Previous
Most MENA think tanks surveyed for the 2026 State of the Sector (SOS) report said their funding did not fall this year. In fact, eight of thirteen respondents reported that their funding held steady, even as development funding contracted sharply worldwide. And yet, when asked which challenges they expected their organisations to face over the next twelve months, funding was the challenge respondents named most often (n=7), ahead of any other challenge on the list, while six also named it as a challenge they faced in the past year.
In comparison, respondents to the 2025 SOS survey also reported relatively stable funding, with budgets either steady or growing, and most grants spanning one to four years. That year, respondents highlighted over-reliance on a few key funders as a potential risk to think tanks’ sustainability. Although respondent pools to the SOS may differ from year to year, the 2025 and 2026 surveys suggest that stable funding can coexist with structural challenges among MENA think tanks. Indeed, a closer look at the 2026 funding data reveals an underlying vulnerability: several aspects of organisations’ funding leave them exposed to shifting donor priorities and funding decisions.
For eleven of thirteen respondents, contracts run for two years or less, and three report grants of six months or less. Almost half (n=6) of respondents rely on funding that is mostly tied to individual projects rather than core funding. Two respondents report relying on a single donor, while two others report that nearly all or all of their funding comes from a single source. As the 2025 SOS analysis also noted, reliance on only a few funders presents a significant risk to organisations, whose work may be affected when donor priorities change. Four organisations describe covering their indirect costs as hard or very hard, which likely makes it harder to build institutional capacity or fund operations not covered by individual projects, even when funding is available.
And it is not only about shifting donor priorities. Five respondents also have no reserves to fall back on, while fundraising and communications are the two most commonly cited skills gaps in the region, with nine respondents identifying each as a gap. For organisations operating on short-term grants or relying heavily on a small number of donors, the lack of reserves leaves little room to absorb disruptions if a project is delayed or a grant ends unexpectedly. The exposure, then, is not only about whether MENA think tanks have steady funding in any given year. It is about how their funding is structured. Financial resilience does not depend only on how much funding organisations receive or whether that funding is steady. It also depends on whether that funding is predictable, flexible, and diversified.
Short funding cycles affect not only financial resilience; they can also shape how think tanks work. Policy work often requires sustained research on relevant policy issues, as well as continued engagement with ministries and other policymakers as priorities, institutions, and opportunities evolve. To have influence, think tanks need to build expertise on a topic, track how issues and priorities develop, maintain relationships, and respond to opportunities to inform policy decisions. This becomes difficult when an organisation relies on short-term or project-based grants, or when it must constantly align its research priorities with donor funding priorities to remain financially viable, even when those priorities may not align with national ones. Funding should not only support think tanks in conducting one piece of research or another, but also provide the continuity needed to build expertise, maintain engagement, sustain long-term work where needed, and adapt research agendas quickly as policy priorities change.
For think tanks in the MENA region, these funding constraints sit alongside a difficult operating environment marked by considerable uncertainty and, in multiple countries, conflict, as well as continued cuts to international development funding worldwide. Only two of thirteen respondents describe running a think tank in their country as easy, while four describe it as hard or very hard. In a context like this one, more predictable and flexible funding can give organisations more room to “[balance] long-term research with demand for rapid policy input,” as one respondent put it—to sustain research where longer-term engagement is needed, while also responding to acute policy issues as windows open or priorities shift. Diversifying funding sources where possible can reduce that exposure, but resilience is unlikely to depend on think tanks alone. Funders, whether local, international, or governmental, also have a role in facilitating greater flexibility, longer grant durations, and adequate support for the institutional costs that keep policy-relevant work running.
This blog was prepared by the Arab Think Tank Network Secretariat, currently the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut.