{"id":579,"date":"2015-07-20T17:27:17","date_gmt":"2015-07-20T17:27:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=579"},"modified":"2016-02-01T10:59:45","modified_gmt":"2016-02-01T15:59:45","slug":"the-future-of-think-tanks-in-africa-trends-to-look-out-for","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/the-future-of-think-tanks-in-africa-trends-to-look-out-for\/","title":{"rendered":"The future of think tanks in Africa: Trends to look out for"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Editor\u2019s note: This is the first of a series of posts on the future of think tanks in Africa that I will write about over the next couple of months. It will be joined by posts from contributors\u00a0on various aspects of this important issue. If you would like to join the series please get in touch.]<\/em><\/p>\n

Spending a couple of weeks in Kenya is not enough to develop and share a thorough account of what is going on in the world of think tanks in Africa. But it may be enough to identify, with the intention of starting a discussion about them, a few trends or signs that may frame our discussion on the future of think tanks. As always, feel free to challenge me on the following.<\/p>\n

More capable,\u00a0yet more insecure: the space for debate is shrinking (temporarily?)<\/h2>\n

The view of some of the people I spoke to is that the government in Kenya is becoming more professional and technical and as a consequence there is greater demand for \u201cevidence-based\u201d advice. On the other hand, most of those I spoke to, also argued that the space for independent\u00a0voices (even if these are supportive of the government) is shrinking. This apparent contradiction is, in fact, possible to explain.<\/p>\n

The State, in general, and the government, in particular, are changing. They are going through a process that combines both investments in its capacity (setting up new institutions, for instance, to oversee a devolution policy) and facing new challenges (security threats, a larger middle class, etc.). Unfortunately, these new institutions, their leaders and employees are not yet sufficiently capable of handling their roles. This is inevitable as they are only just starting to understand and experience\u00a0their new roles. In this context, understandably -yet unfortunately, they are overzealous in their position\u00a0as decision makers and\u00a0do not\u00a0want others looking over their shoulders.<\/p>\n

They do not want to be seen to \u2018ask for advice\u2019, either. Instead, they\u00a0rather co-opt or incorporate researchers, experts and practitioners into their ranks than engage in a public discussions with them. Certainly not when these discussions may involve questions of a political nature.<\/p>\n

I have seen this happening in other countries, too. Peru, for instance has seen a rise of what I have, half-jokingly, termed:\u00a0the hipster government,\u00a0<\/em>made up of a new generation of young, well-educated (often abroad), and driven policymakers who lack\u00a0political awareness and have a limited\u00a0experience. They use evidence, there is no doubt about it, but only that evidence (and the experts) that they already know about and trust. They are not specialists, either, and are likely to move from ministry to ministry following new charismatic technocrats or Aid money.<\/p>\n

Therefore, independent voices, especially on \u201cpolitics\u201d are discouraged and instead they are told to \u201ctalk evidence, not politics [values])\u201d. The extremes of this can be found in Chile in the 70s and in China.<\/p>\n

Donors are inevitable companions of this stronger government and have reportedly removed their support from many civil society groups now under pressure from the government. Where, before, international funders may have promoted programmes that worked both with the government and civil society, they are now focusing their attention on government\u00a0only. In Kenya, the civil society components in a couple of devolution strengthening programmes have been reportedly been\u00a0removed at the request of the government.<\/p>\n

Far from passing judgement, I think this is something that we need to understand. It is not the first time\u00a0this happens anywhere else in the world. It\u2019s quite expected in fact and I think it is a feature of most governments at the early stages of public policy management\u00a0professionalisation. Unfortunately, things can also slip into authoritarianism and that ought to be avoided. It appears that\u00a0Tanzania<\/a>\u00a0has passed legislation that bans the use of data not sanctioned by the State. This is one of such cases where insecurity may have gone too far.<\/p>\n

In this moment of flux, forms may matter more for those in power \u2013which means both those IN power and those WITH those IN power. The\u00a0narrative of evidence based policy<\/a>\u00a0can be turned into a\u00a0political tool in this kind of circumstance. It excludes many with a legitimate opinion (even if they have a great idea) from any policy discussion.<\/p>\n

Not surprisingly, then, the space may be opening for those working inside the sphere of influence of the government and focusing entirely (or mostly) on questions of a technical nature: how to implement rather than what do to or why do it in the first place.<\/p>\n

But the space is closing for those outside of the inner circles of policymaking or for those interested in an open debate on what may or should be the policy agenda and what should be done about it.<\/p>\n

Funding is less certain than it seems<\/h2>\n

I travelled to Kenya thinking that funding was not something that African think tanks ought be worried about. International aid funders are still going strong in their support to Africa -most of it, at least. Other regions, where economic growth has pushed many countries to comfortable middle-income country status, are facing a rapid drop in foreign funding opportunities.<\/p>\n

Well, things are not as rosy as I thought they were in Africa. Two important trends were reported.<\/p>\n

First, core\u00a0funding<\/a>\u00a0is on its way out. Only a few funders are willing to provide core funding -that the organisation may choose to use for long term programatic and strategic objectives- and even fewer allow for project funding with built-in overhead. Of particular importance is the African Capacity Building Foundation\u2019s sudden funding cuts which have seen many of the largest economic policy think tanks in the continent face significant losses. (Although we should note that ACBF funded think tanks are often linked to governments and have been until now some of the few with core funding; maybe this evens-out the playing field a bit. It will be interesting to note if thee think tanks are supported by the governments. It would be a sign of \u201cimpact\u201d.)<\/p>\n

Second, foreign funders are also under pressure to tone down their support for civil society: certainly for anyone trying to \u201cinfluence policy\u201d. This is the inevitable consequence of a stronger government and an empowered society. Just like\u00a0Americans do not like it when the Norwegians pay think tanks to influence their government<\/a>, Kenyans are no longer keen on the British or the Canadians doing the same in their country.<\/p>\n

Funders of economic and policy research in Africa are mostly international agencies \u2013bilateral, multilateral and foundations. They are increasingly monitored and managed by the stronger and more professional State that does not appreciate them running amok with their own grand plans and foreign-dreamed visions of development.<\/p>\n

Funders, that are, by nature, risk averse, seem to be turning even more conservative under these circumstances. Yet, if not them, who will fund and support alternative thinking?<\/p>\n

The status quo is being disrupted<\/h2>\n

I travelled to Kenya also thinking that just as there were young entrepreneurs making the news for their innovation and successes, there had to be young policy entrepreneurs challenging the status quo.<\/p>\n

Once again, I picked up two different narratives: one that argues that there is a hierarchy in policy research and that this hierarchy is appropriate to ensure quality (so, it matters who has the good idea); and another that argues that this hierarchy, and authority in general, is being challenged (so, what matters is the idea, not whose idea it is).<\/p>\n

For Rob Burnet at\u00a0Well Told Story<\/a>, there is no doubt that this disruption has happened already. A good indicator is that newspaper readership in Kenya has dropped from 33% (of people who read a newspaper regularly) in 2007 to 8% in 2015. People are still getting their news. But not from\u00a0newspapers. If authority\u00a0is being challenged here I think it is safe to say it is being challenged elsewhere, too.<\/p>\n

It was not hard to find\u00a0new players in the policy research \/policy entrepreneurship field who\u00a0do not know nor appreciate these rules. They are young men and women returning from the US and Europe where they have been working in the private sector, academia or in think tanks, or where they have been studying in environments where the usual hierarchies are treated with respect and flexibility: good ideas are good ideas regardless of who has them.<\/p>\n

Expats living in Africa and who feel a sense of public duty for the country where they live and work (and pay taxes) are joining them, too. Together they are leveraging their international and domestic networks to set-up new outfits \u2013which may not look like the idealised think tank but walk and talk like one.<\/p>\n

While not a proper trend yet, this means that new alternatives to traditional (or what some consider to be traditional) think tanks are emerging based on:<\/p>\n