{"id":2241,"date":"2010-10-18T19:27:57","date_gmt":"2010-10-19T00:27:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2016-01-26T19:29:36","modified_gmt":"2016-01-27T00:29:36","slug":"on-the-definition-of-think-tanks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/on-the-definition-of-think-tanks\/","title":{"rendered":"on the definition of think\u00a0tanks"},"content":{"rendered":"
I have yet to be able to get through a presentation or debate about think tanks without the issue of their definition getting in the way of what would have otherwise been a thoroughly interesting discussion.<\/p>\n
The common definition describes them as a distinctive class of organisations -different and separate from universities, markets and the state. This definition has been employed by experts in the field like\u00a0Diane Stone<\/a>, James McGann and others. However, as I found in the study of\u00a0think tanks in Latin America<\/a>, Africa and Asia, these think tanks only exist in the imaginary of those who idealised the Brookings and Chatham Houses of this world.<\/p>\n Tom Medvetz paper,\u00a0Think Tanks as an emergent field<\/a>, provides strong arguments against this view. He argues that this definition is limited because:<\/p>\n\n