Session purpose
This session explored what it means to be a regional think tank, why regional think tanks matter, and what challenges they face in trying to influence policy across countries, institutions, languages and political contexts.
The discussion showed that “regional” is not a fixed category. A regional think tank may be defined by geography, language, institutional architecture, policy issue, continental scope, or networked collaboration. The session therefore focused on how organisations define their regional role, who their audiences are, what value they add, and what skills, funding models and partnerships they need to operate effectively beyond the national level.
Main conveners and contributors
This session was convened by:
- Racheal Makokha, OTT
- Adwoa Banful, African Center for Economic Transformation
- Dominique Dryding, Afrobarometer
- Bruno Ittia Achuo, Nkafu Policy Institute
- Chepa Twatasha Lesa, AUDA-NEPAD
- Mahao Leuta Mahao, AUDA-NEPAD
- Chibuikem Agbaegbu, Africa Policy Research Institute
The programme framed the session around how regional think tanks define their audiences and objectives, what research and communication strategies make sense at the regional level, and what competencies they need to develop to operate effectively.
Main presentation and framing
The session opened by unpacking the different meanings of “regional”. Enrique Mendizabal offered a typology showing that regional think tanks may be organised around several different logics:
- Institutional regions, such as ECOWAS, the East African Community or AUDA-NEPAD-linked policy spaces.
- Geographic regions, based on proximity and shared ecosystems.
- Linguistic regions, such as Anglophone, Francophone or Lusophone Africa.
- Issue-based regions, shaped by cross-border problems such as security corridors, migration, trade routes or transboundary water systems.
- Continental regions, where organisations work across Africa or another broad regional identity.
- Network or platform models, where several organisations collaborate across borders under a shared agenda or structure.
This framing helped participants see that regional identity is constructed. It shapes the organisation’s audiences, funding, research methods, communications, partnerships and political constraints.
Main debates
1. “Regional” means different things to different organisations
A central debate was whether a regional think tank must have a formal regional mandate, or whether national organisations can play regional roles depending on the issue, project or partnership.
Participants recognised that many organisations do not fit neatly into one category. Some are national in structure but regional in ambition. Others are based in one country but work through continental networks. Some are issue-based, while others are linked to formal regional institutions. This fluidity makes self-definition important.
2. Regional boundaries are political, not neutral
The discussion highlighted that regional identities are often shaped by history, colonial languages, institutional structures and external funding categories. Participants questioned whether externally imposed regional labels always reflect lived realities or policy needs.
Language was a particularly important issue. Anglophone, Francophone and Lusophone spaces shape who reads what, who collaborates with whom, and whose ideas travel. The dominance of English also raises questions about decolonising regional policy debate.
3. Regional think tanks bridge national and global policy
One of the clearest points was that regional think tanks can act as bridges between national realities and global agendas. They can help smaller countries gain a stronger voice, bring local nuance to regional debates, and prevent global actors from treating regions as uniform.
This bridging role is especially important when global policy debates simplify regional diversity or when regional bodies need evidence that reflects different national contexts.
4. Regional think tanks must represent diversity, not flatten it
Participants stressed that regional think tanks should not create false consensus. Their value lies partly in showing the differences within a region: different political systems, economies, social realities, languages and policy priorities.
A good regional think tank does not simply speak “for the region”. It creates platforms where internal diversity can be understood and translated into better policy.
5. Funding models often work against regional agendas
Funding emerged as a major challenge. Many funders still organise support at national level, while regional agendas require cross-border work, coordination and sustained relationship-building.
Regional think tanks also compete with national organisations and with each other for limited resources. Donor priorities may shape the agenda, leaving regional organisations reacting to calls rather than setting their own priorities.
6. Collaboration is difficult to sustain beyond projects
Participants discussed how regional collaboration often forms around specific bids or donor-funded projects, but does not always continue afterwards. This creates short-term partnerships rather than long-term regional ecosystems.
The group noted that collaboration depends heavily on personal relationships. Institutional frameworks matter, but trust, chemistry and repeated interaction often determine whether organisations continue working together.
7. Regional think tanks have a dual perspective advantage
One of the strongest opportunities identified was the ability of regional think tanks to understand both global trends and local realities. This makes them useful knowledge brokers between national actors, regional institutions, global funders and international policy spaces.
Regional think tanks can interpret global issues through a regional lens and translate national evidence into broader debates. This dual perspective is a distinctive source of value.
8. Regional think tanks can strengthen ecosystems
Participants also saw regional think tanks as potential ecosystem builders. They can support national partners, build capacity, coordinate research, organise joint evidence synthesis, host webinars, and create platforms for smaller or less visible organisations.
This role can help diversify the regional knowledge landscape and avoid over-reliance on a few dominant institutions.
Main takeaways
- Regional think tanks cannot be defined in only one way. They may be institutional, geographic, linguistic, issue-based, continental or networked.
- Self-definition matters. Regional think tanks need to be clear about what kind of region they serve, who their audiences are and what role they want to play.
- Regional think tanks are valuable because they bridge national and global policy spaces.
- Their role is not to flatten diversity into a single regional voice, but to surface differences and make regional complexity visible.
- Language is a strategic and political issue. It affects collaboration, visibility, legitimacy and whose knowledge circulates.
- Funding remains a major constraint. Regional work often requires long-term investment, but funding is frequently short-term, national or donor-driven.
- Trust and personal relationships are central to collaboration. Formal structures help, but they rarely substitute for strong interpersonal connections.
- Regional think tanks have a dual perspective advantage: they can understand local realities and global trends at the same time.
- They can also act as ecosystem builders by supporting national organisations, coordinating joint work and strengthening regional research capacity.
- The strongest message of the session was that regional think tanks need flexible models, clearer self-definition, stronger agenda-setting power and more sustained collaboration to fulfil their potential.