Previous
Imagine an organisation that governments actually want to hear from. Officials cite its research. Journalists call for comment. Its findings shape real decisions. Now imagine that same organisation has no financial reserve, cannot plan more than a year ahead, and is one grant renewal away from crisis.
This is not a hypothetical. According to new data from On Think Tanks’ 2026 State of the Sector survey, it is an accurate description of much of the West African think tank sector.
The 2026 edition of the survey gathered responses from 299 organisations across 94 countries, including 19 respondents from eight West African nations. A regional analysis produced by IPAR, drawing on this dataset, surfaces a paradox worth sitting with: West Africa offers think tanks an unusually receptive environment and a genuine hunger for evidence, yet the sector struggles to convert that opening into durable influence.
That gap between opportunity and capacity is the real story, and it matters now as aid contracts shrink and African governments increasingly look to homegrown expertise on food security, youth unemployment, and regional instability.
The skills gap sits far from research
Ask a West African think tank what it needs most, and the answer is rarely “better researchers.” It’s something else entirely.
The survey shows West African organisations report far higher needs across strategic functions than their global peers (see figure), especially strategic planning and advocacy. Fundraising tops the list at 89%, the highest among the groups surveyed. Research capacity is the exception: 58% versus 47% globally, the smallest gap in the survey.
Figure. Skills think tanks want to strengthen most, by comparison group. Source: Think Tank State of the Sector 2026 survey, IPAR calculations.
The message is unambiguous. These organisations know how to do research. What they lack are the functions that turn research into influence and turn a project into an institution: planning, fundraising, advocacy, governance. It’s the difference between funding a report and funding an organisation capable of producing many reports, for many years, with integrity intact.
This distinction should reshape how donors think about support. A grant that pays for a single study does little to build the institution that will still stand and be trusted five years from now.
Demand for evidence is real, but influence stays modest
Here is where the paradox sharpens. West African think tanks report an environment genuinely favourable to their work. Only 11% expect an unfavourable political climate, compared with 35% globally, and 74% say research evidence is valued in their country, compared with 51% globally. Asked what impact matters most, 58% point to actual policy change, the highest share of any region, rather than mere recognition from decision-makers, which barely registers at 16%, against 29% globally.
In other words, these organisations aren’t chasing prestige. They want to change policy, and they believe their societies are listening. Yet when asked to assess the real scale of their impact, responses cluster around “moderate.” The demand is there. The receptiveness is there. What’s missing sits squarely with the first finding: the institutional muscle to convert an open door into a lasting seat at the table.
This should reassure anyone tempted to write off the region as a hard sell for evidence-based policy. It isn’t. The market for good ideas exists. What’s underdeveloped is the supply chain that gets those ideas from a research desk into a ministry’s decision.
Money arrives easily, but rarely stays long
The funding picture tells a similarly two-sided story, and it’s the one donors most need to understand.
On the surface, things look encouraging. More than half of West African think tanks (53%, compared to 21% globally) secure contracts of two to four years, funding levels are above average, and 63% expect their revenues to grow, compared to 42% globally. Optimism is genuinely widespread.
But scratch the surface, and the fragility is stark. 26% of organisations have no financial reserves whatsoever. Fundraising is, as noted, the single most cited skills gap, and nearly half of respondents describe the sector’s funding climate as unfavourable. The money that does flow in is heavily foreign and heavily concentrated (see figure): a single donor accounts for 43% of an organization’s funding on average.
Figure. Funding sources reported, by comparison group. Source: Think Tank State of the Sector 2026 survey, IPAR calculations.
Longer contracts and rising revenue expectations are sitting on top of near-zero reserves and heavy reliance on a handful of foreign backers. In a moment when international aid budgets have been sharply cut since 2025, that combination is not a footnote. It is the sector’s single biggest risk. Optimism built on this foundation can evaporate in a single donor’s budget cycle.
Most of these think tanks are led by men
One further finding stands out for its clarity, if not its comfort. 79% of West African think tanks in the sample are led by men, compared to 59% globally; only 16% are led by women, compared to 32%. It is the sharpest structural gap in the dataset, a signal that deserves to be named plainly, and one that opens space for organisations working on gender and inclusion to lead by example.
What donors, think tanks, and governments should do next
For donors, the implication is direct: core, flexible, multi-year institutional funding will do more for the sector’s long-term resilience than another round of project grants, however well-intentioned. Financial management and fundraising capacity cannot be built one deliverable at a time.
For think tanks themselves, the finding is a mandate to invest deliberately in the “boring” functions (governance, planning, diversified revenue) even while research remains the visible product. Influence without institutional staying power is borrowed, not earned.
For governments, the message is an invitation: the demand-side conditions for evidence-informed policy already exist in the region. Strengthening domestic public funding, currently the weakest source in the mix, would do more to secure a reliable, sovereign source of policy advice than most governments realise.
IPAR faces the same risks it is describing
IPAR’s own experience reflects both the opportunities and the challenges highlighted by the findings. As a long-established institution anchored in West Africa, with a strong track record in policy dialogue and evidence generation, IPAR is well-positioned to help strengthen the regional think tank ecosystem. It is ready to share its experience while continuing to learn from the diverse experiences of peer institutions across the region, recognising that stronger knowledge exchange is essential for building a more resilient and influential community of think tanks. IPAR is also encouraged by the fact that several of its key leadership positions are held by women, demonstrating its commitment to inclusive leadership at a time when the sector continues to exhibit significant gender disparities.
At the same time, an honest reading of the data does not exempt institutions like IPAR from the challenges it describes. Dependence on international donors, limited institutional reserves, and the constant pressure of resource mobilisation are not problems confined to smaller or younger organisations; they are structural realities shared across much of the region. Acknowledging these vulnerabilities does not weaken the case for change; it strengthens it. It underscores why the call for more flexible, long-term institutional funding is not about the needs of individual organisations, but about building stronger, more resilient institutions that can transform high-quality research into sustained policy influence.
Having an audience is not the same as building an institution
Africa’s think tank sector lacks nothing in good ideas, capable researchers, or receptive audiences. What West Africa’s think tanks need is not more research. It is stronger institutions: capable of surviving a donor’s budget cut, planning five years ahead, and turning today’s political openness into tomorrow’s policy outcomes.
The opportunity is real. So is the work still needed to deserve it.