Session purpose
This session invited participants to engage directly with emerging findings from the 2026 State of the Sector survey and help interpret what the data means for think tanks and their supporters. Rather than presenting the survey as a finished product, the session treated the data as a shared resource to be questioned, contextualised and enriched by practitioners from different regions.
The session focused on several major themes: funding volatility, political pressures, financial reserves, AI adoption, regional differences, survey methodology and what kinds of support think tanks may need to become more resilient. The aim was to turn survey findings into a more useful analysis for the final State of the Sector report.
Main conveners and contributors
This session was convened by:
- Camila Ulloa, Research Officer, On Think Tanks
- Gabriela Suárez, FARO
- Tlegen Kuandykov, CAPS Unlock
- Stewart Nixon, IDEAS Malaysia
- Wessam El Beih, IDRC
The programme framed the session as a participatory exercise using the latest State of the Sector data to identify key trends, assess regional relevance, and co-develop explanations and implications for think tanks and their supporters.
Participants brought regional perspectives from Latin America, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, as well as reflections on survey design, funding models, AI use and political risk.
Main presentation and framing
The session presented emerging findings from the 2026 State of the Sector survey. One of the headline findings was a paradox: many respondents were pessimistic about the sector overall, while remaining more optimistic about their own organisations. The notes report that 45% expected global funding conditions to worsen, while 42% expected their own income to grow.
The data also showed that funding models remain a major source of vulnerability. More than half of organisations rely mostly or entirely on project grants, while only 18% report primarily core funding. Financial reserves are also limited: 40% of respondents hold less than three months of reserves, leaving many think tanks exposed to funding shocks.
The session then used regional discussants and participant reflections to probe what these findings mean in practice.
Main debates
1. Funding pessimism and organisational optimism coexist
A central discussion focused on the gap between negative perceptions of the sector and more positive expectations at the organisational level. Participants suggested several possible explanations.
Some organisations may be genuinely confident because they have diversified funding or adapted successfully. Others may be expressing strategic optimism. Stewart Nixon also noted a possible sampling effect: weaker organisations may disappear from the survey over time, leaving more resilient survivors in the dataset.
This raised an important methodological point: survey findings need to be interpreted carefully, especially when comparing perceptions of “the sector” with perceptions of one’s own organisation.
2. Funding instability may matter more than funding decline
The discussion moved beyond whether funding is increasing or decreasing. Wessam El Beih stressed that instability itself is damaging because it undermines long-term planning, institutional memory and sustained research agendas.
Project-based funding creates particular problems. It makes it harder to cover indirect costs, build reserves, invest in leadership, retain staff and plan beyond individual grants. The session therefore highlighted the need for funders to think in terms of portfolios, ecosystems and long-term institutional capacity, not only short project cycles.
3. Financial reserves are low, but building reserves is complicated
Participants discussed the vulnerability created by low reserves. Many think tanks operate with only a few months of financial cushion, and some regions are especially exposed. The notes report that in non-EU Europe and the Caucasus, 56% of think tanks have less than three months of reserves.
At the same time, participants recognised that building reserves is difficult under restricted, project-based funding. Stuart Nixon noted that three months of reserves may be common, but it is not ideal. Wessam added that increasing reserves can also create trade-offs if organisations reduce staffing or delivery capacity in order to save.
4. Regional funding realities differ sharply
The session showed that global averages can hide very different regional realities.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, nearly half of the respondents reported funding decreases. Gabriela Suárez described Ecuador’s acute funding crisis following USAID cuts, with 75% of Ecuadorian think tanks citing financial restrictions as their main obstacle.
Central Asia was described as heavily project-based, with limited reserves, weak domestic philanthropy and constant fundraising pressure. Southeast Asia was more mixed, with some government-backed think tanks outside the usual project-grant model. In MENA, Wessam described a small and politically constrained funding pool, creating a “constrained equilibrium” for organisations.
5. Political pressures are becoming more important
The data suggested that political challenges are rising sharply, with 64% citing political difficulties as a major concern. In some regions, political pressure may now be as important as — or more important than — funding.
The Ecuador example illustrated how internal conflict, government narratives and shrinking civic space increase operational risk. Central Asian participants described media shutdowns, social media hacking and restrictive foreign agent laws. Wessam described MENA as facing a “structured ceiling” on research impact due to political constraints and conflict narratives.
The discussion, therefore, situates think tank resilience not only in financial terms, but also in relation to civic space, political risk and the ability to speak publicly.
6. AI adoption is high, but governance is lagging
The survey found that AI use is widespread, with 84% adoption globally. Common uses include writing assistance, note-taking, transcription and research support. Fundraising was the least common AI application, at 26%.
However, participants stressed that adoption is not the same as governance. Ethical frameworks, disclosure practices and organisational rules remain underdeveloped. Gabriela noted concerns in Latin America about AI’s role in research, while Stuart emphasised that AI governance is as important as AI uptake, particularly in Southeast Asia.
7. Survey methodology affects interpretation
The session included a valuable discussion of the survey itself. Stewart Nixon noted that the survey is currently more cross-sectional than longitudinal, which limits the ability to track how individual organisations change over time. The current edition began recording organisational identifiers, which should make future panel analysis possible.
Participants also discussed framing effects. Respondents may be more pessimistic about the sector than about themselves because of a “third-party effect”. The session suggested that future survey design could be improved by using more first-person framing, ensuring more consistent respondent profiles and disaggregating results by organisation type, size, gender, leadership, funding source and region.
8. Quantitative data needs a qualitative follow-up
The session recognised that survey data can identify patterns, but not always explain them. Participants suggested qualitative interviews and case studies to understand issues such as reserves, AI ethics, political pressure and funding models more deeply.
There was also interest in linking survey responses with the Open Think Tank Directory, annual reports, websites and other public data sources, possibly using AI to support richer analysis over time.
Main takeaways
- The 2026 State of the Sector data shows a sector facing uncertainty, but not without resilience. Many think tanks are worried about the wider environment while remaining cautiously optimistic about their own prospects.
- Funding volatility is a major problem. The issue is not only whether funding is declining, but whether it is predictable enough to support long-term planning and institutional memory.
- Project-based funding continues to weaken organisational resilience by limiting indirect cost recovery, reserves, staffing stability and strategic investment.
- Financial reserves remain low across many regions, leaving think tanks vulnerable to shocks.
- Political pressure is becoming a major operational risk. In some contexts, shrinking civic space, foreign agent laws, government hostility and conflict narratives are reshaping what think tanks can do.
- Regional differences matter. Latin America, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, MENA, Europe and other regions face very different combinations of funding, political and institutional constraints.
- AI adoption is already widespread, but ethical governance, disclosure and organisational frameworks are lagging behind practice.
- Survey interpretation needs care. Sampling effects, framing effects and differences in respondent profiles can shape apparent findings.
- Future State of the Sector analysis should combine survey data with qualitative case studies, directory data and possibly AI-supported analysis of public organisational information.
- The strongest message of the session was that sector data becomes more valuable when interpreted collectively. Practitioners can help explain the numbers, challenge assumptions and turn findings into more useful insights for think tanks, funders and networks.