be determined from their status as a charity or non-profit organisation. Generally, they are established on a permanent footing. An obvious consequence of their independence is that they have no responsibility for the implementation of government policies. Additionally, think-tanks have some measure of detachment from government and partisan political debate.

it) Self Determination of Research Agendas. Think-tanks do not have a fixed or dependent policy position – they are intellectually independent. The nature of their work is determined by the institute rather than any specific interest. The research activities and quality of work is not controlled by funders or think-tank managers but by internalized professional standards similar to those of the university setting’ (Durst and Thurber, 1990: 11–12). Towards this end, think- tank managers often require that funding be untied so that they may be free in determining the questions they address and in arriving at their findings.

iii) Policy Focus. Independent policy institutes are typified by a desire to inform the policy process. Their research is not disinterested. They seek some involvement with government. Their primary ethos is to establish a dynamic between knowledge and policy-making through policy relevant analysis. Their strong policy focus differentiates them from university research which is often more academic, theoretical and less amenable to general consumption. This interplay of knowledge and policy is complemented by strategic practices to develop advisory ties to government, industry or the public.

iv) Public Purpose. Think-tanks are characterised by public spirit or, at least, the rhetoric of contributing to public debate and educating the community. A consistent claim is that they do not represent the interests of any rent-seeking group but that they desire to conduct research for the sake of building a body of knowledge and improving policy. As a consequence, think-tanks often have a longer term focus of inquiry than is available to policy-makers who must deal with immediate events. One feature of their public interest motivation is a heavy emphasis on communication, that is, on public, not private inquiry (Weiss, 1992a: ix; Lindquist, 1993: 555). Publications and research are accessible to the public and a premium is placed on plain and concise English, executive summaries and practical policy recommendations.

v) Expertise and Professionalism. Staff or scholars are usually trained in the policy and social sciences or have considerable firsthand experience from careers in government service. Their academic credentials, technical skills and methodological approaches are not only the intellectual resources of staff but also a source of legitimacy for their research findings and recommendations. Research staff are engaged in the intellectual analysis of policy and are concerned with the ideas, concepts and assumptions that inform policy.

vi) Organisational Yield. The primary products of think-tanks are research, analysis and advice. Policy advice comes in a variety of formats ranging from the multiple messages of books, journals, newsletters, magazine stories and op-ed pieces to tapes, videos, radio and television programming. More informal but equally important think-tank activities such as seminars, workshops and conferences, social meetings and fund raising functions as well as carefully nurtured networks provide the medium for interaction of scholars with decision-makers, opinion leaders and sponsors. Additionally, think-tanks produce human capital in...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Time Line of British and American Think-tanks
• Introduction: Knowledge, Influence and Agency in Policy
• 1 Identifying Think-tanks
• 2 Explaining and Analysing Think-tanks
• 3 US Exceptionalism and Parliamentary Systems
• 4 Think-tank Organisation and Management
• 5 Innovation, Stagnation and Demise
• 6 Knowledge Communities and Policy Institutes
• 7 Policy Relevance and Effectiveness
• 8 Policy Entrepreneurs, Research Brokerage and Networking
• 9 Second-Hand Dealers in Ideas
• 10 Public Choice Theory and Think-tanks
• 11 Policy Institutes and Privatisation
• 12 The Foreign Policy Club
• 13 Think-tanks and the Study of International Relations
• Conclusion
• Appendix: Independent Policy Institutes in Britain and the USA
• List of Interviews
• Bibliography
• Index