As the world turns authoritarian: Strategies for think tanks and their funders

By  Enrique Mendizabal
27 February 2025

Non-democratic or authoritarian regimes are political systems where power is concentrated in the hands of a few. They are often characterised by limited political pluralism, restricted civil liberties, and state control over key institutions such as the judiciary and media.

In such environments, think tanks can face significant challenges, including censorship, surveillance, limited access to decision-makers and restrictions on funding. 

But authoritarian regimes can embrace the power of research based evidence. Adolfo Garcé argues that there are political knowledge regimes where power is centralised, and society awards high value to science and knowledge on matters of public interest. 

As a consequence, it is possible to find authoritarian regimes where think tanks are encouraged to form and that are more or less comfortable with a thriving think tank community. Stronger and established regimes such as in China or Vietnam, Saudi Arabia or Singapore are more comfortable with the presence of policy research organisations across the state (and party), academia, the private sector and civil society. Within the limits set by those regimes, think tanks are able to develop and have been incorporated into formal policymaking processes.+ 

Contrary to popular belief, think tanks do not need democratic political systems to develop. They can deliver multiple functions compatible with non-democratic and democratic regimes. 

According to the On Think Tanks 2024 State of the Sector Report think tanks in non-democratic regimes can be as influential as those in democratic ones – and often perceive themselves just as independent. There are strong think tanks in China, Vietnam and across the Middle East. Of course, these think tanks are not like the ones one would find in the U.S. or Britain. Think tanks are, after all, political actors and their design responds to their contexts.

Instead, higher national income, domestic funding availability, lower political polarisation levels and strong civil services and universities are better at explaining think tank development and impact.

Regimes transitioning into authoritarianism tend to be weaker and less established, and their legitimacy and capacity to deliver are limited.  Independent policy research can be seen as a serious threat, leading to legal or extra-legal measures to suppress dissenting voices.

The numbers vary, but the message is clear: a decreasing portion of the world’s population lives in free and democratic societies. In a recent podcast, political scientists Stéphanie Rousseau and Jorge Aragón Trelles suggested we are at an inflection point, witnessing the emergence of a period that will likely combine conservatism, isolationism and authoritarianism.

Different initiatives and sources confirm this:

Countries experiencing a weakening of democratic institutions are on the increase. In these contexts, think tanks used to the rules of democracy (e.g. rule of law, separation of powers, pluralism, freedom of speech, etc.) are finding themselves at odds with change; their increasingly authoritarian governments see them, and any form of independent thinking and expression, with suspicion and are moving to undermine them.

For example, in the Western Balkans, governments have used financial regulations and media smear campaigns to discredit independent think tanks, portraying them as foreign agents undermining national sovereignty. In Serbia, thinktankers have been monitored, and their events intervened. In India, the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) has been used to restrict funding to organisations working on governance, human rights, and transparency, making it difficult for think tanks to operate freely. In January 2024, the Indian government cancelled the FCRA license of the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), a prominent independent think tank based in New Delhi. The cancellation prevents CPR from receiving international funding, significantly impacting its operations. In Nicaragua, many think tanks had to close. El Salvador is following a similar path.

These examples highlight the various ways think tanks can be affected by the rise of authoritarianism. They require strategic adaptations for survival and impact.

The moral dilemma: ‘grub first, then ethics’?

Ruth Levine wrote about the moral case for evidence-informed policymaking, emphasising that while empirical analysis cannot replace the value judgments inherent in societal theories of justice, it serves as an essential complement. She argued that empirical evidence helps translate societal values into actionable policies, thereby advancing truth, distributive justice, and human progress.

Think tanks and their funders often face a profound moral dilemma when working in authoritarian regimes – especially when these are transitioning away from democracy. Engaging with governments that actively attack democratic institutions, curtail civil liberties and limit civic space can grant access and influence in pursuit of benefits to the public, but it also risks legitimising oppressive systems. The challenge lies in balancing the need to provide evidence-informed policy recommendations to address the material needs of the public with the responsibility to uphold democratic values and human rights.

For think tanks, the dilemma often takes the form of choosing whether to work within the system or operate outside of it. Aligning research with government priorities may provide opportunities for impact, yet it may also require self-censorship and compromise. On the other hand, outright opposition can lead to repression, expulsion, or even legal action.

This dilemma is shared by think tanks in contexts as different as Georgia, Myanmar and Peru. Think tank leaders there worry that, regardless of the regime, the policies they help design and implement affect the lives of the most vulnerable. Is it not their moral obligation to try to make them better?

In Peru, for instance, many think tanks used to working with the government have decided to stay away—partly worried that the political and corruption scandals that riddle the government will affect them. But some thinktankers I have spoken to are concerned that this strategy abandons civil servants who want to do better and need their advice.

This is not easily resolved. In Georgia and Myanmar, for example, think tanks that choose to engage with the government can sometimes be socially chastised by their peers and even funders who oppose the regime.

For funders, the question revolves around whether to support organisations that engage with the government or exclusively back groups advocating for civil society and democratic freedoms – or both. Restrictive foreign funding laws in places like India have made it difficult for think tanks to operate independently, forcing funders to decide whether to adapt to government constraints or withdraw support entirely – even if such support is badly needed. While continued engagement may help sustain evidence-informed policymaking, it also raises ethical questions about complicity in legitimising authoritarian regimes.

Bilateral and multilateral funders tend to prefer to err on the side of the government. Foreign policy, trade relations and national security trump altruism. However, value-based private foundations face more complex choices.

Even new popular philanthropic trends like “trust-based philanthropy,” which encourage funders to be led by their grantees, may clash with funders’ own values. What should they do if their grantees choose to collaborate with regimes with increasingly repressive rhetoric and policy?

This article outlines strategies that think tanks and funders can follow in these difficult and rapidly changing contexts. I am aware of the ethical implications of some of the recommendations, but I believe it is for each organisation and individual to make the call.

I am inspired by the work and insights of thinktankers who have dealt with this in the past and deal with these challenges today. I also draw from the work we have done with individual think tanks operating in these contexts.

See for example: 

Think tank survival strategies

When the civic space closes, think tanks’ concerns may focus on organisational survival. Policy influence can, and in some cases should, take the back seat.

In response, and no particular order, think tanks can:

  • Avoid confrontation and stay under the radar: Avoid directly and publicly challenging the regime. Instead, frame research in neutral, technical, or developmental terms to minimise political risk. Rely on informal relationships with policymakers, journalists, academics, and civil society actors to share ideas and influence policy without drawing unwanted attention.

  • Diversify funding sources—and consider downsizing:  Dependence on a single funder, especially a foreign one, can make the think tank vulnerable. Seek funding from multiple sources, including local businesses, international organisations, and membership models. The possibility of downsizing and minimising operations needs to be seriously considered.

  • Build strong internal governance and transparency: Ensure the organisation has clear rules, transparent financial management, and internal accountability to protect against government interference or co-optation. When Ecuador’s President Correa questioned ‘who is behind Grupo FARO?’ live on national television, its director was able to direct anyone interested to an easily accessible list of funders.  Establishing or strengthening the board could be a smart strategy. Members from influential constituencies and well-known and respected individuals can help protect the organisation. 

  • Develop a secure digital and physical infrastructure: Implement strong cybersecurity measures, use encrypted communications, and protect staff from surveillance. Maintain secure physical locations if meetings need to be discreet.

  • Re-design the business model: Explore different models, including becoming a for-profit (e.g. a consultancy – which is likely to escape anti-NGO legislation), changing the legal and fiscal domicile to a safer country, striking a partnership with a university, a business association or the Church to seek an additional layer of protection, etc. +.


Impact strategies

Even in closing and closed civic spaces, there are opportunities to make a difference. Think tanks can continue to pursue impact through a range of strategies, including:

  • Align with the regime’s priorities (where possible): Identify policy areas that the government is open to improving (e.g., economic development, large-scale infrastructure, or public health) and frame recommendations in a way that aligns with official rhetoric and highly technical language. Or focus on issues the government does not have a great interest in and where there is likely to be more space to make a difference. 
  • Focus on technical challenges with data and evidence-based approaches: Rather than engaging in political critique, focus on objective, empirical research demonstrating the benefits or costs of certain policies, making it harder for authorities to dismiss the work outright.  Focus on policy (small p) rather than Politics (big P). 

  • Engage in capacity building and education: Train local policymakers, journalists, academics—and even members of the political elite—in research methods and policy analysis. This helps create a wider ecosystem of evidence-based decision-making and builds long-term influence. Capacity building can also be a source of income. 

  • Leverage international partnerships: Collaborate with foreign think tanks, universities, or NGOs that can amplify the think tank’s research findings while offering a layer of protection through international visibility. In these circumstances, attribution must take a back seat.
  • Work regionally or globally: Refocus the think tank’s agenda away from domestic issues and onto regional or international work. This will avoid direct confrontation with the government; writing about tax exemptions and their impact on development across the world is different from focusing on how tax exemptions benefit regime supporters. Pursuing internationalisation strategies can offer both safety and impact. 
  • Develop alternative engagement and communication channels and work with different audiences: If traditional media is censored and public communications can get them into trouble, think tanks could use creative means like podcasts, newsletters, invite-only briefings, or even encrypted messaging groups to share research findings with new audiences such as the private sector, civil society organisations, other researchers, foreign embassies, global media, etc. 
  • Focus on relationships: Think tanks can create and nurture spaces in which multiple actors can engage with each other in pursuit of more and better dialogue through disciplinary or sectoral communities of practice. These approaches can help build trust between diverse communities, promote cooperation and develop constituencies over time—and wait.


For some think tanks, this will not be enough. The strategies described above will seem excessively pragmatic and devoid of principles. They will need to:

  • Define red lines of the government conduct (e.g. human rights violations, blatant rigging elections, etc.); and
  • Define (or re-define) what public good means for them and engage in constant monitoring of whether the government is working towards that public good or against it.

More strategies to consider: 

How can funders support think tanks in increasingly authoritarian regimes?

There is so much tank tanks can do on their own. Their funders play a critical role.

Authoritarian regimes do not always emerge suddenly; they often evolve through a process of state capture, where political elites or criminal groups gradually erode democratic institutions, co-opt the judiciary and media, and weaken civil society. In some cases, this transition is abrupt, as seen in Myanmar’s military coup in 2021, while in others, it happens gradually, as in Hungary, where democratic backsliding has led to restrictions on civil liberties and foreign-funded organisations. Similarly, in Russia, laws targeting foreign-funded NGOs have been used to suppress independent research and activism.

Most of the time, these regimes are not objectively authoritarian. They maintain the hallmarks of democracies (e.g., elections) and the institutions one would expect from any democracy. But in practice, they are controlled and used against the public good.

In such environments, foreign funders must be strategic in supporting think tanks to avoid putting them at risk, ensure their survival and long-term impact, and not jeopardise their values and legitimacy.

With this in mind, and no particular order, funders can:

  • Minimise the visibility of their funding and of their grantees’ impact—unless it works to benefit their grantees: Avoid publicising funding relationships and do not demand grantees’ publicising the impact they have – if they do. 

  • Offer indirect support and prioritise core and unrestricted funding: Provide funding through regional or intermediary organisations, allowing think tanks to receive resources without direct foreign donor attribution. A trust fund at the World Bank or a regional development bank may allow think tanks to access badly needed funding with less opposition from their governments. Critically, funders should offer operational funding rather than project-specific grants, enabling think tanks to allocate resources based on shifting needs and security concerns—which may or may not be associated with the delivery of specific projects.

  • Invest in digital and physical security: Support and invest in cybersecurity measures, secure communication platforms, and physical safety measures to protect their grantees, their staff and even their own staff from surveillance and harassment.

  • Facilitate peer-to-peer learning and support networking: Create opportunities for think tanks to connect and learn from counterparts in similar contexts, fostering knowledge exchange on survival and impact strategies. Breaking away from regional (e.g. African, Latin America, Asia) or sectorial networking strategies may deliver more value to their grantees. 

  • Support capacity building and training: Provide training in policy analysis, strategic communications, security measures, and general organisational strengthening, thus equipping think tanks with the tools to navigate repressive or closed environments.

  • Promote research dissemination via alternative channels: When local media is restricted, help think tanks publish and distribute their work through international academic journals, podcasts, or encrypted networks. When possible, funders could even publish critical analyses written by their grantees under their own brand to protect the authors from government attacks.  
  • Advocate for policy protections at the international level: Use diplomatic and international advocacy efforts to protect think tanks facing repression, highlighting their role in evidence-informed policy and governance. Bilateral and foreign private foundations have access to their own ministries of foreign affairs and can, therefore, exert some pressure to safeguard civil society in places where the civic space is shrinking. For instance, when the Peruvian parliament debated new legislation to curtail NGOs’ operations in 2024, several embassies expressed their concern and lobbied parliamentarians against the proposed policy – dear of being denied a U.S. visa made many change their minds.  

  • Encourage domestic fundraising and sustainability: Assist in developing business models, membership schemes, or partnerships with local private sector actors to reduce reliance on foreign funding. U.S. or European funders could encourage corporations headquartered in their countries to adopt corporate social responsibility practices that prioritise think tanks or channel their funds through them. Funders should also explore initiatives to mobilise domestic philanthropy to compensate for the loss of foreign funding – this is a time for the individuals and families behind foundations to talk to their peers in the countries where their grantees are based.
  • Monitor and respond to political risks: Maintain situational awareness of changing legal and political risks, adapting funding mechanisms to protect think tanks when the context changes – and even before it does!
  • Consider alternative models to support thinktankers: Broker opportunities for exiled think tankers to join think tanks abroad, support the establishment of diaspora think tanks or research associations, move away from organisational to individual funding, etc. 
  • Frame support on evidence, not values: Reframe the vision and mission of the funder in technocratic terms (e.g. the pursuit of technical solutions to technical problems) away from value-based (e.g. the pursuit of rights of minorities or democratic strengthening) positions. 

  • Follow a think tank or context-focused approach rather than a sectorial or programmatic one: Most funders are currently driven by sectorial or programmatic objectives – they are mission-driven. In this approach, think tanks are simply a vehicle to deliver change through a series of programmes or projects. In these contexts, however, the think tank must be the focus of the funder’s support. This calls for differentiated strategies, such as IDRC’s work on Myanmar, which aims to address the country’s and thinktankers’ unique challenges. 

More strategies to consider: 

Conclusion

Think tanks operating in authoritarian regimes must navigate a complex landscape where survival, impact, and ethical considerations intersect. Their ability to conduct research and influence policy is constantly challenged by government restrictions, political pressure, and shifting donor priorities. Meanwhile, their funders face the dilemma of supporting independent policy research without putting think tanks at risk or compromising their values.

Ultimately, both think tanks and their funders must strike a delicate balance—leveraging strategic engagement to drive meaningful positive policy outcomes that benefit the most vulnerable while safeguarding their integrity and long-term viability. By adopting context-specific and even think tank-specific adaptive strategies, prioritising security, and fostering international collaboration, they can continue to play a critical role in evidence-informed policymaking, even in the most repressive environments.

As authoritarian regimes evolve and new threats to think tanks emerge, the resilience of think tanks and their supporters will be tested. Their ability to persist, innovate, and advocate for better governance will shape the future of civic space and policy influence worldwide.

If this is affecting your think tank we want to hear from you! 

Subscribe to our newsletter Become a contributor
View all articles

Related content