Popular in Social Sciences

Political Science

V-Dem’s Conceptions of Democracy and Their Consequences

University of Notre Dame Michael Coppedge

Central Monetary Authorities

Macroeconomic modelling of CBDC: a critical review

European Central Bank Ulrich Bindseil

Social Identities and Divisions

A new explanation of antisemitism: Jew hatred as a civilisational phenomenon

Boston University Liah Greenfeld

Central Monetary Authorities

Financing Private Credit

Federal Reserve Bank of New York Nina Boyarchenko

Economics

Failing Banks

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Emil Verner

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

American Politics

Do think tanks matter? Assessing the impact of public policy institutes

View more insights in Social Sciences - Political Science

View more figures from McMaster University

View the page of Donald Abelson

Read the Study

Next in Political Science

Do Billboard Advertisements Increase Voter Turnout?

Donald Green | Columbia University

Stronger Issues, Weaker Predispositions

Paul Goren | University of Minnesota

Donald Abelson argues that the question of how think tanks have evolved and under what conditions they can and do have an impact continues to be ignored.

Image courtesy of interviewee. May 2, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video is a transcription of a discussion focused on the role of think tanks in shaping public policy and ideas. The speaker, an academic expert, explains their motivation to understand how ideas originate, spread, and impact policy. They have studied think tanks extensively in the U.S., Canada, and globally, and they are co-editors of a handbook on this subject.

Key points include:

1. **Definition and Nature of Think Tanks**: Think tanks are organizations focused on policy research and influencing public opinion and policy. There are various types, including independent ones and those affiliated with corporations or government, with over 11,000 think tanks worldwide.

2. **Historical Context**: Think tanks emerged to assist governments in addressing complex policy issues by bringing together experts from different fields.

3. **Impact and Influence**: The most significant influence of think tanks occurs early in the policy-making process, as they seek to frame issues and engage with stakeholders. Their role diminishes as legislation progresses.

4. **Challenges of Ranking and Assessment**: The speaker critiques existing think tank rankings, arguing they are often subjective and do not effectively capture the full impact and diversity of think tanks globally.

5. **Connections and Revolving Doors**: There is a noted revolving door phenomenon where personnel move between think tanks and government positions, allowing for the exchange of ideas and influence.

6. **Future Research**: The speaker is currently working on a project examining conflicts between university-affiliated think tanks and their host institutions, exploring institutional dynamics and challenges.

7. **Political Context**: The discussion touches on the implications of political dynamics, particularly in the U.S., regarding how think tanks align with governmental changes and how this might play out in future elections.

Overall, the text highlights the complexity of think tanks' influence in policy-making and their evolving roles in society amid changing political landscapes.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.035 --> 00:02.445
What motivates my work really is to try

00:02.445 --> 00:06.245
and come to a better understanding of how ideas originate,

00:06.545 --> 00:07.725
how they're disseminated,

00:07.825 --> 00:10.525
and what impact they have, both in the area

00:10.525 --> 00:11.605
of domestic policy

00:11.905 --> 00:15.085
and in foreign policy for, so for many, many years,

00:15.155 --> 00:16.685
I've studied think tanks and

00:16.685 --> 00:20.405
or public policy research institutes in the United States

00:20.585 --> 00:22.085
and Canada,

00:22.265 --> 00:23.965
and indeed around the globe, just

00:23.965 --> 00:26.805
to get a better understanding of how these organizations

00:28.075 --> 00:32.005
have the capacity to not only come up with ideas,

00:32.145 --> 00:36.045
but to be able to convey them, both to the public

00:36.225 --> 00:38.445
and to other stakeholders, of course,

00:38.445 --> 00:41.885
including policymakers, donors, and other opinion leaders.

00:42.025 --> 00:44.245
So that's really what motivates my work

00:44.245 --> 00:47.765
because as we know, ideas matter, they have consequences.

00:47.985 --> 00:50.845
And if we agree with that, then I think it's fair to say

00:50.845 --> 00:54.045
that so too, to the organizations that are established

00:54.465 --> 00:57.245
for the purpose of trying to affect social,

00:57.685 --> 00:58.925
economic and political change.

00:59.625 --> 01:03.165
In terms of the book, my colleague Chris Rarick

01:03.165 --> 01:05.165
and I, decided

01:05.225 --> 01:08.165
to do a co-edited collection a few years ago,

01:08.165 --> 01:09.205
for Edward Algar.

01:09.825 --> 01:12.165
Uh, it was a handbook on think tanks and public policy.

01:12.825 --> 01:15.485
And what we really wanted to do was to bring together,

01:15.945 --> 01:18.005
you know, the very best scholars in the field

01:18.585 --> 01:21.885
to weigh in on the state of the literature, the questions

01:21.885 --> 01:24.565
that had been answered about think tanks adequately,

01:24.985 --> 01:27.445
and those that hadn't, we really wanted

01:27.445 --> 01:29.285
to take stock of where we were.

01:29.285 --> 01:32.765
This is a field of inquiry that has really taken off,

01:34.005 --> 01:36.285
I would say, in the last 15 to 20 years.

01:36.515 --> 01:38.885
There's scholars around the globe who've become very,

01:38.885 --> 01:40.565
very interested in the role

01:40.625 --> 01:42.245
and impact of these organizations.

01:42.305 --> 01:43.485
And we felt it was time

01:44.065 --> 01:47.165
to bring together people not only from the global north,

01:47.185 --> 01:49.605
but the global south, really to, to try

01:49.605 --> 01:52.125
and come to terms with key issues

01:52.185 --> 01:53.565
and questions that have been raised,

01:53.625 --> 01:55.805
and to do our very best to address them.

01:55.985 --> 01:58.205
That's really how the book came about. Sure.

01:58.355 --> 01:59.845
Well, it, it's interesting

01:59.845 --> 02:02.645
because even scholars in the field have had difficulty

02:03.525 --> 02:06.485
reaching a consensus on what constitutes a think tank.

02:07.225 --> 02:09.565
Uh, of course, you know, the focus really has

02:09.565 --> 02:11.205
to be on policy research

02:11.825 --> 02:14.765
and a desire to shape public opinion and public policy.

02:15.175 --> 02:16.845
There are independent think tanks.

02:16.845 --> 02:19.725
There are think tanks that are affiliated with corporations,

02:19.725 --> 02:21.165
think tanks in government,

02:21.455 --> 02:23.525
think tanks affiliated with universities.

02:24.355 --> 02:26.885
They're based at local levels, provincial

02:26.885 --> 02:29.845
or state levels, federal levels internationally.

02:29.845 --> 02:32.925
So they're all over the world at last count.

02:32.925 --> 02:36.525
They're in excess of 11,000 think tanks internationally.

02:37.265 --> 02:39.085
So in terms of what they do, the,

02:39.305 --> 02:43.285
the reason why they were formed toward the beginning of the,

02:43.745 --> 02:47.845
20th century, late 19th century, was to try

02:48.005 --> 02:49.685
and help government think its way

02:49.685 --> 02:51.725
through complex policy problems.

02:52.705 --> 02:55.725
And the idea was to bring together scholars from different

02:55.765 --> 02:59.470
disciplinary backgrounds, economists, sociologists,

02:59.470 --> 03:02.605
anthropologists, political scientists, historians,

03:03.225 --> 03:04.645
and bring them together so

03:04.645 --> 03:07.445
that they could bring their own unique perspective

03:07.865 --> 03:09.845
to bear on issues of the day.

03:10.465 --> 03:13.445
And we've seen over the last 80 to a hundred years,

03:13.675 --> 03:15.165
whether it's in the United States

03:15.225 --> 03:18.525
or Europe, the European Union, wherever it might be,

03:19.055 --> 03:22.205
think tanks, engaging multiple stakeholders in a,

03:22.265 --> 03:24.805
in an attempt to affect policy change,

03:25.225 --> 03:26.685
not only over the short term,

03:27.185 --> 03:28.605
but over the long term as well.

03:28.865 --> 03:32.165
So these are organizations that are very much

03:32.765 --> 03:35.605
invested in coming up with, ideas

03:35.745 --> 03:38.565
and policy recommendations at times.

03:38.665 --> 03:39.885
Of course, they serve their,

03:39.885 --> 03:41.605
their own institutional interests,

03:41.605 --> 03:42.725
but we hope that

03:42.725 --> 03:45.165
what most organizations have in mind is serving

03:45.265 --> 03:46.285
the public interest.

03:46.505 --> 03:48.925
And that's what we really try to focus on. Right.

03:49.145 --> 03:52.165
So of course there, there's an expansive network,

03:52.185 --> 03:54.405
of intellectuals around the globe.

03:55.105 --> 03:58.205
Um, and one of the ways that, that they try

03:58.205 --> 04:01.445
to have an impact is through their own personal

04:01.465 --> 04:02.885
and professional networks.

04:03.425 --> 04:05.925
So whether that's in government, in industry,

04:06.345 --> 04:11.085
in community-based organizations, in the private sector,

04:11.915 --> 04:14.365
when people think of think tanks, they really have to think

04:14.365 --> 04:15.605
of organizations

04:16.115 --> 04:18.565
that embrace a particular corporate strategy.

04:18.665 --> 04:21.925
And this is not a conspiratorial perspective.

04:22.675 --> 04:25.605
They are businesses like any other, any others.

04:25.835 --> 04:28.565
They're in the business of marketing and promoting ideas.

04:29.505 --> 04:32.835
And some of the most effective think tanks in the

04:32.835 --> 04:35.555
United States treat ideas if

04:35.775 --> 04:37.435
as if they're just a different type

04:37.435 --> 04:39.675
of commodity sold on a stock exchange.

04:40.295 --> 04:42.035
So there are, they are advocates.

04:42.035 --> 04:45.155
They aggressively promote, policies.

04:45.225 --> 04:46.755
They engage in lobbying,

04:46.915 --> 04:49.515
although there are restrictions in different countries on

04:49.515 --> 04:51.915
the kinds of activities in which they can engage.

04:52.375 --> 04:55.155
But they rely not only on their, their, their network

04:55.255 --> 04:57.955
of colleagues, but more importantly stakeholders

04:58.055 --> 05:00.515
who are in a position to make decisions

05:01.025 --> 05:03.995
that can affect the direction of government,

05:04.095 --> 05:05.635
for a very long period of time.

05:05.735 --> 05:08.075
And, and that ultimately is what they're trying

05:08.075 --> 05:11.875
to do shape the way we think, shape the way,

05:11.875 --> 05:13.075
policy makers think,

05:13.495 --> 05:15.235
and invariably shape the direction

05:15.235 --> 05:17.035
that countries are prepared to move in.

05:17.205 --> 05:20.035
Right? So a lot obviously depends on the government

05:20.035 --> 05:22.195
and power and the connections that have been established

05:22.425 --> 05:24.795
between directors or presidents of think tanks

05:25.055 --> 05:26.875
and high level policy makers.

05:27.055 --> 05:29.715
Now, of course, even if you have friends in government,

05:29.735 --> 05:31.955
it doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be able

05:31.955 --> 05:34.875
to have an impact, but if you have no friends

05:34.895 --> 05:38.955
or allies that it pretty much convincingly tells you

05:39.305 --> 05:41.755
that at least for the foreseeable future, you might be out

05:41.755 --> 05:44.435
of luck and you may have to focus on other strategies

05:44.435 --> 05:45.955
to make your presence felt.

05:46.975 --> 05:48.915
The interesting thing, and I'm glad you brought up this

05:49.115 --> 05:51.475
question to look at, is the kinds of connections

05:51.475 --> 05:52.675
that are formed over time,

05:52.945 --> 05:55.595
whether they're on a personal level, professional level,

05:56.015 --> 05:58.485
and what we see particularly in the United States,

05:59.165 --> 06:00.405
probably less so in the uk,

06:01.005 --> 06:03.165
although there are some really important examples,

06:03.385 --> 06:04.765
not only the policy exchange,

06:04.785 --> 06:07.485
but the Adam Smith Institute, at central

06:07.485 --> 06:10.605
for policy studies and others, is there tends

06:10.605 --> 06:12.645
to be a revolving door again,

06:12.645 --> 06:15.845
depending on the political system in which these

06:15.845 --> 06:17.365
organizations inhabit.

06:17.785 --> 06:20.805
But we see, for instance, in the United States, at the end

06:20.805 --> 06:24.365
of a presidential administration, hundreds of people,

06:25.405 --> 06:27.805
thousands of people indeed leaving the bureaucracy,

06:27.805 --> 06:30.645
leaving relatively high level posts, returning

06:30.645 --> 06:34.605
to university, perhaps returning to a think tank,

06:34.605 --> 06:36.965
returning to a government relations firm.

06:37.345 --> 06:40.405
And then we see a new crop of people who are looking

06:40.465 --> 06:43.565
for government experience, looking for an opportunity

06:43.705 --> 06:45.645
to translate ideas they thought about

06:45.665 --> 06:49.805
for years into concrete policy action going into government.

06:49.805 --> 06:52.205
So it's this revolving door phenomenon.

06:52.745 --> 06:55.805
So think tanks are always on the look lookout

06:55.945 --> 06:58.525
for opportunities to expand their network,

06:58.735 --> 07:01.085
their connections, and to take advantage

07:01.145 --> 07:05.045
of every opportunity they can to, get an audience

07:05.045 --> 07:06.805
that is prepared to listen to their views,

07:07.185 --> 07:09.445
but more importantly, to enact them if

07:09.445 --> 07:10.605
all the ducks are aligned.

07:11.195 --> 07:14.045
Yeah, I've always been critical of the think tank ranking.

07:14.305 --> 07:16.005
So, an old friend

07:16.005 --> 07:17.765
and colleague of mine, the late Jim McGann,

07:18.145 --> 07:21.165
headed up a very interesting organization at the University

07:21.165 --> 07:22.725
of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

07:23.465 --> 07:26.485
And he was really one of the first scholars who came up

07:26.485 --> 07:30.245
with the idea of not only mapping the think tank landscape

07:30.245 --> 07:32.805
around the globe, but assessing impact.

07:32.825 --> 07:36.205
And I remember some of the very early conversations we had,

07:36.205 --> 07:37.765
and we had known each other for years.

07:37.825 --> 07:41.045
We began our research on think tanks around the same time.

07:41.825 --> 07:43.685
And he floated this idea by me,

07:43.705 --> 07:46.725
and I said at the time, Jim, I think it's a wonderful idea

07:47.465 --> 07:51.365
if we can come to an agreement on what think tanks are,

07:51.505 --> 07:53.805
to map them around the world, to find out

07:53.805 --> 07:56.845
where the largest concentrations are, why are there

07:56.865 --> 07:59.565
so many in some areas and so few in others?

08:00.005 --> 08:02.405
I think that is a legitimate academic exercise.

08:03.065 --> 08:04.885
And so that's how it really began.

08:05.305 --> 08:09.445
And then, a few years later, he got in touch with me

08:09.445 --> 08:12.045
and he said, well, we've already begun to map.

08:12.265 --> 08:15.565
Now it's really important to do rankings and assess impact.

08:16.025 --> 08:17.205
And I was very critical,

08:17.205 --> 08:20.725
and I've written publicly about this, in a, in a lot

08:20.725 --> 08:23.365
of venues, I felt that the approach that Jim

08:23.425 --> 08:25.045
and his colleagues had taken,

08:25.565 --> 08:29.645
although, well-intentioned, was ad hoc,

08:30.105 --> 08:31.565
and very impressionistic.

08:32.185 --> 08:33.965
And it, it wasn't an accident

08:34.035 --> 08:38.125
that every year when the rankings came out, usually right

08:38.125 --> 08:41.925
after New Year's, that the same group of think tanks,

08:41.925 --> 08:43.245
whether it was in the United States

08:43.385 --> 08:46.125
or the uk, Germany, you know, Paris,

08:46.485 --> 08:49.285
wherever they were located, it was always the same group

08:49.315 --> 08:51.805
that, for the most part made their way to the top.

08:52.345 --> 08:54.365
And those that were less well known

08:54.815 --> 08:56.245
Found themselves in the middle

08:56.385 --> 08:59.045
or to the lower, part of the rankings.

08:59.945 --> 09:02.485
And I, I, I disagreed

09:02.485 --> 09:04.445
with the methodology that was employed.

09:04.785 --> 09:07.605
Um, I, I didn't find it to be terribly scientific.

09:07.675 --> 09:09.725
Many of my colleagues felt the same way.

09:10.505 --> 09:13.605
And I really, you know, said to Jim, I, I,

09:13.705 --> 09:16.325
I'm disappointed in how this is, is progressing.

09:16.565 --> 09:20.165
I remember the first year he asked if I was willing to

09:21.445 --> 09:24.805
evaluate or, or be one of the advisors who would be asked

09:24.825 --> 09:26.325
to evaluate think tanks.

09:26.985 --> 09:30.085
And I said, you know, Jim, I can certainly provide input

09:30.905 --> 09:33.485
on think tanks in North America and parts of Europe.

09:33.705 --> 09:35.165
That's where I have expertise,

09:35.745 --> 09:39.245
but I certainly cannot provide any value added with respects

09:39.245 --> 09:42.165
to think tanks in Latin America or Africa or Asia.

09:43.265 --> 09:45.485
And he said to me, well, just do your best.

09:46.185 --> 09:47.845
And I said, it's not about doing my best.

09:47.915 --> 09:50.045
It's not about throwing darts at a board.

09:51.065 --> 09:53.965
If we're going to do this, it has to be done seriously

09:54.035 --> 09:56.965
because there are consequences,

09:56.975 --> 09:58.485
associated with rankings.

09:59.345 --> 10:02.805
And I, I basically said to him, are the rankings really for

10:03.525 --> 10:07.125
scholars or are they for the institutes so they can parlay,

10:08.625 --> 10:11.645
you know, a high ranking into more donor funding?

10:12.265 --> 10:13.845
So I became very suspicious.

10:14.545 --> 10:17.205
Uh, over the years I remained critical,

10:17.265 --> 10:18.645
and I do remain critical

10:18.915 --> 10:20.765
because the approach that is taken

10:20.865 --> 10:23.405
for the most part is highly impressionistic.

10:23.905 --> 10:28.325
And when you think that you have 11,000 organizations

10:28.325 --> 10:30.965
around the globe that produce dozens

10:30.965 --> 10:33.605
and dozens of studies each year, not

10:33.605 --> 10:37.285
to mention engaging the media, testifying

10:37.285 --> 10:38.765
before legislative committees.

10:39.305 --> 10:43.205
And if you were asked as a scholar simply to evaluate one

10:43.205 --> 10:46.725
or two studies in detail, that would be a lot of work.

10:47.225 --> 10:49.765
You're asked to do dozens of studies

10:50.875 --> 10:52.245
from each institute

10:52.265 --> 10:54.045
and multiply that by the thousands

10:54.045 --> 10:56.285
that are considered it's impossible.

10:56.785 --> 10:58.565
So I think people need to come to terms

10:58.675 --> 11:00.845
with why these rankings are undertaken.

11:01.545 --> 11:03.405
Um, what purpose do they serve?

11:03.985 --> 11:06.725
Do they really help inform the debate about think tanks

11:07.065 --> 11:09.725
or are they really there to help high powered

11:09.725 --> 11:14.205
and high profile think tanks, convince their target audience

11:14.475 --> 11:17.165
that they have far more influence than they do?

11:17.635 --> 11:19.925
They can. And and a lot of my work focuses

11:20.905 --> 11:22.605
on the the question of influence.

11:22.635 --> 11:24.165
What do we mean by influence?

11:24.165 --> 11:27.365
What do we mean by impact and how is it exercised?

11:27.365 --> 11:30.925
So we know the different channels upon which think tanks

11:30.955 --> 11:33.045
rely to communicate their ideas, whether it's

11:33.045 --> 11:36.405
through the media, through academic workshops, seminars,

11:36.405 --> 11:39.805
conferences through publications, through open

11:39.945 --> 11:40.965
and virtual events.

11:41.265 --> 11:43.405
We know all the channels that they rely on.

11:44.025 --> 11:47.005
But the question is, where in the policymaking process do

11:47.005 --> 11:48.765
they tend to have the greatest impact?

11:49.305 --> 11:52.845
And what we've discovered over time is that most of the

11:52.925 --> 11:56.045
Influence, most of the impact, most of the value added

11:56.655 --> 12:00.405
tends to take place very early on in the policymaking

12:00.405 --> 12:04.085
process when the parameters around domestic

12:04.145 --> 12:06.445
and foreign policy issues are being framed.

12:06.785 --> 12:10.525
And that's one of the many reasons why representatives

12:10.525 --> 12:13.125
of think tanks are very interested in testifying

12:13.125 --> 12:16.925
before committees, getting on, network news stations,

12:17.185 --> 12:21.045
on radio, on different podcasts

12:21.465 --> 12:23.685
so they can begin to shape the discourse

12:24.665 --> 12:26.325
around important policy issues.

12:26.785 --> 12:29.445
The deeper you delve into the policymaking process

12:30.195 --> 12:33.485
when legislation is being formulated, implemented,

12:33.485 --> 12:35.365
and evaluated, the less

12:35.465 --> 12:38.005
of a presence think tanks generally have.

12:38.545 --> 12:42.645
So like other organizations competing for, attention,

12:43.525 --> 12:46.765
interest groups, advocacy, coalitions, other types of

12:47.405 --> 12:50.325
institutions committed to shaping public policy,

12:50.815 --> 12:52.805
think tanks want to get in very early,

12:53.355 --> 12:54.645
make their presence felt,

12:55.025 --> 12:57.205
and then move on to the next issue.

12:57.205 --> 12:59.165
And that's generally what we see. Right.

12:59.225 --> 13:00.925
So that's, that's a fascinating question

13:00.925 --> 13:03.605
because if you go back to 2016,

13:04.305 --> 13:07.965
and if you look at, at very important conservative think

13:07.975 --> 13:10.245
tanks in the United States inside

13:10.245 --> 13:12.045
what we call the Washington Beltway,

13:13.175 --> 13:15.885
there were a few organizations that were very prominent

13:15.885 --> 13:18.485
that continued to be prominent like the Heritage Foundation,

13:18.495 --> 13:21.005
which was established in the early 1970s.

13:21.505 --> 13:24.885
The Heritage Foundation very early, early on in the 2016

13:25.405 --> 13:28.325
campaign didn't come out in support of Donald Trump.

13:28.385 --> 13:32.045
And I, I should make this clear, think tanks by law

13:32.705 --> 13:34.525
are allowed to focus on policies,

13:34.525 --> 13:36.485
but they're not allowed to publicly support

13:36.625 --> 13:38.005
or endorse candidates.

13:38.715 --> 13:41.525
It's one of the restrictions imposed on them as not

13:41.525 --> 13:43.965
for profit tax exempt organizations.

13:44.705 --> 13:47.885
But it was clear that the Heritage Foundation was very

13:47.885 --> 13:50.405
interested in rallying around,

13:50.405 --> 13:53.565
Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, not Donald Trump.

13:53.565 --> 13:57.165
They didn't think Trump stood a chance, so they gravitated

13:57.265 --> 14:00.045
to the one candidate that they thought, you know, could,

14:00.045 --> 14:01.045
could really do well.

14:01.155 --> 14:03.445
Well, Rubio didn't end up doing well.

14:03.945 --> 14:06.565
And invariably what happened was the Heritage Foundation

14:06.985 --> 14:09.005
and a handful of other,

14:09.005 --> 14:11.485
conservative free market oriented think tanks

14:12.335 --> 14:13.925
gravitated to Donald Trump.

14:14.545 --> 14:17.045
Now, what they didn't expect from Donald Trump,

14:17.665 --> 14:22.045
but they should have was he was not committed at all

14:22.505 --> 14:23.925
to introducing new ideas.

14:24.585 --> 14:28.445
He was among the most anti-intellectual presidents the

14:28.445 --> 14:29.925
United States has ever had.

14:30.425 --> 14:32.725
You'll recall from his campaign in 2016,

14:33.145 --> 14:34.925
it was all about draining the swamp.

14:35.115 --> 14:37.445
Well, who's part of the swamp think tanks

14:37.505 --> 14:39.805
or public policy research institutes?

14:40.465 --> 14:43.845
So Trump, who had virtually no intellectual curiosity,

14:44.555 --> 14:46.365
trusted some of the people around him.

14:46.425 --> 14:50.525
Not all, but some, but he had no time or respect

14:51.065 --> 14:52.605
For policy intellectuals.

14:53.305 --> 14:57.645
So even his most ardent supporters residing in think tanks,

14:58.225 --> 15:01.485
felt that they had to rely on other channels to, to,

15:01.905 --> 15:04.645
to leave an indelible mark on public policy.

15:06.445 --> 15:08.805
Ultimately, a lot is going to depend, of course, on

15:08.805 --> 15:10.685
what happens in 2024.

15:11.925 --> 15:14.325
I think Trump probably has learned his lesson, that it's,

15:14.355 --> 15:15.645
it's often a good idea

15:16.185 --> 15:18.645
to engage more people than to alienate.

15:19.185 --> 15:22.005
And we could see a resurgence of think tank activity,

15:22.545 --> 15:23.885
not only during his campaign,

15:24.185 --> 15:26.285
but in the transition period that follows.

15:27.345 --> 15:31.565
Um, again, we don't know what's going to happen,

15:31.665 --> 15:33.725
in 2024, but there's no doubt

15:34.075 --> 15:37.325
that think tanks are preparing both for a Biden victory

15:37.625 --> 15:40.285
and a Trump victory because they wanna make sure

15:40.285 --> 15:42.845
that an important door that might be available

15:42.905 --> 15:44.925
to them isn't closed off.

15:45.905 --> 15:49.005
And so Trump may,

15:49.535 --> 15:52.605
allow some think tank representatives into the Oval Office

15:52.745 --> 15:54.445
to talk to him about foreign policy.

15:55.025 --> 15:57.925
But what we do know is whether it's a Trump

15:58.105 --> 16:01.165
or a Biden, both presidents with respect

16:01.165 --> 16:04.525
to US foreign policy have protectionist leanings.

16:05.145 --> 16:07.805
So it's not as if one is a protectionist

16:08.025 --> 16:11.045
and the other is an isolationist, sorry, a,

16:11.065 --> 16:12.165
an internationalist.

16:12.515 --> 16:14.685
They both have protectionist leanings.

16:15.065 --> 16:17.485
So what impact the think tank score are going to have,

16:17.835 --> 16:20.765
they might simply reinforce what Trump and

16:20.765 --> 16:22.805
or Biden are thinking about at the time.

16:23.585 --> 16:27.045
We might not see new ideas, but really a validation

16:27.065 --> 16:28.965
or confirmation of existing ones.

16:29.185 --> 16:31.285
So we're just going to have to see how it plays out.

16:31.665 --> 16:34.045
But what will be fascinating for people like me

16:34.705 --> 16:36.485
and my colleagues who, who again,

16:36.485 --> 16:39.965
study the revolving door phenomenon in the United States is,

16:41.025 --> 16:43.645
you know, the group of people that enter,

16:43.715 --> 16:45.485
high level advisory positions

16:45.625 --> 16:47.325
and those that leave, I think it would be

16:47.565 --> 16:48.685
fascinating to watch it unfold.

16:49.255 --> 16:51.765
Right? So what, what I'm working on now is a book length

16:51.765 --> 16:55.205
project looking at why conflicts often arise

16:55.835 --> 16:58.685
between university affiliated think tanks,

16:58.685 --> 17:02.325
particularly in the United States and Canada,

17:02.465 --> 17:04.045
and their host institutions.

17:04.305 --> 17:06.765
Why is it that you have think tanks

17:06.765 --> 17:11.125
and universities, two organizations ostensibly committed

17:11.385 --> 17:13.165
to the shared pursuit of knowledge,

17:13.735 --> 17:17.845
often finding themselves embroiled in conflict, ideological

17:18.445 --> 17:22.045
conflict, financial conflict, institutional conflict?

17:22.745 --> 17:27.245
So I, I, I had, the good fortune of of working

17:27.245 --> 17:29.205
with a former Canadian Prime Minister

17:29.675 --> 17:30.725
over the last five years.

17:30.885 --> 17:33.125
I headed up the Brian Mulrooney Institute

17:33.125 --> 17:35.365
of Government at a, at St.

17:35.365 --> 17:38.485
Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia.

17:39.065 --> 17:40.845
Uh, and as your viewers know,

17:40.935 --> 17:42.965
Brian Mulrooney recently passed away,

17:44.105 --> 17:46.325
but there was a lot of conflict,

17:46.325 --> 17:48.925
between the institute I headed up and the university.

17:49.545 --> 17:52.525
And so that's actually become one of my case studies.

17:52.745 --> 17:56.285
But we're seeing a growing pattern,

17:56.345 --> 17:57.965
in the United States, in Canada

17:58.665 --> 18:00.125
and in other parts of the globe

18:00.175 --> 18:03.565
where you have public policy research centers doing really

18:03.845 --> 18:06.245
interesting work universities

18:06.275 --> 18:08.325
that are serving as their hosts.

18:09.075 --> 18:12.015
But within a relatively short period of time, we begin

18:12.015 --> 18:16.335
to see cracks in the foundation, in the architecture.

18:16.715 --> 18:18.695
And so my book is really focusing on

18:18.925 --> 18:20.615
what are the nature of the conflicts?

18:20.995 --> 18:23.695
Why do they arise? Why are they difficult to resolve,

18:24.315 --> 18:28.175
and what does this say to us about the politicization

18:28.595 --> 18:29.855
of policy expertise?

18:30.035 --> 18:31.935
So that's what's keeping me busy.

18:32.555 --> 18:35.295
I'm certainly, anxious like millions of people

18:35.295 --> 18:38.895
around the globe to see what happens in the fall of 2024.

18:39.315 --> 18:42.135
But I'll be paying very, very close attention, to

18:42.135 --> 18:46.375
what could be the most consequential election, certainly

18:46.375 --> 18:48.815
for North Americans, in our time.

18:49.315 --> 18:51.575
So I'll be looking at the role of policy experts

18:52.185 --> 18:54.295
who's becoming involved in the kind of messages

18:54.295 --> 18:55.255
that they are conveying.

Understanding Think Tanks and Policy Impact

00:00:00 - What motivates my work really is to try and come to a better understanding of how ideas originate, how they're disseminated, and what impact they have, both in the area of domestic policy and in foreign policy for, so for many, many years, I've studied think tanks and or public policy research institutes in the United States and Canada, and indeed around the globe, just to get a better understanding of how these organizations have the capacity to not only come up with ideas,
00:00:36 - and to other stakeholders, of course, including policymakers, donors, and other opinion leaders. So that's really what motivates my work because as we know, ideas matter, they have consequences. And if we agree with that, then I think it's fair to say that so too, to the organizations that are established for the purpose of trying to affect social, economic and political change. In terms of the book, my colleague Chris Rarick
00:01:05 - to do a co-edited collection a few years ago, for Edward Algar. it was a handbook on think tanks and public policy. And what we really wanted to do was to bring together, you know, the very best scholars in the field to weigh in on the state of the literature, the questions that had been answered about think tanks adequately, and those that hadn't, we really wanted to take stock of where we were. This is a field of inquiry that has really taken off,
00:01:36 - There's scholars around the globe who've become very, very interested in the role and impact of these organizations. And we felt it was time to bring together people not only from the global north, but the global south, really to, to try and come to terms with key issues and questions that have been raised, and to do our very best to address them. That's really how the book came about. Sure. Well, it, it's interesting because even scholars in the field have had difficulty reaching a consensus on what constitutes a think tank.
00:02:09 - to be on policy research and a desire to shape public opinion and public policy. There are independent think tanks. There are think tanks that are affiliated with corporations, think tanks in government, think tanks affiliated with universities. They're based at local levels, provincial or state levels, federal levels internationally. So they're all over the world at last count. They're in excess of 11,000 think tanks internationally.
00:02:39 - the reason why they were formed toward the beginning of the, 20th century, late 19th century, was to try and help government think its way through complex policy problems. And the idea was to bring together scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds, economists, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, historians, and bring them together so that they could bring their own unique perspective

Think Tanks: Shaping Policy Through Networks

00:03:10 - And we've seen over the last 80 to a hundred years, whether it's in the United States or Europe, the European Union, wherever it might be, think tanks, engaging multiple stakeholders in a, in an attempt to affect policy change, not only over the short term, but over the long term as well. So these are organizations that are very much invested in coming up with, ideas and policy recommendations at times.
00:03:39 - their own institutional interests, but we hope that what most organizations have in mind is serving the public interest. And that's what we really try to focus on. Right. So of course there, there's an expansive network, of intellectuals around the globe. and one of the ways that, that they try to have an impact is through their own personal and professional networks. So whether that's in government, in industry, in community-based organizations, in the private sector,
00:04:14 - of organizations that embrace a particular corporate strategy. And this is not a conspiratorial perspective. They are businesses like any other, any others. They're in the business of marketing and promoting ideas. And some of the most effective think tanks in the United States treat ideas if as if they're just a different type of commodity sold on a stock exchange. So there are, they are advocates.
00:04:45 - They engage in lobbying, although there are restrictions in different countries on the kinds of activities in which they can engage. But they rely not only on their, their, their network of colleagues, but more importantly stakeholders who are in a position to make decisions that can affect the direction of government, for a very long period of time. And, and that ultimately is what they're trying to do shape the way we think, shape the way, policy makers think,
00:05:15 - that countries are prepared to move in. Right? So a lot obviously depends on the government and power and the connections that have been established between directors or presidents of think tanks and high level policy makers. Now, of course, even if you have friends in government, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be able to have an impact, but if you have no friends or allies that it pretty much convincingly tells you that at least for the foreseeable future, you might be out of luck and you may have to focus on other strategies
00:05:46 - The interesting thing, and I'm glad you brought up this question to look at, is the kinds of connections that are formed over time, whether they're on a personal level, professional level, and what we see particularly in the United States, probably less so in the uk, although there are some really important examples, not only the policy exchange, but the Adam Smith Institute, at central for policy studies and others, is there tends to be a revolving door again, depending on the political system in which these

Examining the Dynamics of Think Tank Influence

00:06:17 - But we see, for instance, in the United States, at the end of a presidential administration, hundreds of people, thousands of people indeed leaving the bureaucracy, leaving relatively high level posts, returning to university, perhaps returning to a think tank, returning to a government relations firm. And then we see a new crop of people who are looking for government experience, looking for an opportunity to translate ideas they thought about for years into concrete policy action going into government.
00:06:52 - So think tanks are always on the look lookout for opportunities to expand their network, their connections, and to take advantage of every opportunity they can to, get an audience that is prepared to listen to their views, but more importantly, to enact them if all the ducks are aligned. Yeah, I've always been critical of the think tank ranking. So, an old friend and colleague of mine, the late Jim McGann, headed up a very interesting organization at the University
00:07:23 - And he was really one of the first scholars who came up with the idea of not only mapping the think tank landscape around the globe, but assessing impact. And I remember some of the very early conversations we had, and we had known each other for years. We began our research on think tanks around the same time. And he floated this idea by me, and I said at the time, Jim, I think it's a wonderful idea if we can come to an agreement on what think tanks are,
00:07:53 - where the largest concentrations are, why are there so many in some areas and so few in others? I think that is a legitimate academic exercise. And so that's how it really began. And then, a few years later, he got in touch with me and he said, well, we've already begun to map. Now it's really important to do rankings and assess impact. And I was very critical, and I've written publicly about this, in a, in a lot of venues, I felt that the approach that Jim
00:08:25 - although, well-intentioned, was ad hoc, and very impressionistic. And it, it wasn't an accident that every year when the rankings came out, usually right after New Year's, that the same group of think tanks, whether it was in the United States or the uk, Germany, you know, Paris, wherever they were located, it was always the same group that, for the most part made their way to the top. And those that were less well known
00:08:56 - or to the lower, part of the rankings. And I, I, I disagreed with the methodology that was employed. I, I didn't find it to be terribly scientific. Many of my colleagues felt the same way. And I really, you know, said to Jim, I, I, I'm disappointed in how this is, is progressing. I remember the first year he asked if I was willing to evaluate or, or be one of the advisors who would be asked

Analyzing Think Tank Influence on Policy

00:09:26 - And I said, you know, Jim, I can certainly provide input on think tanks in North America and parts of Europe. That's where I have expertise, but I certainly cannot provide any value added with respects to think tanks in Latin America or Africa or Asia. And he said to me, well, just do your best. And I said, it's not about doing my best. It's not about throwing darts at a board. If we're going to do this, it has to be done seriously because there are consequences,
00:09:59 - And I, I basically said to him, are the rankings really for scholars or are they for the institutes so they can parlay, you know, a high ranking into more donor funding? So I became very suspicious. over the years I remained critical, and I do remain critical because the approach that is taken for the most part is highly impressionistic. And when you think that you have 11,000 organizations
00:10:30 - and dozens of studies each year, not to mention engaging the media, testifying before legislative committees. And if you were asked as a scholar simply to evaluate one or two studies in detail, that would be a lot of work. You're asked to do dozens of studies from each institute and multiply that by the thousands that are considered it's impossible. So I think people need to come to terms
00:11:01 - what purpose do they serve? Do they really help inform the debate about think tanks or are they really there to help high powered and high profile think tanks, convince their target audience that they have far more influence than they do? They can. And and a lot of my work focuses on the the question of influence. What do we mean by influence? What do we mean by impact and how is it exercised? So we know the different channels upon which think tanks
00:11:33 - through the media, through academic workshops, seminars, conferences through publications, through open and virtual events. We know all the channels that they rely on. But the question is, where in the policymaking process do they tend to have the greatest impact? And what we've discovered over time is that most of the Influence, most of the impact, most of the value added tends to take place very early on in the policymaking process when the parameters around domestic
00:12:06 - And that's one of the many reasons why representatives of think tanks are very interested in testifying before committees, getting on, network news stations, on radio, on different podcasts so they can begin to shape the discourse around important policy issues. The deeper you delve into the policymaking process when legislation is being formulated, implemented, and evaluated, the less

Think Tanks, Politics, and Future Implications

00:12:38 - So like other organizations competing for, attention, interest groups, advocacy, coalitions, other types of institutions committed to shaping public policy, think tanks want to get in very early, make their presence felt, and then move on to the next issue. And that's generally what we see. Right. So that's, that's a fascinating question because if you go back to 2016, and if you look at, at very important conservative think
00:13:10 - what we call the Washington Beltway, there were a few organizations that were very prominent that continued to be prominent like the Heritage Foundation, which was established in the early 1970s. The Heritage Foundation very early, early on in the 2016 campaign didn't come out in support of Donald Trump. And I, I should make this clear, think tanks by law are allowed to focus on policies, but they're not allowed to publicly support or endorse candidates.
00:13:41 - for profit tax exempt organizations. But it was clear that the Heritage Foundation was very interested in rallying around, Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, not Donald Trump. They didn't think Trump stood a chance, so they gravitated to the one candidate that they thought, you know, could, could really do well. Well, Rubio didn't end up doing well. And invariably what happened was the Heritage Foundation and a handful of other,
00:14:12 - gravitated to Donald Trump. Now, what they didn't expect from Donald Trump, but they should have was he was not committed at all to introducing new ideas. He was among the most anti-intellectual presidents the United States has ever had. You'll recall from his campaign in 2016, it was all about draining the swamp. Well, who's part of the swamp think tanks or public policy research institutes?
00:14:44 - trusted some of the people around him. Not all, but some, but he had no time or respect For policy intellectuals. So even his most ardent supporters residing in think tanks, felt that they had to rely on other channels to, to, to leave an indelible mark on public policy. Ultimately, a lot is going to depend, of course, on what happens in 2024.
00:15:14 - it's often a good idea to engage more people than to alienate. And we could see a resurgence of think tank activity, not only during his campaign, but in the transition period that follows. again, we don't know what's going to happen, in 2024, but there's no doubt that think tanks are preparing both for a Biden victory and a Trump victory because they wanna make sure that an important door that might be available

Think Tanks, Presidents, and Protectionist Policies

00:15:45 - And so Trump may, allow some think tank representatives into the Oval Office to talk to him about foreign policy. But what we do know is whether it's a Trump or a Biden, both presidents with respect to US foreign policy have protectionist leanings. So it's not as if one is a protectionist and the other is an isolationist, sorry, a, an internationalist. They both have protectionist leanings.
00:16:17 - they might simply reinforce what Trump and or Biden are thinking about at the time. We might not see new ideas, but really a validation or confirmation of existing ones. So we're just going to have to see how it plays out. But what will be fascinating for people like me and my colleagues who, who again, study the revolving door phenomenon in the United States is, you know, the group of people that enter, high level advisory positions
00:16:47 - fascinating to watch it unfold. Right? So what, what I'm working on now is a book length project looking at why conflicts often arise between university affiliated think tanks, particularly in the United States and Canada, and their host institutions. Why is it that you have think tanks and universities, two organizations ostensibly committed to the shared pursuit of knowledge, often finding themselves embroiled in conflict, ideological
00:17:22 - So I, I, I had, the good fortune of of working with a former Canadian Prime Minister over the last five years. I headed up the Brian Mulrooney Institute of Government at a, at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia. and as your viewers know, Brian Mulrooney recently passed away, but there was a lot of conflict, between the institute I headed up and the university.
00:17:52 - But we're seeing a growing pattern, in the United States, in Canada and in other parts of the globe where you have public policy research centers doing really interesting work universities that are serving as their hosts. But within a relatively short period of time, we begin to see cracks in the foundation, in the architecture. And so my book is really focusing on what are the nature of the conflicts?
00:18:24 - and what does this say to us about the politicization of policy expertise? So that's what's keeping me busy. I'm certainly, anxious like millions of people around the globe to see what happens in the fall of 2024. But I'll be paying very, very close attention, to what could be the most consequential election, certainly for North Americans, in our time. So I'll be looking at the role of policy experts