{"id":484,"date":"2015-11-12T21:24:51","date_gmt":"2015-11-12T21:24:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=484"},"modified":"2016-01-13T20:37:51","modified_gmt":"2016-01-13T20:37:51","slug":"do-not-dumb-down-you-audience-or-rather-how-should-think-tanks-affect-policy-chance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/do-not-dumb-down-you-audience-or-rather-how-should-think-tanks-affect-policy-chance\/","title":{"rendered":"Do not dumb down you audience \u2013or rather, how should think tanks affect policy chance?"},"content":{"rendered":"
[Editor\u2019s note: This is the long version of a presentation I gave at the\u00a0Global Health Programme<\/a>\u00a0in Geneva on the 12th November,\u00a0on the role of think tanks in global health policy<\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n This is my presentation, divided into three parts:<\/p>\n All of this, of course, very much aware that this is my view and that you may very well disagree \u2013and that I may be wrong.<\/p>\n But I am fine with that.<\/p>\n In 2009 I was asked to carry out a study on\u00a0DFID\u2019s approach to influencing health policy around the world<\/a>. I was working at ODI at the time and we put together a report drawing from cases from DFID\u2019s influencing efforts at the national and international level. We had cases from the Global Fund, Zambia, Nigeria, Mozambique, India and Nepal.<\/p>\n The Zambian case is particularly interesting \u2013and I remember it better than the others because I went on to work in Zambia setting up a think tank support programme (more on that later).<\/p>\n The report, in the case of Zambia, reads: \u201cMost of the dialogue happened on a bilateral basis between DFID and the MoH.\u201d<\/p>\n DFID was extremely influential. They commissioned research, worked with different levels of government. Supported the MoH, It was proactive and led discussions at the donor groups. DFID offered to cover the costs involved in removing user fees in the health sector.<\/p>\n The policy changed. And it changed in a way that made DFID very happy. And they were quick to claim that policy change on them.<\/p>\n (I am not going to get into a discussion on how it is not possible for anyone but the person or people responsible for making the policy decision to claim anything other than a vague contribution\u2026 I\u2019ve written about this:\u00a0who is responsible for research uptake?<\/a>)<\/p>\n But was DFID\u2019s approach right?<\/p>\n I was left with sour taste. Abolishing user fees isn\u2019t a small technical matter. Abolishing them \u2013just like introducing them- is a significant political event. It marks a significant change (a traumatic change) in the social contract that a society has with the state.<\/p>\n This is not something that is decided solely on the basis of \u201cevidence\u201d. It is much more about values \u2013politics- than anything else.<\/p>\n Ask yourselves this question: what would we say, in Europe, if USAID or the Chinese government funded think tanks and other groups in Europe with the explicit purpose of reforming our welfare state to look more like the one they have. What would the public say if it found out that our leaders were having private meetings to discuss these changes?<\/p>\n Brookings and the Center for Global Development in DC are now in trouble<\/a>\u00a0for receiving funds from foreign governments \u2013including the Norwegians.\u00a0They are in trouble with the democrats!<\/a><\/p>\n In the most developed or mature democracies and in the most institutionalised states think tanks have a place \u2013and it is clear to all that they are not and cannot claim to be responsible for policy. Other may, but not them.<\/p>\n This takes me to the second point. There is a reason for why think tanks are under constant threat of being seen as too influential.<\/p>\n Policy is important, sure; but policymaking, in the long term, is far more.\u00a0Good policymaking can improve the chances of good policy<\/a>\u00a0(most of the time) but a good policy can be a matter of pure luck and circumstance. It can easily be undone.<\/p>\n In 2009, too, around the same time as we were doing the study of DFID\u2019s influence, I edited a book on the\u00a0relationship between think tanks and political parties in Latin America<\/a>. What is interesting about this book is that political scientists disconnected from the Aid and \u201cglobal think tanks\u201d world wrote it. Back then, the label was not being used \u2013the TTI had not started yet. So they took a rather non-committed approach towards think tanks.<\/p>\n Something similar emerged in their studies. Among the many fascinating stories they wrote about there was a very clear general conclusion; something that\u00a0Tomas Medvetz<\/a>\u00a0has also written about:<\/p>\n In countries where political parties were weak some think tanks took on some of the parties\u2019 programmatic roles: either through informal connections between politicians and researchers, or through the direct involvement of their leaders in politics, or through the good-old revolving door model.<\/p>\n You may say there was nothing wrong with this but the studies suggested that this also reflected a privatization of public policy and the undermining of any efforts to strengthen political parties.<\/p>\n A self-fulfilling prophecy: Parties are weak; lets not work with them; let\u2019s go straight to government; parties remain weak.<\/p>\n The same issue came up again a year later in 2010 when I started working on On Think Tanks and came across a reference from\u00a0Woodrow Wilson warning that the involvement of experts in government where a threat to democracy<\/a>\u00a0because they were increasingly reducing the spaces in which the public could have meaningful debates about issues of public interest. (All this, of course, aware that Wilson was a liberal who believed the public knew better on matters of public interest.)<\/p>\n The rise of think tanks over the course of the 20th\u00a0Century (historically speaking) in associated with the rise of the\u00a0very powerful\u00a0evidence-based narrative<\/a>\u00a0and the privatisation of politics and policy -away from citizens, political parties, and elected officials and towards, appointed technocrats, think tanks, and consultants.<\/p>\n You see this happening, at different moments, in the US, in Argentina, and recently in other countries in Latin America and Africa.<\/p>\n But something else is happening today. Think tanks\u2019 own drive to influence is more than matched by some of their funders\u2019\u00a0thirst and impatience for impact<\/a>.<\/p>\n Last week we published an article by\u00a0Glen Savage on Australian think tanks in which he argues\u00a0that they are undermining democracy<\/a>. He is not alone in this \u2013and most critics of think tanks in the US and the UK would hold the same view that they are too political; often wielding more power than they should.<\/p>\n The argument Savage makes is this: Think tanks, some extremely well-funded (often \u2013and as is the case of the think tanks he talks about- by foreign governments and foundations), use the claim to be \u201cevidence-based\u201d and state-of-the-art communications to change policy by influencing public opinion, lobbying policymakers, and all but co-opting the academic community and intellectual debate.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t hard: when all the money funds policy A then do not be surprised if all think tanks back policy A.<\/p>\n Rather than promote a debate or encourage the development of capacities in parties and government to make the most informed decisions (and also in the media, academia, business, civil society) these well-funded think tanks are accused of exploiting their weaknesses to control the outcome of the policy process.<\/p>\n (I should raise my hands and accept that all those years working with think tanks to help them develop better policy influencing strategies that is exactly what we did: understand your target audience and take advantage of any of their weaknesses.)<\/p>\n The point that Savage and Wilson, and many others, are trying to make is that politics (the decisions of who wins and who loses) should be for the public not for technocrats.<\/p>\n They lack the legitimacy to make these choices.<\/p>\n They should aim not for policy influence but for more informed policy \u2013whatever the policy outcome.<\/p>\n And there is a practical argument for it, too. In their excellent book,\u00a0The Blunders of our Governments,<\/a>Anthony King and Ivor Crew document a series of policies that went terribly wrong in the UK. Underlying all these blunders is a failure to listen and to engage with alternative views. Brilliant people with seemingly brilliant ideas (even technically sound at the time) walked straight into walls and off cliffs \u2013and few saw it coming.<\/p>\n Or better yet, what should think tanks do? Or what should think tanks and their funders do?<\/p>\n Now I must insist. This is my own view. I do not like the approach that the Aid industry has taken that aims to achieve targets regardless of the means \u2013or, as in the case of think tanks, that focus solely on impact that can be attributable to them.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve had the luck of comparing policy debates in both Peru and the UK (and being interested in their outcomes) and I know which one I prefer.<\/p>\n I may not always agree with the outcome but I do not feel cheated; bypassed; or undermined as a citizen.<\/p>\n Also, I\u2019ve seen how policies pushed through by technocrats have been rejected and even overturned. There are a couple of very interesting cases in Peru that are worth studying.<\/p>\n I believe that evidence is important but limited.\u00a0It can tell me \u201cwhat is\u201d; but not what to do.<\/a><\/p>\n So, in the long run we are better-off if parties, governments, academics, the media, the private sector, civil society and the public in general have the capacity to participate \u2013informed and meaningfully.<\/p>\n Think tanks in particular should be concerned about this, as it is clear that they cannot survive as islands of excellence surrounded by weak and mediocre institutions.<\/p>\n So two approaches come to mind that I think are worth considering:<\/p>\n\n
Undue influence?<\/h2>\n
A threat to democracy?<\/h2>\n
So what can think tanks do?<\/h2>\n
The think tanks community approach<\/strong><\/h3>\n