Oldies but Goldies: A look back at the literature on evidence informed policy and think tanks

There is a renewed interest to promote the generation of evidence on evidence use. Initiatives by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the British Academy, FCDO and the William T. Grant Foundation, for instance, are attracting the attention of researchers in the field; especially in the Global South.

This is a welcomed development. There is still need to explore and develop the sector. And research is a transformative vehicle to do it. It generates new knowledge and trains the future generation of evidence informed policy thought leaders and practitioners.

However, many of the new calls, the research published and even the discussions in the field appear to forget, or are not aware of, some of the literature and knowledge that was widely shared and accepted not so long ago; in the early 2000s.

I was extremely lucky to learn from experienced researchers and practitioners from across the world early in my career. I had the privilege of facilitating spaces and research projects that allowed that knowledge to be recorded.

Many of the questions being asked today, I think, have been asked, and answered before.

Claims that evidence on evidence informed policy is dominated by the Global North are inaccurate. The global academic literature is dominated by researchers from the U.S. and Europe but there is evidence on evidence use across think tanks, policy research organisations and research departments across the Global South. This evidence is shared in local publications, events and communities of practice. I am, once again, privileged to be party to it every day.

In this short annotated bibliography I take a trip back into the early years of my own career and the foundations of the evidence informed policymaking field – back when we used the term based rather than informed! It is not a systematic review: I started with a couple of studies and then followed their references, asked colleagues from my days at the RAPID programme and reflected on the work that influenced my own thinking. I used NotebookLM and ChatGPT to develop the summaries.

In doing this I have been reminded cases and ideas that I had forgotten. See, for instance the role of polarisation in the case study of think tanks and political parties in Bolivia. Our latest 2024 State of the Sector Report found that polarisation undermines think tanks’ influence. We announced it as a great finding! It turns out it was nothing new. Carlos Toranzo wrote a whole book chapter about it. Re-reading it reminded me of his view that “policymaking through plebiscite” was ruining Bolivia’s policymaking capacity and actively undermined the positive role evidence could play.  Polarisation also featured in Emma Broadbent’s cases on the political economy of research update in Africa and in several other case studies and chapters in the literature included here.

Therefore, I hope this short annotated review is useful to anyone trying to drive the field forward. Old questions should asked again. But old answers should guide these new efforts.

I struggled to organise the documents in a particular order. I’ll do it after the holidays (to be updated).

If you know of similar resources and would like me to include them here, please do not hesitate to get in touch

Literature review on evidence based policymaking: https://media.odi.org/documents/4507.pdf

This literature review examines the debate surrounding evidence-based policymaking (EBP), particularly within the UK context and its relevance to developing countries. The review analyses various perspectives on EBP, including its challenges (speed, superficiality, spin, secrecy, and scientific ignorance), its successes (improved policy evaluation and service delivery), and the limitations of different approaches to evidence gathering and appraisal (meta-analysis vs. narrative review). Key themes explored include the integration of research into policy processes, the diverse types of evidence used, and the need for a more nuanced understanding of EBP that acknowledges the complexities of the policy cycle and the role of diverse stakeholders. Ultimately, the review aims to synthesise existing knowledge and offer insights for strengthening the use of evidence in policymaking.

Bridging research and policy: an annotated bibliography: https://media.odi.org/documents/182.pdf

This annotated bibliography examines the complex relationship between research and policy, moving beyond the traditional linear model. It critiques assumptions of one-way influence, distinct researcher-policymaker communities, and a solely positivistic knowledge production model. Instead, the bibliography emphasises a dynamic, two-way interaction shaped by political context, actors (networks, organisations, individuals), and the message and media. Its purpose is to expand existing overviews by including newer fields like social psychology and marketing communication, and to offer alternative perspectives that challenge conventional wisdom, ultimately exploring how ideas circulate and gain (or fail to gain) traction within research-policy networks.

Does Evidence Matter? Meeting series: https://media.odi.org/documents/206.pdf

This monograph summarises a series of meetings exploring the complex relationship between evidence and policymaking in development. The meetings featured diverse speakers—researchers, policymakers, NGO activists—who examined how political context, the nature of evidence, and the communication of research findings influence policy decisions. Key themes included the challenges of translating research into effective policy, the limitations of a purely “evidence-based” approach, and the crucial role of policy entrepreneurship and effective communication strategies in achieving policy change. The ultimate purpose is to better understand and improve the utilisation of research evidence in development, highlighting both successes and failures in various contexts.

Bridging research and policy: insights from 50 cases: https://media.odi.org/documents/180.pdf

This Overseas Development Institute working paper, authored by Court and Young in 2003, analyses 50 case studies examining the complex relationship between research and policy in developing countries. The study uses a framework focusing on three key interconnected domains: context (political and institutional factors), evidence (research quality and communication), and links (between researchers and policymakers). The authors aim to understand why some research influences policy while other research is ignored, ultimately seeking to improve development outcomes by strengthening research-policy linkages. The paper presents descriptive statistics of the case studies, discusses emerging themes within the framework, and offers preliminary recommendations for policymakers, researchers, and donors to improve the effectiveness of using research to inform policy decisions in diverse developing country contexts.

Good news from troubled contexts: https://cdn-odi-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/3707.pdf

This document synthesises findings from 18 case studies examining how civil society organisations (CSOs) in developing countries leverage evidence to influence pro-poor policies. Using the RAPID framework (which considers context, evidence, links, and external influences), the analysis explores diverse strategies employed by CSOs, highlighting successes and failures. Key themes include the crucial role of evidence (its source, type, and presentation), the importance of links between CSOs, policymakers, and international networks in building legitimacy, and the impact of external factors like donor funding and global trends. The study identifies “invited spaces” as crucial entry points for CSO influence, emphasising the need for strategic adaptation and the often-overlooked importance of explicitly considering evidence use in policy advocacy. Ultimately, the report aims to provide practical recommendations for CSOs seeking to effectively inform and shape policy processes in complex, resource-constrained environments.

Linkages between researchers and legislators: https://media.odi.org/documents/2989.pdf

This Overseas Development Institute working paper is a scoping study by Datta and Jones exploring the connections between researchers and legislators in developing countries. The study uses the RAPID framework to analyse formal and informal linkages, examining factors like the executive’s power, legislative structures, political competition, and external influences (including donors). Key themes include the nature of evidence used in policymaking—emphasising accessibility and credibility—and the varying degrees of influence researchers hold across different political contexts and regions (Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, East Asia). Ultimately, the paper aims to identify effective mechanisms for improving the use of research to inform legislation and strengthen legislative capacity.

Bridging research and policy: CEL framework: https://media.odi.org/documents/184.pdf

This Overseas Development Institute (ODI) working paper from 2002 explores how research influences international development policy. The authors argue against simplistic models of knowledge transfer, proposing a three-dimensional framework—context (politics and institutions), evidence (credibility and communication), and links (influence and legitimacy)—to analyse research impact. They emphasise the importance of understanding the political and institutional environments, the quality and communication of research findings, and the relationships between researchers and policymakers (including the establishment of legitimacy chains). The paper ultimately aims to identify how research can better contribute to evidence-based policies that reduce poverty and improve lives, suggesting a comparative, historical approach for future research.

Policy engagement for poverty reduction: https://media.odi.org/documents/196.pdf

This Overseas Development Institute briefing paper examines how civil society organisations (CSOs) can enhance their impact on policy for poverty reduction. The paper argues that while CSOs play a crucial role in development, their policy influence is often limited due to internal constraints, such as insufficient capacity and evidence use. It proposes a framework for more effective policy engagement, emphasising the importance of rigorous evidence-based advocacy throughout the policy process (agenda-setting, formulation, implementation, and evaluation). The paper ultimately suggests that by strategically employing various engagement mechanisms and addressing internal weaknesses, CSOs can achieve greater pro-poor impact and sustained policy influence.

Political and economic transition in Vietnam and its impact on think tanks: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DattaMendizabal_PoliticalandEconomicTransitioninVietnam_FINAL-1.pdf

This working paper by Datta and Mendizabal examines the evolution of think tanks in Vietnam following the Doi Moi economic reforms of 1986. The authors analyze how shifts in key political actors (including a more active National Assembly and business elites), dominant ideas (balancing socialist ideology with economic pragmatism), networks, and formal/informal institutions shaped the demand for, location of, and functions of Vietnamese think tanks. The paper highlights the challenges think tanks face, such as maintaining research quality and independence within a still largely state-controlled environment, and explores their diverse communication channels and ultimately limited, yet politically nuanced, influence on policy. The overall purpose is to understand the complex interplay between political and economic transition and the development of think tank traditions in a specific context.

Political economy of research uptake in Africa: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/9118.pdf 

This paper analyses the role of research-based evidence in African policy debates, challenging the simplistic notion of “evidence-based policy.” It examines four case studies from sub-Saharan Africa, revealing that while research-based evidence is sometimes used, its influence is often limited and intertwined with various factors. Key themes include the interplay between different types of evidence (research-based, practical, communal), the framing effect of dominant discourses and narratives (often influenced by international development agendas), and the crucial role of political context and agency in shaping evidence use. The author argues that simply increasing research capacity is insufficient; addressing the political incentives that may discourage the use of research-based evidence is crucial for genuine evidence-informed policymaking in Africa. Ultimately, the paper advocates for improving the quality of policy debates themselves to foster more critical thought and a deeper understanding of evidence.

• Case Study 1: Decongestion in Accra, Ghana: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/9119.pdf: This paper examines the Accra Metropolitan Assembly’s (AMA) policy to decongest Accra, Ghana’s capital, focusing on the eviction of street hawkers. It investigates the role of research-based evidence in this highly polarised policy debate, finding that practical experience and pre-existing beliefs significantly outweigh formal research. Three key factors are identified: the Ghanaian conception of knowledge, prioritising lived experience over research findings; unproductive relationships between key actors (AMA, national government, NGOs, and researchers), hindering evidence sharing; and a lack of capacity to supply, demand, and utilise research-based evidence effectively. The study uses a mixed-methods approach, incorporating media analysis, literature review, and interviews to explore the arguments used at different stages of the policy process (problem identification, policy options, implementation, and monitoring/evaluation). The ultimate purpose is to understand the complexities of evidence use in African policy debates and to inform strategies for promoting evidence-based approaches within existing political realities.
• Case Study 2: Uganda’s HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Bill: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/9121.pdf: This paper is a case study examining the role of research-based evidence in the Ugandan debate surrounding the 2010 HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Bill. The study analyses the arguments of the bill’s supporters (primarily the government’s HIV/AIDS and Related Matters Committee) and opponents (a coalition of NGOs), exploring how each side uses—or fails to use—research to support its positions. Key themes include the tension between public health objectives and human rights concerns, the influence of international donors and the international human rights discourse, and the limitations in research communication and capacity within Uganda’s political system. Ultimately, the study aims to understand the complex interplay of political context, research, and evidence in shaping African policy debates, highlighting the challenges of evidence-based policymaking in resource-constrained environments.
• Case Study 3: The contemporary debate on genetically modified organisms in Zambia: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/9122.pdf: This 2012 report by Emma Broadbent examines the complex debate surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Zambia. The study explores how research-based evidence is used and influenced by various actors, including the Zambian government, GMO supporters (often linked to international interests), and opponents (representing environmental and social concerns). A key theme is the “evidence stalemate” resulting from a lack of Zambia-specific research and differing interpretations of existing data, exacerbated by international actors with diverse financial incentives. The report uses a case study approach, analysing media coverage, literature, and interviews to understand the political and economic factors shaping the debate and the role of the Precautionary Principle. Ultimately, the report aims to illuminate how evidence is strategically employed in African policy debates to achieve specific outcomes.
• Case Study 4: Chieftaincy reform in Sierra Leone: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/9120.pdf: This paper is a case study examining the role of research-based evidence in the Sierra Leonean chieftaincy reform debate. It analyses a multifaceted debate encompassing historical context, the arguments of various actors (pro- and anti-reform), and the influence of evidence (or lack thereof) on policy change. The study highlights the politicisation of the debate, the limitations of research capacity within Sierra Leone, and the significant influence of the international community, particularly regarding the language of “development” and its impact on shaping the discourse and influencing policy decisions. Ultimately, the paper explores how different types of evidence—research-based versus traditional justifications—are employed to advance competing interests and shape the trajectory of chieftaincy reform in Sierra Leone.

The policy paradox in Africa: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/dab6bcea-893b-45a2-8167-84244e0a1ca3/content

This book, “The Policy Paradox in Africa,” explores the complex relationship between economic research and policymaking on the African continent. Edited by Ayuk and Marouani, it compiles papers presented at a 2005 SISERA conference in Dakar, focusing on strengthening the links between research and policy. The book examines the challenges inherent in bridging the gap between research findings and policy implementation, highlighting the often dominant influence of international donors and institutions. Key themes include the iterative nature of policymaking, the need for research capacity building in Africa, the importance of effective communication strategies for researchers, and the role of various actors (governments, donors, civil society) in shaping policy. Ultimately, the book advocates for a more participatory and research-informed approach to policymaking in Africa, promoting locally generated knowledge and reducing reliance on externally imposed solutions.

Vínculos entre la política y el conocimiento: https://cies.org.pe/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/dyp-51.pdf

This document is a collection of research papers exploring the relationship between research, policymaking, and media in Latin America. The book is structured in three sections: the first presents framework studies analysing the interaction between researchers, policymakers, and journalists; the second offers case studies illustrating this interaction in specific contexts; and the third section provides an overall assessment and suggests future research directions. Key themes include the role of think tanks in policy influence, the challenges of bridging the gap between research and policy, and the mediating role of the media in this process. The overall purpose is to increase understanding of how research impacts policymaking in Latin America’s unique political and institutional landscape, emphasising the need for further investigation into these complex relationships.

• Chapter 1: Researchers, Politicians, Public Officials, and Journalists in Latin America: In Search of a Grand Conversation: This chapter introduces the book’s central theme: the complex relationship between knowledge and policy in Latin America. It highlights the challenges in linking research and policymaking, such as the lack of systematic studies on evidence use in the region and the fragmented interactions between researchers, policymakers, and media. The authors propose the concept of a “grand conversation” to integrate these actors into a shared dialogue that informs public decision-making. They underscore the need to understand the political and institutional contexts that shape the role of evidence in public policy, moving beyond one-directional or purely technical approaches.
• Chapter 2: The Relationship Between Research and Public Policy in Latin America: An Exploratory Analysis: This chapter investigates the structural and contextual factors influencing the relationship between researchers and policymakers in four countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru. Key findings include:
  • Institutional Development: Countries with stronger institutional frameworks (e.g., Chile) foster better interactions between researchers and policymakers.
  • Political Polarisation: High polarisation (e.g., Bolivia) hampers the effective use of evidence, as it tends to be used instrumentally or ignored.
  • Partisan Systems: Strong party systems are crucial for integrating research into policy decisions, while their absence leads to greater influence from interest groups. The chapter highlights how crises can open opportunities for technocratic policy reforms but often at the cost of reduced diversity in research voices.
• Chapter 3: Think Tanks in Latin America: A Comparative Overview of a New Political Actor: This chapter examines the rise and evolution of think tanks in Latin America, comparing them to their counterparts in the U.S. and Europe. It finds that:
  • Most think tanks in the region are linked to universities or NGOs and heavily reliant on external funding.
  • Their influence is often limited to agenda-setting rather than policy formulation or implementation.
  • Think tanks face a tension between maintaining their independence and engaging closely with governments or donors. The author emphasises the need for more sustainable funding models and institutional frameworks to strengthen their long-term impact on public policy.
• Chapter 4: The Role of the State in Funding Policy Research in Latin America: This chapter analyses public funding for research institutions in 12 Latin American countries. Key insights include:
  • Public funding for think tanks is inconsistent and often tied to consultancy contracts rather than systematic support.
  • Access to public funds is frequently mediated by personal networks, political affiliations, and institutional prestige.
  • The state plays a limited role in fostering policy-relevant research, with most funding directed toward hard sciences. The authors argue for rethinking public funding frameworks to encourage innovation in social sciences and enhance the institutional capacity of research organisations.
• Chapter 5: A Strange Partnership: The Relationship Between Media and Policy Research Centres: This chapter explores how media serves as both a user and disseminator of research findings. It highlights that:
  • Research can improve the quality of journalism by providing deeper analysis and challenging prevailing narratives.
  • Media outlets value research but often struggle to integrate it due to time constraints and resource limitations. The chapter underscores the importance of building strategic relationships between think tanks and media to enhance the impact of research on public discourse.
• Chapter 6: Media and the Use of Research in Public Policy in Latin America: This chapter delves into case studies of three newspapers—Clarín (Argentina), El Diario de Hoy (El Salvador), and La Jornada (Mexico)—to assess how they use research to shape public agendas. Findings include:
  • Ownership concentration and content homogenisation are significant barriers to the effective use of evidence in media.
  • Think tanks often focus on technical communication strategies while neglecting the political dimensions of media engagement. The authors caution against over-reliance on media visibility as a proxy for policy impact, advocating for a more nuanced approach to measuring research influence.
• Chapter 7: Think Tanks as Power Brokers in Evo Morales’ Bolivia: This chapter examines the role of think tanks in Bolivia during the presidency of Evo Morales. Key points include:
  • Think tanks supported policy reforms by training technical cadres, legitimising policies, and acting as intermediaries between social movements and the state.
  • Their influence depended on their ability to align with powerful actors, such as international financial organisations or social movements. The chapter highlights the adaptability of think tanks in navigating polarised political environments.
• Chapter 8: The Role of Evidence in Public Policy in Contexts of Polarisation: The Case of Argentina: This chapter investigates the conflict over export tariffs on soy and sunflower oil in Argentina during the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Key findings:
  • High polarisation and ideological conflict overshadowed the use of evidence in policymaking.
  • Despite the availability of robust evidence, political dynamics prevented meaningful dialogue or consensus-building. The author emphasises the need for better conflict management strategies to create spaces for evidence-based policymaking in polarised environments.
• Chapter 9: Political Structures and the Use of Research in Public Policy: A Method and Hypotheses for a Research Agenda: This chapter synthesises the findings of the book and proposes a medium-term research agenda to study structural factors influencing the use of evidence in policymaking. Key contributions include:
  • A call for systematic comparative studies and in-depth case analyses to build a more nuanced understanding of these dynamics. The author argues for a shift from focusing on ad-hoc or crisis-driven interactions to examining the broader institutional and cultural factors that enable evidence use in policymaking.
  • Thirteen hypotheses exploring how political systems, party structures, and state capacities shape the integration of research into policy processes:
    • Regime Type: Democratic regimes are more likely to use evidence in public policymaking than authoritarian regimes due to greater accountability and the demand for transparency.
    • Political Stability: Stable political environments are more conducive to evidence use because they provide continuity for institutional development and policy implementation.
    • State Capacity: Stronger state institutions, with sufficient resources and technical expertise, are more likely to incorporate evidence in policymaking.
    • Bureaucratic Autonomy: A professional and autonomous bureaucracy enhances evidence use by reducing the influence of partisan or interest-driven decision-making.
    • Party Systems: Consolidated party systems with programmatic agendas foster stronger links between researchers and policymakers, facilitating evidence-based decisions.
    • Polarisation: High levels of political polarisation reduce the likelihood of evidence use, as debates become ideologically charged and less focused on empirical data.
    • Legislative Power: Legislatures with strong institutional capacity and technical resources are more likely to demand and use research in policymaking processes.
    • Judicial Independence: An independent judiciary may indirectly promote evidence use by holding policymakers accountable for decisions that lack empirical grounding.
    • Public Opinion: When public opinion strongly supports evidence-based policies, politicians are more likely to incorporate research to gain legitimacy and electoral support.
    • Media Environment: A pluralistic and investigative media environment can amplify the role of evidence by exposing gaps in policymaking and advocating for data-driven solutions.
    • International Influence: Countries with significant engagement in international organisations or donor-driven programmes are more likely to adopt evidence-based approaches due to external pressure or incentives.
    • Think Tank Ecosystem: A robust and diverse network of think tanks and research institutions improves the quality and accessibility of evidence available to policymakers.
    • Crisis Contexts: Crises (economic, social, or political) can create windows of opportunity for evidence use, as they often demand immediate, credible solutions.

The RAPID programme experience: https://media.odi.org/documents/7524.pdf

This Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Background Note analyses the Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) program’s ten-year experience building capacity for better research uptake in development. The report details RAPID’s evolution, highlighting its shift from initial research on policy entrepreneurship to a broader focus on advice, mentoring, and networking across themes like research communication, knowledge management, and outcome mapping. Key to the analysis is the examination of RAPID’s methods – including toolkits, workshops, and communities of practice – and a candid assessment of the successes and challenges encountered, particularly concerning the “evidence-based policy in development network” (ebpdn) and the complexities of building sustainable, equitable partnerships in the Global South. The ultimate purpose is to draw lessons and provide recommendations for future capacity-building initiatives focused on improving the use of research in development policy.

CSO capacity for policy engagement consultation: https://media.odi.org/documents/148.pdf

This Overseas Development Institute (ODI) working paper analyses lessons learned from consultations with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America regarding their capacity to influence pro-poor policy. The study, part of the ODI’s Civil Society Partnerships Programme (CSPP), examines the interplay between political context, the quality and communication of evidence, CSO capacity (including resources and networking), and external influences like donor funding. The paper uses a framework focusing on these four areas to structure its analysis of numerous case studies, ultimately offering recommendations for improving CSO policy engagement and for the future direction of the CSPP. The main goal is to understand how Southern CSOs can more effectively leverage evidence to shape policy decisions, emphasising the need for context-specific strategies and strong collaborations.

Learning from research and evaluation at DFID: https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/6327.pdf

This report assesses lesson-learning within the Department for International Development (DFID), focusing on how research and evaluation findings are used to inform policy and programming. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, including interviews with DFID staff and an online survey, to explore three perspectives on learning: the influence of research outputs, the integration of evidence into decision-making, and DFID’s capacity as a learning organisation. Key findings revealed that while DFID effectively utilizes research within project cycles, organisational learning and the incorporation of evidence into complex decision-making processes require improvement. The report concludes with actionable recommendations for strengthening research uptake, improving evaluation practices, enhancing knowledge management, and addressing staff turnover’s impact on institutional memory, ultimately aiming to make DFID a more effective learning organisation.

Distilling or diluting? https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/volume1/v1issue1/23-a-1-1-9/file

This 2008 article by Cleaver and Franks analyses the complex relationship between water research and policymaking, particularly concerning poverty alleviation. The authors critique the prevalent “instrumental” approach, which focuses on readily applicable “success stories” and “best practices,” arguing that this neglects the underlying social, political, and economic structures shaping water governance. They propose a more reflexive approach that incorporates social ontologies (worldviews) and acknowledges the political negotiation of knowledge. Their framework emphasises the interplay of resources, mechanisms of access, actors, processes, and diverse outcomes for different groups, aiming to understand how and why specific water governance arrangements produce varied results, especially for the poor. Ultimately, the authors advocate for more nuanced, context-sensitive research that engages critically with power dynamics to create more equitable and effective water policies.

Political science? Strengthening science policy dialogue: https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/474.pdf

This Overseas Development Institute working paper investigates the science-policy interface in developing countries. Employing a mixed-methods approach—a literature review, expert interviews, country case studies, and a large-scale international survey—the authors identify six key tensions hindering effective science-policy dialogue. These tensions include the politicisation of science, the divergence between scientists’ and policymakers’ goals and timescales, and the challenges of balancing specialised expertise with democratised knowledge. The paper ultimately argues for the crucial role of intermediary organisations in bridging this gap by acting as knowledge brokers and capacity builders, advocating for targeted information dissemination, and fostering greater deliberation and participation between researchers, policymakers, and the public.

Gold Standard is not a single bullet: https://media.odi.org/documents/3695.pdf

This Overseas Development Institute opinion piece critiques the overreliance on experimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations (IEs) in development aid. The author argues that while increased funding for IEs is positive, the current emphasis on a perceived “gold standard” methodology—favouring experimental designs—is too narrow and risks hindering learning and accountability. This bias, driven by institutional incentives and donor preferences for easily quantifiable results, neglects other rigorous methods and may unfairly disadvantage interventions harder to evaluate experimentally. The piece advocates for a more pluralistic approach to IE methodology, emphasising the importance of fostering the use of evaluations, building appropriate institutional capacity, and aligning incentives to promote genuine learning and accountability within development programs.

Political knowledge regimes: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Garceetal_WP3-1-1.pdf

This working paper explores the concept of “Political Knowledge Regimes” (PKR) to explain differences in policymaking between Chile and Uruguay from 1989-2015. The authors hypothesise that the interaction between the type of policymaking regime (open or closed) and the societal valuation of science (rationalist or pragmatist) shapes knowledge regimes and policy outcomes. Using case studies of international trade, fiscal, and educational policies in both countries, they find that Chile’s closed regime and high valuation of science led to greater expert influence, while Uruguay’s open regime and lower valuation of science resulted in policy debates driven more by political considerations. The paper contributes to understanding the interplay of technocracy and democracy in policymaking, suggesting that while both countries experienced policy innovation, their approaches differed significantly due to their distinct PKRs.

Knowledge, policy and power: https://media.odi.org/documents/4919.pdf

This ODI (Overseas Development Institute) report explores the complex interplay between knowledge, policy, and power in international development. It examines six key dimensions of this interface: the diverse types of knowledge used in policymaking (research-based, participatory, etc.); the influence of political context (democratic vs. authoritarian); the varying dynamics across different policy sectors (technical vs. participatory); the roles of various actors (governments, NGOs, think tanks); the application of innovative frameworks (complexity theory, innovation systems); and the crucial processes of knowledge translation and the roles of intermediaries in bridging the gap between knowledge producers and policymakers. The report aims to stimulate more nuanced debates and the development of tailored tools for actors involved in evidence-informed policy development, ultimately contributing to improved pro-poor outcomes.

Communicating complex ideas: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/communicating-complex-ideas_full-book-2.pdf

This book examines five case studies illustrating the challenges and strategies of communicating complex research findings to policymakers and the public to effect policy change. Key themes include the limitations of solely evidence-based approaches, the importance of adapting communication strategies based on context and audience, and the need for diverse forms of legitimacy beyond purely scientific evidence (political alliances, emotional appeals, etc.). The cases – Argentina’s electoral reform, Indonesia’s budget transparency, education reform in the Middle East, pesticide use in Ecuador, and breastfeeding promotion in South Africa – highlight the iterative nature of communication, emphasising the integration of research and communication from the outset, and the evolving roles researchers play, sometimes becoming active participants in social movements. The overarching purpose is to provide practical lessons and frameworks for researchers seeking to translate complex research into impactful policy interventions in developing world contexts.

• Chapter 1: Advocating for Electoral Reform in Argentina: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/argentina-elections_communicating-complex-ideas.pdf: This chapter explores CIPPEC’s efforts to advocate for electoral reform, replacing the French ballot system with the Australian ballot system in Argentina. Key findings:
  • Challenges in Governance Policy Advocacy: Electoral reform is inherently political, making advocacy efforts particularly contentious and difficult.
  • Communication Strategies: CIPPEC reframed the reform as a voter-rights issue, using mock elections and public surveys to gain public trust.
  • Stages of Involvement: CIPPEC participated in agenda-setting, policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation, navigating complex political dynamics.
  • Conclusion: The case highlights the risks and benefits of think tanks engaging deeply in political reforms. It emphasises the need for adaptive communication strategies to align with evolving political contexts.
• Chapter 2: Communication as a Way of Being in Northern Ecuador: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ecuador-pesticides_communicating-complex-ideas.pdf: This chapter examines a pesticide awareness campaign in Ecuador, focusing on how communication strategies integrated global and local perspectives. Key findings:
  • Combining Narratives: The campaign juxtaposed scientific evidence with farmers’ lived experiences to foster understanding and behaviour change.
  • Collaborative Approach: Scientists, local farmers, and policymakers worked together, building mutual trust through consistent dialogue.
  • Conclusion: Effective communication in deeply rooted social issues requires embracing multiple narratives and ongoing community engagement.
• Chapter 3: School Reform in the Middle East: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/egypt-school-reform_communicating-complex-ideas-book.pdf: The chapter reviews education reform initiatives post-Arab Spring, detailing how researchers addressed shifting public narratives and expectations. Key findings:
  • Cultural Sensitivity: The reform aligned policy objectives with family values and local cultural norms, essential for acceptance.
  • Adapting to Change: Researchers modified strategies based on rapid political and social shifts, underlining the importance of flexibility.
  • Conclusion: Long-term education reforms must balance local expectations with broader systemic goals, requiring adaptable and inclusive communication.
• Chapter 4: Budget Transparency and Accountability in Indonesia: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/indonesia-budget-transparency_communicating-complex-ideas-book.pdf: This chapter explores efforts to promote fiscal transparency in Indonesia, using research to engage both policymakers and the general public. Key findings:
  • Media as a Bridge: The media played a vital role in linking technical evidence with public values, enhancing outreach.
  • Public Engagement: Simplifying budget information for citizens increased public demand for transparency.
  • Conclusion: Collaborative efforts between researchers, journalists, and civil society can make complex fiscal policies accessible and impactful.
• Chapter 5: Rebranding Breastmilk in South Africa: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/south-africa-breastfeeding_communicating-complex-ideas.pdf: This chapter discusses a social marketing campaign to promote breastfeeding in South Africa. Key findings:
  • Overcoming Stigma: The campaign reframed breastfeeding as a socially and environmentally responsible choice, using relatable messaging.
  • Behavioural Change: Combining emotional appeals with evidence-based arguments successfully shifted public perceptions.
  • Conclusion: Addressing stigmatised health issues requires culturally resonant messaging and evidence-backed advocacy.
• Chapter 6: Shedding Light on Complex Ideas: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/communicating-complex-ideas_conclusion_buldioski.pdf: This concluding chapter reflects on lessons from the case studies and outlines best practices for communicating complex ideas. Key findings:
  • Nuanced Strategies: Effective communication balances simplifying complexity with maintaining depth and nuance.
  • Collaborative Communication: Researchers and communicators must work closely from the outset to align strategies and build trust.
  • Adaptability: Communication efforts should remain flexible to address evolving contexts and audiences.
  • Conclusion: The book concludes that communicating complex ideas requires interdisciplinary collaboration, contextual understanding, and iterative strategies.

Knowledge to policy: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/93e23735-313b-4aa2-80c8-1c0986c1059d/content

This document presents a comprehensive evaluation of 23 case studies conducted by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) on how development research influences public policy, particularly in developing countries. The core theme explores the complex and often indirect ways research impacts policy decisions, moving beyond simple cause-and-effect relationships to encompass capacity building, broadening policy horizons, and affecting decision-making processes. The analysis emphasises the crucial role of context, highlighting how factors like political stability, institutional capacity, economic pressures, and effective communication strategies significantly influence a research project’s ability to affect policy. The overarching purpose is to identify best practices and lessons learned for maximising the policy impact of development research, ultimately aiming to improve development outcomes. The study uses a multiple-case approach, detailed case summaries, and a methodological overview to support its findings and conclusions.

Discerning policy influence: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/aa1c4238-0d10-46b0-a9ed-4960b0799f78/content

This 2001 paper by Evert A. Lindquist proposes a framework for strategically evaluating the policy influence of research funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The core argument centers on the complexity of assessing research impact on policy, especially in Southern contexts, due to the multiplicity of actors and dynamic interplay of values and beliefs. Lindquist expands the conventional notion of “research” to encompass “policy inquiry,” including data generation, analysis, publications, and convocation activities. The framework integrates existing theories of knowledge utilisation, policy communities and networks, advocacy coalitions, and agenda-setting to guide evaluations, emphasising the need for longitudinal analysis, consideration of informal networks, and realistic expectations about research influence. Ultimately, the paper aims to provide a nuanced, yet practical, approach for evaluating IDRC projects by focusing on intermediate influences such as capacity building and horizon broadening, rather than solely on direct policy impact.

A study of policy influence: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=478a3ad160688e67f383efe0a8320f37c83e5590

This document is a study commissioned by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) to assess the impact of their funding on a research program supporting the G-24, a group of developing countries negotiating international monetary and financial issues. The study examines the programme’s influence on policy, exploring both direct (linear) and indirect (“enlightenment”) approaches to shaping policy. It analyses three types of policy influence: expanding policy capacities, broadening policy horizons, and affecting policy regimes. The authors also investigate internal and external factors—such as personalities, outreach strategies, political issues, and budgetary constraints—that either enhanced or hindered the programme’s effectiveness. Ultimately, the study aims to understand how research impacts policy and to provide insights for future IDRC initiatives.

Knowledge utilisation in public policy processes: a literature review: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c9ee9fb7-3789-4eec-99d3-ff7ce5fa1c94/content

This 2001 literature review by Stephanie Neilson for the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) examines how research influences public policy, particularly within the context of development research. The review analyses existing theories of knowledge utilisation, highlighting Caplan’s “two communities” theory (the cultural gap between researchers and policymakers) and Weiss’ “enlightenment function” of research (its gradual, indirect impact). It then explores various policy process models—rational (linear, incremental, interactive) and political (policy networks, agenda-setting, policy narratives, policy transfer)—assessing their implications for research influence. Finally, it discusses crucial issues such as research quality, perceived versus actual influence (“faking influence”), and the challenges posed by new policy fields (like ICTs) and environments (newly independent states). The ultimate purpose is to help IDRC better understand and enhance the policy impact of its research funding.

Bridging research and policy in transition countries: https://biceps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/brpsynthesis_final_version_december8_with_all_changes-_205.pdf

This study presents an overview of the GDN’s Bridging Research and Policy project from 1999 to 2007. It highlights 4 main gaps: supply side gaps, information and communication gaps, demand gaps and governance gaps.

• A supply gap may be thought of as a public good problem.
• Information/communication gaps occur when: there is lack of access to research, poor policy comprehension of researchers toward the policy process and how research may be relevant, ineffective communication by researchers and ignorance of politicians about the existence of relevant research.
• Demand failure happens when research exists and is communicated by policymakers are unable or unwilling to use it.
• Governance failures occur when demand and supply are manipulated by powerful groups in society.

Rule of experts? https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/19538/1/Da_Costa_3207.pdf

This PhD thesis examines the influence of expert networks on African development policy from independence to the 2000s. It analyses how Western-trained African experts, their institutions (like the Economic Commission for Africa), and their interactions shaped policy debates, sometimes challenging and sometimes reinforcing dominant development paradigms. The author uses a historiographical approach combined with discourse analysis, participant observation, and life histories to trace how these “Institutional Complexes of Expertise” negotiated the balance of power between Africa and the international community, particularly concerning the adoption and adaptation of structural adjustment programs and the emergence of initiatives like NEPAD. The central argument explores how these expert networks engaged in “sub-hegemony,” strategically adapting global development discourses to create more policy space for African priorities, highlighting the complex interplay between global power structures and local agency.

Think tanks y partidos políticos en Latinoamérica: https://onthinktanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/dime-a-quien-escuchas-think-tanks-y-partidos-politicos-en-america-latina.pdf

This book, “Dime a Quién Escuchas… Think Tanks y Partidos Políticos en América Latina,” is a collaborative study examining the relationship between think tanks and political parties across Latin America. The research investigates the different types of think tanks (internal and external to parties) and analyses their varying functions, influence, and levels of interaction with political actors. A key theme is the degree of institutionalisation and the influence of contextual factors on these relationships. The ultimate purpose is to provide recommendations for strengthening the connections between these groups to foster more effective policymaking and sustainable development in the region.

• Chapter 1: Framework Study: This chapter examines the broader context of think tanks in the region and their relationships with political parties. Key findings:
  • Diverse Roles: Think tanks play roles ranging from policy advisers to public intellectuals, often filling gaps left by weak party systems.
  • Funding Dynamics: External donors significantly shape think tanks’ priorities, sometimes pulling them away from locally relevant issues.
  • Political Polarisation: In polarised environments, think tanks risk being perceived as partisan actors, which can undermine their credibility. The chapter argues for more systematic approaches to understanding these dynamics and their implications for democratic governance.
• Chapter 2: Bolivia: This chapter focuses on Bolivia, exploring how think tanks have operated in a highly polarised political environment, especially during the Evo Morales administration. Key findings:
  • Influence of International Donors: Many think tanks are funded by international organisations, which shape their research agendas.
  • Alignment with Social Movements: Think tanks often act as intermediaries between grassroots movements and policymakers, translating demands into actionable policy proposals.
  • Challenges of Independence: While many think tanks aim for neutrality, their close association with specific political movements can erode this independence.
• Chapter 3: Chile: This chapter discusses Chile’s relatively stable political system and the role of think tanks in shaping policy debates. Key findings:
  • Historical Roots: Chile’s think tanks have evolved alongside its political institutions, becoming integral to its policy ecosystem.
  • Strong Party Links: Think tanks in Chile often have direct ties to political parties, enabling smoother policy influence.
  • Post-Dictatorship Dynamics: The return to democracy saw an increase in think tanks focused on promoting market-friendly policies, often in alignment with political coalitions.
• Chapter 4: Colombia: This chapter examines think tanks in Colombia and their role in policy development amid ongoing conflict and peace processes. Key findings:
  • Focus on Peacebuilding: Many think tanks focus on post-conflict recovery and reconciliation, aligning with international donor priorities.
  • Weak Party Connections: Political parties often lack stable relationships with think tanks, relying instead on informal networks of experts.
  • Regional Disparities: Think tanks are concentrated in urban centres, limiting their influence in rural and conflict-affected areas.
• Chapter 5: Ecuador: This chapter analyses the complex interplay between think tanks and political actors in Ecuador. Key findings:
  • State Centralisation: Under Rafael Correa, the centralisation of power reduced the space for independent think tanks to influence policy.
  • Shifting Agendas: Think tanks aligned with the government thrived, but their agendas were often shaped by state priorities rather than independent research.
  • Donor Dependency: Like in other countries, external funding played a significant role in shaping the focus of research and limiting long-term sustainability.
• Chapter 6: Peru: This chapter explores think tanks in Peru and their role in a fragmented political landscape. Key findings:
  • Weak Party Systems: The absence of strong political parties in Peru has allowed think tanks to fill critical gaps in policy formulation.
  • Focus on Economic Policy: Many think tanks specialise in economic issues, reflecting donor interests and the neoliberal orientation of Peruvian politics.
  • Limited Public Engagement: Think tanks often focus on elite policymaking processes, with little emphasis on broader public engagement or advocacy.
• Conclusion: The book concludes with reflections on the broader implications of the findings across the chapters. Key takeaways include:
  • Systemic Weaknesses: Weak political institutions in many Latin American countries increase reliance on think tanks but also limit their ability to sustain long-term policy influence.
  • Need for Independence: Think tanks must navigate complex relationships with political actors and donors to maintain their credibility and effectiveness.
  • Building Capacity: Strengthening the capacity of political parties to engage with evidence-based research is essential for improving governance and policymaking in the region.

Think tanks and politics in Sub-Saharan Africa: https://media.odi.org/documents/7527.pdf

This Overseas Development Institute (ODI) paper by Kimenyi and Datta examines the complex interplay between political landscapes and the development of think tanks in sub-Saharan Africa. The authors challenge the prevalent assumption that think tanks emerged solely from a US model, arguing that their origins and evolution were profoundly shaped by distinct political phases: colonial rule, post-independence single-party/authoritarian rule, military rule, and finally, political and economic liberalisation. Analysing these phases reveals how power concentration and external influences—primarily from colonial powers and later from international donors—significantly impacted the types of think tanks that arose, their research agendas, and their relationships with governments. The paper concludes by highlighting the need for further research into the influence of factors such as ethnic and religious cleavages on think tank activities.

Think tanks and politics in Asia: https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/6377.pdf

This 2010 Overseas Development Institute (ODI) report examines the political context shaping the emergence and development of think tanks in East and Southeast Asia. The authors challenge conventional Anglo-American-centric views of think tanks, arguing that their origins and functions are deeply intertwined with nationalism, the extent of political pluralism (or liberalisation), and the concentration of power within each nation. The report analyses how these political factors influenced think tank location (relation to the state and market), thematic focus (economic development, security, political interests), and degree of independence. The authors propose a framework analysing the “politics of production” and “politics of power” to understand this complex interplay, ultimately arguing for a more politically nuanced understanding of think tanks to effectively assess their impact on development.

Think tanks in developing countries: https://www.cippec.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1796.pdf

This document presents a comparative study analysing the factors influencing the impact of policy research institutes (PRIs) on policymaking. The study examines 18 case studies across three regions (Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe/CIS), employing a methodology that distinguishes between endogenous (PRI-controlled) and exogenous (external) variables affecting PRI influence. The analysis explores various factors, including institutional structure, research management, communication strategies, political context, and funding mechanisms, concluding with recommendations for improving PRIs’ capacity to affect policy. The document is structured around sections detailing the methodology, results (divided into endogenous and exogenous variable comparisons), and conclusions with actionable recommendations, supported by extensive appendices providing detailed information on methodology, data, and case studies.

Additional papers

Added by Andrea Ordoñez:

Twelve stories of policy influence from Asia, Africa and Latin America: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/items/9f7bab71-93d1-4c7e-b660-e2fb5b381c80

Research can contribute to the design of policy instruments intended to influence well-being. Twelve research institutes from across the globe are presented in this conference paper, along with work that has affected public policy. The IDRC en América Latina y el Caribe | IDRC in Latin America and the Caribbean‘s Think Tank Initiative has supported research that can influence and increase economic and social benefits. Each of the centres reflect on their research activities, outcomes and lessons learned.

Influencing as a learning process: think tanks and the challenge of improving policies and promoting social change: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/items/b4654d26-5ef8-42aa-b4d0-43e238f4298c

This conference paper aims to redefine policy influence and broaden the view of the work think tanks carry out. It draws from twelve accounts of policy influence from research centers participating in the Think Tank Initiative (from Africa, Latin America, and South Asia). The study concludes that think tanks are political actors, a role that exceeds the traditional view of think tanks as knowledge producers and communicators. Consequently, for research organisations to successfully influence policy they must develop the internal capacity to lead in complex scenarios.