Thinking about Think Tanks and Universities
V Santhakumar 1 and Esther Agustin
Think tanks are organizations carrying out policy-oriented research and have a clear intent of influencing policies of the government. These are different from universities or institutes which focus on academic research. There is a growing literature on the functioning of, and challenges encountered by think tanks2. Initiatives, such as On Think Tanks, generate useful information that strengthens the working of these organizations. The Think Tank Initiative of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), which supported several such organizations in the developing world has also generated research and knowledge in this regard3. There have been various attempts at the international level too to train leaders and executives of think tanks4.
This article looks at think tanks with the following perspectives or experiences.
- Using the economics of institutions to analyse the probable challenges faced by these organizations vis-à-vis conventional research/academic organisations.
- Looking at some contemporary challenges faced by think tanks in middle-income countries like India and Indonesia.
- Drawing on the personal experience of authors as policy-oriented researchers and closely associated with research organizations which have influenced (or have attempted to influence) the policies of governments.
The Need for Think Tanks
It is somewhat obvious that research and generation of knowledge with the intention of making a desirable change in society help policy-making. Think tanks are needed for two specific reasons. One, it is difficult for governments (or policy-making bodies) to have in-house capacity to carry on the work that the think tanks do. There are various reasons for this, one being that incentives in a typical government department may not be on par with those in research organizations. Secondly, think tanks are likely to have specific policy orientations (we discuss this in a following section), and it may be unrealistic to expect such an orientation in the functioning of a government organization.
Governments, in general, require ideas and proposals which are actionable within a specific socio-political context. Governments are not merely interested in knowing what is going wrong in the public system. As `insiders’, government officials are aware of the deficiencies in the system and outsiders pointing to these does little to change anything. What the government officials need are workable solutions for improvements. Highly esoteric ideas – which may usually emanate from academics – may not be implementable even if these are socially valuable. Also, the government does not need a reproduction of ideas/actions which are already being implemented. Hence, those `additional’ actions/ideas that can be implemented within the political context and with the available resources are the ones which may be welcomed by the government from external actors.
Working with governments requires a good understanding of the operational issues/constraints. Conventional research organizations may not create applicable and policy-oriented knowledge for various reasons (some of these are discussed in the following section). First, their objective is to contribute academic knowledge or generalizable insights which are universally valid. So, a knowledge input for a specific policy change in a socio-economic context may not come out through this process. At higher education institutes (which are also spaces of conventional research), the faculty needs to spend a major part of their time in teaching. Though research publications are important for academics of a university, policy-orientation may not be the desirable feature of research in these publications. Even when policy-oriented research is carried out in conventional research institutes or universities, they may not make a conscious effort to communicate this to policy-makers and to push for desirable policy changes. On the other hand, a major part of the work of think tanks is to connect the research with the process of policy-making.
Here we must consider the causal connection between research/knowledge and policy-making. It may be unrealistic to think of a unique form of knowledge that can make policies better. There can be multiple (sometimes contradictory) forms of knowledge and public debates on these may lead to a better understanding of the underlying factors, and these may inform the process of policy-making.
It is also important to underscore that the process of policy-making is intermediated through the political economy and democratic processes, and one can visualize a role for think tanks in this regard too. This may include the dissemination of information to different actors, including citizens; or to enable groups with different interests to move towards a win-win situation when they are trapped in zero-sum conflicts over policy options; or to expose them to innovative solutions to achieve a higher level of welfare for the people at large, to name a few.
Academic research organizations versus think tanks
Academic research takes place in universities or institutes of higher education whereas, think tanks rarely participate (directly) in higher education. But research is the secondary output of universities and institutes of higher education where teaching is the core activity. Even though the measurement of the social benefit of teaching is difficult, certain aspects of the quantity or quality of the outcome of teaching are measurable – the number of students who pass out at different levels, placement of students and other benchmarks that are used in the ranking of universities. Moreover, teaching yields private benefits to students, which is an incentive for them to pay a fee for the education (even if student fee does not capture the overall social benefits of teaching).
Academics may carry out research in their free time, and/or with the resources made available by the university, and occasionally, with external funding. The evaluation of academics on the basis of research publications, carried out by most universities or institutes of higher education, are primarily to ensure that they continue to enhance their capabilities as teachers in higher education (and to enhance the ranking of these institutes). The quality of these research publications is an imperfect device to screen potential and working academics, and the social usefulness of their research output per se is not a consideration in this regard.
This basic description of the functioning of academic research in institutions is useful in understanding the difference between these and the think tanks and their challenges, especially in countries like India.
Working in academic institutions is attractive to those researchers who may be looking for long-term employment and assured basic income even though some of them may seek additional financial gains through funded research and consultation as part of their career. A university position is attractive even for those with intrinsic motivation (as against financial incentives that have limitations) So it is not surprising that many of those who are trained to be researchers, may prefer jobs in higher education institutes. (The preference for a tenured position in universities is strong among academics in countries like the USA.) This is one reason why a pure think tank may find it difficult to recruit many talented researchers, especially in countries like India and Indonesia. Some of them may join but may take up academic positions as and when these are available. (We are not overlooking intrinsic motivation as a reason for taking up jobs in think tanks by foregoing opportunities in universities, and we consider one such case in the next section). Hence, there are many think tanks with a few senior researchers (or other accomplished people in other fields) but with a number of young, aspiring researchers who are yet to acquire qualifications to get into academic positions.
This issue is quite complicated in countries like India and Indonesia (or other such economies) where there is not enough `demand’ for policy-oriented research on a consistent basis by international or domestic stakeholders. Let us consider international players first. There is a limited demand for the localization of the research/knowledge by international development organizations. They are more likely to be contracted for specific projects funded in the country or for building local research capacities, which are less likely to be of long-term nature. The general scarcity of resources and the generally limited use of research in policy-making may create a situation wherein domestic governments may not demand and fund policy-oriented research adequately. Data collection and analysis for internal uses are likely to be carried out by government employees or internal research units. Though countries like India and Indonesia have a vibrant private sector, we do not see many private/corporate firms coming forward to fund research in general5. Even when they do so, it may be with the narrow purpose of lobbying for certain policy changes that may help them, but not to analyse social benefit and cost of policy changes. (There could be some funding, like sponsorship of policy-makers’ events, which is one way in which private firms can continue to get the attention of policy-makers – but there may not be continued funding for research6). Certain think tanks are also cautious in accepting funding from private companies for fear that it may affect their independence and objectivity of research. We have not seen many philanthropic or altruistic foundations supporting think tanks on a long-term basis in countries like India and Indonesia7. For all these reasons, the financial resources available to think tanks are limited.
Ideological orientations and associations
There is a definition of think tanks as non-partisan organizations8. However, partisanship or closeness to political parties is a complex issue requiring deeper analysis. Several think tanks have a clear ideological position in terms of their approach towards economy or social issues – whether it is the deregulation of markets or the exercise of greater control by the government and so on. Some of these positions relate to social policies – whether there should be a dependence on private schools for the expansion of education9; whether medical care should be provided through insurance, etc. Political parties too may have such ideological positions. Hence, it is not unusual to see certain alignment between the position of a political party and that of a think tank. This alignment may be used by the party while seeking the opinion or using the research of a think tank. This is not surprising and quite natural since the transaction between the think tank and the political party is affected by the problem of information asymmetry, and here the known or explicit ideological orientation may be used as a signal by the latter. A political party may want to ensure that the advice it gets is in consonance with its ideology or may want to convince its followers that it has taken advice from ‘their type’ of research organization. There can be think tanks which are known for their subject expertise (and not for their ideological orientation) and their services may be sought by the executive arms of governments.
Such an ideological alignment does not necessarily mean that the think tanks would become partisan. These may continue to be independent of the party and may criticize it for deviations, if any, from the common ideological approach. A think tank can stick to its ideological position, whereas a political party may be under compulsion from different quarters to deviate from its stated position. It is obvious that no political party can fully follow its ideological position in a competitive democracy. The party also may have an incentive to keep the think tank somewhat independent since the opinions of an unrelated `third party’ may be more valuable for signalling purposes, if not for, substantive reasons. (There are also research units which are very close to or part of political parties, but we do not consider these under the purview of think tanks.) Political parties may find it difficult to get expertise on a variety of issues and that may also encourage them to depend on think tanks which are broadly aligned to them ideologically.
Industry associations may also promote or depend on think tanks which, by and large, share the agenda of corporates, like deregulation, lesser corporate taxes, greater freedom for investors, and so on. (Those organizations which argue for more competition need not necessarily be the collaborators of industrial firms since the latter may not prefer competition in all circumstances, especially if the existing ones get rent due to the prevailing controls.) Hence, there could be a certain ideological alignment between some think tanks and private companies too.
There are also think tanks associated with or driven by activism on environmental or social issues (like the abolition of child labour, fair trade, fair wages etc.). Organizations researching on and highlighting environmental issues are common even in developing countries. Some of their leaders are highly motivated by activism and may work in these organizations even if the financial incentives are not comparable to that of formal research institutes or universities. The ideological or activist orientation of these think tanks is explicit. However, it may discourage them from coming out with a neutral analysis of an issue, especially when such an analysis is useful in addressing conflicts.
There can also be the mobility of individuals between governments and think tanks. Political parties or governments may source individuals from think tanks to carry out specific tasks like that of vice- or deputy ministers, special advisors or the heads of bodies which require certain technical expertise. This is an important way through which the research/knowledge of a think tank gets used in the decision-making process. (The conventional idea that government officials must read and use research carried out by think tanks is unrealistic for a number of reasons, and we discuss this in the next section.) The ideological alignment between a party/government and a think tank could be important in the mobility of researchers to the government. In certain cases, the connection need not be with the think tank as a whole, but with a few known individuals (whose policy preferences are known to the government).
There can also be a reverse migration. People who have worked in governments in senior/advisory positions may start think tanks on retirement or when there is a change in the ruling regime. They may continue to contribute to or participate in policy debates from their known positions. Some academics who are part of universities but are known for their policy positions/contributions may also start think tanks to carry on their work (on a full time or part-time basis) without being restricted by the environment of higher education institutes. In essence, most think tanks have their origin in specific policy preferences of individuals or groups. The mere desire to use academically valuable research for policy-making may not be the driving force behind the founding of think tanks. (There are academics who have certain expertise like data analytics, and they may want to use these for policy-making, but these skills are more likely to be used in other ways, like consulting, and less likely for founding think tanks.)
Connecting research with policy-making
Since the focus of think tanks is to modify/change policies, they have to be concerned with the ways of connecting their research or research-based advocacy with the process of policy-making. There are multiple channels for this. Some think tank researchers taking up positions in government (discussed in the previous section) is an important way of connecting research with policy-making. However, such mobility is uncertain (may happen only after certain maturing of organizations and individuals) and hence, cannot be the basic channel of communicating research to policy-makers.
There can be two generic ways of connecting research with the policy (though these are not mutually exclusive, and most think tanks may use both in some combination).
1. Direct connection with the government: In this case, a think tank carries out research and communicates the research findings to the government. It advocates for specific policy changes directly with the government. There is a certain lobbying at work here, though it may be driven less by direct interests as in the case of industry lobbying. There can also be a reverse demand for specific inputs from the government through this direct exchange.
There are merits and demerits in this process of direct exchange. Establishing direct contact with the government may not be easy and may happen when there are ideological and/or personal connections with the officials/political executives of the government. Once a connection is established, this way of influencing policy can be effective since the gap between what is communicated (by the think tank) and what is understood (by the policy-makers) is less. Direct contact may prompt the government to use researchers of think tanks to translate research into policy formulations.
However, there can be issues of inadequate transparency, legitimacy and accountability here. In any policy-related issue, there are multiple interests and views and the acceptance of one view through a direct channel with the government can lead to allegations of `unwanted influence’ driven by specific interests. This may happen if the democracy is vibrant. Moreover, there is a genuine concern that such a direct connection between the government and a think tank may reduce the possibilities of public discussion on the pros and cons of its policy prescriptions.
2. Public debates: The other way is to make research available in the public domain and contribute to public debates in a conscious manner. Such debates can motivate governments to act. This requires multiple strategies to communicate research to the public and/or all relevant stakeholders. Interaction with the media plays an important role. The major think tanks in Indonesia monitor the frequency with which their inputs are picked up by newspapers and television channels10. One of these maintains a roster (or club) of journalists who interact with them regularly11.
Think tanks also help the media when it needs an opinion on issues in which they have expertise. Participation in TV discussions or writing columns in newspapers is another strategy. Media also demands the participation of researchers, since they may not have the in-house expertise to comment on economic and social issues. Moreover, by bringing in researchers of different kinds, media provides a platform for divergent viewpoints. The advantage of this process of communicating via the public is that there is greater legitimacy and accountability of the role of think tanks. The public is not likely to be suspicious of any possible hidden connection between the government and the think tank in this process.
However, the possible connection between research and policy-making may become somewhat distant or indirect through this process. It can reduce the probability of an actual impact, or there can be a serious transmission loss in the link between research and policy. However, this is part of a larger issue of the role of research institutes in policy-making. Do they aim at making their research available in the public domain, and expecting people to put adequate pressure on the government (through voice and exit) to make the required changes? This route can also lead to a certain adversarial relationship with the government in power, and if this happens, it may reduce the opportunities for a think tank to do research for the government. On the other hand, if such public contributions (through research) enhance the credibility of a think tank, it may lead the government to use its research (or expertise) for enhancing its own legitimacy12. However, the indirect route of working with the public (and not directly with the government) is feasible only if the democracy is vibrant and government officials and politicians are under pressure to respond to public demands. This prevails in different degrees in various (democratic) countries.
Viable scenarios of vibrant policy-oriented research and advocacy
Given the need for, and the characteristics and challenges of think tanks, what could be the possible scenarios where there is adequate emphasis on policy-oriented research and advocacy, not only directly with governments but also actively through public discussions?
We propose that a desirable future would be one where academic institutions move towards the space occupied by think tanks, and the latter take up, partially, the role of higher education institutions. Given that academic or higher education institutions have the mandate of teaching, think tanks which carries out such education can receive some financial resource through this activity (partially through student fees, and partially through government and/or altruistic funding). This may enable the nurturing of talented researchers whose time can be used partially for policy-oriented research. Then these organisations may not encounter the vagaries of funding, or the need to tweak their research agenda just to meet the needs of a particular funding organization. This can enhance the credibility of the think tanks, whereby, they can be in a better position to influence the government through public debates (especially, in a well-functioning democracy). The credibility in public perception may encourage the government to approach think tanks directly for specific research inputs (and the provision of direct funding for the purpose). Since many developing countries, including India and Indonesia, do not have enough research-oriented institutes of higher education, think tanks with adequate human resources can start higher education programs (training programs, if not full-fledged degrees.)
The same impact can be achieved if some of the existing academic institutions take up policy-oriented research and advocacy seriously. This may require certain changes in the incentives to academics. One purpose of higher education institutes should be to contribute directly to desirable changes in society. This cannot be achieved by the creation of general-purpose knowledge. Context-specific understanding of how to make change happen must to be part of the knowledge generated by academic institutions. This may require changes in their existing focus in teaching and research. The evaluation of academics-based on research publications may have to evolve to give proper weight for policy- or practice-oriented outputs.
The first author of this piece has the experience of working in a research institute which has contributed to context-specific understanding (and policy-making to a certain extent) but has continued to sustain a basic level of teaching programs13. The purpose of founding the institute was to contribute to the understanding of (economic and social) development issues of the state of India where it is located. Hence, context-specific research was the main motivation for the funding provided by the state government. When there were questions on the adequacy of policy-oriented research carried out in the institute, there was an effort to increase the number of teaching programs. Academics who have some training on policy-oriented research are in a better position to teach conventional subjects by connecting those with reality or specific socio-economic context.
The Azim Premji University is also an interesting experiment in this regard. It has been founded with a specific social purpose and is part of the Azim Premji Foundation, whose stated purpose is to improve the quality of education in government schools in India. The university is expected to create reflective practitioners and hence, academics are expected to have practice-orientation. This also includes a contribution to policy-debates, especially, in the domain of education. The internal structures of the university give adequate weight to the contribution of faculty towards practice and policy-oriented research. There are challenges in this regard, and those are discussed here. The Azim Premji University also contributes to the functioning of the Azim Premji Foundation as a think tank in the domain of education in India14. In that sense, it is an example of a university extending its functioning to that of a think tank. By doing so, it can address some of the problems faced by think tanks (like the scarcity of trained researchers, dependence on project-based funding, and so on.) However, changing the orientation of the majority of researchers to achieve a practice/policy orientation could be a challenging task as discussed here.
Authors
V Santhakumar, Professor, Azim Premji University
Esther Agustin, Program Director, Institute for Development of Economics and Finance (INDEF), Jakarta
