Previous
This article was written by CAPS Unlock as part of the publication of the 2024 On Think Tanks State of the Sector Report. Explore the report and resources here.
Think tanks in Central Asia are still in a developmental phase, influenced by post-Soviet transitions, economic changes, and a complex geopolitical environment. Previously dependent on centralised decision-making from Moscow, these countries now require well-grounded, independent policy strategies to tackle an array of challenges, including regional development, climate change, and socio-economic and foreign policy issues. This shift demands high-quality, evidence-based analysis to generate viable policy alternatives for the “5-stans.”
However, only a few organisations are equipped to meet this demand, and their approaches, structures, funding models, and communication styles differ significantly. There are many large but low-profile organisations, often affiliated with government institutions or universities, while other think tanks are independent. Although more agile, they tend to be weaker in institutional capacity and face serious funding limitations.
Download the 2024 Think Tank State of Sector Report
Regardless of their structure, all operate within an “ecosystem” of constraints imposed by the authoritarian regimes in Central Asia, which profoundly impacts their operations, growth potential, and ability to influence policymaking.
How Does This Ecosystem Affect Think Tanks?
Funding Models
Think tanks in Central Asia typically rely on a mix of funding models to sustain their activities. These include core funding, project-based support, consulting services, and grants from international donors. However, the majority of surveyed organisations lack core funding and rely heavily on project-based financing (60%). This reliance on short-term project cycles undermines financial stability, restricts the development of long-term and independent research agendas, and forces organisations to devote substantial resources to securing new grants, rather than focusing on impactful research.
According to the survey, 40% of respondents reported that their funding lasts only 6 months to 1 year, while 50% have funding for 1 to 2 years—an insufficient timeframe even for recently established organisations (77% of which were registered between 2010 and 2019, and 23% within the last five years). This limited financial stability compels many think tanks to explore alternative funding sources. The top three funding channels identified in the survey include consulting services (50%), support from international development organisations (50%), and government grants (40%). Only 20% of organisations depend solely on domestic sources, 30% primarily on domestic funding, and 40% rely mainly on international sources.
However, the regional context complicates the over-reliance on foreign funding, presenting several challenges and risks. Dependence on external donors subjects think tanks to shifting donor priorities and a volatile geopolitical landscape, which can be unfavourable to local organisations. Moreover, collaboration with international donors has become increasingly difficult in recent years. Several Central Asian states have started to develop or implement “foreign agent” laws, modeled after Russian legislation. These laws target civil society organisations receiving foreign funding, potentially jeopardising the operations of think tanks across the region.
In summary, the current think tank funding model in Central Asia involves significant trade-offs and constant existential risks, especially in an environment where academic and political freedoms are constrained.
Political Constraints
Over the past three decades, the authoritarian political landscape in Central Asia has severely restricted academic freedom and liberty, which in turn has hampered the operations of think tanks across the region. These constraints affect every stage of their work, from research design to the dissemination of findings. Although there have been slight improvements as of 2023, Central Asian countries continue to rank low on the Academic Freedom Index: Kyrgyzstan (0.48), Kazakhstan (0.44), Uzbekistan (0.30), Tajikistan (0.08), and Turkmenistan (0.05).
In this restrictive environment, think tanks often function as technocratic advisory bodies, primarily endorsing predetermined policies rather than challenging existing paradigms or proposing new strategies. Government control and censorship, manifesting through “red lines” and taboo topics, severely limit their autonomy and effectiveness, hindering their ability to influence policy and conduct meaningful research. Many opt to keep their research private, steering clear of any public attention whenever possible.
Recent findings from the OTT survey indicate that 40% of respondents in Central Asia believe think tanks operate under significant restrictions, while another 30% see them as occupying a middle ground—neither fully restricted nor entirely independent. Only 30% view them as mostly independent.
The research agendas of many think tanks are largely dictated by government priorities, restricting their capacity to investigate broader or more critical issues. According to the survey, 60% of respondents indicated that the government drives the research agenda, with the remaining 40% split among academic institutions, policymakers, civil society, and donor organisations.
The political climate further undermines think tanks’ influence on policy-making. In authoritarian regimes, their recommendations are often ignored or selectively adopted based on political expediency. This repressive environment exposes think tanks to risks such as surveillance, harassment, and legal challenges, further impeding their research and public engagement. The survey reveals that 40% of respondents report a negative impact from the political situation, 50% note no change, and only 10% perceive a positive effect.
Despite these obstacles, some think tanks have managed to adapt by focusing on less contentious topics. However, this constrained environment significantly affects their funding, limits strategic planning, and even poses existential threats. For example, the Kyrgyzstan-based Central Asia Barometer recently suspended its activities due to an increasingly hostile political climate, which made it difficult to collect public opinion data on sensitive issues such as foreign policy, the Russia-Ukraine war, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious matters. This case illustrates the broader struggles faced by think tanks in navigating a constrained and often hostile political environment in the region.
Navigating the Ecosystem of Constraint: A Path Forward?
Navigating this complex and restrictive ecosystem requires strategic adaptation and resilience. Think tanks in Central Asia must explore diversified funding models that reduce dependence on government and foreign donors while building alliances with local and regional actors who can support their missions without compromising independence. Engaging in less politically sensitive but socially relevant research topics could provide a path to sustainability while also contributing meaningfully to public discourse.
All surveyed organisations affirmed their capacity to adapt to current challenges: 67% agreed with this statement, while 33% expressed strong agreement.
Collaborative networks with international think tanks and academic institutions could offer additional support, providing avenues for intellectual exchange and capacity building. Strengthening internal governance and improving organisational resilience will be crucial in mitigating risks associated with political interference and censorship.
Ultimately, despite the challenging environment, think tanks in Central Asia are important actors in shaping policy discussions and offering nuanced insights on the region’s most critical issues. Their importance is set to grow, as the region increasingly requires robust analysis, innovative ideas, and well-crafted policies to address its complex challenges.
