Think Tanks, Foreign Policy, and Security: Is There Anything Specific About the Security Think Tank?

Transcription

1 Think Tanks, Foreign Policy, and Security: Is There Anything Specific About the Security Think Tank? Dr. James G. McGann Director, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute Assistant Director, International Relations Program, University of Pennsylvania Research Assistant: Oliver Bartlett Backes University of Pennsylvania Draft not for quotation or dissemination

2 Note: all data presented in this paper refers exclusively to organizations that remained in operation during the data collection period: May-June, Note: all data and analysis contained in this paper only refers to data from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States. As of this writing, data from Latin America and the Middle East and North Africa was still in the collection phase. Think tanks in the field of security were some of the first to be established and are thus older and more deeply integrated with respect to policy circles and governments than institutions in any other policy area. Historically, security studies think tanks have provided rational, disinterested policy advice to both national governments and the public at large on classical security concerns based on the realist conception of security studies. However, over the course of the second half of the 20 th century, the discipline of security studies has evolved. The increased salience of non-traditional security studies concentrations unrelated to power politics and issues of force has not only revolutionized the security studies discipline, it has led to immense booms in security think tank growth. Currently, this class of institutions in one of the most numerous worldwide and, more so than public policy research organizations in other disciplines, the research conducted by security think tanks and the policy advice that they provide often directly impacts the decisions made by policymakers within domestic security establishments. The wide range of policy arenas in which security think tanks conduct research means that, as an aggregate group, they wield immense amounts of influence across the security policy spectrum. The importance of security and international affairs think tank landscapes to the formation of security policy the world over and the immense transformations that have shaped this class of institutions over the past century demands an investigation into their operating procedures, organizational structures, research agendas, and the various explicit and implicit forces that have shaped and continue to shape the global security and international affairs think tank landscape. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to determine whether or not there is anything specific about the security think tanks aggregately. With the help of data collected by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP), which maintains that most complete think tanks database anywhere in the world, and drawing on the existing literature regarding think tanks and security theory, we will ascertain which institutional characteristics, if any, are unique to this class of think tanks. What concentrations in the field of security make up the research agendas of security think tanks? Do security think tanks tend to be organized along one of the three dominant think tank models: academic, consulting or advocacy? Do particular affiliations, either to interest groups or governments, define the security think tank? Additionally, we will endeavor to determine what external forces impact the operations of security think tanks. Are the mission, stakeholders and products impacted by the nature of the security studies research? How do the legal, political, funding, labor supply markets and technological environment impact this class of organizations? Furthermore, this paper will conclude with a brief comparative analysis of the security think tank landscapes in two regional centers for security think tank development, the United States and Europe. This analysis will undertake to determine how, if at all, this class of institutions differs across regions. Additionally, it will endeavor to demonstrate whether or not similar environmental forces 2

3 affect security think tanks in the same manner across the two regions in which such institutions are most highly concentrated. The ethereal term think tank has gained increasing popularity and use, to the point that it is necessary to begin this document with a clear definition of the term. Think tanks or public-policy research, analysis, and engagement institutions are organizations that generate policy-oriented research, analysis, and advice on domestic and international issues that enable policymakers and the public to make informed decisions about public policy issues. Think tanks may be affiliated or independent institutions and are structured as permanent bodies, not ad hoc commissions. These institutions often act as a bridge between the academic and policymaking communities, serving in the public interest as an independent voice that translates applied and basic research into a language and form that is understandable, reliable, and accessible for policymakers and the public. 1 Policy research organizations perform a variety of roles: offering original research and analysis; generating new information; providing policy advice; evaluating public policies and programs; identifying, training and developing talent; providing a home for public figures who are out of office or planning to assume key positions in future administrations; convening experts in and outside government to float policy proposals and build consensus; and educating and engaging policy makers, the media and the public. 2 The growth in numbers and influence of independent public policy research organizations think tanks as they are commonly called has been noted by a growing number of scholars, donors and practioners in the United States and abroad. 3 Regional and global intergovernmental organizations such as the UN, World Bank, Asian Development Bank and NATO have recently come to recognize the significant role they play in the policy making process. These organizations have organized nascent think tank 1 James G. McGann and R. Kent Weaver, Think Tanks and Civil Societies in a Time of Change, in James G. McGann and R. Kent Weaver, eds., Think Tanks & Civil Societies: Catalysts for Ideas and Action (London: Transaction Publishers, 2000), For an excellent discussion of the role of think tanks in Washington DC, see Richard N. Haass, Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy: A Policy-Maker s Perspective in the November 2002 "US Foreign Policy Agenda," An electronic journal of the U.S. Department of State ( and for an overview of the changing role of think tanks, see James G. McGann, Think Tanks and the Transnationalization of Foreign Policy in the November 2002 "US Foreign Policy Agenda," An electronic journal of the U.S. Department of State ( 3 See, James McGann, Academics, Advisors and Advocates:Think Tanks and Policy Advice in the US (Routledge 2007); James McGann and Erik C. Johnson, Comparative Tanks, Politics and Public Policy (Edward Elgar, 2005); Andrew Rich, Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise (Cambridge University Press 2004); James A. Smith, The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite (Free Press, 1991);James McGann and R. Kent Weaver (eds.), Think Tanks and Civil Societies: Catalysts for Ideas and Actions (University Press of America 2000); Diane Stone, Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett (eds.), Think Tanks Across Nations: A Comparative Approach (Manchester University Press, 1998); Abelson, Do Think Tanks Matter? Assessing the Impact of Public Policy Institutes (McGill-Queen s University Press 2002); Donald E. Abelson, A Capitol Idea Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy (McGill- Queen s University Press 2006); James G. McGann, Academics to Ideologues: A Brief History of Think Tanks in America, PS:Political Science and Politics (December 1992),and R. Kent Weaver, The Changing World of Think-Tanks, PS: Political Science and Politics (September 1989),

4 networks to help develop and assess policies and programs and serve as a link to civil society groups at the national, regional and global level. 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. Over 5,000 academically-oriented research institutions (similar in nature to universities but without students), contract research organizations, policy advocates and political party affiliated think tanks can now be found in 169 countries. While their organizational structure, modes of operation, audience or market and means of support may vary from institution to institution and from country to country, most think tanks share a common goal of producing high quality research and analysis that is married with some form of public engagement. That being said, all think tanks face the same challenge: how to achieve and sustain their independence so they can speak "truth to power." or simply bring knowledge, evidence and expertise to bear on the policy-making process. Unfortunately, not all think tanks have the financial, intellectual and legal independence that enables them to inform public decision making. This problem is most acute in developing and transitional countries where the means of support for think tanks as well as for civil society at large are underdeveloped, and the legal space in which these organizations operate is poorly defined. It is these characteristics that distinguish think tanks in the northern and western hemispheres from their counterparts in developing and transitional countries. The numbers and overall impact of policy research organizations have been growing and spreading. A survey of think tanks conducted in 1999 found that two-thirds of all the public policy research and analysis organizations in the world today were established after 1970, half since Preliminary figures from the Global Think Tank Trends Survey indicate that the number of think tanks may be declining for the first time in twenty years. The reasons for this trend will require greater research and analysis, but we suspect that it may be the result of a combination of complex factors: shifts in funding, underdeveloped institutional capacity, and unfavorable government regulations that attempt to limit the number and influence of think tanks. While think tanks are one of the many civil society actors in a country, they often serve as catalysts for political and economic reform in many countries. Analogous to a canary in the coal mine, the indigenous think tank sector can also function as a key indicator for the state of the civil society in that country. If analysts and critics associated with think tanks are allowed to operate freely, so too can the rest of civil society. Policy research centers have been growing rapidly in developing and transitional countries in sub-saharan Africa; Eastern and Central Europe; East, South and Southeast Asia regions where the majority of these institutions were established in the last ten to fifteen years. Similar centers have also appeared throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, beginning their operations as early as the 1960s and 1970s. A Typology of Security and International Affairs Studies: Development, Evolution, and Specialization As with all public policy research organizations, each security and international affairs think tank is characterized primarily by its specialized research agenda. The 4

5 expansive breadth and depth of the security discipline of necessity leads to a diverse landscape of institutions. Over the course of the 20 th century, the field of security and international affairs has developed into an exceedingly diverse field of study, encompassing a wide range of specialties and branches of knowledge that affect the security of national governments and the international community at large. Developments within the discipline and additions to it have in large part been the result of change within the international community, the practice of geopolitics, and the security challenges facing governments. A number of typologies of security and international affairs studies have been proposed by analysts and scholars. The classical, realist conception of security studies has historically placed a strong emphasis on power relationships and their domestic and international determinants. Thus, the traditional security studies typology has primarily taken a state-centered approach focused on the threat, control, and use of military force and its affect on the power relationships between states and their security vis-à-vis one another. However, alternative, non-traditional typologies propose that the discipline must be expanded to include fields of study that are integral to the security of states and the international system as a whole but that do not directly impact relationships between states based on force. For example, the Copenhagen school of security studies presents a typology that, in addition to including traditional security issues, incorporates political, societal, economic, and environmental security in their definition of security studies. 4 The security studies typology to be employed in this paper draws from both the traditional definition of security studies and the innovations of scholars in the security studies field, such as those that make up the Copenhagen school. We will argue here that the research agendas of all security and international affairs think tanks can be best understood through a framework in which the discipline of security studies is broken down into two classes: traditional security studies and non-traditional security studies. Furthermore, we will argue that the discipline can be defined by seven primary subcategories, known as functional concentration areas. The seven primary functional concentrations areas are: military security, nuclear security, peace and conflict, economic security, environmental security, political security, and immigration and migration security. The first three areas of functional concentration define traditional security studies class while the final four define the non-traditional security studies class (see Table 1.1). We contend that not only that this typology captures the breadth and depth of security studies, but that it also allows for considerably more nuanced, in depth analysis of the research characteristics of think tanks in the field of security than does any other typology. 5 4 See, Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Lynne Rienner Publisher, 1997); Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds., Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Strategies (Routledge, 1997); James J. Hentz and Martin Bøås, New and Critical Security and Regionalism: Beyond the Nation State (Ashgate, 2003) 5 At TTCSP, we developed this typology of security and international affairs studies through a rigorous process whereby we examined, in detail, the research agendas of hundreds of security and international affairs think tanks worldwide. Through this process, we were able to work backwards from the individual projects in order to subdivide the field of security and international affairs into the seven areas of functional concentration that best described the reality of research agenda setting observed during our data collection and analysis. Furthermore, it was during this process of 5

6 The three functional concentration areas that make up traditional security studies, military security, nuclear security, and peace and conflict, each have strong similarities with one another. They are traditional in the sense that each concentration focuses primarily on issues of power, force, and conflict, both with regards to preparation for it and attempts to abolish it altogether. Traditional security issues are in large part the types of issues and concerns that have defined the relationships and conflicts between states amidst the anarchy of the international system throughout the course of history. While these concentration areas are listed as traditional, their status as such has not rendered them static as disciplines. In fact, numerous changes in the international system, including technological development, geopolitical shifts, and the emergence of new threats to both national and international security, have resulted in developments within the traditional paradigm of security studies. Military security issues are defined as those related to military spending, including but not limited to the army, navy, and other forms of defense build up. Think tanks concentrating in military security research are engaged in a constant dialogue with the various constituent pieces of the national defense establishments worldwide and produce research and policy advice on issues such as military budgeting, preparedness, and research and development within the armed forces, technological, strategic or otherwise, as well as host of other related issues. Over the course of the 20 th century, the practice of making war has evolved and progressed, largely driven by the pace of technological innovation and change. The development of increasingly advanced equipment and technology, such as missiles, bombs, aircraft, surveillance equipment, vehicles, and, most recently, unmanned drones, has time and again revolutionized military strategy and practice. These changes have driven think tanks focused on issues of military security to continually reorient their research and policy advice in order to account for and adjust to the rapid pace of this transformation. Nuclear security issues are defined as those related non-proliferation initiatives, nuclear arms build ups, the development of secure nuclear energy facilities, and the nuclear power of a state relative to others in the region, or even the international system at large. Relationships with established nuclear powers are important and considered closely in the study of nuclear security. The field of nuclear security studies evolved rapidly after the development of nuclear weapons and their first and only use in attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August During the second half of the 20 th century, their unparalleled destructive power reoriented the practice of international diplomacy and geopolitics and in turn the field of nuclear security studies. The nuclear arms race and the nuclear diplomacy of the Cold War fueled an increased demand for and proliferation of nuclear policy experts across the developed world. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, think tanks in the field of nuclear security have, to a degree, reoriented. Currently, their primary foci are generally non-proliferation initiatives and policy, particularly with regards to rouge states, regimes, or groups, as well as the security of the international system from the threat posed by nuclear technology, in addition to the traditional considerations of nuclear strategy and the development of safe nuclear technology. examination that we concluded that security studies was in fact subdivided into two constituent courses of study, traditional and non-traditional security studies. 6

7 Think tanks engaged in peace and conflict studies aim to promote peace as well as tackle terrorism and other conflict driven by ethnic, linguistic, and religious cleavages as well a multitude of other factors. Such violence may be domestic or transnational in nature. Traditionally the research programs undertaken by think tanks concentrating in peace and conflict studies have focused largely on diagnosing the causes of interstate and intrastate conflict and using that knowledge to eliminate conflict altogether through peace initiatives. However, a few interrelated trends have deeply affected the peace and conflict studies discipline. First, in recent decades there has been a dramatic reduction in interstate and global conflict. However, this reduction has been coupled with another dramatic upsurge in sub-national conflict and intrastate threats to national security. A major aspect of this upsurge has been the increased salience of domestic and international terrorism as a security threat in recent decades that has created a entire sub-discipline focused exclusively on terrorism. In particular, the attacks of September 11, 2001 by al- Qaeda operatives and the subsequent War on Terror led to an increase in demand by both national governments and the media for terrorism experts, which has in turn prompted reorientations towards terrorism in many peace and conflict studies think tanks. While the functional concentration areas of the traditional security class focus primarily on issues of power, force, and conflict, the functional concentrations contained in the non-traditional security studies class address issues that impact security both domestically and internationally, albeit by considerably more nuanced means. The four functional concentration areas contained in the non-traditional class, economic security, environmental security, political security, and immigration and migration security, are much more diverse in scope than the traditional security concentrations. Yet, they are all similar in that they evolved as security disciplines in response to political, social, economic, and environmental pressures that threatened the security of states and the international system over the course of the 20 th century. Economic security issues are defined as those that have to do with international trade (such as protectionism, treaty negotiation, investment, etc.), international finance (including currency and financial markets), and economic development. Due to the focus on security, emphasis is placed on the analysis of a country s economic power and development capacity relative to others in the system. This is largely due to the fact that economic power is a major determinant of the national security of states. While an individual state s economic position and economic power have always been vital to its security, it was not until the 20 th century and a rash of economic crises and disasters, from the Great Depression forward, that economic policy began to be considered an aspect of security studies in the security think tank community. In recent decades, the ever-increasing pace of economic globalization and global economic integration, as well as the creation of international economic entities and regional trade organizations, has only served to emphasize the relevance of international trade and financial policy to the security of both states and the international system at large. An amplified focus on the plight of the world s poorest and most developmentally challenged regions has also created an increased demand for economic development experts. This demand has brought about a boom in economic security think tanks in both the advanced industrialized world and the world s less developed regions, most notably Africa and the poorer regions of Asia. 7

8 Environmental security issues are defined as those related to natural resources, climate change, and energy security, including sustainability and green initiatives. The proliferation of think tanks concentrated in the area of environmental security is one of the most recent evolutions within the discipline of security. While issues of natural resources and energy security have always played an integral role in determining the economic wellbeing of states, particularly since the industrial revolution, and thus their security, it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that environmental security rose to prominence in the security discipline. During this period, the issues of climate change and global warming rose to the forefront of domestic and international political debate as prominent climatologists presented evidence that greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the environment posed serious long-term threats to the wellbeing of the international community and the planet. Since that time, the debate over the impact of climate change has only intensified, prompting think tanks across the globe to develop research programs in the field of environmental security with the intention of providing policy advice on solving the climate crisis as well as mitigating its social and economic effects in the long-term. Additionally, many environmental security think tanks endeavor to provide policy advice that may facilitate the meaningful international cooperation on climate change issues that has thus far remained elusive. The functional concentration area of political security is by far the largest and most complex issue area in terms of its content and scope. Political security issues are defined as those related to rule of law, democracy, foreign policy, regional confidence building, history, culture, civil liberties, nationalism, scholastic exchanges, and neocolonialism. 6 A think tank engaged in research on political security issues may therefore address issues as disparate as human rights abuses in East Asia to issues of corruption and governance in sub-saharan Africa to American foreign policy towards the Middle East or Latin America. However, because of the breadth of the discipline, think tanks that focus on political security tend to specialize their research programs, only addressing an few aspects of the concentration in depth. Even so, the majority of political security research programs are similar in that they endeavor to provide policy advice that will lead to political stability. Thus, political security research programs tend to develop in response to moments of domestic or international political change. Most notably, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Iron Curtain led to the development of numerous political security think tanks in Eastern Europe that were committed to providing policy advice during the region s initial experimentations with democratic governance. These organizations to this day address all facets of governance, democracy, law, human rights, regional politics, and a host of other issues that are integral to the political stability of Eastern Europe and the maintenance of its democratic state systems. Finally, immigration and migration security issues are defined as those related to inter- and intra-state immigration and migration, border security, human trafficking, refugees, and internally displaced persons (IDPs). Historically, immigration and 6 The political security concentration can be problematic analytically in that it is such a large and diverse assemblage of specific areas of research. However, it was conceptualized as such due to the fact that the various individual areas of concentration within the political security discipline tend to be packaged together into one research project during the agenda setting process in many political security think tanks. Even so, we at TTCSP are currently debating whether or not political security should be broken down into two or more specialized areas of functional concentration. 8

9 migration has often created social, ethnic, cultural, or religious tension and in many cases has led to violence. A massive influx of immigrants or refugees often acts as a destabilizing force within a state, by stressing and pressuring otherwise stable societies. Sub-Saharan Africa in particular is a focus of immigration and migration security think tanks as it serves as an exemplar of the social, economic, and political issues that can result from an overabundance of refugees and internally displaced persons. Additionally, the immigration and migration associated with the globalization that has characterized the 20 th century has created numerous issues of border security and immigration policy within the developed world that are addressed by immigration and migration security think tanks. It is important to note that the functional concentrations listed above are by no means mutually exclusive; indeed, in many cases the definitions of the various concentration areas overlap. Many, if not a majority, of security and international affairs think tanks worldwide have developed research agendas that address multiple functional concentration areas. Generally, this will occur in one of two ways. First, think tanks will often engage in interdisciplinary research, meaning that an individual project or program addresses aspects of multiple functional concentration areas. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the Transatlantic Relations program at the Atlantic Council, which conducts interdisciplinary research on diplomacy, international economics and trade, political security, and issues of cooperation between the United States and the European Union, amongst a host of other related topics. 7 On the other hand, organizations with larger endowments, budgets, and more employees are capable of maintaining multiple independent research programs in a number of functional concentration areas. Many of the most prominent security and international affairs think tanks, such as the RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, are examples of this second model. A Typology of Think Tank Structural Orientation While a security and international affairs think tank is first and foremost characterized by the makeup of its research program, each institution is also distinguished and defined by its structural orientation. Even two think tanks with parallel research programs will differ substantially in their process as a result of their disparate organizational forms. The specific structure of a think tank exacts a profound influence on the research products produced by that institution as well as the staffing procedures, mission, goals, standards of objectivity, and funding sources of the institution. Scholars and analysts have offered numerous alternative typologies of think tank structure and orientation. We will argue here that most think tanks can be understood through a nexus of two interrelated sets of ideal types. The first set differentiates between six distinct categories of think tank affiliation, known herein as structural orientations: independent and autonomous, quasi-independent, university affiliated, political party affiliated, government affiliated, and quasi-governmental. The second set differentiates between 7 Atlantic Council, Transatlantic Relations, accessed June 4, 2011, 9

10 Table 1.1: A Typology of Security and International Affairs Studies Functional Concentration Area Military Security Nuclear Security Peace and Conflict Economic Security Environmental Security Political Security Immigration/Migration Security Security Studies Class Traditional Traditional Traditional Non- Traditional Non- Traditional Non- Traditional Non- Traditional Topical Breakdown military spending and budgeting; army; navy; air force; defense build ups and related topics non-proliferation; secure nuclear energy facilities; nuclear powers and their diplomatic relations peace initiatives; terrorism; conflict of all types; causes and solutions to conflict economic development; international trade; international finance; economic power climate change; natural resources; energy security democracy; governance; foreign policy; law; human rights and civil liberties; regional confidence building; history and culture; nationalism; neocolonialism; scholastic exchanges inter- and intra-state immigration and migration; border security; human trafficking; refugess and internally displaced persons (IDPs) four ideal think tank types: academic (or universities without students) think tanks, contract researchers, advocacy tanks, and party think tanks (see Tables 1.2 and 1.3). Think tanks categorized as independent and autonomous maintain significant autonomy from governments and other interest groups. Structurally independent and autonomous think tanks flourish in political environments that permit and, in the case of many modern democratic systems, embrace and support a large, diverse policy landscape. Generally, a political environment that stifles the voicing of myriad diverse opinions from across the political and social spectrum will not possess many independent and autonomous think tanks and will likely boast a small to nonexistent think tank landscape. The exponential growth of the think tank landscapes of advanced industrialized countries such as the United States and much of Europe throughout the 20 th century would not have been possible outside of their open, democratic political systems. Booms in independent think tank emergence tend to coincide with the political shifts from authoritarian to democratic rule, such as in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism or in the countries of Latin America after the fall of a number of military governments. Unlike fully independent and autonomous think tanks, quasi-independent think tanks maintain a certain amount of independence but are controlled by a specific interest (a union, a church, etc.). However, a quasi-independent think tank does maintain significant autonomy in its day-to-day operations and effectively operates like an independent and autonomous think tank. The Palestine Center in Washington, D.C. is a 10

11 textbook example of a quasi-independent think tank. While it operates like an independent think tank, the Palestine Center is a program founded and funded by the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development, an organization committed to the Palestinian cause. As a result, the Palestine Center s analysis gives voice to the Palestinian narrative through policy briefings, lecture series, conferences, symposia, scholarly research publications and an extensive research library. The Center s analysis emphasizes a Palestinian perspective. 8 The case of the Palestine Center demonstrates that quasi-independent think tanks are often beholden to the particular interests of their sponsor or benefactor organization, a fact which influences their research agenda, hiring practices, and the products produced by the think tank itself. A university affiliated think tank is a policy research organization located at a university that receives a majority, if not all, of its funding from that university. All aspects of the organization are impacted by the connection to the university. University affiliated organizations are generally staffed by the university professors and scholars whose research is funded by the university and its affiliated think tank. These staffing procedures in turn influence the research products produced by the organization itself. As the researchers are primarily scholars and academics, a university affiliated think tank tends to produce articles for publication in journals and other academic monographs which adhere to the strict standards of academic objectivity. The work produced at a university affiliated think tank also tends to be considerably less partisan than research produced by either an independent think tank or a think tank influenced by a particular interest group. A political party affiliated think tank is a policy research organization formally affiliated with and funded by a political party. Political party affiliated think tanks are characterized by a political ideology that permeates all facets of the organization. Such an organization generally does not pretend to scholarly standards of objectivity; primarily, a party think tank is meant to serve the interests of the party. Members of the political party in question or researchers who, while not party members, share in the party s ideological bent are routinely and often exclusively chosen to staff these types of organizations. As a result, political party affiliated think tanks are extremely partisan organizations that produce research geared towards promoting party policy and advocating for reform in line with party ideology. A government affiliated think tank is a research organization that is a recognized part of a government structure. Effectively, a government affiliated think tank is a government organization funded by the government and staffed by government employees. The amount of independence accorded to a government affiliated think tank in large part depends on the political environment in which it is situated and the party in power. In a pluralistic, democratic political setting, such as the United States and the majority of Western Europe, government affiliated think tanks are considerably more independent and non-partisan than their counterparts in more authoritarian, less open societies. However, a government affiliated think tank will, regardless of its setting, conduct research at the behest of the government of which it is a constituent part and, in many cases, support the policies of that government. 8 The Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development, About Us, accessed June 1, 2011, 11

12 A quasi-governmental think tank is an organization which receives the lion s share of its funding from government but which is formally independent from said government. In many cases, the government in question will act as the sole funder of the organization and thus be in a position to greatly influence its operations and the products that it produces, though government employees do generally do not make up its staff; however, government employees and politicians often make up at least a portion of the organizations governing structure. An example of one such organization is the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, which receives more than 90% of its funding from the German government. In turn, a considerable amount of the research that it undertakes will ultimately be provided as analysis to the Bundestag and the German government. 9 Additionally, its two deputy presidents are currently the Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Bundestag and the Chief of Staff of the Federal Chancellery, while numerous other government agents and Bundestag members round out its governing council. 10 Much like a think tank formally affiliated with government, the independence of a quasi-governmental think tank depends largely on the political environment in which it finds itself; however, regardless of that environment, the government to which the organization is beholden will always wield a certain amount of influence over the operations of the think tank itself, particularly with regards to agenda setting. While structurally any think tanks can be understood as a variation on one of the six organizational structure presented in this first typology, it is not always the case that two organizations with identical structural orientations will operate in the same manner. While the staffing procedures, sources of funding, and aspirations to objectivity can be inferred from the first typology in a number of cases, these characteristics cannot be inferred purely from structure in the cases of many think tanks, particularly those characterized as independent and autonomous. Thus, a second typology is necessary in order to understand the manner in which these organizations operate. It is made up of four ideal organizational forms: academic (or universities without students), contract researchers, advocacy think tanks, and party think tanks. It is important to note that there is significant overlap between the two typologies, including the inclusion of party affiliated think tanks in both and the parallel between a university affiliated and academic think tank. However, the distinction between academic think tanks, contract researchers, and advocacy think tanks is critical to any understanding of the structure and operation of a given organization, particularly an independent and autonomous one. Academic think tanks and contract researchers have strong similarities with one another with regards to their operations. In both cases, the bulk of the staff is made up primarily of individuals with advanced degrees from upper-echelon universities and strong backgrounds in social science research. As a result, both types of institutions aspire to high standards of academic objectivity in an effort to have their research accepted as credible by a diverse audience. However, academic think tanks and contract researchers differ in a number of crucial ways. First, contract research organizations are largely funded by grants from the organizations that contract research from them. In 9 Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, The Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, accessed June 1, 2011, 10 Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Governing Bodies, accessed June 1, 2011, 12

13 general, contract researchers receive the majority of their contracts from the government (though this does not make them quasi-governmental think tanks). On the other hand, an academic think tank, receives the majority of its funding from foundations, corporations, and individuals. These funding differences produce differences with regards to agenda setting and the research products of the organization. An academic think tank is generally free to determine its own research program free from the influence of its funders. A contract researcher, however, is beholden to the organization that contracts its services, severely limiting its independence with regards to its research agenda. Additionally, a contract researcher tends to produce reports that are for the private consumption of the organizations that fund it while an academic think tank, like a university affiliated one, tends to produce scholarly monographs and articles for academic journals that are meant to be widely circulated in policy circles. The primary difference between these first two organizational structures and the final two, advocacy think tanks and political party think tanks, is the issue of objectivity. Both advocacy and political party think tanks, much like political party affiliated think tanks or some quasi-independent organizations, maintain a specific point of view, an ideology that governs the research that they conduct, the policy advice they provide, and the hiring decisions that they make. Staffing decisions in both types of organizations are based primarily on ideological congruence rather than academic merit. As a result, the research that is produced by such institutions tends to focus less on maintaining academic standards of objectivity in order to remain credible to a large audience. Instead, the research produced by an advocacy-type organization is generally published in an effort to win the war of ideas rather than present a disinterested assessment of policy or fairminded policy advice. In large part, the interests that define such organizations, whether that interest is a political party, a union, or an industry, also fund them, thereby increasing their influence over the operations of the organization. Security and International Affairs Think Tank Emergence: A Brief Analytical History Think tanks dedicated to research in the field of security and international affairs number as some of the oldest and historically most influential public policy research organizations worldwide. The lion s share of these early organizations were created to provide rational, disinterested policy advice to governments in the face of the pressures of an ever-increasing level of international diplomatic engagement and the economic problems of the period. While a number of think tanks did exist prior to 1900, think tanks began to develop en masse at the turn of the 20 th century, largely in the advanced industrialized democracies of the United States and Western Europe. In fact, according to think tank emergence data, only eleven security and international affairs think tanks still in operation today were founded before 1900, accounting for only 0.46% of the current total. Additionally, all but two of those organizations could be found in either the United States or Europe. In fact, it was not until 1929 that another think tank focused in the field of security would be founded outside of those two regions. While the global security think tank landscape did grow during the early part of the 20 th century, development was 13

14 Table 1.2: A Typology of Think Tank Affiliation/Structural Orientation Category Autonomous and Independent Quasi Independent University Affiliated Political Party Affiliated Government Affiliated Quasi Governmental Corporate Definition Significant independence from any one interest group or donor and autonomous in its operation and funding from government. 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 operations of the think tank. A policy research center at a university. Formally affiliated with a political party. A part of the structure of government. Funded exclusively by government grants and contracts but not a part of the formal structure of government. A for-profit public policy research organization, affiliated with a corporation or merely operating on a for-profit basis Table 1.3: Characteristics of Independent & Affiliated Think Tanks Type of Think Tank Academic "University without students" Contracting/ Consulting Culture Objective Limitations Interest Served Scholarly Academic Technocrati c Bring knowledge to bear on public policy Serve government Advocacy Ideological Promote Ideology Policy Enterprise Marketing Package and promote ideas for market and market segment Theoretical approach to problems, not always directly conducive (relevant) to policy making Systems and quantitative approach to policy analysis does not apply to all policy problems and client interest priorities Ideology restricts research topics and expression of opinions Orient their research toward the interests of the market (selected donors & policy makers) Academics and Policy makers Government agencies and bureaucrats Ideologues and narrow interest group Individual market segments Example Institutions Brookings Institution Rand Corporation Institute for Policy Studies Heritage Foundation For profit Business Expand Client base Client's interest. Business approach to policy analysis may ignore political Private Stanford Research Institute 14

15 Political Party Political Get party elected Governmental Bureaucrati c Provide information for policy production University Academic Advance knowledge dimension of public policy Party Platform, party members limits range of policy options Bureaucratic culture. Agenda set by branches of the government. Bureaucratic politics and turf issues constrains analysis and policy choices Education and knowledge creation are top priorities not politics or public policy Party Executive and legislative branches of government Academia Progressive Policy Institute Congressiona l Research Service Asia Pacific Research Center Stanford University relatively slow. Even including a small yet significant spike in think tank establishment likely related to the political and economic turmoil of the First World War and the Great Depression, only sixty-five security thinks tanks had been founded by the end of the 1930s, a decade which saw a growth rate of only 33%, the second lowest think tank emergence rate recorded during the 20 th century. The turn of the 1940s brought with it a new era in the development of security think tanks worldwide. Through the end of the century, security and international affairs think tanks proliferated at astounding rates, with the global security think tank landscape growing by an average of 77% per decade. Additionally, during both the 1940s and 1950s respectively, the number of security and international affairs think tanks more or less doubled globally, with growth rates of 90% or greater. Much of this expansion was fueled by the development of immense and diverse think tank landscapes in both the United States, Western Europe and, after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Eastern Europe. While growth has slowed since the turn of the 21 st century, with an emergence rate of merely 22% in the last decade, there remain 2754 security think tanks currently in existence, with approximately 70% concentrated in the United States and Europe. (see Table 1.4 and Chart 1.4) The security and international affairs think tank explosion that occurred during the 20 th century was at least partially driven by the new security challenges brought to bear on both national governments and the international community by a number of political, social, and economic upheavals. Episodes of geopolitical tension, such as the First World War, Second World War, and the Cold War, produced increased demand for defense and security experts, which in turn prompted the development of an abundance new security policy research institutes. While many of these newly founded think tanks focused on traditional security issues, such as nuclear policy during the Cold War or American military policy, many others focused on the non-traditional security issues that were quickly becoming central to the security of both global powers and newly developed states. The focus on economic and political competition during the Cold War served to promote concentration on issues of economic and political security in think tanks in the Western world. During this same period, the decolonization movement and 15

16 the creation of numerous newly independent states led to the development of security think tank landscapes where there had been none before, particularly in Africa and parts of Asia. Later in the century, the fall of authoritarian or military governments throughout Eastern Europe and Latin America prompted additional growth of security think tank landscapes. In the cases of both decolonization and democratic reform, think tanks were promoted in order to provide the policy advice on the economic issues, the political issues, and the governance issues that plagued the development of these newly independent states. These developments produced evolution and change within the security discipline, establishing the centrality of three non-traditional research areas: economic security, political security, and immigration and migration security. The development of these non-traditional security disciplines, along with the development of the field of environmental security during the last decades of the century, in large part fostered the rapid rates of security and international affairs think tank emergence that characterized the 20 th century. The turn of the 21 st century has seen a significant downtown in think tank proliferation worldwide regardless of discipline or structural orientation. Security and international affairs think tank landscapes the world over have not been immune to this trend. Throughout the first decade of the 21 st century, including 2010, only 429 security think tanks have emerged. While this number is only slightly smaller than the number of security think tanks founded during the 1980s, the downward trajectory of the rate of emergence curve (see Chart 1.2) implies that growth rates will continue to drop. It is possible that this trend in the result of an oversaturated security think tank landscape worldwide. However, many countries outside of the advanced industrialized world, particularly in Africa and Asia, as well as parts of Eastern Europe, do not have particularly large security think tank landscapes. It would thus be expected that while think tank growth may slow in countries like Germany, France, Great Britain, and the United States, each of which maintains an immense security think tank landscape, security think tanks would continue to proliferate elsewhere. This has not been the case, as think tank emergence rates have diminished in similar fashion all across the globe (see Charts ). Thus, while oversaturation of the security think tank landscape has likely contributed to the observed lower rates of security and international affairs think tank emergence, it is also probable that other yet unidentified forces are at play that are decreasing the rate of security think tank emergence at the dawn of the 21 st century. Is There Anything Specific About the Security Think Tank?: A Multifaceted Analysis Functional Research Concentrations and Specialization: While numerous characteristics within the global security think tank landscape may be said to define the security think tank, by far the most important factor in the overall characterization of security and international affairs think tanks worldwide is the global research portfolio. When the functional research concentration data for all security think tanks and public policy research organizations is aggregated, one primary trend 16

17 Table 1.4: Global Security and International Affairs Think Tank Emergence by Decade Note: this data set only contains data from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States. Data from Latin America and the Middle East and North Africa is still in the collection phase. Decade Pre s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s Think Tanks Established Total Number of Think Tanks Growth Rate N/A 27% 100% 75% 33% 92% 90% Decade 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Think Tanks Established Total Number of Think Tanks Growth Rate 70% 68% 70% 73% 22% 0.04% Chart 1.4: Note: based on data from 2401 of 2754 security and international affairs think tanks worldwide. 17

18 Chart 1.5: Note: based on data from 244 of 283 security and international affairs think tanks in Africa. Chart 1.6: Note: based on data from 434 of 528 security and international affairs think tanks in Asia. 18

19 Chart 1.7: Note: based on data from 1147 of 1251 European security and international affairs think tanks. Chart 1.8: Note: based on data from 576 of 692 security and international affairs think tanks in the United States. 19

20 emerges: the primacy of the study of non-traditional security issues. An astounding 81% of all functional research concentrations in the global research portfolio are in the nontraditional security class of the discipline, amounting to just shy of 4000 individual research concentrations. The most studied issue areas worldwide are political security, with 31% of total research concentrations, and economic security, with 29% of all research concentrations. Other than environmental security, which accounts for 16%, no other issue area commands even half as large a percentage of the global portfolio as do political and economic security. Traditional security studies concentrations make up only 19% of all research concentrations, with peace and conflict studies garnering by far the largest interest from security think tanks globally while military security and nuclear security each account for 3% and 5% of all security concentrations, respectively (see Charts ). The disparity between research in non-traditional security studies and traditional security studies becomes even more striking when the think tanks are broken into categories based on their individual research portfolios. There are three possible categories into which a think tank can fall. The first, pure traditional security think tanks, only maintain research programs that concentrate on traditional security issues. Conversely the second grouping, pure non-traditional security think tanks, only engage in research on non-traditional security issues. The third and final group is an amalgam of the first two. Hybrid security think tanks maintain research agendas that concentrate in both traditional and non-traditional security studies. Worldwide, three out of every four security and international affairs think tanks can be categorized as a pure non-traditional security think tank. Compared to the 75% of institutions that focus their research exclusively on non-traditional security issues, only 6% of all think tanks, a paltry 180 think tanks worldwide, are classified as pure traditional security think tanks. To put that number in perspective, there are thirty-six more security and international affairs think tanks total in Washington, D.C. alone than there are pure traditional security think tanks in the entire world. Finally, 16% of all security think tanks are classified as hybrid security institutions that address a diverse range of traditional and non-traditional security issues (see Table 2.3). The primacy of non-traditional security studies in security and international affairs think tank functional research concentrations is likely a function of two interrelated factors: the evolution of the security discipline over the 20 th century and the recent trend towards think tank specialization. As stated previously, the period after the Second World War saw numerous evolutions within the field of security as well as a series of political upheavals, such as the decolonization movement, the fall of military governments in Latin America, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, that created a glut of fledgling independent, democratic states. The increased focus on non-traditional security issues since that time is therefore decidedly unsurprising. While traditional security concerns remained of the utmost important, economic security, environmental security, and political security concerns took the place of traditional security issues at the forefront of the minds of policymakers in the developed world. Additionally, the plethora of newly independent countries promoted the creation of pure non-traditional security think tanks during their earliest years in an effort to provide their young democratic systems with sound economic and political policy advice. As such, these booms in think tank emergence throughout the developing world and Eastern Europe during the 1970s, 20

21 Chart 2.1: Functional Concentrations Worldwide by Security Type Note: this data set only contains data from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States. Data from Latin America and the Middle East and North Africa is still in the collection phase. Chart 2.2: Note: this data set only contains data from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States. Data from Latin America and the Middle East and North Africa is still in the collection phase. 21

22 1980s, and 1990s led to the creation of a disproportionate number of pure non-traditional security think tanks at the expense of traditional security studies. In recent decades, an overabundance of think tanks worldwide and overcrowding within the security and international affairs policy landscape has caused many institutions to limit their research agendas and become increasingly specialized. Newly founded think tanks in particular have begun to attempt to develop a very specialized policy niche as opposed to maintain a broad research program touching on numerous policy disciplines. This phenomenon is to an extent present in the current security and international affairs think tank landscape and provides an explanation for the glut of pure non-traditional security think tanks. Globally, the average number of functional research concentrations per security think tank is Therefore, the typical institution will focus its research in one to two particular policy areas. However, in pure non-traditional security think tanks the average number of concentrations per is only 1.44, making this group of institutions slightly more specialized than the global average. The dual pressures of an increased demand for non-traditional security experts and think tanks during the second half of the 20 th century and the specialization that results from those demand driven booms in emergence of necessity created a glut of particularly specialized think tanks focused on non-traditional security issues. While the trend towards specialization has had a profound affect on pure traditional security think tanks, which are currently the most specialized subset of security think tanks with an average number of concentrations per think tank of only 1.3, as well as non-traditional security think tanks, a full 16% of all security and international affairs think tanks worldwide appear to be increasing the breadth of their research programs as opposed to specializing. Compared to the global average of 1.76 functional research concentrations per security think tank, the research conducted by hybrid security think tanks is considerably broader in scope, with an average of 3.1 concentrations per institution. The research agendas of hybrid security think tanks are of necessity more robust on average than those of either traditional or non-traditional security think tanks, as all hybrid think tanks maintain a minimum of two areas of functional concentration. Even so, the deviation from the global average remains significant. Hybrid security think tanks currently account for approximately one third of all security research concentrations worldwide (34%) while only making up slightly less than one fifth of all security think tanks (19%), making them by far the most productive class of think tanks for their size. Despite the recent pressure to specialize, the 521 hybrid security think tanks worldwide have either become or remained multidimensional with regards to their research agenda. There therefore appear to be a set of two countervailing developments shaping the global security and international affairs landscape. The first, of course, is the specialization of over 80% of all security think tanks worldwide, which aggregately maintain below average levels of concentrations per think tank. The second is the proliferation of hybrid organizations that retain a significant amount of breadth with regards to their research agendas. Without data from prior decades, it is difficult to discern the trajectory of either of these trends. However, it is very likely that aggregately security and international affairs think tanks are specializing, even when hybrid institutions are taken into account. Thus, security and international affairs think tanks as a group appear to be responding to the pressures of oversaturation within the think tank 22

23 Table 2.3: Breakdown of Security and International Affairs Think Tanks by Security Studies Classification Security Studies Classification Number of Think Tanks Percentage of Think Tanks Concentrations Percentage Pure Traditional 180 7% 234 Pure Non-Traditional % 2962 Hybrid Security % 1615 market by either specializing or crowding out in the same manner as their non-securityrelated counterparts. Structural Orientation, Organizational Forms, and Relations with Government: Funding, Stakeholders, Agenda Setting, and Research Products Many of the characteristics of a given think tank are determined in large part by its structural orientation and its particular organizational form. While these two structural typologies do overlap to a degree, they each provide insight into different aspects of the organizations that they classify and are thus most analytically powerful when considered in tandem. With regards to structural orientation, security think tanks throughout the world tend to be either independent and autonomous or university affiliated, as independent security think tanks account for slightly over 50% of the total security think tank landscape while university affiliated institutions account for 29%. Alternatively, as 1% of all security think tanks are political party affiliated and another 6% remain quasiindependent, only 7% of all think tanks remain structurally beholden to a specific nongovernmental interest group. Finally, the final 12% of institutions are either explicitly part of governmental structures or quasi-governmental in that they receive a large portion of their funding from government (see Charts ). Overall, the global security and international affairs think tank landscape is diverse, providing policy space for institutions from across the structural and organizational spectrum. The mammoth concentrations, as compared to the rest of the world, of think tanks in the advanced industrialized democracies of the United States and Western Europe, coupled with the development of independent think tanks in a glut of newly independent states in the aftermath of political transitions, have created a landscape in which a large portion of think tanks in general remain independent and autonomous or university affiliated. In this sense, the security landscape is not dissimilar from the overall think tank landscape globally. However, the moniker independent and autonomous refers purely to the barebones structure of an organization. As it essentially denotes that a think tank does not have any official affiliation with an interest group or government, it ignores the various underlying organizational forms that make up the second structural typology relevant to the study of think tanks. Particularly in the case of an independent and autonomous organization, the distinction between an academic think tank, contract researcher, and an advocacy think tank is critical to any understanding of their internal operations. These subtle differences profoundly affect how an organization is funded, who its stakeholders are, how its research agenda is determined, and the character of the products that it 23

24 produces. These four characteristics, which ultimately define any given think tank, are intimately related, as each factor influences all other relevant factors. 11 The large majority think tanks operate as non-profit organizations and therefore require external sources of funding in order to function. Depending on the organizational form of a particular think tank, these sources of funding vary, as does their impact on the character of the organization. A think tank engaged in contract research generally receives the bulk of its funding through research contracts from the government. As such, government becomes a majority stakeholder in the institution with the ability to exercise a significant amount of control over the agenda setting process. Similarly, an advocacy think tank tends to be financially backed by an interest group, whether it be an industry, a union, or a foundation, that not only controls the agenda setting process but defines the ideological bent of the institution. In both cases, the practical independence of the think tank with regards to its operations is limited by the influence of interested stakeholders. Historically, this has not been the case for academic think tanks. While they too rely on outside funding, the sources of that funding, including foundation grants and donations from both corporations and individuals, have tended to be predominately philanthropic and policy disinterested in nature, with benefactors remaining distant from the agenda setting process or the internal operations of the organization. However, even these historically disinterested donors have, in recent decades, begun to explicitly and intentionally influence research agendas in the organizations that rely on their funding. Essentially, they have begun to act like the interests groups or governments that fund contract researchers, providing funds only for specific, clearly delineated projects and purposes. In this manner, the financial stakeholders in even the most historically independent and autonomous institutions have been able to limit their policy and research autonomy through control of the agenda setting process. The content of the research that makes up the research programs of security and international affairs think tanks around the world and the products that they produce creates exceptionally fervent policy-interested stakeholders. While 52% of all security think tanks are classified as independent and autonomous, like the majority of other independent think tanks the interests that provide funding to security think tanks to an extent influence their research agendas as well. Additionally, as in no other policy discipline, the research conducted by security and international affairs think tanks is consistently relevant and often integral to the functions and responsibilities of governments and government policymakers. This simple fact ensures that governments consistently remain primary interested stakeholders in the operations of security think tanks. Thus, while only 12% of all such institutions are either government affiliated or quasi-governmental, it is likely that a large proportion of the independent and autonomous security think tanks, which may be either academic or contract researcher in nature, are in some way funded by government grants or contracts, thus allowing that government to influence and possibly control the research agenda setting process. The influence wielded by governments over the research agendas of many security think tanks 11 The impact of these various organizational forms is discussed in detail in the earlier section entitled, A Typology of Think Tank Structural Orientation and in much greater depth in James G. McGann and R. Kent Weaver, Think Tanks and Civil Societies in a Time of Change, in James G. McGann and R. Kent Weaver, eds., Think Tanks & Civil Societies: Catalysts for Ideas and Action (London: Transaction Publishers, 2000). 24

25 is not necessarily a negative in the security discipline as it might be in another field of study. The close, symbiotic relationship between the government security and foreign policy apparatuses, government affiliated and quasi-governmental think tanks, and the network of independent and autonomous institutions that are to some degree influenced by government allows governments and security thinks tanks to mutually support one another. This relationship is therefore likely to lead to positive outcomes for both the think tanks and governments involved, as well as to sound policy outcomes in the countries themselves, not to mention the international community at large. Governments produce such positive outcomes by promoting, through agenda setting, research that focus on the pressing international and domestic security issues facing the country or international community, all while providing funding for the think tanks with which they engage. The think tanks reciprocate by providing disinterested, rationale, and credible policy advice that is integral to the governmental policymaking process. Thus, while the current funding environment is such that it produces institutions beholden to interested stakeholders capable of controlling the agenda setting process, in the field of security the effect is, on the whole, productive and constructive, especially with regards to the relationship between think tanks and government. The Impact of the Political, Legal, and Technological Environments and the Market for Labor The particular environmental characteristics of a country exert significant pressure on the think tanks that operate within its borders. Factors such as a state s political institutions, its legal environment, the pace and reach of technological change, and the supply of and demand for labor in a particular country all influence the manner in which think tanks proliferate, operate, and disseminate the products of their research. While issue of law, technology, and labor affect security and international affairs think tanks in the same manner as they affect think tanks as a whole and in other disciplines, the nature of security studies research emphasizes the importance of the political environment of a given state to security think tanks. The laws that govern the establishment of non-profit organizations and oversee the practice of philanthropy vary to a great extent from country to country. As such, differences between them can profoundly influence the size and character of the think tank landscapes in those countries. First and foremost, a country with a legal code that does not support the development and operation of non-profit organizations is likely to have a very small, if not nonexistent, independent think tank sector. Instead, think tanks will develop either as part of government structures or with affiliations to governments, universities, or other for-profit organizations. Furthermore, laws that discourage philanthropic donations will also hinder independent think tank growth as many think 25

26 Chart 2.4: Note: this data set only contains data from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States. Data from Latin America and the Middle East and North Africa is still in the collection phase. Based on data from 2584 of 2754 security and international affairs think tanks. Chart 2.5: Note: this data set only contains data from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States. Data from Latin America and the Middle East and North Africa is still in the collection phase. Based on data from 2584 of 2754 security and international affairs think tanks. 26

27 tanks, particularly academic ones, rely at least in part on philanthropic grants and donations from foundations, corporations, or individuals for funding. In the absence of legal incentives for philanthropic donations, many think tanks would have to search for other more partisan sources of funding. Security and international affairs think tanks are influenced by a given legal system in much the same way as their non-security counterparts. The nature of security studies does not affect the influence exerted on a think tank by a particular legal environment. Technological change has transformed the manner in which think tanks have operated over the course of the 20 th and into the 21 st century. Primarily, the methods of think tanks are revolutionized by advancements in communications technology, from the development and widespread use of the fax machine to the ubiquitous presence of the Internet and electronic mail. Each of these sea changes in communications has allowed think tanks and scholars to collaborate more efficiently across previously insurmountable distances, as well as to disseminate their research products and policy advice to a wider audience. There is little specific about the relationship between technological progress and security and international affairs think tanks. As far a technology is concerned, a security think tank is affected in the same manner as any other public policy research institution. The lifeblood of the think tank world is the set of experts and scholars that comprise their research and support staffs worldwide. In order to continue to conduct research and proliferate at rates similar to those seen during the course of the 20 th century, think tanks the world over rely on a steady influx of accomplished, welleducated researchers committed to a career in policy analysis. The availability of these researchers is in large part determined by two factors: the educational system of a country and alternative opportunities in the labor market. Qualified researchers do not magically materialize out of thin air; on the contrary, they must be educated and trained in universities, colleges, and social science intensive graduate programs. Think tanks in countries with poorly developed educational systems will likely find it difficult to fill their staff with quality researchers. Alternatively, research positions in the think tank world are not the only options open to the highly sought after men and women that think tanks desire as employees. Factors such as wages and benefits of the alternatives open to such candidates in the labor market will often determine whether or not they decide to enter the employ of a think tank. Like all think tanks, security and international affairs think tanks rely on a steady influx of qualified individuals trained in the various fields of security research and are thus affected by the development of higher education systems and the vagaries of the labor market in much the same ways as their non-security counterparts. The political and institutional environment of a given country affects both the proliferation of think tanks, their affiliations, and the manner in which they operate to a great degree. Countries with authoritarian political institutions and a political environment that discourages the voicing of opinions alternative to those expressed by the government will almost certainly stifle think tank development, particularly with regards to independent and autonomous institutions. Indeed, only think tanks structurally and ideologically affiliated with the ruling party or regime are likely to flourish under such circumstances, creating a distinctly one dimensional policy landscape. On the other hand, political and institutional liberalization often fosters the development of a 27

28 burgeoning independent think tank landscape. One needs to look no further than the examples of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Eastern Europe or the fall of military governments throughout Latin America during the latter 20 th century to understand the profound impact liberalization has on the proliferation of think tanks. The widespread acceptance and even support of pluralistic policy debate that accompanies political liberalization invariably leads to think tank development. While this is true for think tanks of all disciplines, the policy relevance of the work conducted by security and international affairs think tank, as well as their often close relationships with government, render the effects of political and institutional liberalization considerable more critical to security think tanks than institutions in any other field of study. The symbiotic relationship between government and security think tanks is dependent on the willingness of the government to allow for and accept disinterested, rational policy advice even if that advice runs counter to professed government policy. Due to the tendency of authoritarian regimes to stifle dissent by any means necessary, security think tanks can only provide disinterested policy advice in pluralistic, open societies and government structures in which they are assured that not only will they not be persecuted for the research they conduct but that the government will not unilaterally dismiss any policy or finding not directly approved by the state. Thus, liberal political systems are essential to the development of lasting, influential security think tank landscapes as their effectiveness depends in large part on their relationship to government. Security Think Tanks in the United States and Europe: A Brief Comparative Analysis At the turn of the 20 th century, think tanks originated and began their developmental trajectory in the advanced industrialized democracies of the United States and Western Europe. And ever since, the countries of Europe and the United States have remained at the heart of the global think tank explosion and as the epicenters of the global think tank landscape. A large proportion of the think tanks that have developed in these regions are categorized as security and international affairs think tanks, primarily due to the central roles played by the United States and the powers of Europe in facing the major security challenges of the past century. As regards traditional security issues, these countries have been primary belligerents in most of the major military conflagrations of the past one hundred years and their membership includes four of the five nuclearweapons states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Additionally, the countries of Europe and the Untied States have been intimately involved in addressing the nontraditional security challenges of the century including the formation and maintenance of international systems of finance and trade, political liberalization in the wake of authoritarianism, both in Eastern Europe and around the world, and the creation international and regional institutions, including the European Union. The nature of their place in the international system during this century of immense conflict and change created a large demand for security experts in all the fields of security and led to booms in the security think tank development. In sum total, the United States and Europe currently contain over 70% of all security think tanks worldwide and each has experienced think tank emergence rates in the field of security far beyond those experienced throughout the rest of the world. The obvious parallels between the two 28

29 regions and their experience with think tanks and civil society organizations in large part extends to their security think tank landscapes. An analytical comparison between the two reveals numerous similarities and parallels while only bringing to light a select few areas of difference. As stated previously, the proliferation of security and international affairs think tanks in Europe and the United States was at least partially a function of the centrality of the two regions in addressing the major traditional and non-traditional security challenges of the past century. However, the think tank explosions that occurred in the United States and Europe would not have been possible in any other political context. The political and institutional environments in the United States and Europe have in large part been similarly open, pluralistic, and democratic over the past century. Liberal, democratic political systems that encourage the free flow and exchange of ideas stand as the prime environment for independent think tank growth; thus, Europe and the United States became and subsequently remained the centers of the global think tank landscape. While exceptions, such as Nazi Germany and Franco s Spain, were authoritarian in nature and exceedingly repressive, the regimes were not longstanding enough to significantly dampen the massive think tank booms occurring in Western Europe and think tank development generally would pick up as soon as liberalization began once again. Additionally, while the majority of Eastern Europe remained oppressed behind the Iron Curtain until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, that collapse brought with it a wave of political liberalization, thus contributing to the think tank development that characterized the 20 th century. Furthermore, both the United States and the countries of Europe, particularly Western Europe, maintain legal systems that favor the creation of non-profit organizations and deep philanthropic traditions that have over the years fueled the American and European think tank booms. As would be expected, security and international affairs think tank emergence in Europe and the United States have followed similar trajectories (see Charts ). In both cases, initial development was slow throughout the first half of the century. However, think tank emergence began to rise after the Second World War, more or less increasing until the turn of the 21 st century, which has seen decreased think tank emergence globally. While the trajectories in both regions are similar, they are by no means exactly the same. The primary difference between the two rate of security think tank establishment curves is that the United States experienced a peak during the 1980s while Europe experienced its during the 1990s. This discrepancy is largely the result of the glut of think tanks founded in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union in As a result, during the 1990s the number of think tanks in Europe practically doubled. No equivalent influx occurred in the United States; however, think tank emergence only dipped slightly from the previous decade. It is thus not of particular analytical significance that the two regions did not experience peaks in emergence during the same decade. More analytically salient is the fact that the development trajectories more or less map onto one another, demonstrating that security think tank emergence in the United States occurred parallel to security think tank emergence in Europe. While the favorable political and legal environments of Europe and the United States contributed to the development of similar security and international affairs think tank emergence trajectories, their influence did not stop there. The similarly liberal, pluralistic political environments in the United States and Europe also served to foster the 29

30 development of largely independent security think tank sectors. In the United States, 92% of all security think tanks are classified as either structurally independent and autonomous or university affiliated. Only one institution is classified as political party affiliated and, while the importance of government as a stakeholder cannot be understated, only 5% of all security think tanks are either directly or indirectly affiliated with the United States government. Similarly, in Europe 82% of all think tanks are categorized as either independent and autonomous or university affiliated. However, considerably more institutions are either government affiliated or quasi-governmental than in the United States, amounting to 10% of the regional total (see charts ). In Europe, it appears as if national governments make the creation and subsequent operation of and support for think tanks in the discipline of security studies a priority as compared to the United States. However, it would be incorrect to definitively state that European governments engage with and support the security think tank sector to a greater degree than does the United States government because, as was explored earlier in this paper, a government does not necessarily have to create, staff, or exclusively support a large proportion of the think tanks within its borders in order to engage in a beneficial and constructive policy dialogue with the security think tank sector. In both the United States and the countries of Europe, a great number of think tanks that are structurally independent and autonomous receive funding from their national governments. Through the utilization of grants and research contracts, national governments are able to act as agenda setters within the security and international affairs landscape, creating research programs meant to provide rational, disinterested policy advice on the critical security issues facing that country. Governments are able impact agenda setting through the use of project specific research contracts or grants as opposed to larger-scale, more general financial support. The ubiquitousness of such interactions between security think tanks and the security and policymaking apparatuses of their national governments in both the United States and Europe means that it is unlikely that the actual disparity between U.S. government involvement in the think tank sector and European government involvement is as large as the structural orientation data might suggest. More likely than not, the gap between the two is exceedingly small, possibly even nonexistent. Strong similarities can be found between the aggregate research agendas of security think tanks in the United States and Europe. The breakdown of functional concentrations in the two regions is relatively similar, with the only major difference being an increased focus on environmental security in the United States. Additionally, think tanks in both regions tend to focus primarily on non-traditional security issues, with pure non-traditional security think tanks making up 68% and 76% of all security think tanks in the United States and Europe, respectively. In both cases, the functional concentration areas that garner the most attention are political security and economic security; additionally, traditional security issues, particularly military security and nuclear security, make up very small percentages of the aggregate research agenda. However, a number of slight but important differences remain. First and foremost, the United States plays host to a much larger proportion of hybrid security think tanks, 25%, than does Europe, 17% and, as a result, contains a slightly less specialized think tank landscape. While security think tanks in Europe maintain an average of 1.73 functional concentrations per think tank the United States boasts an average of This 30

31 appearance appears to be minor at first glance; however, when applied across the entire think tank landscape of each region and corrected for number of think tanks, institutions in the United States effectively engage in 17% more individual functional concentrations than do think tanks in Europe (see Charts ). Thus, while it is larger in absolute terms, the security and international affairs think tank landscape in Europe is also more specialized than the American think tank landscape. However, the European average of 1.73 concentrations per security think tank is actually more or less equivalent to the global average of 1.76; thus, the determinant of this discrepancy is the amplified breadth of research in American security think tanks, not specialization in the European landscape. Conclusions To summarize, taken as a whole, the class of security and international affairs think tanks tends to operate in a similar fashion to the rest of think tanks worldwide. In particular, the responses of security and international affairs think tanks to a host of external forces, including the political environment, the legal environment, and the technological environment fall in line with those responses common to think tanks from across the policy spectrum. Furthermore, the predominance of independent and autonomous institutions as well as university affiliated institutions in the security and international affairs think tank landscape echoes similar trends in think tank structural orientation and affiliation worldwide. The rate of establishment of security and international affairs think tanks globally corresponds to similar emergence trends of think tanks in general. Development of security and international affairs think tanks boomed in the aftermath or the Second World War and, in many ways, was the driving force behind the global think tank explosion during the second half of the 20 th century. This is not to say, however, that there is nothing specific about the security think tank. The nature of the security research conducted in this class of institutions fosters close, symbiotic relationships between the think tanks themselves and interested stakeholders who retain a degree of control over agenda setting procedures through their tight holds on the purse strings, regardless of the organizational form of the institution itself. The importance and policy relevance of security research to government policymaking causes government to be one of the, if not the, primary interested stakeholder and financial backer of many of these think tanks. This allows governments to set research agendas in an effort to have think tanks address the particular security concerns facing a given country or the international community. While data on organizational forms in security and international affairs think tanks has not yet been collected, it appears as if this class of think tanks is made up primarily of academic think tanks funded by interested parties and contract research institutions funded almost exclusively by the government. Thus, while only a small percentage of security think tanks worldwide are either explicitly affiliated with government or quasi-governmental, there is a strong, lasting relationship between security think tanks and government that is beneficial to both parties. 31

32 With regards to the research itself, security and international affairs think tanks devote a large proportion of their intellectual resources to research concentrations in nontraditional security, particularly in the field of economic and political security. Additionally, security and international affairs think tanks have not been immune to the current overabundance of think tanks worldwide. In response to the increased competition for policy space and in order to maintain policy relevance, a large proportion of security and international affairs think tanks have specialized their research programs and missions, focusing on only one or two areas of functional concentration in depth. This is particularly true with regards to think tanks classified as either pure traditional security think tanks or pure non-traditional security think tanks, as each set maintains an average number of functional concentrations per think tank below the global average. However, a number of institutions, known as hybrid security think tanks, have, to this point, resisted the trend, maintaining average concentrations per think tank levels far above the global average. Looking towards the future, the future is both bright and, to an extent, bleak for security and international affairs think tanks worldwide. While an overabundance of think tanks has created contraction through specialization the world over, we also witnessed an extremely low rate of security and international affairs think tank emergence during the first decade of the 21 st century. A downturn such as this is unsurprising in the advanced industrialized world, which has experienced phenomenal rates of think tank development for over sixty years. However, it is troubling to see that in the developing world, where security and international affairs think tanks are needed most, emergence rates have followed the trend dropping dramatically. In order to ensure that think tank landscapes continue to grow where sound policy advice is needed, policymakers throughout the advanced industrialized world and the developing world must actively support the development of security studies think tanks as a means by which to encourage development and prosperity. In the advanced industrialized world and in a large proportion of the stable, liberal political systems the world over, security and international affairs think tanks are deeply embedded constituent pieces of the policymaking process and they will continue to provide relevant, disinterested policy advice and, in so doing, influence policymakers, governments, and the international community. 32

33 Chart 3.1: Note: data based on information from 686 of 692 security and international affairs think tanks in the United States. Chart 3.2: Note: data based on information from 686 of 692 security and international affairs think tanks in the United States. 33

34 Chart 3.3: Noted: based on data from 1180 of 1251 security and international affairs think tanks in Europe. Chart 3.4: Noted: based on data from 1180 of 1251 security and international affairs think tanks in Europe. 34

35 Chart 3.5: Chart 3.6: 35

36 Chart 3.7: Chart 3.8: 36

37 Chart 3.9: Chart 3.10: 37