In much of the Global South, think tanks are entering a period of profound uncertainty. International aid is contracting, bilateral priorities are shifting, compliance is tightening, and domestic philanthropy is becoming more competitive and impact-driven. Research organisations that once relied on a handful of anchor donors now find themselves navigating a fragmented and fast-moving ecosystem.
India’s experience illustrates this shift vividly. Social sector funding has grown at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 13% over the last five years. Government spending accounts for around 95% of total social sector funding. Private spending is rising, though still relatively small compared to public spending. However, it is expected to grow by 10-12% in the next 5 years. While this is good news, the challenge is that donors today demand more than good intentions: they want data-backed evidence, co-created programmes, and transparent reporting. For think tanks, this requires a fundamentally different kind of fundraising—one rooted not in last-minute proposals, but in long-term strategy.
The fundraising evolution at LEAD at Krea University offers lessons that extend far beyond one institution. Our experience signals what think tanks must do if they aim not just to survive but to remain influential in shaping public debate and policy.
Diversify or decline
Many think tanks remain heavily reliant on one or two donors, often large international foundations. This is neither sustainable nor safe. When a donor changes priorities, entire programs risk collapse. When a large donor shuts down, as in the case of USAID, many small think tanks are forced to close down operations.
LEAD’s own diversification strategy underscores this reality. While we are part of the overall IFMR/ Krea University ecosystem, for all purposes, we are autonomous and responsible for our own fundraising. Our primary funding comes from international philanthropic donors, such as the Gates Foundation and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. We are currently expanding partnerships with corporate/CSR players and strengthening collaborations with multilaterals and academic institutions at the national level. Our aim is to increase non-FCRA (Foreign Contribution Regulation Act) and domestic funding, building a more resilient portfolio even if the short-term inflows are modest. We are also consciously moving away from single-donor concentration of more than 30-35% of our total funding.
Build the plumbing before you build the pipeline
Fundraising often fails not because ideas lack merit, but because internal systems are weak. Missed deadlines, unclear ownership, scattered documents, and ad hoc communication can undermine even the strongest research concepts.
LEAD tackled this challenge head-on by introducing a structured proposal pipeline that tracks opportunities across themes, funders, and time horizons. The process of setting up this system was neither linear nor without its challenges. Before we moved to a centralised system, our research teams prepared and submitted their own proposals, resulting in significant duplication of effort and multiple proposals submitted to the same donor or to the same call for proposals. When the centralised system was set up, as one might imagine, there was significant resistance from these teams. Our lean fundraising team, which consists of one full-time manager-level staff member under the Director – Partnerships, had to build this system, literally brick by brick, and with full support from senior leadership, it was finally actioned and institutionalised. We still face issues to date, but the system is finally on track.
We aptly call our fundraising team the ‘collaborations’ team, and as the name suggests, our primary goal is to collaborate with all verticals – the research team for technical inputs, the finance team for budget, the grants team for compliance, the admin team for documentation and then the communications team for outreach – to get the work done seamlessly. As our communications team falls under the same function and leadership, reporting to the Director of Partnerships, there is a more streamlined way for one to feed into the other’s work. Our branding efforts, collaterals and even the website is grounded in what the target funding and partner ecosystem looks for.
Fundraising is also an essential, critical part of our Executive Director’s immediate and important goals. Most of our long-term engagements are orchestrated through the ED’s networks. We are also advised by our steering committee on our fundraising strategy. This holistic support system ensures we have sustainable, adequate funding immediately and for the foreseeable future.
We are also recently in the process of integrating a CRM-enabled business development system to streamline workflows—mandatory attachments, automated notifications, leadership approvals, version control, and status updates. This infrastructure ensures that fundraising is not personality-driven or crisis-driven, but institution-driven.
Donor stewardship
Fundraising is not a numbers game; it is a trust game. Internal analysis shows that LEAD’s fundraising plan expects roughly 30-40% of annual funding to come from existing donors and another 20–30% from new ones, with the rest from continued outreach or response to requests for proposals. That 30% retention number is crucial as it underscores the value of donors who stay, grow with the institution, and provide multi-year support.
Good stewardship means high-quality reporting, consistent engagement, field exposure visits, and leadership involvement. It means treating donors not as chequebooks but as partners in change.
Move from projects to platforms
Perhaps the most important shift for think tanks is conceptual. Donors today prefer investing in enduring, systemic initiatives—data platforms, policy labs, institutional hubs—rather than one-off studies.
LEAD’s expertise in building thematic hubs reflects a broader trend: donors are more willing to support long-term capabilities than fragmented outputs. Think tanks must therefore articulate not just what projects they will deliver, but what public-good value they will create over time.
Fundraising is strategic, not administrative
The biggest mistake think tanks make is treating fundraising as a peripheral function. In reality, it is strategic. It shapes independence, research priorities, talent retention, and institutional credibility. At LEAD, fundraising success rests on leadership engagement, cross-team ownership, and coherent storytelling—elements far more important than the proposal template itself.
If think tanks want to thrive, they must embrace fundraising as part of their institutional DNA. They must diversify, systematise, communicate, and above all, cultivate trust.
The next decade will not favour the best-funded think tanks. It will favour the most strategic. And strategy, in today’s environment, begins with how we fund knowledge.