Armenia | The effect of polarisation on think tanks in small states

This article was written by the Applied Policy Research Institute of Armenia (APRI) as part of the publication of the 2024 On Think Tanks State of the Sector Report. Explore the report and resources here.

Over half of this year’s global respondents to the Think Tank State of the Sector Survey reported that political polarisation has impacted their ability to conduct research and operate by at least a moderate amount.  

This trend is notably worrying for states without an institutionalised civil society. Think tanks in developing states, particularly small ones, already face a fundamental gap in the level of institutionalisation in their country—from healthcare and human resources to the availability of reliable data to conduct evidence-based research. Increasing polarisation harms the effectiveness of think tanks and threatens the viability and sustainability of a healthy, independent, and institutionalised civil society. 

Download the On Think Tanks State of Sector Report 2024

At their core, think tanks should provide evidence-based policy recommendations to better inform and advance domestic and international policy. Think tanks can be even more vital for small states, as they offer a unique platform for the creative thinking, inclusive discussions, and strategic foresight required to address local and regional issues dynamically.  

Political polarisation in these small states can prevent think tanks from achieving their objectives in three key ways: 

• Without adequate government access, think tanks may remain underinformed or lack sufficient research to make credible policy recommendations.  

• Though think tanks provide policymakers with the space needed to research and test policy ideas, polarisation may lead the policymakers to consult only government-affiliated platforms, which may not deliver objective and evidence-based analysis.  

• Think tanks can serve a vital Track 2 role by establishing constructive discourse between rival and conflicting actors, especially for states in geopolitically tense situations, such as Armenia; however, polarisation may make it impossible for the think tanks to maintain the impartiality necessary to arrange such convenings. 

The Case of Armenia 

Armenia is no stranger to polarisation, particularly after four years of intensified regional conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Severe divisions have emerged in its media landscape and public discourse among political actors—Freedom House’s 2024 Nations in Transit report on Armenia supports this view.1 Among other effects, the report notes how polarisation has partly driven low voter turnout and increased political apathy among citizens.  

Polarisation once again emerged in the most recent anti-government protests against the current ruling party. Local and international monitors condemned both sides for their divisive and hostile rhetoric, which detracted from the very real concerns of local residents about the threat to their land and survival.  

Constructive dialogue between these polarised camps is rare, especially at the political level. Local think tanks—by their nature, convening forums—provide a format where this dialogue could and should be taking place. Unfortunately, the results of the 2024 OTT survey suggest otherwise.  

In this year’s State of the Sector report, seven out of eight respondents from Armenia noted that political polarisation has had at least a moderate effect, with five out of eight reporting that it has had a significant effect, on their ability to research and operate. Moreover, when asked if it was easy for them to engage individuals with different political affiliations, only one respondent said it was easy. 

Challenges Underpinning Polarisation for Armenian Think Tanks 

At a high-level glance, Armenia boasts a remarkable number of civil society organisations (CSOs) per capita compared with its neighbours. According to the EU-backed CSOMeter, per 10,000 inhabitants, Armenia has 26.9 CSOs, whereas Georgia has three and Azerbaijan 4.7.  

Interestingly, compared with the global average from the survey, an outsized number of Armenian respondents reported that opening a think tank in Armenia is easy. Despite this high proportion and reported ease, CSOs, including think tanks, often face several challenges in providing quality, evidence-based, and nonpartisan analysis.  

The majority of Armenian think tanks that responded to the OTT survey reported having fewer than 20 staff members. Previous studies show only a handful of the approximately 30 think tanks in Armenia have more than a dozen experts or researchers. Our research into 25 Armenian think tanks showed that 64% have five or fewer staff members and at least 80% have under 10. A significant proportion (one in five) are “one-person” think tanks, where a single expert drives the research agenda and overall organisation.  

Further data from this year’s OTT survey reinforces research capacity as the most common and significant growth area for Armenian think tanks, with 75% of respondents marking it compared with only 37% globally. 

In addition to the challenge of research capacity, Armenian think tanks are limited in their research activities because of funding constraints.  

According to the OTT survey, five of eight Armenian respondents cited international development agencies as one of their primary funding sources. The least cited sources were individual donations, government funding, and consulting fees. Moreover, a majority (5/8) reported that their funding was primarily project-based rather than core funding. 

The data highlights that Armenia’s think tank ecosystem is not only unsustainable—due to its high level of project-based funding—but also reliant on external funding. Though the results align with global findings, they exacerbate the difficulty of maintaining a healthy, independent think tank ecosystem in a small emerging democracy such as Armenia. 

Bottom Line and Recommendations  

Armenian think tanks’ challenges in research capacity and funding spotlight the main issue: the need for more institutionalisation. Limited institutional capacity in small states such as Armenia necessitates stronger, independent analysis, especially in politically polarised environments. To counteract the compounding effect of polarisation, I suggest the following five recommendations to build a robust institutional ecosystem of free and independent think tanks.   

1. Enhance Research Capacity: For most Armenian think tanks, research capacity is an ongoing challenge, partly caused by the prevailing individual-driven culture of policy analysis. Shifting toward a more organisational culture that integrates and structures vital functions in events, communications, and fundraising would support the institutionalisation of think tanks, helping them outlast the effects of polarisation. The Armenian government could also engage a broader spectrum of think tanks, across different ideological and political affiliations, to allow experts and analysts greater exposure to their policy considerations.
2. Encourage Nonpolarized Debate: Armenian think tanks can demonstrate how to hold nonpolarised, informed policy debates on national security issues by hosting collaborative convenings and research efforts. They could integrate experts with diverse perspectives and backgrounds into their core research team or in their convenings.
3. Engage Globally: According to the OTT survey, think tanks in Armenia tend to focus nationally, with only one of eight focusing on global issues. While national security is a pressing issue, engaging on transborder topics would position Armenian think tanks as valuable contributors to international dialogues, fortify their relevance beyond national borders, and importantly expose them to a more institutionalised culture of think tanking.
4. Increase Public Outreach and Transparency: Think tanks must help address the public’s perceived lack of trust in civil society organisations.3 They could conduct local outreach to incorporate public concerns into their analysis and elevate the public as participants in policy discourse. To increase transparency, think tanks should disclose funding sources to the public, as is the norm in world-class practices.
5. Support Capacity-Building: International partners interested in supporting Armenian civil society can help shape a more institutionalised think tank sector by providing grants and core funding for capacity-building and viable operational processes rather than only project-based funding. These partners could also train think tanks to conduct independent, evidence-based policy analysis and emphasise the importance of a vibrant, independent think tank ecosystem in their engagement with the Armenian government.