Previous
Ecuador’s think tank ecosystem faces a moment of profound tension. The available data, while drawn from a small sample of eight organisations and not generalizable to the entire sector, offer valuable insights into dynamics likely to recur in other contexts. Rather than a definitive diagnosis, what follows is an interpretive reading of these findings.
The sector’s most distinctive feature is its near-absolute dependence on external funding. 100% of participating organisations receive funds from multilateral agencies, and 88% from international foundations. In contrast, only 13% report access to funds from the national government, and a similar percentage from the local private sector. This structure connects Ecuadorian think tanks to the logic of international cooperation but disconnects them from local sources of support. The consequences of this dependence go beyond the financial: they affect the ability to define autonomous agendas, increase vulnerability to geopolitical shifts, and generate chronic uncertainty. Specialised literature has documented how dependence on external funds, even when not translated into explicit conditions, can generate subtle effects on research orientation and the emergence of forms of self-censorship. +
The year 2025 has been particularly difficult. 62.5% of organisations reported a decrease in their income. The explanations offered point to global dynamics: one organisation mentions “the withdrawal of USAID, the increasing prioritisation of aid toward Africa, and the broader contraction of assistance due to global conflicts.” Another alludes to “changes in international cooperation priorities and the international crisis.” These testimonies reveal that Ecuadorian think tanks, although anchored in local realities, depend on decisions made on other continents. The war in Ukraine, shifts in U.S. foreign policy, or the reorientation of aid toward Africa are not distant phenomena; they directly affect the continuity of organisations working on issues such as citizen security, transparency, or urban development in Quito and Guayaquil.
The project-based funding model deepens this fragility. 87.5% of organisations operate under this scheme, and in 50% of cases, timelines do not exceed one year. This short-term logic hinders talent retention, limits strategic planning, and obstructs the construction of institutional infrastructure. 87.5% of organisations report that covering indirect costs is “difficult” or “very difficult,” evidencing a structural weakness that affects daily operations.
There is, however, a tension between structural dependence and the perception of autonomy. 50% of directors rate their organisation’s independence as “mostly independent.” But that perception contrasts with another finding: 100% of respondents acknowledge that the availability of funding influences their research agenda. Participating think tanks have managed to preserve spaces of autonomy in an adverse political environment -89% rate the political impact of the last year as “unfavourable” or “very unfavourable”- but that independence comes at a cost: a fragile financial base that exposes them to the fluctuations of international cooperation.
In response to funding contraction, organisations have deployed various strategies. Reducing operational costs and diversifying sources have been adopted by 62.5% of organisations. 37.5% have pursued new partnerships, and 50% have increased self-generated income through consultancies, training, and service sales. One organisation that managed to increase its income explains that this was possible thanks to “diversification of the donor pool, mostly national private firms and multilaterals.” Another notes that it maintained its income level “thanks to donor contributions, new partnerships, and cost reduction.” These experiences demonstrate adaptive capacity but also reveal the limits of these strategies in a context where the national private sector has no tradition of funding independent research and the State has historically shown hostility toward organised civil society.
Expectations for the coming year are not optimistic: 25% of participating organisations anticipate a contraction of the sector, whether through closures or reduction in size; and 37.5% expect a decrease in their income. These figures draw an uncertain horizon for a sector that, despite everything, shows signs of resilience. 50% of organisations maintain financial reserves, with most covering between 6 and 12 months of operation. Collaboration among think tanks is “common” or “very common” for 75% of respondents, suggesting an ecosystem that supports itself mutually. All organisations report having contributed to specific public policies, from the “Organic Law on Social Transparency” to the “Quito Metropolitan Development and Land Use Plan.” 50% report being satisfied with the impact of their research on decision-makers, indicating that despite the difficulties, the sector remains relevant and influential.
The crisis facing the sector is real, but it also opens an opportunity to rethink the funding model, build stronger local alliances, and reaffirm the value of independent research as a public good. The central challenge is to build a more diversified financial base that allows maintaining independence and relevance in public debate. To this end, it is a priority to explore more stable local funding models, work with the national private sector and the State, and seek mechanisms that guarantee autonomy while enabling access to public funds. It is also necessary to invest in fundraising and financial management skills and to foster strategic alliances among think tanks, the private sector, and academia to generate synergies that strengthen the ecosystem as a whole.