{"id":2229,"date":"2010-11-09T19:12:59","date_gmt":"2010-11-10T00:12:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2021-11-11T05:44:26","modified_gmt":"2021-11-11T10:44:26","slug":"on-the-definition-of-think-tanks-towards-a-more-useful-discussion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/on-the-definition-of-think-tanks-towards-a-more-useful-discussion\/","title":{"rendered":"On the definition of think tanks: Towards a more useful discussion"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the presentation I gave at a recent meeting of think tanks hosted by ODI in London<\/a>. It draws from other posts in this blog but, I hope, provides a stronger argument.<\/p>\n

From:\u00a0Rory Steward:<\/a><\/p>\n

I do a lot of work with policymakers, but how much effect am I having? It\u2019s like they\u2019re coming in and saying to you, \u2018I\u2019m going to drive my car off a cliff. Should I or should I not wear a seatbelt?<\/p>\n

And you say, \u2018I don\u2019t think you should drive your car off the cliff.’<\/p>\n

And they say, \u2018No, no, that bit\u2019s already been decided\u2014the question is whether to wear a seatbelt.\u2019<\/p>\n

And you say, \u2018Well, you might as well wear a seatbelt.\u2019 And then they say, \u2018We\u2019ve consulted with policy expert Rory Stewart and he says . .\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The common definition, employed \u00a0by experts in the field like\u00a0Diane Stone<\/a>, James McGann and others,\u00a0describes them as a distinctive class of organisations \u2013not-for-profit and different and separate from universities, markets and the state- that seek to use research to influence policy. \u00a0However, as I found in the study of\u00a0think tanks in Latin America<\/a>, Africa and Asia, these particular think tanks only exist in the imaginary of those who idealised the Brookings and Chatham Houses of this world; and more often than not, we find ourselves dealing with the exceptions rather than the rule -this was the point of my presentation on\u00a0think tanks at an event in ODI in 2009: hybrids are the norm<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Tom Medvetz<\/a>\u00a0paper,\u00a0Think Tanks as an emergent field<\/a>, provides strong arguments against this view. He argues that this definition is limited because:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. It privileges U.S. and U.K. think tank traditions over all others;<\/li>\n
  2. It leaves out many present day examples that do not fit with the definition: corporatist think tanks in Japan, public think tanks in Vietnam (RAND, by the way, is a federally funded organisation), university based think tanks across Latin America, partisan think tanks in Chile, Uruguay, the U.K. and the U.S., etc.;<\/li>\n
  3. It robs the concept of think tanks of historical depth forgetting that the first think tanks were offshoots of the very same institutions they are now supposed to be independent of; and<\/li>\n
  4. Most significantly, it fails to recognise the importance of the concept itself: He argues that the use of the label is a strategic choice made by organisations within a complex system of actors and relations.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    This last point is worth exploring further. The sudden rise of funding for think tanks has seen a rise in the number of organisations positioning (or-rebranding) themselves as think tanks.<\/p>\n

    Medvetz explains how this positioning as a think tank involves a necessary ‘complex performance of distancing and affinity’:<\/p>\n