Note: This article initially appeared in the State Department's November 2002 issue of the US Foreign Policy Agenda and is reprinted with permission of the author.

January 09, 2003

We live in turbulent times where the only constant is

change, where the unthinkable has become a dark reality and

where the line between domestic and international politics

is increasingly blurred. The promise and peril of

globalization has transformed how we view international

relations and opened the policy-making process to a new set

of actors, agendas, and outcomes. International relations

was once the exclusive domain of diplomats, bureaucrats, and

states, but today's policy-makers must consider a diverse

set of international actors when formulating foreign policy

that includes organizations such as CNN, al-Jazeera, the

International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Greenpeace,

Deutsche Bank, al-Qaeda, the Association of Southeast Asian

Nations (ASEAN), and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting

Countries (OPEC). While these actors were not born of

globalization, they have been empowered by it. Consider the

simple fact that in 1950 there were only 50 nation states

and a limited number of intergovernmental and non-

governmental organizations operating in the world and one

begins to understand the complexity and unique challenge

policy-makers face when trying to fashion an effective

foreign policy. The challenges for U.S. policy-makers are

even more daunting given America's superpower status, global

commitments, and the range of transnational actors and

issues it must confront on a daily basis.

In this increasingly complex, interdependent, and

information-rich world, governments and individual policy-

makers face the common problem of bringing expert knowledge

to bear in governmental decision-making. Policy-makers need

basic information about the world and the societies they

govern, how current policies are working, possible

alternatives, and their likely costs and consequences.

For policy-makers in many countries it is often not the lack

of information that is the problem but the avalanche of

information. Indeed, policy-makers are frequently besieged

by more information than they can possibly use: complaints

from constituents, reports from international agencies or

civil society organizations, advice from bureaucrats,

position papers from lobbyists and interest groups, and

exposes of the problems of current government programs in

the popular or elite media. The problem is that this

information can be unsystematic, unreliable, or tainted by

the interests of those who are disseminating it. Some

information may be so technical that generalist policy-

makers cannot use it or even understand it. Some information

may be politically, financially, or administratively

impractical, or contrary to the interests of the policy-

makers who must make decisions based on information that

they often feel is less than adequate. Other information may

not be useful because it differs too radically from the

worldview or ideology of those receiving it. In developing

and transitional countries, the basic data needed to make

informed decisions often does not exist and must be

collected and analyzed and put into a form that is usable by

parliamentarians and bureaucrats.

In politics, information no longer translates into power

unless it is in the right form at the right time.

Governments and policy-makers are often moved to seize the

moment because the right social and political forces are in

alignment or because a crisis compels them to take action.

In either case, they often move quickly and make decisions

based on available information, which does not always lead

to the most informed policy. In short, policy-makers and

others interested in the policy-making process require

information that is timely, understandable, reliable,

accessible, and useful.

There are many potential sources for this information,

including: government agencies, university-based scholars,

research centers, for-profit consulting firms, and

international agencies. But in countries around the world,

politicians and bureaucrats alike have increasingly turned

to a specialized group of institutions to serve their needs.

Independent public policy research and analysis

organizations, commonly known as "think tanks," have filled

policy-makers' insatiable need for information and

systematic analysis that is policy relevant. This

information imperative led to the creation of the first

think tanks -- Royal Institute for International Affairs

(1920), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910),

Kiel Institute for World Economics (1914), and the Brookings

Institution (1916) -- in the early part of the 20th century,

and it continues to be the primary force behind the

proliferation of public policy research organizations today.

The international civil society movement has also helped to

stimulate interest in think tanks as an alternative source

of information on issues of international, national, and

local concern and as potential critics of the policies of

national governments and international organizations that

can speak with an objective voice independent of government

and the business community.

For most of the 20th century, independent public policy

think tanks that performed research and provided advice on

public policy were an organizational phenomenon found

primarily in the United States, with a much smaller number

in Canada and Western Europe. Although think tanks existed

in Japan for some time they generally lacked independence,

having close ties to government ministries or corporations.

There has been a veritable proliferation of "think tanks"

around the world that began in the 1980s as a result of the

forces of globalization, the end of the Cold War, and the

emergence of transnational problems. Two-thirds of all the

think tanks that exist today were established after 1970 and

over half were established since 1980.

The impact of globalization on the think tank movement is

most evident in regions such as Africa, Eastern Europe,

Central Asia, and parts of Southeast Asia, where there was a

concerted effort by the international community to support

the creation of independent public policy research

organizations. A recent survey conducted by the Foreign

Policy Research Institute's Think Tanks and Civil Societies

Program underscores the significance of this effort and

documents the fact that most of the think tanks in these

regions have been established in the last 10 years. Today

there are over 4,500 of these institutions around the world.

Many of the more established think tanks, having been

created during the Cold War, are focused on international

affairs, security studies, and foreign policy.

Think tanks exist in almost every country that has more than

a few million inhabitants and at least a modicum of

intellectual freedom. For most of the last century, the vast

majority of think tanks were found in the United States, but

now for the first time the number of think tanks worldwide

exceeds the number in the U.S. Think tanks now operate in a

variety of political systems, engage in a range of policy-

related activities, and comprise a diverse set of

institutions that have varied organizational forms. And

while all think tanks perform the same basic function --

i.e., to bring knowledge and expertise to bear on the

policy-making process -- not all think tanks have the same

degree of financial, intellectual and legal independence.

The challenge facing all think tanks is how to achieve and

sustain their independence so they can speak "truth to

power."

Taking into consideration the comparative differences in

political systems and civil societies, I have developed the

following categories that attempt to capture the full range

of think tanks found around the world today

Political Party Affiliated - Examples include Konrad

Adenauer Foundation (Germany, est. 1964), Jaures Foundation

(France, 1990), and Progressive Policy Institute (U.S.,

1998).

Government Affiliated - Examples include China Development

Institute (PRC, 1989), Institute for Political &

International Studies (Iran, 1984), and Congressional

Research Service (U.S., 1914).

Quasi-Governmental - Funded exclusively by government grants

and contracts but not a part of the formal structure of

government. Examples include: Institute for Strategic &

International Studies (Malaysia, 1983), Korean Development

Institute (Korea, 1971), and Woodrow International Center

for Scholars (U.S., 1968).

Autonomous & Independent - Significant independence from any

one interest group or donor and autonomous in its operation

and funding from government. Examples include: Pakistan

Institute of International Affairs (Pakistan, 1947),

Institute for Security Studies (South Africa, 1990), and

Institute for International Economics (U.S., 1981)

Quasi-Independent - Autonomous from government but

controlled by an interest group, donor, or contracting

agency that provides a majority of the funding and has

significant influence over the think tank's operations.

Examples include European Trade Union Institute (Belgium,

1978), NLI Research Institute (Japan, 1988), and Center for

Defense Information (U.S., 1990).

University Affiliated - Examples include Foreign Policy

Institute, Hacettepe University (Turkey, 1974), Institute

for International Relations (Brazil, 1979), The Carter

Center, Emory University (U.S., 1982) and the Hoover

Institution, Stanford University (1918).

In the United States you can find every variety of public

policy organization while the rest of the world tends to

have think tanks of a more limited scope and variety. Think

tanks outside the United States fall into three main

categories -- university affiliated, government affiliated,

and political party affiliated -- and tend not to enjoy the

same degree of autonomy that their American counterparts do.

Irrespective of their structure, think tanks have become a

permanent part of the political landscape, so much so that

they are now an integral part of the policy process in many

countries. Think tanks of various sorts have performed many

different functions including:

* the carrying out of research and analysis on policy

problems;

* providing advice on immediate policy concerns;

* the evaluation of government programs;

* the interpretation of policies for electronic and print

media, thus facilitating public understanding of and

support for policy initiatives;

* facilitating the construction of "issue networks" that

involve a diverse set of policy actors who come

together on an ad hoc basis around a particular policy

issue or problem; and

* providing a supply of key personnel to government.

While the emergence of think tanks has not always been

viewed by the political establishment as an unalloyed good,

think tanks have nonetheless had more positive than negative

influence on the policy process. This is particularly

evident in many developing and transitional countries where

think tanks have served as a catalyst for change that has

helped transform the political landscape and create a

vibrant civil society.

While historical and political traditions in other regions

of the world differ significantly from those of the United

States, and while every country has its own specific set of

policy problems and needs, some useful lessons can be

distilled from the U.S. experience. The origins of think

tank culture in the United States are bound up in America's

progressive-era traditions of corporate philanthropy, the

sharp distinction between legislative and executive branches

of government, weak political parties, the public commitment

to openness and independence, and the inclination of the

public and their elected officials to trust the private-

sector to interface with and to provide assistance to

government. These factors combine to provide very few

barriers to policy analysts, ideologues, and entrepreneurs

who want to enter the marketplace of ideas and contribute to

the policy-making process. Finally, think tanks have grown

in prominence because there is a perception that think tanks

can often do what government bureaucracies cannot.

Specifically, think tanks are:

* more effectively future-oriented than government

research functionaries, who work in an environment in

which efforts at creative disruption are rarely

rewarded;

* more likely to generate reconfigured policy agendas,

while bureaucracies thrive on the security-maximizing

environment of standard operating procedures;

* better able to facilitate collaboration among separate

groups of researchers for a common purpose because they

have no permanent vested interest in any one domain.

Furthermore, they aid the intellectual synthesis that comes

from breaking down bureaucratic barriers because they are:

* better able than government agencies to disseminate

relevant policy research within government and

externally to policy elites, the media, and the public;

* better suited to deal with the cross-cutting nature of

global policy issues;

* better able to convene and engage stakeholders in the

policy-making process;

* better able to "telescope" the policy process -- from

data collection to knowledge/policy creation;

* better able to conceive the means of implementation

than government bureaucracies, which may be internally

segmented by department and area of specialization.

Despite the efforts of some scholars and policy-makers to

question the potential transferability of U.S.-style

independent think tanks to other regions and countries of

the world, many policy-makers and civil society groups from

around the globe have sought to create truly independent,

free standing think tanks to help their governments think.

So while the transferability of the Brookings Institution,

RAND Corporation, or Heritage Foundation model to other

countries and political cultures may be debated, the need

and desire to replicate the independence and influence these

institutions enjoy is unchallenged.

The transnationalization of the think tank movement has

often been encouraged and funded by the international donor

community and private foundations in the United States,

Europe, and Japan. Along with the international flow of

funds has come an internationalization of think tank staff.

Programs like those run by the Brookings Institution,

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, National

Institute for Research Advancement, Woodrow Wilson

International Center for Scholars, the German Marshall Fund,

Atlas Economic Research Foundation, and other organizations

provide opportunities for staff from think tanks and

universities in the developing and transitional economies to

come and consult with their peers so that they can exchange

information and ideas about international issues and learn

about best practices for how to create and sustain an

independent public policy organization.

Think tanks in the United States have also been actively

engaged in exporting their scholars, brands of policy

analysis, and organizational structures to other countries.

The Urban Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Foreign

Policy Research Institute, and Hudson Institute have

actively promoted their approach to policy analysis to

groups in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and the former

Soviet Union. The Urban Institute, Carnegie Endowment, and

Heritage Foundation have gone so far as to establish

overseas affiliates.

Advances in information systems and telecommunications have

greatly expanded the scope and impact of collaboration

between institutions and scholars. Bilateral and

multilateral exchanges are taking place every day as

technological advances allow think tank staff to communicate

and operate more effectively across international boarders.

The Internet enables think tanks around the world to connect

with each other in a way that was unthinkable just a few

years ago. Global forums, conferences, and debates now take

place regularly on the World Wide Web. Collaborative

research projects involving researchers from 20 or more

countries are now commonplace. Recently, institutions such

as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Global

Policy Program, the World Bank's Global Development Network,

the United Nation's Global Public Policy Network, and the

Foreign Policy Research Institute's Think Tanks and Civil

Societies Program have created partnerships with think tanks

around the world in an effort to create global networks that

will analyze global issues, attempt to shape foreign

policies and influence the programs and priorities of

international institutions. In addition, an equal number of

regional networks have been organized in Europe (Transition

Policy Network, Trans European Policy Studies Association

network, and Partnership for Peace network), Asia

(Association of Southeast Asian Nations Institute of

Strategic and International Studies network), Africa

(African Capacity Building Foundation network), and Latin

America (Atlas Foundation network) to achieve similar

objectives.

The growth of public policy research organizations over the

last two decades has been nothing less than explosive. Not

only have these organizations increased in number, but the

scope and impact of their work has expanded dramatically.

Still, the potential of think tanks to support and sustain

democratic governments and civil societies around the world

is far from exhausted. The challenge for the new millennium

is to harness the vast reservoir of knowledge, information,

and associational energy that exist in public policy

research organizations in every region of the world. It is

essential that the U.S. State Department and other

international agencies of the U.S. government take immediate

steps to work with, and through think tanks, to help develop

and sustain a global network of policy institutes that will

span physical, political, and disciplinary boundaries in the

pursuit of solutions to some of the emerging and enduring

policy problems of our time.

James McGann, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow & Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute Think Tanks and

Civil Societies Program and co-author, with Kent R. Weaver,

of "Think Tanks and Civil Societies: Catalysts for Ideas and

Action" (Transaction Publishers, 2000).