How think tanks experience their operating environment: Insights from the State of the Sector Survey 2026

Editor’s note: This is a short report, published as part of our partner insights on the State of the Sector 2026 report. It is a longer read than most blogs, and intended to be so. Please scroll to the end to read the full piece!

1. Introduction

Think tanks occupy a distinct place within democratic governance and the wider evidence-policy ecosystem. They produce and interpret policy-relevant knowledge, create spaces for public debate, and connect research with decisions made by governments and other public actors (On think Tanks, 2022; Echt & Ball, 2018; Nembot, Ntoubia, Vessah, & Atangana, 2025). Their ability to carry out these functions depends on the political and civic conditions in which they operate. Political polarisation, restrictions on civic space, funding uncertainty, and pressure on independent research can limit their autonomy and reduce their access to policymakers and the media (Mendizabal, 2025; Ulloa et al., 2025). These conditions can also make it harder for think tanks to communicate their findings, collaborate with other actors, and contribute to public debate. The pressures vary across regions, but they increasingly shape how think tanks work and the role they can play in policymaking (Nembot et al., 2025; Ulloa et al., 2025).

The On Think Tanks State of the Sector (SOS) Survey is the only recurring global survey specifically designed to capture the characteristics, challenges, expectations, and operating environments of think tanks worldwide (On Think Tanks, 2026). Conducted annually, it offers a chance to view these issues from think tanks’ perspective. The 2026 survey gathered responses from 299 organisations in 94 countries amid uncertainty in international development funding and rising worries about political polarisation, shrinking civic space, and the future of evidence-based policymaking.

Recent findings from the State of the Sector initiative suggest that the challenges facing think tanks extend beyond financial sustainability alone. While funding remains a major concern, think tanks increasingly identify political polarisation, government attitudes, reputational risks, declining trust, difficulties engaging decision-makers, and broader political pressures as important obstacles to their work (Ulloa, Mendizabal, & Terán, 2025). The 2025 report found that political polarisation had become a much bigger concern than in previous survey rounds, affecting organisations’ ability to engage audiences, collaborate with experts, access funding opportunities, and communicate through traditional and digital media channels (Ulloa, Mendizabal, & Terán, 2025).

Some key findings from the 2026 survey are similar. Funding remains the main challenge for think tanks worldwide, and concerns about future funding have grown. At the same time, more think tanks see political conditions as a major obstacle. Issues like government attitudes toward think tanks, regulatory pressure, less demand for evidence, and trouble working in divided environments show up in many regions and are expected to worsen next year.

Discussions at the 2026 OTT Conference session Hacking the Data: State of the Sector 2026 echoed these concerns. Participants described funding volatility, political pressures, government attitudes, shrinking civic space, and growing challenges associated with maintaining constructive engagement in increasingly polarised environments. Case examples from Latin America, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa suggested that think tanks and related organisations are increasingly adapting their communication and engagement strategies in response to political sensitivities and changing civic conditions (Ulloa, Suárez, Nixon, Kuandykov, & El Beith, 2026).

These findings resonate with broader debates on democratic backsliding and shrinking civic space. Several of the concerns highlighted by survey respondents, including political restrictions on organisational activity, obstacles to policy engagement, and challenges communicating evidence, are conceptually related to dimensions such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, civic participation, academic freedom, and the rule of law  (Noorlander, 2022; Lürmann & Lindberg, 2019; Biekart, Kontinen, & Millstein, 2023). However, while the State of the Sector survey captures how organisations perceive these conditions, it does not directly measure changes in the underlying institutional environment. This creates an opportunity to compare think tanks’ assessments with independent measures of democratic and civic conditions.

These issues raise an important question: How closely do think tanks’ views match real changes in the wider institutional environment? The State of the Sector Survey gives useful insight into how organisations see their situation, but it does not directly track changes in civic freedoms, academic freedom, or democratic institutions. Examining these links can show which parts of the environment matter most to think tanks and whether their views match actual changes.

This paper begins with the findings from the 2026 State of the Sector Survey and adds evidence from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project (Nord, Altman, Fernandes, Good God, & Lindberg, 2026) to put those views in context. Rather than focusing only on democratic indicators, the paper uses them as additional information to help explain how think tanks experience their environments. This approach helps us better understand the institutional conditions that support or limit evidence-based policy work worldwide.

2. What does the SOS 2026 tell us about think tanks’ operating environment?

The 2026 State of the Sector Survey paints a picture of a sector operating under growing pressure. Across the sample, respondents were considerably more likely to describe the environment for think tanks in their country as difficult rather than easy. Similar patterns emerge when respondents assess their own organisations’ experience over the previous twelve months. Together, these results indicate that many think tanks are operating in contexts characterised by increasing uncertainty and a rising sense of challenge.

2.1 How do think tanks assess their operating environment?

A first indication of the state of the sector comes from examining how respondents evaluate the ease or difficulty of operating as a think tank in their country and, separately, how easy it has been for their own organisation to operate over the previous twelve months.

Figure 1 shows similar patterns across regions. In most cases, the proportion of think tanks that characterise their operating conditions as difficult is larger than the proportion that say it is easy; this holds for both think tanks in general and their own organisations. The intensity of these perceptions varies somewhat by region, with Latin America and the Caribbean and Central and South Asia at one extreme and the EU-EFTA countries at the other; the overall picture is similar: a considerable proportion of respondents perceive their operating environment as challenging.

Think tanks operating in liberal democracies report somewhat more favourable conditions than those in electoral autocracies or electoral democracies; however, perceptions are more negative than positive across most categories (see Table 1). Similarly, differences across organisational types are modest. Independent, university-affiliated, and other types of think tanks report relatively comparable experiences. Taken together, Figure 1 and Table 1 suggest that concerns about operating conditions are not confined to specific regions, political systems, or organisational models, but instead reveal broader forces affecting the think tank sector globally.

Figure 1. How easy is it for think tanks to operate? How easy has it been for your organisation to operate? (percentages)

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026.

Table 1. Perceptions of the ease or difficulty of operating as a think tank, by regime type and organisational type (percentages)

**Note: Country classifications follow the Regimes of the World (RoW) typology developed by the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project (Lürmann & Lindberg, 2019).

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026.

Although some variation exists across regime types and organisational models, these differences are smaller than might be expected. Organisations in more democratic settings generally report somewhat more favourable conditions than those in more restrictive environments, but respondents across all regime categories report mixed positive and negative experiences. Similarly, independent, university-affiliated, and other types of think tanks display broadly comparable assessments of their operating environments.

In virtually all categories, more think tanks perceive their operating environment as difficult rather than easy. This result shows that these concerns are shared across the sector. The findings suggest that such challenges are not limited to specific political regimes, geographic regions, or organisational models. No type of think tank appears insulated from the pressures respondents reported. Rather than reflecting constraints unique to given contexts, the results point to common challenges that affect think tanks across a broad range of institutional settings.

2.2 Why do think tanks consider it easy or difficult to operate in their country?

Understanding whether respondents perceive their environment as favourable or unfavourable is only the first step. Equally important is understanding why they hold these views.

Think tanks that report operating as easy most commonly cite stable, predictable funding; strong internal systems; high demand for evidence; and supportive political conditions (see Table 2). These responses suggest that favourable operating environments depend on both organisational strengths and external circumstances. Think tanks are more likely to perform well when they have reliable resources, effective management structures, and opportunities to engage in policy contexts where evidence is valued, and decision-makers are open to using evidence.

Table 2. Reasons why think tanks perceive it is easy or difficult to operate (percentages)

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026.

On the other hand, among think tanks that perceive operating in their environment as difficult, nearly all report difficult funding conditions. Government attitudes towards think tanks emerge as the second most frequently cited explanation, followed by a lack of demand for evidence and difficulties recruiting qualified staff.

Factors affecting think tank operations extend beyond organisational management and fundraising to institutional conditions (see Table 2). Unlike financial restrictions, government attitudes towards think tanks reflect the relationship between knowledge-producing organisations and political actors, suggesting that many think tanks understand their operating environments not only in financial terms but also in relation to wider political and civic developments.

2.3 Funding and political conditions: two dominant concerns

The findings above indicate that think tanks increasingly interpret their operating environments through two interconnected lenses: funding and politics. This pattern becomes even clearer when respondents are asked about the certain challenges they have faced in the past twelve months, and those they expect to face in the future.

Because funding emerges repeatedly as the most important challenge facing think tanks, it is useful to examine how respondents perceive their funding environment.

Figure 2. How favourable will the funding environment be for all think tanks in the next 12 months in your country? (percentages)

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026

The results show a pessimistic outlook regarding funding conditions. Although some organisations reported stable or increasing funding levels in the previous year, expectations for the future are considerably less positive. Across most regions, respondents are more likely to expect an unfavourable than a favourable funding environment over the next twelve months. Concerns are particularly strong in Latin America and the Caribbean, Non-EU Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa, where a large majority of respondents identify funding constraints as a major challenge.

These findings suggest that funding uncertainty has become a defining characteristic of the contemporary think tank environment. Importantly, they also help explain why the empirical analysis later in this paper includes perceptions of the funding environment as a control variable. If funding conditions substantially shape how organisations evaluate their circumstances, it becomes necessary to distinguish between perceptions driven primarily by financial concerns and those associated with a variety of institutional factors.

If funding is the most frequently cited challenge facing think tanks, the survey results show that political conditions may be the fastest-growing concern.

Figure 3. Perceived impact of the political environment on think tanks: past and future

A. In your opinion, how has the political situation over the past 12 months impacted think tanks in your country

B. In your opinion, how will the political situation over the next 12 months impact think tanks in your country

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026.

Respondents generally assess the political environment more negatively than positively, and expectations for the coming year are often even more pessimistic than assessments of the previous one. In every region, organisations are more likely to report negative than positive effects of political developments on think tanks’ ability to operate. These perceptions align with concerns expressed throughout the survey about political polarisation, government distrust, regulation, and shrinking opportunities for evidence-informed engagement.

Additional evidence appears in think tanks’ responses about specific challenges they faced during the previous twelve months and those expected during the year ahead.

Table 3. Challenges faced during the previous 12 months and expected during the next 12 months (percentages)

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026.

Three findings are especially notable. First, funding is the challenge most frequently cited across all regions, both retrospectively and prospectively. Globally, nearly two-thirds of respondents identify lack of funding as a major challenge, and an even larger share expects funding difficulties to continue.

Second, political conditions are developing as one of the fastest-growing concerns. While a considerable share of think tanks reported political challenges during the previous year, even more expect political conditions to worsen in the coming year. Similar increases appear for government distrust and regulatory pressures, suggesting many think tanks anticipate a more difficult political environment in the near future.

Third, although organisational issues such as staff shortages and staff retention remain important in some regions, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and East and South-East Asia, respondents increasingly interpret their challenges through the lens of political and institutional developments. This shift is especially evident in growing concern about political context, government distrust, regulations, and the conditions under which evidence can be produced and used.

2.4 Linking organisational experiences to sector-wide concerns

The sector faces multiple and interconnected pressures. Funding is the most troubling concern, but political and institutional conditions are becoming increasingly important across a wide range of contexts. These concerns are consistent across all regions, regime types, and organisational models, suggesting that they affect think tanks globally and are not limited to specific countries or institutions.

Another pattern emerges when comparing assessments of the sector as a whole with assessments of respondents’ own organisations. Throughout the survey, think tanks tend to view conditions for the sector more negatively than conditions for their own organisations. This suggests that respondents perceive challenges affecting the think tank community that may not be fully reflected in their own organisational experience. In a context characterised by funding uncertainty and growing concern about political and institutional conditions, respondents appear to recognise risks facing the sector even when their own organisations are relatively stable.

The results show that think tanks assess their operating environment in both financial and institutional terms. Funding conditions have a direct bearing on whether organisations can sustain their work, while political and civic conditions influence their ability to produce, communicate, and encourage the use of evidence. The question, then, is whether these perceptions reflect measurable changes in the contexts where think tanks operate. The next section explores this by comparing survey responses with independent indicators from Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem).

3. Looking beyond perceptions: Linking the State of the Sector Survey to institutional change

Think tanks depend not only on the existence of democratic institutions but also on the practical conditions that allow organisations to generate evidence, disseminate findings, participate in public debate, and engage policymakers. The results presented thus far suggest that think tanks increasingly see their operating environments as shaped by both financial and political factors.

3.1 Why compare perceptions and institutional indicators?

Funding remains the most immediate concern across regions, but the survey also reveals growing unease about political conditions, government attitudes, regulation, and the broader environment in which think tanks produce and communicate evidence. This leads to an important question: do these perceptions reflect measurable changes in the institutional settings where think tanks operate?

The State of the Sector Survey provides insight into how think tanks experience their operating environments. However, survey responses alone cannot determine whether perceived changes are associated with changes in civic freedoms, academic autonomy, or broader democratic conditions. To address this question, this study complements the SOS 2026 data with indicators from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project (Nord et al., 2026). V-Dem is one of the most comprehensive datasets on democracy currently available, providing annual measures on a wide array of related indicators in 179 countries.

3.2 Constructing the Think Tank Enabling Environment Index (TTEE)

This report does not assess democracy in general terms. It focuses on the institutional conditions most relevant to organisations involved in research, policy engagement, and public debate. Organisations’ ability to produce and communicate evidence, work with stakeholders, and participate in policy discussions depends in part on the academic, civic, and political environment in which they operate (UNESCO, 1997; Noorlander, 2022; Biekart, Kontinen, & Millstein, 2023; OHCHR, 2024; CIVICUS,2025). Based on this literature, we selected five dimensions to assess institutional conditions: academic freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of association, civic space, and the rule of law. 

To capture changes in these conditions systematically, we develop a Think Tank Enabling Environment Index (TTEE) by adding the values of five V-Dem indicators that reflect dimensions identified by the literature as important for knowledge-producing organisations. Table 4 shows the variables selected in the analysis. The objective is not to create another measure of democracy; the TTEE captures aspects of the institutional environment most directly related to think tanks’ ability to conduct research, communicate evidence, participate in public life, and operate autonomously.

Table 4. V-Dem Indicators Used in the Analysis

Source: V-Dem version 16 database. (Coppedge et al., 2026)

The report focuses on change over time rather than static levels of operating-environment elements. Specifically, the study examines changes in the TTEE and its underlying variables between 2020 and 2025, closely matching the period respondents are likely to have in mind when assessing whether conditions have improved or deteriorated.

This comparison does not seek to validate or invalidate think tanks’ perceptions. Instead, it aims to identify which dimensions of their operating environment are most closely associated with how think tanks experience and evaluate their operating conditions.

3.2. Linking think tank perceptions to institutional conditions

The core analytical question is whether think tanks’ assessments of their operating environment reflect measurable changes in these institutional conditions. To answer this question, we linked survey responses to the country-level V-Dem indicators described above, allowing us to examine each think tank’s perception in relation to changes in the institutional context in which it operates. For the analysis, we matched responses from 196 think tanks in 92 countries with country-level indicators; two countries represented in the SOS sample are not covered by the V-Dem data.

We estimate the relationship between changes in the TTEE and think tanks’ perceptions of their operating environment (see section 2.1) while controlling for perceptions of the funding environment (see section 2.3). Including funding conditions is particularly important given the prominence of funding concerns in the 2026 survey. As demonstrated in the previous section, funding challenges are reported more frequently than any other obstacle and constitute a major component of how organisations evaluate their operating context.

The analysis tests whether think tanks in countries where the TTEE changed differently between 2020 and 2025 also viewed their operating environments differently, while accounting for respondents’ assessments of the funding environment. Because the outcome is measured on an ordered scale, we used ordered logistic regression.

3.3 Which dimensions matter most?

Beyond studying the relationship between overall TTEE and think tanks’ perceptions, the analysis also investigates whether some institutional dimensions matter more than others.

To do so, we estimate separate models using changes between 2020 and 2025 in each of the five underlying V-Dem indicators used to construct the TTEE. This allows the analysis to identify whether think tanks respond more strongly to changes in academic freedom, civic space, freedom of expression, freedom of association, or rule of law.

Finally, we compare the explanatory power of these indicators with changes in measures of democratic performance, specifically the Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) and Electoral Democracy Index (EDI). This comparison matters because it lets us distinguish between two competing interpretations. One possibility is that think tanks perceive changes through democratic trends. The alternative is that they respond most strongly to institutional conditions that directly affect their ability to produce knowledge and participate in public life.

The following section presents the results and examines whether think tanks’ perceptions correspond to measurable changes in these institutional conditions.

4. Do think tanks’ perceptions reflect changes in their operating environment?

The State of the Sector Survey reveals widespread concern about both funding conditions and the political environment. To explore whether these concerns correspond to measurable changes in the environments in which think tanks operate, we linked survey responses to indicators from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project. The analysis studies changes between 2020 and 2025 in the Think Tank Enabling Environment Index (TTEE), its individual components, and two widely used measures of democratic performance: the Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) and Electoral Democracy Index (EDI).

The objective is not to validate or invalidate think tanks’ perceptions, but to examine whether organisations in countries with different institutional trajectories also report different assessments of their operating environment. In particular, the analysis studies whether think tanks respond more strongly to broad measures of democratic performance or to institutional conditions that more directly affect their ability to conduct research, communicate evidence, engage stakeholders, and participate in public debates.

The results are presented in three stages. First, the analysis assesses whether changes in the overall Think Tank Enabling Environment Index are associated with think tanks’ perceptions. Second, it evaluates the relationship between perceptions and each of the five dimensions that compose the TTEE: academic freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of association, civic space, and rule of law. Finally, we compare these results with models using the Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) and Electoral Democracy Index (EDI) to assess whether think tanks’ perceptions are more closely associated with broad democratic trends and with institutional conditions specifically relevant to knowledge-producing organisations.

4.1 Does the think tank enabling environment matter?

First, we examine whether changes in the Think Tank Enabling Environment Index (TTEE) are associated with think tanks’ assessments of their operating environment. The results show a positive relationship between the two. Improvements in the TTEE are associated with more favourable perceptions of the operating environment, even after controlling for perceptions of the funding environment. Although the relationship falls just short of conventional statistical significance, the coefficient’s direction and magnitude suggest that institutional conditions shape how think tanks evaluate their operating context. Figure 4 illustrates this relationship using predicted probabilities derived from the ordered logistic model.

Figure 4 shows a clear pattern. As TTEE improves (x-axis), the probability that a think tank reports it is hard or very hard to operate in its country declines (blue line), while the probability that it is easy or very easy increases (red line). The probability of reporting a neutral assessment (red line) remains relatively stable across the range of TTEE changes.  Although the relationship falls just above conventional significance thresholds, the positive coefficient and the predicted probabilities point to a consistent association between positive changes in the enabling environment and more favourable assessments of operating conditions.

These results suggest that changes in the institutional environment are reflected, at least partially, in think tanks’ perceptions. However, the relatively moderate magnitude of the relationship also indicates that institutional conditions are only one of numerous factors determining how organisations evaluate their operating environments.

Figure 4. Predicted probabilities of ease or difficulties to operate, by changes in TTEE

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026 and V-Dem version 16 database.

4.2 Which dimensions matter most?

The TTEE combines five dimensions the literature identifies as important for organisations engaged in research, public debate, and policy engagement. To better understand which dimensions matter most for think tanks, we estimated separate models for changes between 2020 and 2025 in each dimension included in the TTEE. 

Figure 5 and Table 5 summarise the relationship between each institutional indicator and think tanks’ assessments of their operating environment. The results show considerable variation across aspects. Two indicators stand out. Changes in Academic Freedom and the Core Civil Society Index exhibit the most consistent positive associations with perceptions of the operating environment. Other indicators display larger coefficients, but their estimates are less precise. Academic Freedom and the Core Civil Society Index therefore emerge as the dimensions most strongly and consistently associated with how think tanks evaluate their operating environments. By contrast, broader democracy measures, including the Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) and Electoral Democracy Index (EDI), show comparatively little association with think tanks’ assessments.

These results suggest that think tanks do not respond equally to all aspects of the institutional environment. Instead, they appear to be particularly sensitive to conditions that affect knowledge production and the functioning of civil society.

Figure 5. Association between institutional indicators and think tanks’ perceptions of their operating environment

Note: Points represent coefficient estimates from ordered logistic regression models; horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. Positive coefficients indicate that improvements in the indicator are associated with more favourable assessments of the operating environment.

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026 and V-Dem version 16 database.

Table 5. Comparing institutional dimensions

** Note +

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026 and V-Dem version 16 database

Academic Freedom shows one of the strongest associations with think tanks’ perceptions, as shown in Figure 6. As Academic Freedom improves (x-axis), the probability that a think tank reports that it is hard or very hard to operate in their country declines (blue line), and the probability of reporting that it is easy or very easy increases (red line). The probability of reporting no change (red line) remains relatively stable across countries. These findings are consistent with earlier research on the conditions needed for policy research (UNESCO, 1997; Biekart, Kontinen, and Millstein,2023).

Figure 6. Predicted probabilities of ease or difficulties to operate, by changes in academic freedom.

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026 and V-Dem version 16 database.

The Core Civil Society Index shows the strongest statistical relationship among the individual indicators tested. This finding suggests that think tanks are highly responsive to changes in the broader civic environment.

To analyse this dimension further, we also include another V-Dem variable in the analysis: the Civil Society Participation Index, which captures the extent to which organisations engage in public life. This indicator shows virtually no relationship with think tanks’ perceptions.

The contrast between the two measures shows that the Core Civil Society Index is associated with think tanks’ perceptions, but the Civil Society Participation Index is not. This suggests that what matters to think tanks is not simply the extent of civic participation, but the broader strength, autonomy, and institutional robustness of the civic environment. In other words, think tanks appear to respond more strongly to the quality of civic space than to the intensity of civic activity itself.

4.3 Do think tanks respond to democracy itself?

To examine whether think tanks’ perceptions are associated with broader measures of democratic performance, we analyse changes in the Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) and Electoral Democracy Index (EDI). Contrary to expectations, neither indicator exhibits a statistically meaningful relationship with think tanks’ perceptions (see Table 5 again). Both models produce weak and highly uncertain estimates.

Perhaps the most surprising finding is that general democracy indicators appear less closely associated with think tanks’ perceptions than academic freedom and civic space. While democratic institutions matter for policy research organisations, think tanks appear to experience political change through the specific institutional conditions that shape their day-to-day activities rather than through broader regime characteristics.

This does not suggest that democracy is unimportant to think tanks. Rather, they are likely to experience democratic change through its effects on their daily work. Can they conduct research freely? Can they publish their findings, meet with relevant actors, and take part in public debates? These questions may matter more in practice than changes in broad democracy indicators. Since think tanks work with universities, civil society organisations, public officials, the media, and citizens, shifts in academic freedom and civic space are often more visible to them.

These findings suggest that regime-level indicators may not fully capture the dimensions of the political environment that matter most to knowledge-producing organisations. For think tanks, the conditions that enable the production and use of evidence appear to be more relevant than general measures of democratic quality.

4.4 Interpreting the findings

Overall, the results suggest that think tanks do not assess their operating environment in the same way that conventional democracy measures do. The State of the Sector Survey shows growing concern about funding and political conditions. Yet the analysis of V Dem indicators points to a more specific pattern. Think tanks’ views are more closely related to changes in academic freedom and the strength of civil society than to broader measures of democratic performance.

These findings help explain why respondents in the State of the Sector Survey repeatedly emphasised political conditions, government attitudes towards think tanks, regulation, and the broader environment for evidence production. Among the institutional dimensions examined, those most closely tied to think tanks’ perceptions directly affect their ability to conduct research, communicate findings, engage stakeholders, and participate in public debate.

Think tanks seem to assess their environment through the conditions that affect research and civic engagement. This aligns with literature findings that democratic erosion often becomes visible first through limits on access to information, pressure on civil society, and the weakening of independent institutions (Lührmann and Lindberg, 2019; Noorlander, 2022).

Rather than experiencing democratic change through elections or regime classifications, think tanks appear to experience it through changes in the practical freedoms and institutional conditions that enable their work. The results therefore suggest that indicators of academic freedom and civic space may provide a more useful lens for understanding think tanks’ operating environments than broader measures of democratic performance alone.

5. What do these findings tell us about think tanks’ operating environments?

The findings suggest that think tanks evaluate their operating environments through a set of institutional conditions not fully captured by conventional measures of democratic performance. While funding remains the dominant concern identified in the State of the Sector Survey 2026, institutional conditions related to academic freedom and civic space appear particularly important in shaping how think tanks perceive their operating environments.

This finding also reflects research on civic space and democratic backsliding. Restrictions on independent organisations do not always begin with clear changes to electoral institutions. They may develop gradually through limits on information, civic freedoms, and institutional independence (Lührmann and Lindberg, 2019; Noorlander, 2022). Think tanks are likely to notice these shifts in their everyday work because they operate across research, public discussion, and policymaking.

At the same time, the findings suggest that not all dimensions of the institutional environment are equally important. While the overall Think Tank Enabling Environment Index (TTEE) is positively associated with think tanks’ perceptions, much of this relationship appears to be driven by changes in academic freedom and the broader strength of civil society. Conversely, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and rule of law exhibit weaker relationships, while aggregate indicators such as the Liberal Democracy Index and Electoral Democracy Index appear to explain little of the variation in perceptions.

These findings do not mean that democracy is unimportant for think tanks. Think tanks are unlikely to experience democracy through regime labels or electoral indicators alone. They encounter it through the conditions that shape their work. The results therefore suggest that civic and intellectual freedoms may have a more direct bearing on think tanks than broader measures of democratic quality.

The two civil society indicators point to different patterns. The Core Civil Society Index is associated with how think tanks view their operating environment, but the Civil Society Participation Index is not. This suggests that think tanks may care less about the level of civic participation than about the conditions under which civil society organisations operate. Their perceptions appear shaped more by organisational autonomy, openness, and civil society actors’ ability to carry out their work than by overall public engagement.

A second important finding concerns the relationship between financial and institutional conditions. The State of the Sector Survey clearly identifies funding as the most significant challenge facing think tanks globally. Yet even after accounting for perceptions of the funding environment, institutional variables still show meaningful associations with operating-environment perceptions. This suggests that think tanks distinguish between financial constraints and broader institutional conditions, and that both shape their assessments of operating environments.

Overall, the findings show that think tanks assess their operating environment through several different conditions. Funding remains important, but it does not explain the full picture. Academic freedom, the strength of civil society, and the openness of civic space also shape how these organisations carry out their work. These effects may not be fully reflected in funding trends or broad measures of democracy.

6. Implications for policy ecosystems

The findings suggest that supporting think tanks requires more than improving organisational capacity or increasing funding. The 2026 State of the Sector Survey identifies financial sustainability as the sector’s main challenge. However, this paper’s analysis shows that institutional conditions also shape how think tanks view their operating environment. Academic freedom and the wider civil society ecosystem, in particular, are closely linked to whether think tanks believe their environment is improving or worsening.

Supporting think tanks requires looking beyond funding: The State of the Sector Survey identifies funding as the most immediate challenge facing think tanks. However, the findings suggest that financial sustainability alone does not explain how organisations assess their operating environments. Academic freedom and civic space are also closely linked to think tanks’ perceptions, suggesting that efforts to strengthen think tanks should consider both organisational resources and the broader institutional environment.

Monitoring the health of evidence ecosystems requires broader indicators: The findings suggest that traditional measures of democratic performance may not fully capture the conditions that matter most to think tanks and other knowledge-producing organisations. Indicators related to academic freedom, civic space, and the strength of civil society may provide useful signals regarding the health of evidence ecosystems and the ability of research organisations to contribute to policy processes.

Think tanks are part of broader evidence ecosystems: Think tanks do not work in isolation. They are part of wider evidence ecosystems that include universities, civil society organisations, the media, and policymakers. Changes in academic freedom and civic space affect these relationships, as well as the conditions under which evidence is produced, shared, and used. Efforts to promote evidence-informed policymaking should therefore consider the institutional environment that allows these actors to work together.

7. Limitations

V-Dem provides one of the most comprehensive and widely used sources of cross-national information on democratic and civic conditions; however, its indicators are not designed specifically to measure the operating environment of think tanks. They capture national-level institutional conditions and therefore cannot fully reflect the diverse experiences of individual organisations. Moreover, think tanks may experience changes through informal pressures, political polarisation, funding shocks, declining access to decision-makers, or reputational risks that V-Dem does not directly measure. Consequently, the V-Dem indicators used in this study should be understood as proxies for institutional conditions rather than direct measures of think tank operating environments. Their principal value lies in providing an independent benchmark against which think tanks’ perceptions can be compared.

The SOS survey includes an uneven distribution of respondents across countries. While the organisational-level approach allows the inclusion of countries represented by only a small number of think tanks, perceptions from some countries are represented by relatively few observations. The results should therefore be interpreted as reflecting patterns across organisations rather than nationally representative assessments.

8. Conclusions

Think tanks occupy a distinct place in the evidence-policy ecosystem by producing policy-relevant knowledge, creating spaces for public debate, and linking research to public decisions (On think Tanks, 2022; Echt & Ball, 2018; Nembot et al., 2025). Their ability to do so depends in part on the political and civic conditions in which they operate (Mendizabal, 2025). Results from the 2026 State of the Sector Survey show that think tanks worldwide are working in less predictable conditions. Funding remains their main concern. However, many report difficulties related to the political climate, distrust from government, regulation, and the conditions that shape how evidence is produced and shared.

This study goes beyond reporting how think tanks perceive their operating environment. It examines whether those perceptions reflect measurable changes in the countries where they work. To do so, the analysis combines data from the State of the Sector Survey with indicators from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project. It then considers whether think tanks’ assessments are related to changes in civic and democratic conditions

The findings suggest that these perceptions do reflect changes in the wider operating environment, although the relationship is not complete. Changes in the Think Tank Enabling Environment Index (TTEE) are associated with how think tanks assess their situation, even after accounting for funding perceptions. This means that their views are shaped by more than financial conditions. Institutional factors also matter, but some seem more relevant than others.

Academic freedom and the strength of civil society are the institutional factors most closely related to how think tanks assess their operating environment. Broader measures, including the Liberal Democracy Index and the Electoral Democracy Index, explain much less. This suggests that think tanks experience political and institutional change mainly through the conditions that affect their work. These include the freedom to conduct research, participate in public debate, collaborate with other organisations, and contribute to policymaking.

These findings contribute to the discussion about how evidence is used in policymaking and how this work can be supported. Funding and organisational capacity remain important, but they are not enough on their own. Think tanks also depend on institutional conditions that allow them to conduct independent research and participate in an open civic environment. Protecting academic freedom, preserving civic space, and supporting civil society may therefore be just as important as direct investment in the sustainability of individual organisations.

More broadly, the paper shows the value of bringing together different types of evidence. The State of the Sector Survey reflects how think tanks understand and experience the conditions in which they work. V- Dem offers an independent measure of institutional change. Looking at both sources together provides a fuller picture of the challenges think tanks face and the circumstances in which evidence is more likely to inform public decisions.

The findings also suggest that think tanks can provide useful insight into changes in civic and intellectual freedom. Their perceptions are not a replacement for independent indicators, but they show how institutional change is experienced in practice. This perspective matters at a time when political polarisation and uncertainty are affecting many policy spaces. Understanding these experiences can help identify what think tanks need to continue their work and what is required to support the wider networks of evidence, dialogue, and democratic governance around them.

Use of AI

AI tools assisted with the literature search and exploring possible methodological approaches. The author developed the research idea, selected the data sources, formulated the research questions, specified the models, interpreted the results, and made all decisions related to the study’s substance.

References +