Better North-South Think Tank Partnerships: Recommendations for Northern International Development Think Tanks

The evolving landscape of international development research calls for a re-evaluation of Northern international development think tanks, research centres, and researchers’ roles in relation to their Southern counterparts. While some of their traditional roles may continue, the space they occupy is shrinking as the playing field levels up.

Expertise and quality are no longer guaranteed or defined solely by Northern origin, even if individual, organisational, and institutional gaps persist.

In a previous article, I explored some of the reasons why mainstream efforts to develop more equitable partnerships between Northern and Southern think tanks are likely to fail. I argue that Northern international development think tanks need to consider taking a step back and allowing new partnerships to develop, mainly between sectorial and political peers.

This article focuses on recommendations for Northern international development think tanks.

I believe they can still play important roles, and figuring out how to do so doesn’t require involving their Southern partners in the process.

Embracing the shift

The rise of networks like Southern Voice signals a significant shift.

As I said at the time of Southern Voice’s 10th-year anniversary Conference in 2023, there is no other network in the world (anywhere) that has its membership or intellectual weight. Southern Voice no longer needs a partner in Washington DC to host an event at the time of the World Bank Spring Meetings nor does it need a Northern research coordinator to oversee their work or build the capacity of their members.

Other similar networks are likely to emerge — and should emerge if funders are paying attention.

Today, a network or collaborative project involving think tanks in the Global South convened or coordinated by a Northern international development think tank would be a non-starter — or it should be.

Instead, Southern think tanks might choose to buy services from Northern organisations, shifting the power dynamics; the client, after all, is always right. At OTT, we experience this day in and day out through the services we offer think tanks. 

Knee-jerk reactions and long costly processes

In response to these shifts and pressure to be seen to address the all-present decolonising development agenda, some Northern international development think tanks and funders are making knee-jerk reactions or embarking on long and costly processes that do not promise to deliver their intended objectives.

These reactions, while well-intentioned, might not deliver the desired outcomes.

Knee-jerk reactions rarely deliver: I was on the council of a UK-based think tank at the time of the murder of George Floyd. The think tank’s leadership rushed a public statement and new DEI policy that was immediately challenged by the black members of staff and governance bodies. Other think tanks decided to go beyond statements. A couple of years ago, several DC-based think tanks celebrated that their Africa programmes were led by Africans. Now, this is criticised as the age-old brain drain or “Africa-washing” of the status quo. These are, after all, still very much US think tanks.

Even appointing Southern experts to their boards appears half-baked. These are, still, British, US or German organisations. Some international development think tanks have even rebranded themselves as global, ditching old names, labels, and logos. This is hard to sell.

Others have embarked on longer and more costly efforts. Some have hired decolonising experts who, in some cases, have launched ideologically informed campaigns that question their organisations’ past intellectual contributions – regardless of their quality and practical value at the time.

More cynically, some organisations have set up local offices across the Global South and often bid for grants and projects using those entities in a ruse to satisfy the conditions imposed by funders. These offices distort the local policy research market; some local think tanks tell us they inflate salaries beyond their means. Furthermore, they are never truly local, with many of their staff being flown in from the North and their boards controlled by US or European-based experts.

In the first article in this series, I discussed how some organisations have embarked on large-scale learning projects involving their old partners in the Global South. These efforts may not deliver the expected results and could inadvertently involve many organisations in the Global South in processes they may not find beneficial.

A new business model

Traditional international development research frames are rapidly losing relevance for think tanks in the Global South. Southern think tanks no longer look to them alone as references of good practice or a source of technical expertise. There is a growing interest in what domestic political philanthropists and non-traditional research partners like Chinese think tanks and European political foundations have to offer.

I hope that initiatives like On Think Tanks have contributed to broadening the menu of options and partners. Anecdotally, we know that the Southern think tank leaders I speak to regularly are looking for insights and contacts beyond the aid industry. This is why our conference is global, our directory aims to include all think tanks and the State of the Sector Report aims to cover all regions. 

There are also more options for funders who want to support think tanks in the Global South that can now cover the same agendas as traditional international development think tanks used to dominate.

Shifts are happening at different levels:

• New models, like APRI, an African think tank based in Berlin;
• The rise of global networks like Southern Voice;
• New heavyweights like the Policy Centre for the New South in Morocco, that is betting on being able to develop new, more equitable and plural spaces for global policy debate outside of Europe;
• Old established think tanks like SAIIA in South Africa, whose research agenda challenges any of the better-known Northern international development think tanks;
• Regional or global spaces like the Think20 offer an opportunity for think tanks to introduce new frames and test their relevance – and in which Southern think tanks have played leading roles; and
• The emergence of new local funders and policy entrepreneurs whose efforts to establish relations with the North are entirely disconnected from the international development industry.

I would think that international development think tanks need to spend less time thinking about their partnerships with Southern think tanks and more time reflecting on their business models: not just because of an imperative to do good or to right wrongs but for the need to adapt to survive. I think being honest about this risk will lead to more meaningful changes.

Redefining roles

My argument is not that Northern international development think tanks and research centres should simply forget the idea of working with others. There are several ways in which they can remain relevant and valuable partners in the future.

These include, for example:

• Partnering locally: To me, this seems like the most obvious thing to do. To make a real difference in the policies that their governments pursue, international development think tanks should pay more attention to the rest of the think tanks in their own countries. After all, what Germany’s government does about fiscal policy, trade, labour, energy, health, or education will have greater effects on the world than how it spends its relatively small aid budget.
• Match-maker: Better local partnerships would help them support making connections between their current partners in the South and with other think tanks. They could connect an education policy think tank in Africa with an education policy think tank in their own country — with similar expertise and facing similar challenges.
• Serving local users: Crucially, they can use these new local partnerships and match-making expertise to better serve their local policy communities by introducing knowledge and expertise from across the world.
• Safe spaces: It is not easy to do research and develop professionally while surrounded by weak institutions, uncertainty and (often) repression. Northern international development think tanks can offer researchers from the Global South the opportunity to develop professionally or progress their careers despite difficult circumstances back home. In-person or virtual fellowships, for instance, can be of enormous value to Southern think tankers.
• WeThink: These organisations can use their real estate to create spaces for networks like Southern Voice or the Partnership for Economic Policy to operate under their own brands. This hosting service can facilitate collaboration, innovation, and action without overshadowing Southern organisations. They can offer a base from which these networks, or even individual think tanks, can branch out to meet local peers and engage in global policy spaces. In some cases, the service can extend to fiscal hosting Southern organisations that operate in contexts where the civic space is closed or that require a minimum of financial management to secure funding.
• Change hubs for global policy challenges: Northern organisations can serve as hubs where ideas from around the world are developed into actions aimed at international and global agencies. This role involves less authorship and more coordination, allowing Southern voices to lead and incorporating other Northern, domestic voices.
• Mobilise alumni networks: One of the unfair benefits of the old partnership model is that Northern centres have been able to develop and nurture large Global networks of former staff and alumni. Policy research centres linked to universities like JPAL and IDS or ODI through its Fellowship Programme have members across regions, sectors and policy actors. Wouldn’t it be great if these networks were mobilised to support their partners’ agendas?

And… compete

I believe that think tanks should compete with each other. We need plurality in ideas and debate. There should be no shame in trying to win a policy debate, and a think tank’s location should not be a disqualifying argument.

And if we are being honest, no think tank would ever say: ‘No, no need ro read our paper if you have already read theirs’. Think tanks exist because they have something to say and they want it to be heard. This is what keeps them and the community going and driving us forward. There should be no shame in competing.

Besides, evidence users need more options. To be better informed they need more and better evidence, regardless of where it comes from. Southern governments know this and increasingly source their evidence from further afield.

However, competition should be on equal terms, and funders have a role to play in levelling the playing field.

Embrace new roles

In conclusion, the evolving dynamics of the global think tank landscape present both challenges and opportunities for Northern think tanks. By rethinking their roles and adapting to the changing needs of their Southern counterparts, these institutions can remain relevant and influential without imposing outdated models or unnecessary processes. The key lies in embracing a more supportive, collaborative, and context-sensitive approach—one that recognises the growing agency of Southern think tanks and seeks to build truly equitable partnerships. 

As the global development agenda continues to shift, Northern international development think tanks must be willing to evolve, not just to survive, but to contribute meaningfully to a more inclusive and diverse policy dialogue. By doing so, they can help ensure that the voices shaping global development are as varied and representative as the world itself.