{"id":5328,"date":"2018-02-19T11:52:09","date_gmt":"2018-02-19T16:52:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2023-10-20T09:21:13","modified_gmt":"2023-10-20T14:21:13","slug":"setting-up-a-think-tank-lessons-from-timor-leste-part-2-alternative-institutional-structures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/setting-up-a-think-tank-lessons-from-timor-leste-part-2-alternative-institutional-structures\/","title":{"rendered":"Setting up a think tank: lessons from Timor-Leste (Part 2: alternative institutional structures)"},"content":{"rendered":"
The first article in this series highlighted some aspects of the local context that were important in designing a new think tank for Timor-Leste. The balance between \u201cin house\u201d and \u201cexternal\u201d expertise seemed particularly important for Timor-Leste, but the strengths and weaknesses of each option are also likely to be important for any effort to setup a new think tank, especially in small countries with limited research capacity.<\/p>\n
The \u201cin house\u201d model for a think tank involves permanently employed research staff (in addition to its administrative, financial and communications staff).<\/p>\n
Potential Strengths<\/strong><\/td>\nPossible Weaknesses<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Work of in house researchers perceived as more legitimate<\/p>\n | Researchers have more opportunities to influence policy<\/p>\n Potential for interdisciplinarity<\/p>\n Researchers more committed to the success of the institution<\/p>\n Helps build local capacity<\/td>\n Requires highly qualified staff<\/p>\n | Delays in recruiting and training staff<\/p>\n Bureaucratic rigidity<\/p>\n Financial sustainability is more challenging<\/p>\n Need for funding to meet high fixed costs reduces institution\u2019s ability to respond to local policy priorities<\/p>\n Perceptions of partisanship<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Let\u2019s explore the strengths and weaknesses of this model, based on the experiences of think tanks in other countries (in the region and elsewhere).<\/p>\n As we said in our first article, the availability of human capital matters when setting up a think tanks. Thus, a first challenge of this model in a small country is that staffing the think tank with highly qualified researchers may be an issue: good policy analysts are likely to be scarce and highly sought after by the government and private sector, which can offer generous salaries.<\/p>\n But this model also comes with advantages. For instance, policy research carried out by local researchers may have more legitimacy among policy makers. They may believe, for example, that local researchers are in a better position to take into account the local context in their analysis and recommendations. Also, as a practical matter, in house research staff are more readily available to pursue influencing actions. Since they are employed by the think tank they are in principle available to build relationships with policy makers, and to identify emerging policy issues and opportunities.<\/p>\n But on the other hand, in house staff may contribute to perceptions of partisanship and bias, especially in highly politicised environments. Research staff will naturally have an interest in policy issues and think tanks in other countries have on occasion been perceived as aligned with a particular party or its positions. This creates a risk that the think tank as a whole will be perceived as having a partisan bias, which might reduce its credibility (though our interviews did not suggest that this has been the case with the PLG). Moreover, finding the funds to support an institution with a large number of highly trained (and possibly expensive) staff may create financial pressures that may push the institution to work on issues that reflect the priorities of funders instead of responding to a locally driven research agenda.<\/p>\n International experience suggests some other important advantages from bringing together a group of researchers \u201cunder one roof\u201d. The in house option offers opportunities for interactions and discussions among the research staff: this might, for example, encourage a more interdisciplinary and problem oriented approach to policy issues. In addition, if the think tank manages its human resources well, motivating its researchers and offering them good career prospects these researchers may be more committed to the long term success of the institution than external experts engaged on short term contracts. If the number of research staff grows over time, there is a risk that the think tank may become more formal and bureaucratic in its procedures and loose the flexibility to respond to emerging policy issues on which its researchers do not have experience.<\/p>\n The in house model also contributes to broader goals beyond the organisation itself: providing the local staff with opportunities to carry out policy research contributes to a long-term goal of building national research capacity. Recruiting and training the staff can, however, be a lengthy and time-consuming process, and this may well reduce the number of research outputs the think tank can deliver in its initial stages.<\/p>\n From the point of view of sustainability, a think tank with a large number of research staff may be more difficult to fund in the longer term, especially in countries where external donors are reducing their commitments and local sources of support (e.g. philanthropy) have not yet emerged.<\/p>\n
|