We live in turbulent times where the only constant is change, where the unthinkable has become a reality, and where the line between domestic and international politics is increasingly blurred. The promise and peril of globalization have transformed how we view international relations and opened the policy-making process to a new set of actors, agendas, and outcomes. International relations was once the exclusive domain of diplomats, bureaucrats, and states, but, when formulating foreign policy today, policy-makers must consider a diverse set of international actors that includes news organizations such as CNN and al-Jazeera; non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, International Crisis Group, and Greenpeace; international financial institutions such as Deutsche Bank; terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS; and regional groups such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Policy-makers thus face a complex and unique challenge when trying to fashion effective foreign policy.
The key to a potent foreign policy lies in information. There are difficulties with information: it can be unsystematic, unreliable, and possibly tainted by the interests of those who are disseminating it. Policy-makers are frequently besieged by more information than they can possibly use—the issue in many nations is not a lack of information, but an avalanche thereof. Some information may be so technical that generalist policy-makers cannot understand or make use of it, while other information may be simply impractical. Some information may be entirely within a policy-maker’s field and understanding, but obscured by multitudinous other information. Government officials must balance the information directed at them by international institutions, the media, and, in many cases, constituents. The greatest modern complication is that information no longer translates into power unless it is in the right form, in the right hands, and at the right time. Governments are often moved to seize the moment because particular social and political forces are in alignment or because a crisis compels them to take action. In either case, they frequently move quickly and make decisions based on available information, which does not always lead to the most informed policy. Because of this reality, policy-makers require information that is timely, understandable, reliable, accessible, and, generally, useful.
There are many potential sources for this information, but politicians and bureaucrats around the world have increasingly turned to a specialized group of institutions to serve their needs. Public policy research and analysis organizations, commonly known as “think tanks,” have filled policy-makers’ insatiable need for information and relevant systematic analysis. Think tanks are independent, non-profit, non-partisan policy research, engagement, and formulation organizations that generate policy-oriented research, analysis, and advice on domestic and international issues. In The National Origins of Policy Ideas, Campbell and Pederson view think tanks as knowledge-based regimes that confront problems involving ambiguity and uncertainty to advance policy-making; they are “sense-making apparatuses.” These authors write, “Sense making is often a contested process involving varying degrees of competition, negotiation, and compromise – often involving power struggles – over the interpretation of problems and solutions for them.”1 Think tanks enable policy-makers 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 have significant autonomy from government and societal interests. As a result, public policy decision-making has been increasingly shaped by the analysis, ideas, and recommendations of nationally specific institutions such as think tanks, and, in turn, these knowledge regimes have become highly embedded into national political and economic systems.
However, while the aforementioned definition of a think tank stresses notions of “independence” and “non-partisanship,” in actuality there exists considerable variation in the character of public policy research organizations, depending on the political reality and nation-state context the institution in question is operating in, as Chap. 2 discusses in further detail. In much of the developing world, the absence or restricted nature of legal, political, and financial frameworks severely limits the intellectual freedom, independence, and autonomy of think tanks in these regions. Additionally, these regions experiencing limited economic freedom are thus characterized by relatively weak philanthropic and private support for public policy research institutions, forcing many of these institutions to rely on government contracts, foreign donors, and private-sector consulting; consequently, the intellectual independence of think tanks is compromised. On the Anglo-American side, while there remains a proclivity for independent, non-partisan, and non-governmental think tanks, the increase in US ideologically led think tanks from 1970 to 1996 demonstrates that think tanks, institutions traditionally viewed as producing balanced and non-partisan research, are currently “at risk of polarization and the subsequent loss of their intellectual independence and credibility”2 due to a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, partisan politics, the proliferation of specialized think tanks, the growth of liberal and conservative advocacy groups, and the influence of 24/7 cable news networks. As a result, when analyzing the universal application of think tanks, a modified version of Paul Dickson’s 1972 definition may be more representative: “from a global perspective, a think tank can be for profit or nonprofit; supported by the government, part of the government, completely free of the government, or supported by a number of institutions, such as a company or university; and, finally, must practice relative academic freedom.”
The origins of think tank culture in the United States are bound up in America’s Progressive Era traditions of corporate philanthropy, the sharp distinction between legislative and executive branches of government, weak political parties, the public commitment to openness and independence, and the inclination of the public and their elected officials to trust the private sector to interface with and to provide assistance to government. These factors combine to provide very few barriers to policy analysts, ideologues, and entrepreneurs who want to enter the marketplace of ideas and contribute to the policy-making process . Thus, for most of the twentieth century, independent public policy think tanks were found primarily in the United States.
There has been more recently a veritable proliferation of “think tanks” around the world, which began in the 1980s as a result of the forces of globalization, the end of the Cold War, and the emergence of transnational issues. The impact of globalization on the think tank movement is most evident in regions such as Africa, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and parts of Southeast Asia, where there was a concerted effort by the international community to support the creation of independent public policy research organizations, with the majority of think tanks in these regions having been established in the last 10 years. The growth of public policy research organizations over the last two decades has been nothing less than explosive—today, there are over 4500 of these institutions around the world, with many think tanks in the United States exporting their scholars, brands of policy analysis, and organizational structures to other countries.3 Not only have these organizations increased in number, but the scope and impact of their work have expanded dramatically.
Think tanks operate in a variety of political systems, engage in a range of policy-related activities, comprise a diverse set of institutions that have varied organizational forms, and all perform the same basic function—bringing knowledge and expertise to bear on the policy-making process. These policy organizations, for example, carry out research on policy problems, provide swift advice on pressing concerns, evaluate government programs, coordinate a diverse set of policy actors, and so forth, to name a few activities. Public policy organizations come in a variety of forms, of which nearly all exist in the United States. In the rest of the world, think tanks can be a li...