This article was written by the Governance Action Hub as part of the publication of the 2024 On Think Tanks State of the Sector Report. Explore the report and resources here.
Think tanks have always had to adapt to the political landscape around them. The current environment of polarisation may warrant a reconsideration of a think tank’s own strategies to generate credible evidence, one that builds bridges between members of society that may have different priorities but whose concourse is necessary for change to happen.
Earlier this year, OTT conducted the State of the Sector survey, gathering insights from think tanks worldwide on context and operational considerations. We took particular interest in questions related to the environment in which think tanks operate.
Our interest in this topic stems from its connection to what the initiative we represent, the Governance Action Hub, does: exploring alternative ways to pursue governance action and reform through collaborative approaches and better coordination of local and global action. We are particularly keen to understand how collaboration to tackle concrete, common challenges between think tanks and other groups in society can be enhanced for impact.
Download the On Think Tanks State of Sector Report 2024
Self-reported policy influence is consistent across types of countries and think tanks
First, let’s talk about the most common variable used by think tanks, their donors, and even their detractors to assess impact: policy influence. Up to 76% of think tanks report direct influence in policy in the last five years, with 23% declaring no influence, or not knowing.
It is tempting to consider the lack of policy influence to be correlated to the type of country. However, only 20% of think tanks in low/middle-low-income countries and 28% in autocracies/electoral autocracies reported no influence on policy.
Another tempting idea would be to suggest that larger, longer-established think tanks are more likely to influence public policy. However, think tanks with less than ten paid staff represent 50% of all reporting think tanks and only 24% of those reporting no influence in public policy have ten or fewer paid staff.
Of course, we could argue about the nature of the policy impact reported and how each think tank assesses that success. For example, 59% of think tanks reporting no impact in policy focus on issues that are particularly political or may affect special interests, such as governance, environment, economics, or security.
The challenges of think tanks demand a broader take on influence and impact
Operational concerns aside, risks for a think tank seem to revolve around the political context. When asked, ‘How will the political situation in the next 12 months impact think tanks in your country?’ 44% of those responding answered as unfavourably or very unfavourably.
When the question gets more specific and refers to the effect of political polarisation, 56% answered that they would be very much, significantly or moderately impacted. The way polarisation affects think tanks ranges from dissemination and interaction with diverse audiences to the ability to secure funding from different sources. It turns out that 72% of think tanks concerned about polarisation work in areas like governance, economics, environment, and security.
Political environment and polarisation limit the capacity of think tanks to reach a more diverse audience and collaborate. Enrique Mendizabal, in this piece, argues not only that claims of influence deserve more scrutiny, considering how even large and well-funded think tanks could not prevent arguably ill-informed policy decisions, but that maybe the sector is due for a reconsideration of what impact really means: being useful to society by being a haven for ideas, testing them, offering space for dialogue.
We believe think tanks are fundamental in society because they show a better way to do things, promote collaboration, and move a culture forward. In other words, our societies need think tanks that can lead because even when a reform, law, or public policy is approved, its implementation and impact are not guaranteed.
Of course, the form such leadership takes will vary depending on the context and the degrees of freedom a think tank may have regarding independence or funding. Yet, this approach to impact offers an opportunity for think tanks and donors alike to explore other avenues for influence and service beyond a specific public policy, even in topics that are more political or prone to special interests.
Fostering collaboration in difficult environments is hard—but possible
A different approach to think tank impact will likely imply a different strategy and tactics but also a hard look at the challenges of engagement. With 38% of respondents considering that media is either not responsive at all or only slightly responsive to their work, or 19% of think tanks reporting it is hard to engage with people of different political affiliations (for another 40%, it is only moderately easy), reaching out and connecting with a broader set of actors will be needed, regardless of whether the goal is to influence policy or be useful in other ways.
A polarised environment is usually characterised by low levels of trust beyond the group that already shares a particular point of view, leading to tribalism. Tribalism reinforces separation and lack of communication between the holders of different points of view, facilitating manipulation by stakeholders with power within a system and building incentives for misinformation.
In such a context, think tanks can become a safe space for dialogue and ideas. The answer to how to do it in a particular context should probably be a result of local engagement.
In a recent piece based on a roundtable we organised at the last OTT Conference, Chiara Roselli, co-founder of Apropos, discusses how to build bridges among different actors and mobilise coalitions for change, even in environments characterised by state capture and corruption. She describes three mutually reinforcing process design strategies that need to be considered: expanding the realm of possibility, framing the conversation to share ownership of a problem, and what she calls networks of service, prioritising the needs of people that must mobilise to generate change.
Our role at the Governance Action Hub
We are committed to being a space for experimentation and exploration of how to build diverse, inclusive coalitions for change. We can generate and test ideas to tackle some of the most difficult challenges of our times, including climate action, state capture, localized development, and democracy.
Engagement with think tanks is a priority for us, because we understand the opportunity they offer to discuss options for a particular country and society and their potential to affect change. We look forward to engaging with think tanks worldwide, On Think Tanks, and other partners to identify ways to make this happen.
