Previous
This article was written by the Centre for a Smart Future as part of the publication of the 2024 On Think Tanks State of the Sector Report. Explore the report and resources here.
The On Think Tanks State of the Sector 2024 data on funding and funders should interest anyone in the sector. While the data reveals much about think tank priorities, operating insights and challenges, the use of Artificial Intelligence, and many others, here are five key takeaways from Sri Lanka and South Asia on the funding landscape.
In Sri Lanka, out of the eight organisations that took the survey, five selected ability to fundraise as their first choice when it comes to areas where strengthening their skills would benefit their organisation. Across South Asian think tanks, this is a key priority for 22 out of the 29 participating.
Download the On Think Tanks State of Sector Report 2024
The following key findings resonate with Sri Lanka and the broader region.
Shortage of funding
Four out of the eight participating Sri Lankan think tanks agreed that their organisation is currently facing challenges due to a shortage of new funding sources, with two strongly agreeing. 20 South Asian think tanks agreed with the same. International development entities and charitable foundations are two of the most important funding sources for participating organisations in Sri Lanka as well as across South Asia, with most organisations in the region (and all eight in Sri Lanka) having mostly or almost entirely all international sources of funding.
Funding affects the agenda
The question of who drives research and policy agendas in countries has always been a mixed-response one. The opinions of those working in the country and doing the work on the ground or at the policy level are sought after by donors when assessing funding priority or thematic areas. However, the think tank sector and civil society organisations have increasingly, over the years, expressed that organisational planning and priority areas are also shifted or tweaked to fit funding criteria. In this survey, four Sri Lankan think tanks believe that the research and policy agenda in Sri Lanka is driven by funders, while two others say it’s government bodies, one says media and the other says policymakers. Of the South Asian think tanks, overall, eight believe that the research and policy agenda in their country is driven more or primarily by funders, seven said primarily driven by policymakers, while five said government bodies.
Sustainability
The type of funding organisations receive plays a significant role in the organisation’s stability, their ability to be dynamic, pivot when necessary, or even be exploratory in terms of the kind of work they do and how. Two main types of funding—core and project—are what is usually available, and over the years, in discussions with think tanks, it seems core funding is harder to reach or not available, with the functioning of organisations and even how they work, their ability to plan long term being fundamentally altered by being dependent on project funding. Depending on the funder, project funding can be restrictive in terms of how much is spent on overheads and staff time, which makes it hard for research-focused think tanks to access project funding that adequately covers all necessary resources, for example. In this survey, four out of the eight participating think tanks from Sri Lanka said that their organisation’s funding is almost entirely project-based, and two said it is mostly project-based. In South Asia, out of the 29 think tanks that took this survey, 11 said their organisation’s funding is almost entirely project-based, while 10 are mainly project-based. No organisation said its funding is almost entirely core, and only two said it’s mostly core. In Sri Lanka, one think tank said its funding is mostly core.
Funding diversification demands resources
When asked how important the funding base and diversity of funders is as a key indicator of the organisation’s impact, all eight participating Sri Lankan think tanks said that it was important, with four saying it was very important. Maintaining this indicator requires time and capacity, which may vary across organisations depending on the size and resource availability, of course. Four Sri Lankan think tanks said they spend a moderate amount of time and resources dedicated to increasing or maintaining the organisation’s budget and income. In contrast, three said they spend a significant amount of time. One organisation said they spend an extensive amount of time.These views resonate across the South Asian think tanks as well, with seventeen stating that the funding base and diversity of funders as a key indicator of the organisation’s impact is very important, and thirteen think tanks saying that they spend a significant amount of time maintaining budget and income.
The following key findings resonate with Sri Lanka and the broader region.
Shortage of funding
Four out of the eight participating Sri Lankan think tanks agreed that their organisation is currently facing challenges due to a shortage of new funding sources, with two strongly agreeing. 20 South Asian think tanks agreed with the same. International development entities and charitable foundations are two of the most important funding sources for participating organisations in Sri Lanka as well as across South Asia, with most organisations in the region (and all eight in Sri Lanka) having mostly or almost entirely all international sources of funding.
Funding affects the agenda
The question of who drives research and policy agendas in countries has always been a mixed-response one. The opinions of those working in the country and doing the work on the ground or at the policy level are sought after by donors when assessing funding priority or thematic areas. However, the think tank sector and civil society organisations have increasingly, over the years, expressed that organisational planning and priority areas are also shifted or tweaked to fit funding criteria. In this survey, four Sri Lankan think tanks believe that the research and policy agenda in Sri Lanka is driven by funders, while two others say it’s government bodies, one says media and the other says policymakers. Of the South Asian think tanks, overall, eight believe that the research and policy agenda in their country is driven more or primarily by funders, seven said primarily driven by policymakers, while five said government bodies.
Sustainability
The type of funding organisations receive plays a significant role in the organisation’s stability, their ability to be dynamic, pivot when necessary, or even be exploratory in terms of the kind of work they do and how. Two main types of funding—core and project—are what is usually available, and over the years, in discussions with think tanks, it seems core funding is harder to reach or not available, with the functioning of organisations and even how they work, their ability to plan long term being fundamentally altered by being dependent on project funding. Depending on the funder, project funding can be restrictive in terms of how much is spent on overheads and staff time, which makes it hard for research-focused think tanks to access project funding that adequately covers all necessary resources, for example. In this survey, four out of the eight participating think tanks from Sri Lanka said that their organisation’s funding is almost entirely project-based, and two said it is mostly project-based. In South Asia, out of the 29 think tanks that took this survey, 11 said their organisation’s funding is almost entirely project-based, while 10 are mainly project-based. No organisation said its funding is almost entirely core, and only two said it’s most core. In Sri Lanka, one think tank said its funding is mostly core.
Funding diversification demands resources
When asked how important the funding base and diversity of funders is as a key indicator of the organisation’s impact, all eight participating Sri Lankan think tanks said that it was important, with four saying it was very important. Maintaining this indicator requires time and capacity, which may vary across organisations depending on the size and resource availability, of course. Four Sri Lankan think tanks said they spend a moderate amount of time and resources dedicated to increasing or maintaining the organisation’s budget and income. In contrast, three said they spend a significant amount of time. One organisation said they spend an extensive amount of time.These views resonate across the South Asian think tanks as well, with seventeen stating that the funding base and diversity of funders as a key indicator of the organisation’s impact is very important, and thirteen think tanks saying that they spend a significant amount of time maintaining budget and income.
