The Finnish Think Tank Landscape – A Mixture of Consensualism and Adversity?

As a common feature of Nordic countries, the Finnish landscape of thinks tanks has been populated by large corporatist interest organisations and government-funded research organisations. In addition to this, since 2005, party-affiliated think tanks form a notable part of the picture. Recently, several small think tanks that are oriented towards specific themes, such as international relations, the environment and feminism, have been founded. This article examines Finnish developments in the field of think tanks with two objectives. First, it gives a general overview of the Finnish think tank landscape. Second, by using interview data and public mission statements of the most prominent think tanks, it explores how these organisations see their role in Finnish society. What is their relationship with media and the political machinery, and how does this relate to their position and activities as either consensual or adversarial actors? It is concluded that redeeming the place of think tanks in the Finnish polity is a continuing challenge, and resorting to adversarial tactics is not a favourable way to do so. This approach has mostly been attempted by neoliberal think tanks that, in the past, have also profited from corporatist structures to enhance their objectives.     

American Think Tanks: Policy Elites and the Politicization of Expertise

This article examines policy expertise and the role of think tanks in the context of shifting political alignments in American government. The article first considers the radical and neoconservative critiques of the liberal use of an elite group — or "new class"— of policy experts to formulate and legitimate political reform agendas, a strategy said to represent a technocratic threat to the future of representative government. The discussion then focuses in particular on the neoconservative critique and its promotion of a counter strategy designed to politicize policy expertise through the development of a conservative "counterintelligensia" and the funding of partisan think tanks. The political outcome is seen to be a significant variation in the relationships linking expertise, think tanks, and the setting of national policy agendas. Elite think tanks, conceptualized as policy "discourse coalitions," are analyzed as institutional mechanisms for coordinating the advice of leading policy experts with the interests of economic and political elites. Although the experts' role in these policy-planning organizations falls short of the threat envisioned by the technocratic critique, the political implications of the emergent elite relationship between expertise and policy formation is nonetheless seen to pose troubling questions for both the theory and parctice of representative governance.     

Public and Private Think Tank Visibility in the Danish Parliament and Media

While the number of think tanks in Denmark has increased considerably in recent decades, our knowledge about their visibility in political arenas is limited. The article explores how and why the mentions of private and public think tanks in the parliamentary and media arenas has developed from 2005 to 2018. Building on insights from previous studies of think tanks, publicly funded think tanks are expected to achieve more parliamentary mentions than private think tanks because they are expected to be more heavily influenced by institutionalized norms to target inside actors through parliament. By contrast, privately funded think tanks are expected to achieve more media mentions than public think tanks, because they are policymaking outsiders and emphasize public advocacy over direct influence. Although publicly funded think tanks have been more visible in the parliamentary arena than private think tanks, their visibility has declined. Private think tanks are more visible than public think tanks, but media visibility for privately funded think tanks also drops towards the end of the period. The article concludes that public or private funding cannot fully explain changes in think tank visibility in the two arenas over time. Instead media and parliamentary mentions are driven by a handful of think tanks while most think tanks struggle to achieve and maintain parliamentary and media visibility over time.     

The Role of Think Tanks in the Swedish Political Landscape

The term ‘think tank’ represents a heterogeneous concept and is used to characterise a diverse group of organisations. This diversity also characterises the Swedish organisations and institutions that currently fall under the think tank umbrella. In the Swedish political context, most organisations known by the public and news media as think tanks are advocacy organisations with an unambiguous ideological and political profile. Further, during the last decade, we have seen a proliferation of independent, self-declared think tanks with more specific policy agendas, such as the environment and health care. However, according to the broader understanding used in global rankings, the Swedish think tank landscape includes a range of research institutions in different policy areas. Some receive funding from the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, corporations and private donors; others are government-funded, with Stockholm's International Peace Research Institute as a prominent example. The aim of this article is to map the Swedish think tank landscape and its borders and analyse the roles of different types of think tanks in consensual or confrontational policymaking. Strategic differences among these types are related to historical background and funding. While government-funded and some policy-sector think tanks typically represent a tradition of consensual policymaking, those funded by the Corporation of Swedish Enterprise and other business interests represent a post-corporatist development advocating neoliberal ideas and assuming a confrontational role in the expansion of private ownership and market solutions.     

Introduction to Special Issue: Think Tanks in the Nordic Countries

Think tanks in the Nordic countries are now frequently referred to in national media, among decision-makers as well as in academic communities. Based on the literature on think tanks, a consensual and adversarial perspective on their development is advanced. In support of a consensual perspective, the special issue shows that a number of policy think tanks, which play consensual roles in different policy niches, have emerged in the Nordic countries in recent decades. In support of an adversarial perspective, think tank landscapes in the Nordic countries now include advocacy think tanks from both sides of the political spectrum. The mixed think tank landscapes found in the Nordic countries do not constitute a break with consensual policy-making traditions. Nevertheless, a number of privately funded think tanks, which have increased competition for funding, media visibility and political influence, have supplemented established publicly funded think tanks in particular in Scandinavia.     

Measuring the Influence of Think Tanks

It is difficult to present great conclusions about the influence of thinks tanks. The major think tanks have earned an important presence in the Washington policy community. In the words of one political scientist, “Power in Washington cannot be measured precisely, yet think tanks surely have a good deal for it …” The major think tanks are important sources of information to the media, the government, and to a host of interest groups involved in the public policy process. The result is a lively competition of ideas in the policy arena.     

From the margins of politics: The influence of think‐tanks in Britain

Independent policy research institutes have not been subject to much attention from political scientists. however, these organisations have grown considerably in number in great britain over the past four decades. some of these institutes ‐ which are better known as ‘think‐tanks’ ‐ are often said to be influential. this article outlines the development of the british think‐tank industry and then concentrates on the character of think‐tank influence. think‐tank influence is not limited to affecting the course of legislation but must be understood in broader political and cultural terms.     

Think tanks in transitional China

There is a growing interest in China's think tanks within and outside China. But many questions remain to be answered. How have their roles changed over time? Why are some think tanks more active than others in some areas, but less so in others? To answer such questions, the authors classify China's think tanks according to organisational structure, as a key explanatory concept. A longitudinal review shows that since the 1970s the organisational structure of think tanks has evolved gradually from semi‐official to civilian, with the evolving structures playing different roles and complementing one another. Following analysis of four case studies of China's think tanks, two of which are semi‐official and two of which are civilian, the article draws a picture of the complex relationship between organisational structure, strategy and behaviour of China's think tanks. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How Do Advocacy Think Tanks Relate to Academic Knowledge? The Case of Norway

Think tanks often present themselves as contributors to a more reflective and informed political debate and their policy advice as based on knowledge and research. Yet, they also claim to be alternatives to university research and research institutes and often use knowledge and expertise to pursue explicitly ideological agendas. How do think tanks handle this balancing act of knowledge provision and ideological commitment? How do they relate to academia and what characterizes their approach to academic knowledge? The paper explores these questions through an investigation of the three main advocacy think tanks in Norway, based on an analysis of their organization, activities, staff and publications, and through interviews with think tank staff. The paper describes the specific ways in which these think tanks gather and utilize knowledge, and how they position themselves relative to academia. It also reflects on possible explanations for this pattern and on its normative implications.     

Rapid knowledge: ‘Bridging research and policy’ at the Overseas Development Institute

Numerous organizations advocate the need to ‘bridge research and policy’. Philanthropic foundations, national social science funding regimes and international organizations have sought to improve knowledge utilization. Similarly, research consumers such as NGOs and government departments complain of research irrelevance for policy purposes. The concern of this article is with ‘evidence informed policy’ within the field of international development in which the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), a London‐based think tank, forms the case study. Most think tanks are driven by the need to influence immediate political agendas but ODI has also developed organizational strategies of policy entrepreneurship that extend to longer term influence through creating human capital, building networks and engaging policy communities. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

American Right-wing Libertarians: the Opponents of Democracy, Ecology and Ethics

This essay explores the ideology of right-wing libertarian think tanks and legal foundations-a branch of the anti-green movement (which can also be referred to as the anti-environmental movement, contrarianism, or the countermovement against sustainability). Specifically, it examines the beliefs and values, images and symbols, techniques and tactics, and the financial/socio-political connections of right-wing libertarian groups. It also investigates the flaws emerging from the groups' ideological position. The findings demonstrate that right-wing libertarian think tanks and legal foundations have an ethically disputable and incoherent ideological stance. Embedded within their discourse is an interest in securing social, economic and political control at the expense of the common good and environmental welfare. This is an explicit but more often implicit agenda. For instance, they declare themselves as public advocates, even though they represent private, corporate concerns.     

A New Era for Think Tanks in Public Policy? International Trends,Australian Realities

Although the powerful have always sought advice from the knowledgeable, it took the appeal of the policy sciences movement of the late 1940s and onward to build and consolidate a veritable industry of policy analysis and advice. ¹ One of the hallmarks of this development was the advent of institutes that were exclusively devoted to produce research‐based policy arguments and to inject these into the policy‐making process. These organisations were referred to as ‘think tanks’. Half a century later, the project of the policy sciences movement has been amply criticised, and has mutated into various philosophies of policy analysis, each harbouring distinct and often conflicting perspectives on the nature and role of (scientific) knowledge in the battle of arguments that is public policy‐making. The first wave of the policy sciences movement's privileging of science‐based policy has not disappeared. In fact it is currently experiencing a revival under the banner of ‘evidence‐based policy’. But it has to compete with other views of public policy‐making which deconstruct the authority claim of scientific knowledge, emphasising instead its contestability. Yet there are now more organisations that refer to themselves, or can be labelled, as ‘think tanks’ than ever before. Why? And what does it mean to be a ‘think tank’ in the post‐positivist era and in the increasingly boundary‐less, highly networked societies of today? This article first surveys recent developments in the world of think tanks as reported by the international literature on the subject, and then examines the implications for understanding the nature and role of Australian think tanks.     

Quantitative differences in think tank dissemination activities in Germany,Denmark and the UK

In recent years, the study of policy advisory systems has been advanced conceptually and analytically through studies of externalisation and politicisation. Still, the understanding of institutional variation in how organisations supply policy advice remains limited. The contribution adds to recent research on think and the study of policy advice by arguing for a focus on the dissemination of policy advice by asking how the dissemination activities of think tanks vary across different policy advisory systems and what this implies for the study of policy advice. This question is explored in a quantitative design which compares publications, events and newspaper mentionings of samples of think tanks from a coordinated (Germany), liberal (UK) and mixed (Denmark) system in 2012. The analysis indicates that think tanks in the UK have the highest level of dissemination on all three activities when controlled for the number of full-time staff. The study indicates that factors beyond the policy process such as developments of funding and media environments should be analysed further as they are likely to be important for how and where think tank disseminate their policy advice.     

The “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”: Media and Conservative Networks

The American Right's speedy political recovery after the historic 2008 election was driven in part by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. Yet conservative media are just one key component in the broad political networks built over the past few decades. Conservative talk radio, print publications, television networks, and internet sites have numerous connections, both direct and indirect, with the think tanks, advocacy organizations, academic research centers, and foundations that develop and promote the Right's policy agenda. Progressives have acknowledged this “vast right-wing conspiracy” for years, but often demonstrate little understanding of how it actually works. In this article I remind readers of the expansive scope and shape of conservative networks. Using the rise of Tea Party populism, I demonstrate how media organizations work within these networks to revive and promote ideas and action on the Right.     

US Think Tanks and the Politics of Expertise: Role,Value and Impact

Think tanks are non‐profit policy research organisations that provide analysis and expertise to influence policy makers. Since the early twentieth century, US think tanks have played a major role in framing policy issues and providing analysis, but in the last thirty years, there has been a veritable think tank proliferation. This paper chronicles and analyses the development of think tanks; classification, organization, staffing and funding; marketing, public relations and public engagement, current trends. Finally an attempt has been made to measure the influence of think tanks on the American policy process.     

Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems

Think tanks have proliferated in most Western democracies over the past three decades and are often considered to be increasingly important actors in public policy. Still, their precise contribution to public policy remains contested. This paper takes the existing literature in a new direction by focusing on the capacity of think tanks to contribute to strategic policy-making and assessing their particular role within policy advisory systems. We propose that strategic policy-making capacity requires three critical features: high levels of research capacity, substantial organizational autonomy and a long-term policy horizon. Subsequently, we assess the potential of think tanks to play this particular role in policy-making, using empirical evidence from structured interviews with a set of prominent Australian think tanks.     

从政务信息谈国家思想库建设：一个案例分析

国家思想库在政治运行过程中起着十分重要的作用,是政府决策不可或缺的有力助手。他们不仅要保持研究工作的独立性与客观性,而且要和政府部门保持密切的联系。在我国,向国家决策层报送政务信息在一定程度上能够反映思想库作用发挥的程度。以中国科学院向国家决策层报送政务信息为案例,运用统计分析的方法分析国家决策层的信息需求,讨论政务信息与国家思想库的关系与作用,对中国科学院更好地发挥国家科学思想库的作用提出政策建议。     

Non-Governmental Policy Transfer: The Strategies of Independent Policy Institutes

Discussions of policy transfer have primarily focused on official actors and networks. The non-governmental mode of policy transfer via foundations, think tanks and non-governmental organizations is a relatively neglected dimension. Accordingly, this paper addresses the role of think tanks in promoting the spread of policy ideas about privatization. The importance of think tanks to policy transfer is their ability to diffuse ideas by (1) acting as a clearing-house for information; (2) their involvement in the advocacy of ideas; (3) their involvement in domestic and transnational policy networks; and (4) their intellectual and scholarly base providing expertise on specialized policy issues. Concepts from comparative public policy and international relations such as "social learning" and "epistemic communities" are used to outline the way think tanks advocate innovative policy ideas. However, not only have think tanks been effective in promoting the transfer of policy ideas, the international spread of think tanks also exhibits organizationaltransfer.     

论美国智库的中国研究——以布鲁金斯学会为例

智库,起源于美国,与政府关系紧密,其研究常常影响政府的决策。在美国,政界学界基本不分,智库是政府官员的蓄水池,多数政府要员曾为智库成员,他们利用自己掌握的研究成果从事对外和对内的决策。美国智库影响着美国和国际关系,美国智库的中国研究对中美关系乃至国际关系有重要的作用。探讨美国智库的中国研究可以更好地理解以及预测美国的中国政策,同时也借鉴以反思中国的智库现状。     

Rebuilding Policy Capacity in the Era of the Fiscal Dividend: A Report from Canada

After two decades of focusing on deficit reduction and restructuring of operations, governments in many areas of the world are once again contemplating new policies and expenditures. In Canada, where budgetary surpluses have recently replaced deficits, the federal government has been asking whether it still has the capacity to make informed choices about new programs. This article examines Canada's recent efforts in rebuilding its policy capacity. It asks, first, to what extent and in what way was policy capacity originally lost. Second, it appraises the adequacy of new policy "networks," consisting of think tanks, consultants and government officials, as "virtual replacements" for former government-controlled advisory bodies, royal commissions, and in-house policy units. Finally, it notes the relative absence of parliamentarians, and even the political executive, from capacity-rebuilding activities, a deficiency that in the long run may undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of such efforts.