Previous
In the world of policy and politics, think tanks are often celebrated (and criticised) for their supposed influence. Stories of think tanks shaping major policy decisions or swaying public opinion are common. Ironically, these stories are popularised in equal measure by both think tanks and their detractors!
However, the reality is that think tanks are not as influential as they claim to be.
In this article, I ask:
- Should we be focusing on think tanks’ influence at all?
- If not influence, what else?
- What does this mean for how we support think tanks?
The myth of influence
Think tanks frequently boast about their impact on policy and political discourse. They often cite their involvement in policy discussions or their presence in media as proof of their influence. Some think tanks even have sections on their websites full of cases charting too-good-to-be-true pathways between their research and a policy decision.
There is an obvious reason for this. It helps attract funders and staff, and increases the likelihood they will be relevant in the future.
Yet, when scrutinised, these claims often fall short of being proof of think tanks’ influence. There are always other factors that can easily claim to have been more influential: decision-makers’ agendas, public opinion, private interest groups, policy contagion, luck, etc. I have written obsessively about this: Research update: what is it and can it be measured?
The Brexit example is a case in point. Despite the concerted efforts of numerous think tanks across the political spectrum to argue against Brexit, neither the referendum result nor the decisions of the government during the negotiations reflect their input.
There are several other instances where well-funded and globally renowned think tanks, despite their best efforts, could not prevent what many considered ill-informed policy decisions.
These examples highlight the limits of think tanks’ influence and underscore the need to reassess their true value:
- The Iraq War (United States and Britain): In the early 2000s, numerous think tanks, including prominent ones like the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, were vocal in their opposition to the Iraq War. They provided extensive research and analysis arguing against the invasion, highlighting the potential for long-term instability and the questionable nature of the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction. Despite their efforts, the U.S. and the UK governments proceeded with the invasion in 2003, leading to a protracted conflict with far-reaching consequences.
- Austerity measures (Europe): Following the 2008 financial crisis, many European countries, under the influence of austerity policies advocated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and certain national governments, implemented severe budget cuts. Numerous think tanks, such as the European Trade Union Institute and the Centre for Economic Policy Research, warned against these measures, arguing that they would stifle economic growth and increase unemployment. Despite these warnings, austerity policies were widely adopted, leading to significant economic and social hardships across the continent.
- Climate change policies (Australia): Australia has seen significant debate over climate change policies, particularly regarding the coal industry. Think tanks like the Climate Council and the Australia Institute have been vocal in their opposition to the government’s support for coal mining and its reluctance to adopt more aggressive climate policies. Despite their advocacy and the clear scientific consensus on climate change, successive Australian governments have continued to support the coal industry, often at the expense of more sustainable energy policies.
- Healthcare reform (United States): The debate over healthcare reform in the U.S. has seen substantial input from think tanks on all sides of the political spectrum. During the efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2017, many think tanks, including the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund, provided detailed analyses highlighting the potential negative impacts of repeal on millions of Americans’ access to healthcare. Despite their input, the political push to repeal the ACA continued, reflecting a disconnect between think tank research and political action.
- Merging of FCO and DFID (United Kingdom): All international development think tanks in the UK opposed the merger. Think tanks like the Overseas Development Institute and the Institute for Development Studies have always had strong and close relationships with the British international development apparatus. They joined forces with the international NGO community, influential progressive media, and others against the merger. Still, DFID was absorbed by the FCO and turned into the FCDO.
- School closures (Peru): Peru’s schools remained closed for two years during the COVID-19 pandemic, longer than any other country. During that period, education policy experts and think tanks were unable to develop and communicate a convincing case against this measure – even though the ministers of education during most of the period were the former directors of two of Peru’s leading think tanks (GRADE and IEP). Despite best practices globally and warnings of the dire consequences of the blanket closure policy, the government did not change course.
These examples demonstrate that while think tanks contribute valuable research and policy analysis and their ideas can and do inform policy decisions, their ability to directly and consistently influence policy is still highly limited – and always beyond their control.
Political, economic, and social factors always outweigh the evidence and recommendations provided by think tanks. When influence can be observed, it’s most likely due to the same political, economic and social factors enabling conditions than to anything the think tank could have done on its own.
This reality underscores the need to shift our focus from think tanks’ perceived influence to the practical contributions they can make to their communities.
A better measure of think tanks’ value: usefulness to others
Rather than influence, the true value of think tanks lies in their usefulness. Their contributions to the political system are multifaceted and essential, even if they don’t directly sway policy decisions. I have written about the multiple functions of think tanks. This is another way of describing their usefulness, such as:
Providing evidence
Think tanks excel at gathering and analysing data to provide evidence and evidence-based recommendations. This research helps decision-makers in the public and private sectors, who rarely have the time or capacity to do this themselves, make informed decisions, even if the think tanks do not directly influence the outcome. This evidence is also useful to the media, which rarely can develop it themselves. Their evidence gives the media useful tools to use in their coverage of news stories or when attempting to hold policymakers to account.
Ideas, ideas, ideas
Think tanks are in the business of developing and sharing ideas – beyond evidence and analysis. Politicians need ideas. British politicians need ideas to deal with the never-ending political news cycle; Chinese politicians need ideas to build a niche or capture territory within the party; US politicians need ideas to face increasingly long and expensive election campaigns.
Lending credibility
Think tanks are also very useful when trying to develop or establish credibility. In Malaysia, many think tanks are linked to political leaders who have founded them as part of their political strategies. Across the world, politicians use think tanks to legitimise their analyses and proposals. The IFS in the UK, for instance, is invoked every time a party wants to defend the economic soundness of their policies. It has become the “umpire” of economic policy debates.
In the US, it is common for members of Congress to invite think tank experts as witnesses; Democrats invite liberal think tanks, while Republicans invite conservative ones. Andrew Rich concludes that think tanks serve their political agendas. Victor Orbán, who is no fan of think tanks at home, recently promoted a new think tank in Brussels to attempt to influence EU policy. So even if, from time to time, they may be critical of their work, it is in their best interest to tolerate and even support their existence.
Creating (safe) spaces
Think tanks create valuable forums for dialogue, bringing together public and private actors to discuss and debate important issues. These spaces are crucial for fostering collaboration and generating new ideas. Critically, it’s much harder for political agents, private interest groups, the media, and other more politically exposed actors to do this properly. Think tanks play a useful role in doing so.
Facilitating access
Think tanks often do not want to accept this, but one of their most valuable offers to their funders is facilitating access to powerful individuals. While it is difficult for the CEO of a major bank to meet with the Minister of Finance at the Treasury, it is perfectly acceptable for them to run into each other at a think tank event. In international relations, think tanks play a similar useful role. Chinese think tanks have been described as “windows.” They allow the West to “look into” China and vice versa. Chinese and Western officials not only tolerate this but sanction it as part of their foreign policy strategy. In some cases, many have been shut down as soon as they ceased to be useful.
Training future leaders
Think tanks play a significant role in educating and preparing the next generation of policymakers. Through internships, fellowships, and training programs, they equip young professionals with the skills and knowledge needed to succeed in public policy. Political parties, civil services, and even private sector interest groups find this very useful as it is often difficult for them to train individuals on the job – and universities do not do a good job at it.
Think tanks in the US are now building ‘talent banks’ to help the new administration fill thousands of political positions with people prepared to deliver their agendas. This initiative, first developed by Heritage Foundation and others for Trump, is being copied by other more centrist think tanks.
A safe haven for politicians
For politicians, think tanks offer a space to retreat, reflect, and prepare for future roles. This function is invaluable, providing a period of respite and strategic planning that can shape future political careers. Career politicians will often court think tanks where they want to retire to or retreat to while in opposition.
A safe haven for ideas
For challenging ideas, think tanks can be a space that protects them from repressive regimes or contrary political narratives. For example, democratic values survived in Chilean think tanks during the Pinochet regime; they inspired the new democratic government that took power in the 1990s. More recently, the growing anti-immigration mainstream political discourse is seeing more and more resources directed at think tanks focusing on immigration as a way to hold on to ideas that were until recently more acceptable and resist the wave of change.
Indirect political funding
Think tanks enable political philanthropists to support politics indirectly. By funding think tanks, donors can contribute to political discourse and policy development without engaging directly in the political arena. This is why Orbán is funding a think tank in Brussels and why hundreds of millions are poured into think tanks across the world by political philanthropists. Even bilateral and multilateral funders, whose rules and regulations bar them from engaging in political campaigning will, knowingly and strategically, support think tanks aligned to their preferred policy and political agendas.
Testing untested ideas and taking the blame for blunders
Think tanks can present untested ideas without the risk that other political actors would face. Politicians can use the reaction to a think tank report or the outcome of a public event discussion to decide whether to formally back a new policy idea. They can also hide behind the think tank if the idea does not work out as expected.
In conclusion, it is not influence but usefulness that should be the judge of a think tank’s success.
Does this mean that think tanks should be compliant or always supportive of the government or whoever holds power? No. This is not what I mean.
Think tanks may very well be useful to different actors and purposes including social movements’ struggles for change; opposition parties and their supporters; or wider social causes, such as the pursuit of better governance.
New metrics for evaluation: a broader focus and simpler metrics
Therefore, instead of measuring success by narrowly focusing on influence on policy (which demands highly elaborate monitoring and evaluation frameworks), we should develop simpler criteria that assess the usefulness of think tanks across a wider range of functions.
To truly understand and evaluate the usefulness of think tanks, we might need to ask all key stakeholders—policymakers, politicians, philanthropists, the media, and other influential actors—how they use think tanks and whether they value the services offered. However, this can be rather expensive to do well for every organisation. National surveys attempting to cover all think tanks would turn into a popularity contest, which will not address the nuance required.
Instead, individual think tanks can develop their own markers to monitor which way the wind blows. For example, Guy Lodge, at the time at the left-leaning IPPR in the UK, offered this answer to my question about how they assessed their influence (I am paraphrasing):
- If our usual funders decline to support new project ideas, and that happens too often, I take notice.
- If we don’t get called into government (at the time Conservative) at least once a week or every two weeks for a briefing or an informal discussion, I take notice.
- If our work fails to get picked up by the progressive media, week in and week out, I take notice.
If they ceased to be useful for their funders, their main audiences and their most important communication partners, he took notice.
Rethinking think tank models: a broader focus and more nuance
Across the Global South, the backers of new think tanks often look to the West for inspiration, emulating the image and idealised narratives of American and British think tanks. While it is natural to seek models of success, this approach, if focused on policy influence alone, can be misguided and lead to wrong design decisions. The context in which Western think tanks operate is unique, and their perceived success is closely tied to their usefulness within their specific political and societal frameworks. In fact, the contexts in which US, British and German think tanks operate, for example, are unique to each one.
Therefore, replicating Western models without adaptation can lead to ineffective think tanks that do not meet the needs of their local environments.
Proceed with caution
When drawing inspiration, think tank leaders should consider that:
- Idealisation is misleading: The idealised narratives of Western think tanks often emphasise their influence on high-profile policy decisions. However, as discussed earlier, this influence is frequently overstated. For think tanks in the Global South, aiming to replicate this perceived influence can lead to a misallocation of resources and efforts. Instead, focusing on tangible contributions to the local political and societal context will yield more meaningful and sustainable outcomes.
- Contextual differences matter – hugely: All think tanks operate within political systems that have distinct structures, cultures, and processes. For instance, think tanks in the US and the UK have developed their roles over decades, aligning with the specific – changing – needs of their political systems. These roles include providing in-depth research, creating forums for debate, and serving as training grounds for future policymakers. However, these roles are not universally applicable; not even in a single country. The politics of the 1970s in the US produced very different think tanks than the politics of the 2010s.
- Older is not always better: If the context changes enough, think tanks may cease to be useful if they cannot or choose not to change with it. The idea that think tanks must live forever is ingrained in the founding documents and principles of most, as well as in the imaginations and motivations of their founders. I’ve often been told by think tank founders – and founders – that they want to create “our version of Chatham House; something that will be here in 100 years.” Given the uncertainty we face, how can we know that a think tank will continue to be useful?
Tailoring think tanks to local needs
Hence, when thinking about investing in new think tanks or evaluating them, backers need to ask themselves what would be most useful in their context. This might include:
- Localised political assessment: Global funders working in the Global South tend to assume that political systems are organised just as they are back home. They use terms like left and right, the far-right, progressives, etc. to inform their funding decisions – even if these terms do not reflect the political, economic, and social realities of the communities they aim to affect. Local funders often do the same. Inspired by what they see in the US or Europe, and motivated to replicate well-known institutions in their home countries, they import all: the think tank model and its assessment of the context.
- Localised research agendas: Developing research agendas that focus on pressing local issues rather than mirroring the topics (and labels) popular in Western think tanks. This ensures that the research is relevant and actionable for local policymakers.
- Capacity building: Prioritising the training and development of local experts and policymakers who understand the intricacies of their political systems. This can create a pipeline of knowledgeable individuals who are equipped to address local challenges – whichever they are.
- Creating relevant spaces: Establishing forums and events that facilitate dialogue among local stakeholders, including government officials, civil society, and the private sector. These spaces should reflect the cultural and social norms of the region to be effective.
- Promoting the right partnerships, with the right partners: Partnerships can be extremely useful to inspire new think tanks, monitor their progress and learn. But they have to be comparable partnerships. Unfortunately, international development funders insist on promoting partnerships between the wrong types of think tanks: local think tanks working on domestic policy agendas (which concern the big political, economic, and social challenges in any country) in the Global South and international development think tanks whose research agendas do not concern their own countries’ big political, economic or social challenges.
- Responsive to local governance: Adapting to the specific governance structures in place. For example, in regions with less democratic systems, think tanks might play a more advisory role, helping to inform and improve decision-making processes behind the scenes, and avoiding public contestation or the pressure to invest heavily in certain types of communication – that work in the West.
- Engagement with local philanthropists and local philanthropic culture: When supporting new think tanks from abroad, international development funders should pay greater attention to building relationships with local philanthropists and funding bodies who have a vested interest in the region’s development. This can lead to more sustainable and relevant funding models for the organisation.
A new way forward?
In conclusion, the fixation on think tanks’ influence is misguided. Their true value lies in their ability to provide useful contributions to their political systems. By shifting our focus from influence to usefulness, we can better appreciate and support the vital roles that think tanks play. Think tank leaders and funders should embrace this perspective, recognising that their greatest impact comes not from shaping policy directly but from supporting the broader political ecosystem.
For backers of think tanks in the Global South, this means moving away from the idealised Western models and, instead, developing think tanks that are tailored to the unique needs and contexts of their regions. This localised approach ensures that think tanks are not merely influential in name but are genuinely contributing to the betterment of society through their work. True success comes from relevance and usefulness within their specific contexts, leading to impactful and sustainable contributions to public policy and societal development.
OTT can help with your planning, monitoring and evaluation needs. Find out more and contact us