Previous
African think tanks are still making themselves heard. Among the 50 sub-Saharan African organisations that responded to OTT’s 2026 State of the Sector survey, 92% report contributing directly to a specific policy or public debate over the previous year, while 64% are satisfied or very satisfied with their influence on decision-makers.
Respondents point to contributions in health policy in Benin and Senegal, violent-extremism prevention in Mali, economic and development strategies in Côte d’Ivoire, and coalition governance in South Africa.
These findings suggest that policy relevance remains strong among the organisations surveyed. But they also raise a harder question: how sustainable is that influence when the institutions behind it operate with short funding horizons and limited financial buffers?
Figure 1: Policy relevance among surveyed organisations
Source: OTT’s survey (2026)
The concern emerging from the survey is therefore not primarily whether think tanks remain connected to policy processes. It is whether they have the institutional resilience to maintain that role.
A strong policy role resting on short funding cycles
More than half of respondents (56%) rely predominantly or almost entirely on project-based funding. Typical funding cycles are short: 46% report contracts lasting one to two years, and another 32% report cycles of two to four years. None report typical cycles longer than four years.
Figure 2: Funding model and typical contract duration
Source: OTT’s survey (2026)
These figures matter because organisations need more than project finance to remain effective. They also need to retain staff, maintain administrative and financial systems, develop future research agendas and respond to policy opportunities that may emerge before dedicated funding is available.
The survey shows how limited that margin can be. Forty-two per cent report difficulty covering indirect costs. Twenty-four per cent have no financial reserves, and another 18% have reserves covering less than three months.
This vulnerability is becoming more consequential as international development finance contracts. Respondents from Ghana, Nigeria, Mali and Kenya explicitly mention donor reductions, terminated USAID-funded programmes or lost grants.
The current funding shock is therefore meeting vulnerabilities already embedded in many organisations’ financing models. The shock did not create the weakness. It exposed it.
Policy demand is strong, but money shapes what is possible
The survey also offers a nuanced answer to a recurring question: who shapes what think tanks research?
At national level, government bodies and policymakers are the actors most frequently ranked first in shaping research and policy agendas. Within organisations’ own agendas, policymakers remain highly influential, followed by government bodies and funders.
But when respondents are asked what factors shape these agendas, funding becomes impossible to ignore. Funding availability is cited by 88% as shaping the national agenda and by 84% as shaping organisations’ own agendas. Policy needs are also prominent, cited by 72% and 82% respectively.
This distinction matters. Who creates demand for evidence is not necessarily the same as what determines whether an organisation can respond to that demand.
Think tanks may identify evidence gaps or respond to policy priorities, but available resources affect which questions they can pursue, for how long and with what level of institutional commitment. In a tighter funding environment, preserving room for strategic choice may become as important as securing the next grant.
The capacity problem is increasingly institutional
The organisations surveyed are also clear about what they need to strengthen.
Fundraising is the most widely cited capacity need, at 84%. It is followed by innovation and adaptability (72%), communications and marketing (70%), strategic planning (66%) and research capacity (58%).
The hierarchy is revealing. Research skills remain essential, but respondents’ strongest needs increasingly concern the institution around the research: how to mobilise resources, adapt, communicate, plan and continue operating through uncertainty.
The small Francophone West African sub-sample sharpens this picture. Among ten organisations surveyed in Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger and Senegal, 80% cite lack of funding as a major challenge and 70% cite skills shortages, compared with 66% and 56% respectively across the wider sub-Saharan African sample. These figures are indicative rather than representative, but they reinforce the broader pattern.
AI is moving fast, but it cannot substitute for resilience
Artificial intelligence provides the clearest evidence of rapid adaptation. Eighty-four per cent of respondents report using AI. Across the full sub-Saharan African sample, AI use is reported in research by 66%, communications by 62%, administration by 52% and fundraising by 26%.
Figure 3: Where surveyed organisations are using AI
Source: OTT’s survey (2026)
Note: Percentages use the full sub-Saharan African sample (n=50) as the denominator; 42 respondents reported using AI.
AI is becoming embedded mainly in everyday knowledge work. Respondents mention document review, proposal preparation, training support, writing, meeting assistance and other research-related applications.
Among the ten Francophone West African respondents, all report using AI. The sample is too small to support claims about the sub-region as a whole, but it shows that technological uptake is not lagging among these organisations.
The contrast with institutional capacity is striking: fundraising remains the number-one capacity need, yet only 26% report using AI in this area.
This does not mean AI is failing. The survey does not measure whether AI improves productivity, research quality or financial sustainability. It simply shows that adoption is currently concentrated in knowledge-production and operational functions.
AI can help think tanks work differently. It cannot, by itself, create diversified funding, financial reserves, stable teams, or strategic autonomy.
The real test is sustaining what already works
The 2026 survey does not tell a story of African think tanks losing relevance. Many respondents remain deeply engaged in policy processes and are adapting quickly.
The concern lies underneath that success.
Think tanks need stronger fundraising systems, diversified resources, financial buffers and the capacity to retain critical skills. Funders can help by recognising the institutional costs behind policy research, including through longer funding horizons, appropriate flexibility and realistic treatment of indirect costs. Networks and other ecosystem actors can support shared learning on fundraising, organisational adaptation and responsible AI.
The sector’s next challenge is not simply to produce more research or adopt more technology. It is to ensure that organisations already contributing to public policy have the institutional strength to keep doing so.
Policy relevance is valuable. Sustaining it is the harder task.
Methodological note
This blog draws on the 50 sub-Saharan African organisations responding to OTT’s 2026 State of the Sector survey. The Francophone West African lens covers ten respondents from Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger and Senegal. The survey is not statistically representative; the percentages reflect respondents’ experiences and views.