On February 18, an insightful discussion unfolded regarding the impact of funding on the operations and influence of foreign policy think tanks. As the On Think Tanks Programme Director, I had the opportunity to present findings from the 2024 SOS Report, along with insights gathered by OTT and its partners over the past decade (see our transparency series). I was joined in this discussion by Benoît Pelopidas, founder of Nuclear Knowledge, and Michael Hartmann, the Director of the Center for Strategic Giving at the Capital Research Center. Benoît shared insights from his study, “No Such Thing as a Free Donation?” focusing on defence industry funding and potential conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, Michael Hartmann explored the implications of foreign government funding on nonprofits.
The conversation was sparked by an excellent initiative from the Quincy Institute, ThinkTankFundingTracker.org, which serves as an open database for tracking funding relationships in the US. An analysis of this database revealed that the leading US foreign policy think tanks received approximately 110 million USD from foreign governments, 1.5 billion USD from the US government, and 35 million USD from Pentagon contractors. Notably, it found that over a third of these top think tanks do not disclose any information about their donors. This raises important questions about how such funding influences US foreign policy.
In an age where information equates to power, scepticism towards intellectual authority has grown alongside the spread of misinformation. Think tanks, academic institutions, and research organisations—key players in producing knowledge, conducting research, and influencing public policy—hold considerable sway.
While achieving complete independence may be a daunting task, transparency in funding is essential for maintaining intellectual integrity and building public trust. Without a clear understanding of who backs their work and why, the credibility of research efforts can falter, blurring the line between unbiased analysis and concealed agendas.
The funding dilemma: Autonomy vs. dependency
The interplay between funding and intellectual autonomy is complex. On Think Tanks has consistently argued that it’s not merely about who provides the funding but also the manner in which it is given. Funding structures greatly affect the autonomy of research institutions. Consider the following:
- Core vs. Project-Based Funding—Core funding offers stability, greater independence, and flexibility, empowering researchers to follow their own initiatives and explore self-directed projects. In contrast, short-term, project-specific funding often confines research agendas to the priorities set by donors, limiting exploration to specified questions or policy goals (SOS Report, 2024). (See core funding series)
- Single-Source Dependence—A heavy reliance on a single sponsor—be it a government, corporation, or international organisation—can steer research agendas more in line with donor interests than the real policy needs of society.
- Diversification as a Solution—Having a variety of funding sources minimises the risk of undue influence. Organisations supported by multiple contributors, such as public donations, philanthropic foundations, and grants, are better equipped to uphold their intellectual freedom.
In the discussion on diversification, Prof. Pelopidas pointed out that this strategy can sometimes obscure conflicts of interest. If one donor uses the think tank’s evidence for their profit or influence, having multiple donors does not necessarily lessen that donor’s power. When the principle of diversification is prioritised over the need to avoid conflicts of interest, there is a serious risk of not only allowing unethical practices but also legitimising them as acceptable. A dominant vested interest might argue that their influence is justified because other players are involved.
While formal or informal connections with governments, corporations, or political entities do not automatically compromise independence, the nature of these relationships and the conditions tied to funding play critical roles in determining the level of intellectual freedom.
The myth of neutrality: Why transparency trumps objectivity
The notion that think tanks and research institutions can operate with complete neutrality is an unrealistic goal. These entities are inherently political, interacting with policymakers, political parties, and interest groups to shape policy and foster informed discussions. Although they aim for independence, their funding sources, affiliations, and ideological leanings inevitably shape their outputs. The real question is how they navigate the tightrope between independence and political influence. (Read Transparency should replace (strive to) impartiality in policy research by Goran Buildioski)
Hans Gutbrot from Transparify argues in “Credibility – The Role of Transparency” that openness fosters more nuanced discussions about credibility. Individuals can be motivated while still delivering rigorous, high-quality research; being transparent about these motivations helps build trust rather than erode it. Transparency allows stakeholders to recognize potential biases and assess the reliability of the research.
Transparency should not stop at financial disclosures. It must encompass values, affiliations, research methodologies, governance structures, and quality control measures, ensuring that the interests of funders are open to scrutiny and verification. Read also Towards a Global Agenda in Think Tanks Transparency from Orazio Bellettini.
The real cost of secrecy: Dark money and public distrust
Despite the vital importance of transparency, many think tanks and research organizations continue to withhold information about their funding sources. This secrecy raises several critical concerns:
- Public Perception of Bias—Even in cases of genuine independence, undisclosed funding invites speculation that findings may be influenced by hidden agendas.
- Erosion of Democratic Debate—Without knowing who finances research, policymakers and the public may find it difficult to distinguish between objective analysis and narrative-driven agendas.
- Rise of Conspiracy Theories—A lack of transparency creates a breeding ground for misinformation, weakening trust in research institutions and the broader political framework.
When funding sources remain undisclosed, it undermines public confidence in think tanks and the political system at large. When individuals are unaware of the financial backers behind evidence, they may perceive findings as serving private interests over the public good. Such a lack of transparency can corrode democratic processes and informed decision-making, allowing politically motivated or commercially driven research to dominate discourse.
Caveats of transparency
Shielding information from public scrutiny can undermine efforts to strengthen public institutions. However, a lack of transparency may be permissible in certain situations. For example, in politically sensitive environments, a regime might exploit funding information to target either the grantee or the funder.
A relevant incident occurred on February 25 in Serbia when Serbian police raided the offices of four civil society organisations, including the Center for Research, Transparency, and Accountability (CRTA) and Civic Initiatives. This action was part of an investigation into the alleged misuse of USAID funds and potential money laundering. These raids followed the U.S. administration’s 90-day suspension of foreign aid in January and subsequent efforts to dismantle USAID. This situation unfolds ongoing anti-corruption protests against President Aleksandar Vucic’s government.
In his article, “Is Too Much Transparency a Bit of a Problem?“, Enrique Mendizabal points out that excessive transparency can have unintended negative effects. He argues for a balance between transparency and the vital aspects of security, privacy, and the practical realities of operating within complex political landscapes.
Often, these security risks represent exceptions rather than the norm. The absence of transparency raises significant red flags; it can range from the misuse of a once-sterling reputation to a blatant disregard for democratic principles and processes or even a genuine intent to promote specific agendas.
Learning from transparency leaders
Several organisations have set inspiring examples by taking significant steps toward transparency in their funding practices. For instance:
- Grupo FARO in Ecuador limited the funding from any single donor to a maximum of 30%, thus avoiding over-dependence on one source.
- CIPPEC in Argentina accepts corporate funding only for general issue-based research, ensuring that companies do not have a say in the outcomes of specific projects.
- WALHI, Indonesia’s Friends of the Earth, refuses both government and corporate funding to maintain credibility in their environmental advocacy, relying instead on grassroots fundraising efforts.
These examples highlight that financial transparency is not just possible; it’s crucial for building credibility and fostering long-term public trust.
A call for global standards
To combat the issues stemming from funding secrecy, some experts are advocating for a global framework on think tank transparency. According to Orazzio Belletini in Towards a Global Agenda on Think tanks Transparency, this framework should ideally include several key principles:
- Ongoing Disclosure: Institutions need to provide regular updates on their funding sources and financial status, rather than just annual reports.
- Holistic Transparency: Beyond just financial details, organisations should also share their governance structures, research methodologies, and decision-making processes.
- Contextual Adaptation: It’s essential to adapt transparency practices to fit different political and cultural contexts.
Conclusion: Transparency leads to credibility
Transparency regarding funding isn’t just a formality; it’s a necessity. Without transparency, even the most meticulous research may be dismissed as biased or compromised. As think tanks and research institutions increasingly shape public discourse and influence policy, their commitment to openness will be crucial in determining their credibility and long-term impact.
Ultimately, it’s not a matter of whether funding affects research—it undeniably does. The pressing question is how openly institutions recognise and handle these influences. The more transparent they are, the greater their integrity will be, and the more trust they will earn from the public they aim to serve.
In conclusion, financial sustainability and intellectual independence often find themselves at odds. Think tanks must navigate this delicate balance by strategically managing their funding sources while upholding their transparency and credibility.