Previous
This article was written as part of the publication of the 2024 On Think Tanks State of the Sector Report. Explore the report and resources here.
The 2024 On Think Tanks State of the Sector Report provides a comprehensive snapshot of the global think tank landscape, highlighting both enduring challenges and emerging opportunities. As think tanks adapt to a changing world, this report underscores the resilience, ingenuity, and innovation required to maintain relevance and impact.
Below, I explore six key themes that matter most to think tank leaders and their funders alike.
1. Resilience in a politically polarised world
Political instability and polarisation are on the rise across regions like Latin America and Europe. On Think Tanks has long documented the critical role that think tanks play in navigating these polarised environments, providing a neutral space for dialogue, and fostering evidence-informed policy recommendations.
But polarisation matters because it directly impacts think tanks’ ability to be relevant, secure funding, and influence policy.
In highly polarised contexts, think tanks often struggle to maintain their neutrality, as stakeholders may perceive them to be biased regardless of their commitment to evidence. Perception matters hugely when it comes to the credibility of think tanks.
This perception can limit their capacity to convene diverse policy actors and diminishes their influence on the public discourse. Furthermore, political polarisation can make it difficult for think tanks to access funding, particularly when funders are themselves divided along ideological lines.
The report shows that in regions with high polarisation, think tanks face additional barriers in both operational sustainability and policy impact.
This is bad news. In an increasingly fractured world, objectivity is both a strength and a necessity. Think tanks need the right tools to communicate effectively across divided audiences, ensuring that evidence remains central to policy conversations.
For funders, investing in think tanks’ capacity to mediate and convene stakeholders is essential to fostering informed, plural debate in these challenging contexts. Supporting think tanks in developing strategies to navigate polarisation—such as enhancing their communication skills, building partnerships across ideological divides, and demonstrating transparency in their research processes—can significantly enhance their ability to remain relevant and influential.
2. The Global funding divide: Sustainability at stake
Funding inequality is one of the most significant challenges facing think tanks today. The report highlights two aspects of this finding: the source and the type of funding.
First, think tanks in low- and middle-income countries are disproportionately reliant on international development donors, while those in high-income nations benefit more from domestic funding. Dependency on international funding creates vulnerabilities, including the risk of research agendas being shaped more by donor interests than by local needs.
Domestic funding offers significant benefits for think tanks, particularly in terms of stability and predictability. When think tanks can rely on domestic sources—such as government grants, private sector partnerships, or philanthropic foundations—they are better positioned to pursue research agendas that align with local priorities and needs. This proximity to domestic stakeholders also fosters stronger relevant relationships, enhancing their ability to influence policy effectively.
Second, think tanks in low- and middle-income countries are disproportionately reliant on project funding.
Core funding provides critical advantages by allowing think tanks to focus on long-term strategic goals rather than short-term project deliverables. Core funding promotes organisational stability, supports staff retention, and allows for investment in building internal capacity. It enables think tanks to be proactive rather than reactive, fostering bold, innovative research that is essential for addressing complex policy challenges.
Project funding typically keeps think tanks on a lean diet which, according to our own research, rarely meets think tanks’ full costs. This limits their ability to plan strategically and invest in institutional growth.
For funders, this is a call to action: sustainable, core funding is not just about keeping the lights on—it’s about enabling think tanks to be bold, innovative, and independent.
For think tank leaders, the challenge lies in diversifying funding sources and building financial resilience to pursue long-term research agendas without being tied to short-term project cycles. Good financial planning can help deliver the benefits of core funding even with project funding.
This is not a call for unconditional funding. At On Think Tanks we have always advocated for core funding with accountability. Core funding can easily lead to complacency and inefficiency.
3. Artificial intelligence: A new frontier for think tanks
Artificial Intelligence is poised to transform think tank operations—from research production to engagement strategies. However, the report reveals an uneven adoption of AI across regions, with think tanks in low-income countries often lacking the resources to fully leverage these technologies.
Back in 2020, our annual conference dealt with Think Tanks and Technology. We agreed that think tanks were late to the study and adoption of new technological developments.
Not much has changed.
Think tank leaders must be proactive in exploring AI’s potential, whether to enhance research efficiency, improve data analysis, or engage with audiences in new and meaningful ways. They should certainly study its impact on society.
For funders, there is an opportunity to bridge this gap by supporting think tanks in building the capacity needed to integrate AI into their work, thereby levelling the playing field with other actors in the knowledge industry and fostering innovation across the sector.
Failure to invest now may lead to a new divide between a few very well-resourced think tanks and the rest.
4. Diversity, equity, and inclusion: Costs and donor influence
The report highlights that adopting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices is often more feasible for think tanks in higher-income countries and larger organisations due to the financial resources required. DEI initiatives demand investment in staff training, policy development, and organisational change, which can be challenging for smaller or less well-funded think tanks. The context also matters. It is possible for think tanks in countries with universal welfare systems to offer much greater benefits to their staff than those without.
Moreover, there appears to be a significant influence from international donors, particularly in regions where think tanks rely heavily on development funding, prompting some organisations to report having DEI policies to align with donor expectations. However, the reality of implementing these policies effectively can be questionable.
For think tanks to adopt DEI genuinely and for these efforts to have a meaningful impact, there needs to be a focus on providing the necessary financial and structural support. Funders should recognise the costs involved and support initiatives that go beyond mere policy declarations.
In my opinion, we should certainly be careful when judging all think tanks in all contexts with the same standards, which does not mean we should stop aiming for greater fairness.
5. There isn’t one cause of influence: No magic bullets
According to the report, think tank influence is shaped by a mix of organisational and external factors. Structurally, think tanks with larger budgets, core funding, and more structured teams, as well as a higher proportion of long-term contracted staff, tend to report greater policy impact. These characteristics, which can also be explained by the presence of core funding, help them maintain consistency, build strong expertise, and foster relationships with policymakers over time.
These findings are also consistent with Andrew Rich’s work on think tanks in the U.S. With data on think tanks’ work and influence, he concluded that one of the most important determinants of a think tank’s influence on a policy choice was their role in identifying the problem in the first place. Of course, to do this, think tanks need to have the foresight, stability, tools and resources to focus on and explore an issue or challenge at length. Core funding, long-term domestic funding support, a consistent pipeline of qualified researchers, political stability, etc., helps.
Additionally, think tanks operating in less politically polarised environments report higher levels of influence, as they can better engage across the political spectrum and access diverse funding. Media receptiveness also plays a significant role in amplifying the think tank’s voice, making it more effective in public policy debates.
Interestingly, the report notes that the political regime type (democratic or autocratic) does not directly determine impact, although think tanks in closed autocracies do report lower levels of influence compared to their peers in more open contexts.
6. Adaptability
Adaptability is highlighted as the most important capacity for think tanks in 2024. This demand underscores the impact that greater polarisation and a reliance on international donors with shifting demands has on their ability to deliver their missions.
I also think it responds to an increasingly crowded and competitive marketplace of ideas in which experts no longer enjoy special treatment.
Adaptability is essential for think tanks to respond effectively to evolving political, social, and financial challenges. It will define the think tank models of the future.
Specifically, 73% of surveyed think tanks indicated that adapting to changing circumstances is their top priority. This includes being able to shift strategies amidst political shifts, funding landscape changes, and increasing competition for influence. I think this finding reinforces the call for greater support on governance of past years. In our experience, think tanks with poor governance arrangements fail to respond to changes in their contexts – and often fail altogether.
Adaptability allows think tanks to adjust their missions, activities and focus areas to maintain relevance, influence policy effectively, and sustain operations despite external shocks – remember COVID? This capacity is crucial not only for navigating uncertainties but also for ensuring the alignment of their research and recommendations with the needs of stakeholders and audiences, thereby enhancing their overall impact.
Moving forward: A shared responsibility
The insights from the 2024 On Think Tanks State of the Sector Report highlight the critical challenges think tanks face in navigating complex policy landscapes and promoting evidence-informed policymaking.
- Prioritise core funding: Providing core, flexible funding allows think tanks to focus on long-term goals, build internal capacity, and pursue innovative research. This type of funding ensures that think tanks are not constrained by the short timelines of project-based funding, thereby fostering stability and resilience. But if core funding is not possible, then funders must make sure they are supporting their partners to grow and develop their future resilience, for instance, by fully covering their indirect costs and allowing their partners to shape the agenda. And think tanks must be better at making a case for better funding practices.
- Invest in capacity building: This has become an uncomfortable term in the international development field. But think tanks accept that nobody knows everything. Our experience through the OTT School for Thinktankers and other learning opportunities we offer is that there is great appetite to learn. Funders and think tanks should invest in capacity-building initiatives, such as training programmes for think tank staff in areas like strategic planning, adaptability, AI, communications, and leadership. By enhancing internal capabilities, think tanks can produce higher-quality research, improve outreach, and ensure effective policy influence.
- Promote technological integration: Think tanks are typically late adopters when it comes to technology. Therefore, funding for technology infrastructure and digital tools can help think tanks leverage AI and data analytics, especially in low- and middle-income countries. By supporting technological integration, funders can help close the digital divide and enable think tanks to remain competitive in the global policy landscape. It will not happen on its own.
- Encourage diversity and inclusion initiatives: Funders should prioritise DEI initiatives not by imposing standards but instead by providing grants that specifically aim to help think tanks address the structural and business model restrictions that limit more progress. It goes beyond supporting women’s leadership programmes, mentoring initiatives, and partnerships that focus on underrepresented groups in the sector.
- Facilitate collaboration across divides: We cannot treat polarisation as an external variable and forget about it. Funders can play a critical role in fostering collaborations between think tanks across different ideological or geographic divides. By funding joint projects or convening spaces for dialogue, funders can help think tanks bridge gaps and build networks that enhance their collective impact. Equally, think tanks must re-consider their roles in highly polarised contexts; is the reduction of polarisation, not a worthwhile objective?
- Re-think influence: There isn’t a single pathway to influence. Think tanks need to be more open and creative about the different ways in which they can make a contribution to their societies. Funders must be open to supporting them and not impose their short-term and linear, cause-and-effect expectations.
The State of the Sector Report is possible because of the long-term support of key think tank funders and partners. We want to do it better. Please consider supporting the On Think Tanks programme in the future.