Introduction
In times of advanced division of labour as well as international integration, it is certain that governments find it increasingly difficult for them to get the required information and knowledge as regards systemic settings that are essential for justification of policy decisions. Therefore, the governments and states have to invest in bodies that offer expert advices that are tasked with the translation of the findings of basic research into policy options thus, enabling politicians to foresee the effects of their decisions. Think tanks thus, come in handy to bridge the gap between knowledge and power. Think tanks play a significant role in the policy process, and it is worth noting that their significance came into limelight in the twentieth centuries, and this significance has continued to grow up until now. This paper explores the increasing importance of think tanks in ensuring creation of quality and effective policies by looking at the transformation of policy think tanks since their inception and the accompanying drivers that have fueled their productivity.
What are think tanks?
Think tanks are research and analysis institutions that work towards the generation of policy advice on issues thus enabling policy makers and the entire public to make knowledgeable decisions. In democratic societies, think tanks are main policy actors that ensure quality and effective policymaking. However, on the other end of the spectrum, policy think tanks serve as euphemism for special interest groups that have their own agendas, and especially political agendas (Hauck, 2017). Within the aforementioned two ends, a myriad of diverse groups that identify themselves, as think tanks do exist. The role of these think tanks is to bridge a gap between academic and policy-making communities that are in service to public interest. Therefore, think tanks act as an autonomous voice in converting research into a language and form that is easy to comprehend, and s consistent accessible for policy makers and the public (McGann. 2015:8). The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) defines think tanks as a connection between information and influence, which act as filters and synthesizers that help in the identification of issues, scheming of policy clarifications and execution of policy decisions.
For a long time now, think tanks have been primarily western dominated, and this is because of the fact that they were first created in the United States (US). Evidently, the US and Europe countries continue to lead the way in global surveys as regards policymaking, although the highest growth now is being witnessed in Asia (Rich et al, 2011, 4: Hauck, 2017 ). It is certain that the demand for advice is exponentially growing and think tanks are working to make it available. However, it is worth considering that the market for think tanks and advice availability is not clearly structured, and this is reflected in the definition of think tanks whereby no clear definition of think tank has been accepted. According to McGann (2015), the wide variety of think tanks is a reason to cite as many conduct empirical research that differs a little from the research institutes. Moreover, some think tanks depend on existing findings, with no interest in the wider societal settings and thus endeavoring to influence policy in favor of certain interests. Hence, the elite theory, which posits that public policy, reflects the interests of the ruling elite, which means that power and influence are inclined towards the elites while leaving masses subjugated, and this situation is especially true in societies that are autocratic (Anyebe, 2018 p.11). Sometimes, some think tanks operate like activists, and thus offering little that can differentiate them from lobbyists. Different think tanks have different strategies that they use to influence target groups. While some may view themselves as service providers for administrations, others function to address a community of experts or the wider public. The think tanks may finance themselves through commissions from the target groups such as governments, hence state funding, or from third parties that are seeking to obtain influence, and in as much as the think tanks feel a duty towards enlightening the public, it is noteworthy that their attempt to exert influence is a crucial feature of most think tanks (Troy, 2012: 80). Moreover, while some think tanks have a non-profit orientation, others such as private firms offering consultation services are purely profit seeking. While some think tanks are substructures of larger bodies, others are independent organizations and the type of funding the think tanks receive such as full or partial state funding dictates this autonomy. Some think tanks are a private contract research firms while others receive their finances from a foundation. Therefore, an unclear definition means that a typical think tank does not exist (Fraussen and Halpin, 2017). However, main types of think tanks include academic, contract research, and advocacy and party think tanks. Each one of them has its advantages and disadvantages. However, it is notable that the continuous change in the think tank environment has necessitated a relook at the different types. According to McGann (2016:17), the most recent trend in this ever-changing environment is the creation of a hybrid, which includes features of one or more of the dominant think types thus increasing the advantages and minimizing the disadvantages for increased quality and effectiveness of policy making.
What is public policy?
Public policy explains the operation of a political system as a whole. This policy oriented approach to operation of a political system focuses on public decision making whereby the viewpoint that comes out of the political process is utilized in coming up with solutions that concerns the good of the public. The aforementioned point is emphasized by the group theory of politics, which postulates that public policy is a product of the group struggle such that although warring groups would strive to win in their favor at any given moment, the party that is capable winning sustains its gain by utilizing its power to counteract the efforts of the opposing groups (Anyebe 2018, p.8). This then means that various groups in the society are always in the running to influence public policy to its advantage at the formulation level. Different elements have different inputs and thus an effect on the outcome. This then means that the political system functions as a policy sector, and it is worth noting that each sector has all the essential elements of a political system (John, 1998: 2). Public policy has various elements including analytical, evaluative, and normative. The analytical element is characterized by the identification of variables and the exploitation of their relationships (Cmpbell, 2002). On the other hand, evaluative elements regard the discussions on how the different policies perform the different tasks that have been set. Finally, the normative element is concerned with that the public policy should perform. Thus, it is worth noting that public policy is quite useful as policy determines politics.
Proliferation of think tanks
The growth of these think tanks has been explosive, to say the least. Some of the influences that drove this explosive growth include the revolution that has been witnessed in information and technology, the increasing complexity and technical nature of policy issues as well as the increase in the globalization and a rise in the state and non-state actors. Nevertheless, it is also worth mentioning that a decline in the establishment of new think tanks has been witnessed in the recent past, and this is because of interplay of a considerable number of factors. Some of the key factors include an increased regulatory environment in which the think tanks operate, decrease in the funding for policy research and increased competition that is emanating from advocacy organizations, and some of the institutions discontinuing their operations after serving their purpose. Although there has been this depreciation in the number of new think tanks coming up, the existing think tanks have continued to expand their role and influence globally. This development is informed by the realization that governments, and individual policy makers are finding it increasingly challenging to bring expert knowledge to bear in decision-making arrangements. Policy makers are always in need of information that is reliable, accessible, and useful about the societies that they govern (Fraussen and Halpin, 2017). Moreover, the policy makers have to be informed about how the current policies are working, have possible alternatives and the accompanying costs and consequences. Although the aforementioned has been inherent in the policy making processes, trends such as globalization has led to expansion of these think tanks given their unique ability to strengthen the gap between research and policy, and their tendency to increase the quality and effectiveness of policy making.
Approximately 6480 think tanks exist in the world, which is a marked increase from a decade ago (Cmpbell, 2002). North America and Western Europe are leading the way, but it is notable that other regions, specifically Asia, are catching up. Apart from the think tanks, growing in numbers, the scope, and influence of the work of these think tank organizations has expanded dramatically (McGann, 2010:9). An increasing specialization in policymaking has been witnessed among these novel think tanks. Policymaking has been affected by a myriad of issues such as self-interest, and this is especially true in advanced capitalistic societies. Rational choice theories embody this focus on self-interests because in most situations when parties are endeavoring to win elections, they would move towards the center of the philosophical spectrum to ensure they appeal to as many voters as possible, thus ending up on parties echoing one another instead of providing significant alternatives (Anyebe 2018, p.15). However, ideas have since taken over, and their effects on policymaking have brought forth prolific think tanks, a scenario that was not possible in the 1960s and earlier on in the 20th century. Campbell (2002:23) asserts that this fundamental change was because of policy makers suddenly finding themselves faced with unusual problems for which the paradigm in place offers no clear solutions. For example, in the 1970s, policy makers were faced with novel uncertainties, which arose from persistent inflation, decreased economic growth and increased unemployment. The pressure exerted on the policy makers then and the subsequent effect on policymaking led to the fall of Keynesianism and invention of monetary policy (Campbell, 2002). Germany consequently used monetarism and achieved healthy economic results, and this provided an ideal case study and for other governments and states to embrace the change.
The 1970s saw a genuine explosion in the growth of think tanks and this was due to an ideological attack against leading Keynesianism. A considerable number of think tanks established at the time were keen to establish the broad control of neoliberalism such that reformers propagated the undertones of cutting back in the administrative machinery and instead calling on the administrations to outsource state functions (Dorey, 2005). Evidently, at the time, radical economy, and social policy change was on the agenda, as opposed to the scientific underpinnings that now characterize policymaking. Conservative transformations in the UK society at the time was ripe and the think tanks functioned to sway peoples’ thinking through policy making that was geared towards adoption of other workable economic and social courses Fraussen and Halpin, 2017). However, initially, there was a neglect of policy in political science due to the western domination. According to John (1998:3), European and US scholars examined only observable phenomena, which included voting and party strategies to win elections, which were both inputs of the political system. This practice reflects the institutional theory whereby government institutions formulate and execute public policy authoritatively because as government institutions, political life revolves around them. Therefore, the political system was looked at as a part of a chain of events leading from social change to political behavior, and this sidelined policy thus, making it appear as a negligible event arising at the end of the decision making process. In the UK, scholars used to examine how the civil service had been structured and means by which parliament sought to scrutinize the executive (Jann and Wegrich, 2007:46). Evidently, the studies concentrated on the procedures of the government administration rather than the practice of policymaking (Jann and Wegrich, 2007). For this reason, public policy creation emerged at the same time when most western states expanded the scope of their responsibilities including the reach to economic policy, antipoverty programs, and policies to improve public healthcare in the 1960s.
In this world of policymaking where think tanks have a marked philosophical alignment, the public knowing the think tanks’ relationships to clients and their consequent funding is important. Quality assurance is important as regards policy advice for organizational independence as it is important in ensuring impartial policymaking. According to Rich et al (2011: 6), in the UK, quality assurance is minimal and this follows the fact that these think tanks receive little funding thus leading to struggle for survival as numerous small competing groups have come up, and their occupation has since changed to that of headline hunting. The influence of mass media has since taken center stage on agenda setting. However, in Germany, the situation is different and this is because of the variety of funding resources whereby apart from governments providing the funds, private persons as well as social organizations fund the think tanks. As a result, the think tank landscape is clearly outlined, more balanced and more transparent than that of the UK.
Think tanks have now begun to prove their usefulness in the policy sphere especially as information transfer mechanisms and change agents through their collaboration with diverse private and public actors. The potential of think tanks in researching and developing solutions to issues today has been made possible by global expansion and networking among the think tanks. It is worth noting that even though policy makers may lack the tools to enable them respond to critical policy problems, the issue is always about a huge amount of information that gets in the way of decision making and not the lack of he information itself (Cairney, 2011:32). For that matter, policy think tanks come in to help in overcoming these obstacles by offering consistent and reachable information and adequate analysis (McGann, 2010:8). Therefore, the challenge for think tanks and policy makers is to use the vast knowledge and the energy is at their disposal from public policy research organizations for the good of the public.
Progressive and novel think tanks
Think tanks that were established during the progressive era understood the power of ideas and according to Hauck (2017), the ability to make their views, known enabled them to succeed. The think tanks devoted most of their time to policy research than many think tanks that were created later on. However, Abelson (2016:148) is quick to point out that this preference does not make them guardians of public interest for whether incorporated in the progressive era or in the 21st century the goals of their motivation is same only that their definition of priorities differ. The aforementioned statement lends to the fact that think tanks are sustained by the ability for them to engage in policy research and public advocacy. Therefore, the proliferation of think tanks in the recent past is due to variable factors, but it is also notable that they place a higher premium on advocacy and marketing than policy research, a move that the Heritage Foundation, a think tank in the US, popularized in the 1970s (Abelson, 2014:129). Think tanks have since recognized the importance of transmitting their ideas to myriad target audiences, thus making their presence felt.
Europe’s most renowned think tanks include the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the International Institute of Strategic Studies, both of which are found in the UK, the Stockholm International Peace Research institute that is found in Sweden and German Institute for International and Security Affairs. Proliferation of think tanks in the UK, Germany, and France has been witnessed since the 1980. Abelson (2014:131) assert that the increase in these institutions in Germany has been due to a change in the country’s tax regime. This change has attracted funding from philanthropists as well as corporations who fund organizations involved in policy research. In UK and France, the proliferation is attributable to the increasing realization that these institutions have the ability to promote discussions on policy issues of utmost importance in an effective manner (Rich et al, 2011). It is apparent that these think tanks, just as the think tanks in the US, have discovered that several conditions have to coexist for them to make an indelible mark in the public policy arena. These include appropriate funding to ensure employment of a rigorous research programme and presence of a political system that gives them a chance to deliver their ideas. However, the US provides more fertile soil for this growth than any other country; hence, the largest numbers of think tanks available are situated in the US.
Apart from the reasons that have made policy think tanks increase in its numbers as well as their productivity, underlying trends in the world have made this possible too. According to (Hart & Vromen, 2008:137), a large increase in the number of states has led to an increase in the number of clients who are in need of policy advice. This holds true especially in the de-colonization period where change of regime in post-communist societies led to establishment of countries that had to start a fresh. Moreover, a growth in the number of donors who wish to use think tanks in encouraging beneficiary countries to embrace good governance practices have played a significant role in this proliferation. Thirdly, the world countries continue to witness a high pace of change in the technical and social arena, and these changes have generated a demand for useable knowledge’s regards the new policy dares and prospects that flow from them. Finally, a significant spring in communication technology that has since enabled quick creation and distribution of knowledge has played a pivotal role in the increase of policy think tanks. Novel think tanks operate on a different model whereby it is no longer about gathering experts together in one room and asking them to focus on a series of issues , brainstorm and come up with ideas presented on solid papers, but rather are quasi virtual organizations that are enabled by internet to limit the grave effects of limited funding (Dorey, 2005:17). This emergent model of think tanks has thus, led to an increase in policy think tanks given the fact that they are smaller, with limited permanent staff with others just free riding in the universities.
Reasons for growth of think tanks
Proliferation of think tanks in modern democracies over the past 30 years has made them increasingly important actors in public policy. The capacity of think tanks contributing to strategic policymaking continues to rise in significance within policy advisory systems. According to Fraussen and Halpin (2017:105), political systems should have the ability to participate in policy conversations and learning that will work in promoting solutions to problems that are critical to society. This ability also makes political institutions not only capable of harnessing the momentum of the policy cycle but also allowing long term and multi-sectorial thinking.
Democratization
North America and Europe continue to experience a boom in think tanks, and this is because of a number of reasons. Of the more than 6000 available think tanks that were listed in 2012, approximately, a third of them are in the US, which is slightly more than those in Europe (McGann, 2015:11). This growth emanates from the fact that administrative, economic, and societal conditions in the US are favorable for think tanks especially as regards the unlimited opportunities available for them to sell their ideas. It is notable that think tanks can only communicate ideas in an effective manner if they have complete access to decision makers and other important stakeholders (Abelson, 2016:144). One of the reasons for proliferation of think tanks in North America and Europe is the nature of the country’s’ political system, which is highly decentralized thus making it easy for think tanks to interact freely with the officials of the government at all levels. This decentralization means that there is a more open debate about decision making of the government actors. As a result, the government does not enjoy the monopoly of information anymore
Globalization
Knowledge has increasingly become an international commodity. The growth of knowledge-based economy has led to increased competition among knowledge-based institutions globally for the best ideas as well as people (McGann, 2015:13). Apart from the increased competition, cultural barriers have since been broken, thus international actors in policy research have increased. Therefore, institutions are able to receive contributions from several foundations and corporations for they have been registered under internal revenue code. Moreover, policy entrepreneurship is high therefore; think tanks do not solely depend on the government for funding but also individuals who have invested as policy entrepreneurs who are keen to promote the vision of their countries.
Modernization
The advances in information technology and communication has led to many think tanks coming up and this is due to the fact that they are able to retrieve relevant information easily and quickly and that the internet enabled communication enables them cut costs especially in an era of limited funding for policy research and public advocacy(Denham, 2005). Moreover, the complexity and technical nature of policy problems has led to a glut in demand thus an increase in the need for supply of think tank services to ensure appropriate solutions to critical issues affecting the public. Moreover, there has been an increase in demand for independent information as well as analysis. This comes in the wake of governments not having a monopoly and control of information. These technological advances have necessitated collaboration with research institutes, which is an opportunity for think tanks to provide independent information and analysis.
Conclusion
Policy think tanks have become more prolific since the 1980s due to a number of reasons such as emergence of globalization and sophisticated information technology and communication. Moreover, the increasing complexity of issues has warranted the increased outsourcing of services from think tanks as regards policy research. Democratization of governments has led to increased open debates about the decision making of the government has created avenues for demand of independent sources for information analysis. In as much as institutions in the progressive era focused on policy research as compared to novel institutions, it is worth noting that they were not guardians of the public for whether the think tanks were incorporated in the 20th, or 21st century their goal was to be involved in public poly implementation. Therefore, only the priorities of the two different eras of think tanks have changed, but not the initial goal. Above all, think tanks have played, and continue to play a significant role in public policy.
