Full Report: Think Tanks and the Policy Process: A Comparative Analysis Research Award no. H Dr. D.L. Stone. 1.

Transcription

1 Full Report: Think Tanks and the Policy Process: A Comparative Analysis Research Award no. H Dr. D.L. Stone 1. Background The rationale for the research project was that until the 1990s there was very little information about and knowledge of independent policy research institutes. The existing parallel research and published work was almost entirely limited to discussion of American organisations. They were assumed to be unique to the United States. American analysts often argue that the US system is more open, pluralistic and permeable than European political systems. They assume (inter alia, Polsby, 1983; Weaver, 1989) that there are fewer opportunities for think tanks to enter the policy fray in Europe and elsewhere due to factors such as stronger party systems, corporatist modes of decision-making, strong and relatively closed bureaucracies, or weak philanthropic sectors. The research sought to dispute and over-turn these assumptions about the exceptionalism of American political structures and institutions through a comparative study of US and British think tanks. The conceptual framework to address the think tank phenomenon was to employ the burgeoning policy network literature: that is, public policy concepts such as policy communities and advocacy coalitions as well as international relations ideas of epistemic communities and transnational advocacy networks, all of which incorporate informal or non-state inputs to decisions and policy making. The policy community concept refers to all actors or potential actors who share a common policy focus and who, over time, succeed in shaping policy. The way in which it has been developed has usually been to stress the political and economic interests of participants. think tanks (or their scholars) are likely to acquire insider status to government if they share the prevailing values and attitudes of the policy community. By contrast, the advocacy coalition approach places greater emphasis on the view that analysis has a long-term enlightenment function in altering policy orthodoxies, and highlights the role of beliefs, values and ideas (Sabatier, 1987). The discourse coalition model stresses the role of language and political symbolism (Fischer, 1993). The focus is on how a policy problem is defined and the discourse through which the problem is understood. Two related frameworks from international relations, the epistemic community idea (Hans, 1992) and transnational advocacy networks (Keck & Sikkink, 1997) go beyond the domestic level to focus on the specific role of knowledge, scientists or experts in global policy processes, and the political impact of social movements and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), respectively. This literature formed the basis for analysing and ascertaining think tank impacts and influence within varying policy environments. As think tanks are private organisations, lack formal decisionmaking authority, and function outside the political realm, their governance roles can only be partially understood by observing their independent interventions into public debate. However, their network interactions help them penetrate more informal political circles and less visible fora of policy development. All these network concepts include a mix of interest group leaders, politicians, bureaucrats, and business representatives, but also give consideration to the potential role of academic analysts, think tanks, senior journalists, intellectuals and other actors. Within networks, think tanks often act as policy entrepreneurs, firstly, by promoting ideas and pushing them higher on the public agenda; and secondly, by softening-up actors in the political and policy system to new ideas so that when an opportunity arises (for example, elections or a policy crisis) an entrepreneur s ideas meet a receptive audience (Kingdon, 1984). In networks, think tanks contribute policy-aware advocates, researchers and other specialists who analyse problems and propose solutions. In short, they provide intellectual resources. These institutes also build an infrastructure to maintain contact and keep actors in policy networks abreast of current activities and research. They draw together people from diverse backgrounds in government, law, universities, the military, international agencies and elsewhere, with the purpose of establishing lines of communication among disparate actors with common objectives or interests. Networking helps promote solidarity, loyalty, trust and reciprocity. In itself, such networking does not equate with political influence, but it aids the effectiveness of think tanks in promoting policy ideas.

2 2. Objectives The overall objective of the project was to ameliorate a gap in the public policy, comparative politics and international relations literatures by drawing attention to an increasingly numerous and important non-state actor in domestic and global politics. The more specific objectives of the original research proposal were: -- to investigate the social, political and policy character of these institutes and the reasons for the massive growth in their number in the last quarter of the century. -- to address the extent to which think tanks have contributed to contemporary debates in international affairs and have promoted the study of international relations and strategic studies. -- to apply policy network concepts to address the issue of think tank influence in national, regional and global governance processes. The original application outlined three projects. The first project was a comparative study of the role of independent policy research institutes - think tanks - in shaping public policy. This was completed in The second proposal, currently underway, was to investigate the role of think tanks in the Asia-Pacific. To-date, two papers have been produced for publication on his theme. The third objective was to investigate the role of foreign policy institutes in international affairs and to conduct a case study of one institute - the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS). This latter objective was considerably broadened during the course of the Award. Richer research opportunities and greater relevance were afforded by widening the study to a macro-level of global interactions of think tanks, rather than engaging in a micro-level case study of one particular organisation. The revised focus was to look at think tanks in a global and comparative context and to concentrate on writing journal articles and book chapters in this area (as detailed under Outputs below). 3. Methods The methods employed included fieldwork visits to organisations, face-to-face interviews, literature surveys and gathering further information about think tanks via correspondence or electronic means. The results were analysed by deploying the policy network concepts in conjunction with other models drawn from public policy and international relations. The first book involved an almost comprehensive survey of the then state of the literature on think tanks. For this book and subsequent research and writing, primary sources included the publications produced by think tanks, their annual reports and internal memoranda as well as accounts of their activities reported in the media. Secondary academic sources became more numerous as the 1990s progressed and were also incorporated in research and writing. Interviews were conducted with think tank directors, scholars or administrative officers whilst on field-work in Asia, the UK, Australia and the USA. These interviews were nearly always conducted inside the think tank. On a number of occasions I was able to speak to two or more people about the organisation and have access to facilities such as their library. Interviews for the first book were undertaken in the UK and the USA from August through November 1994 primarily in Washington DC., New York and London. Field work and interviews in Southeast Asia were undertaken from July to September An additional visit to Singapore and Bangkok in April 1998 allowed me to follow up contacts. Other methods of gathering information about think tanks included accessing web-sites, mailshots to individual organisations and attending think tank meetings from time to time. For short periods, I became a member of, or subscriber to, a few Australian and British institutes and attended their seminars and functions.

3 4. Results Think tanks are a remarkably diverse groups of organisations. They vary considerably in size, structure, policy ambit and political significance. Some organisations at least aspire to function on a non-partisan or non-ideological basis and claim to adopt a scientific or technical approach to social and economic problems. Other organisations are overtly partisan or ideologically motivated. Some think tanks are academic in style, focussed on research, geared to university interests and in building the knowledge base of society; others are more routinely engaged in advocacy and the marketing of ideas whether in simplified policy relevant form or in sound-bites for the media. Specialisation is a more contemporary development with environmental think tanks (Club di Roma in Paris), economic policy think tanks (for example, the Institute for International Economics in Washington DC.) or think tanks addressing the concerns of specific groups in society, such as the feminist WETtank (women s economic think tank) in Australia. Such diversity means that think tank roles are equally diverse and can be addressed on a number of fronts. The following discussion outlines think tank roles in (i) knowledge development; (ii) civil society enhancement; (iii) responses to globalisation; (iv) governance; and (v) their influence, primarily in regard to (vi) networking. i. Think Tanks and Knowledge Development Many think tanks have social status as expert, research and analysis organisations. Think tank managers often encourage engagement with academic communities. Indeed, most policy institutes claim to pursue educational aims of improving public awareness and human understanding. Those institutes that are most highly regarded tend also to be the institutes that have long-standing interaction with universities and scientific establishments, and participate in academic peer review processes. In short, many individuals associated with think tanks adopt the professional norms associated with academia to secure scholarly legitimacy. The research of leading institutes is in some ways analogous to that in universities. Furthermore, the publications of bodies such as the Brookings Institution and Chatham House are often to be found on student reading lists in social science subjects and in academic libraries whilst RAND in California has its own doctoral programme. The academic standing of these publications is cultivated through refereeing not only to protect a think tank s independent standing but also to attract academic contributors. Other institutes also offer the equivalent of post-doctoral fellowships for younger scholars. Indeed, there is often a considerable degree of mobility between think tanks and university departments. Furthermore, institutes are a means to incorporate the perspectives of practitioners - former military personnel, government officials or NGO leaders who would not easily qualify for appointment to a university - into scholarly developments. As such, these organisations contribute to th knowledge base of society. However, think tanks are not engaged in purely academic study of international relations but are focused on policy driven questions. As such, they occupy a political and cultural space between academia and government but attempt to provide a forum which links the academic world with decision-making domains. ii. Think Tanks and Civil Society Independent think tanks are presumed in much of the North American literature to be reflective of the democratic bases of that society - a forum for public debate and participation. Such organisations strengthen the bases of civil society, and civil society is assumed by many liberals to be a driving force of political liberalisation. Think tanks supposedly have the capacity to challenge the virtual monopoly on power, resources and information that many governments hold by providing competition in ideas, raising the standard of debate and scrutinising government policies and practices, thereby working to hold government accountable. Thus, think tanks are said to contribute to plurality of society and to act as catalysts for civil society (McGann & Weaver, 1999). Whilst many think tanks adopt the mantle of civil society, in some instances this is a facade. In fact they may act as a buffer between genuine civil society organisations and the state. For instance, most Asian think tanks are regime enhancing, divorced from mainstream civil society and circumscribed in their freedoms. This is a phenomenon that donor agencies, foundations and international organisations need to keep in mind. If funds and resources are

4 being used to promote or enhance democratisation through local think tank growth, or to facillitate human capital development, such an objective would be undermined if only local elites were being subsidised. In short, research and writing in this area has contested two assumptions: firstly, that think tanks can be freely categonsed as civil society organisations; and secondly, qualified the view that these organisations are a liberalising influence and contribute to democratisation. iii Globalisation and Think Tank Transnationalisation The international domain is one level where a number of think tanks are very proactive. They create regional and international connections with like-minded institutes, with other nonstate actors like foundations, they build coalitions in conjunction with NGOs in the human rights field or specific issues concerning the environment. They help construct communication bridges between NGOs and international organisations like the World Bank, IMF or UN, or regional dialogue structures and networks such as in the EU or APEC. Importantly, think tanks do not become regional or global actors unless they find a firm fundament at a domestic level. Institutes that operate in global arenas tend to be elite, wellestablished and high profile bodies in their national context. Furthermore, bodies like the Trilateral Commission, SIPRI, Davos or the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies have prominence in global or regional affairs. Western think tanks are more prominent than institutes from the South or the developing world. The transnationalisation of think tanks is creating new hierarchies, the emergence of global think tank establishment (epitomised by Global ThinkNet, an annual directors meeting of the world s leading think tanks) and unequal power differentials. The vast majority of think tanks are not known beyond their national borders and lack the size, stature, recognised experts and resources of these institutes. Asian, Latin American or African institutes may acquire regional stature but few gain the global reputation of even relatively new institutes like the World Resources Institute or the Institute for International Economics, both in Washington DC. Mature think tank communities in liberal democracies have created fertile conditions and a greater propensity for international exchange between like-minded think tanks in Europe and North America. Given the diversity of think tank ideological views, this does not represent the hegemony of groups representing capital (as has been argued of the Trilateral Commission, see Gill, 1990), but large mainstream institutes are becoming key actors among emerging global policy elites. iv Governance Roles The kinds of relationship between think tanks and official agencies are multi-fold, ranging from a low-key service role to co-option into policy deliberations. In general, they perform a service role of generating data and providing information, technical support and analysis or feedback on programme implementation. Think tanks are often more appropriate organisations for undertaking certain tasks instead of implementation being enacted by official actors. For example, the European Centre for Work and Society maintains the Euro-TecNet network of vocational training demonstration projects which is funded by the European Commission. Another governance function is that think tanks have the ability to monitor and review implementation of agreements in global and regional contexts by providing informed judgements. Thus, the International Institute for Environment and Development provided some evidence on which the International Whaling Commission placed a moratorium on commercial whaling. Another form of policy impact is the way in which groups of think tanks contribute to the development of new policy orthodoxies. The neo-liberal or free market policy institutes promoted privatisation ideas well in advance of their adoption by governments. From the 1970s, they performed four key roles: Firstly, think tanks acted as a clearing-house for information. For example, the Reason Foundation in the USA is a resources centre for government officials, journalists with information about privatisation techniques and strategies adopted around the world. Secondly, think tanks do not communicate ideas solely through seminars, conferences and publications but seek to press their views in public domains such as television and radio or through newspaper commentary as well as the provision of educational materials for schools and universities. Sometimes they make direct contact with political parties and (when possible)

5 government ministers. In short, they act as advocates. Thirdly, think tanks were policy entrepreneurs and sought to introduce privatisation ideas into domestic policy communities by interacting with local government officials, politicians and business interests to build coalitions of political support. Finally, as think tanks are scholarly and expert organisations, they have the intellectual resources, status and credibility to provide the intellectual justifications to validate privatisation. In other words, think tanks performed an agenda-setting role. Informal diplomacy represents a more active intervention and incorporation into decisionmaking processes and a governance role behind-the-scenes which is achieved by relatively few think tanks. This kind of diplomacy entails activities or discussions involving academics and intellectuals, journalists, business elites and others as well as officials acting in their private capacity. The involvement of independent think tanks can help mediate tensions or communication lapses. They can act as intermediaries between interests because of their assumed neutrality and scientific objectivity. Think tanks facilitate negotiations by providing a closed forum where new forms of inter-state co-operation or approaches to regional and international conflicts can be explored privately in neutral surroundings. Such an activity is useful to governments if the think tank is a prominent organisation, of which foreigners have heard, and more importantly, if it can draw upon a network of distinguished states-people, business leaders, diplomats, military officers and scholars. A good example of informal diplomacy conducted through think tanks is apparent in Southeast Asia. The ASEAN Institutes for Strategic and International Studies (ASEAN-ISIS) was an important research and policy network establishing political support for new ideas about security co-operation in the region and central in the initiation of a new multilateral forum, the ASEAN Regional Forum (Kerr, 1994). In sum, the project has drawn attention to the governance functions of think tanks. Whilst these are private organisations they produce public goods in the form of knowledge and information for policy makers; expert advice on legal, constitutional or technical issues; and fora for public and/or private disussion that potentially aids consensus building and the formation of common identities. v. The Issue of Influence. Influence is a word that is open to a variety of interpretations. Too often discussions of think tank influence have concentrated solely on their (lack of) political impact to the neglect of other patterns of influence. The problem is complicated by the fact that think tanks often need to convince members, their donors and benefactors, their media contacts and decision-makers of their relevance. As a result, think tanks often claim an influence over policy which proves to be unrealistic. The politics and policy process in any country is invariably complicated, and it is rare to find examples of a one-to-one correspondence between a think tank report and a policy subseqently adopted by government. The problem of guaging or measuring the impact of think tanks cross-nationally is fraught with difficulties such as incommensurate indicators. That one think tank receives alot of media attention does not mean that another institute which eschews media interaction is less powerful or influential. Furthermore, think tank influence can range from helping to changing the climate of opinion to a more narrow conception of influencing (or derailing) a single piece of legislation. However, these methodological dilemmas do not mean that the question of influence cannot be meaningfully explored. Whilst some of these organisations have links into the policy formation processes and have some kind of presence in the broader social-political system, their power or influence is limited and dependent. For example, it may be less the case that think tanks have an impact on government and more the case that governments employ these organisations as tools to pursue their own interests. Political or bureaucratic leaders may encourage a certain think tank to pursue a particular avenue of research. In a more direct fashion, governments may commission studies to be undertaken by institutes. Whilst government patronage - such as the links which existed between Thatcher and the CPS, President Clinton and the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), or Reagan with Heritage and Hoover - provides greater access to information and the corridors of power, there are also dilemmas. Changes in political leadership may spell marginalisation for some think tanks.

6 Think tanks appear to be useful in periods of critical transition. Such transitions may occur with electoral change whereby an in-coming party requires transition thinking in the form of policy ideas and blue-prints. This is clearly evident in the USA with the Heritage Foundation providing advice for incoming Reagan Administrations. Similarly, many of the Russian instituteniki were constitutive of changing policy orthodoxies that lead to glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union. Alternatively, think tanks can also acquire prominence when governments lack an in-house capacity to deal with problems. For instance, the civilian strategists at RAND were very influential in informing US nuclear strategy during the 1950s and 1960s. vi.policy Networks There is a diverse range of policy network concepts originating from public policy and administration, and more latterly from international relations. The research has applied public policy concepts of policy communities, discourse coalitions, issue networks, advocacy coalitions along with international relations concepts of epistemic communities and transnational advocacy networks. Just as the labels and conceptions of network differ, so there has been little agreement in the scholarly literature as to whether networks represent a metaphor to describe policy making involving a wide range of public and private actors, or as an analytical tool to analyse the relations and resource dependencies between actors within a given policy sector or yet again, as an alternative mode of governance. Primarily the approach adopted was to use the network concepts as an analytical tool. A particular preference emerged early for the epistemic community idea. This concept was different from other network ideas in focusing upon an homogeneous network of actors with similar interests and characteristics, in this case, a scientific consensus among (social) scientists and experts in universities, laboratories, think tanks and government bureaux in defining policy problems and solutions. This concept provided the closest fit in explaining how and why think tank knowledge resources were incorporated into policy when they were involved in epistemic communities. One outcome of the application of this approach suggested the need for a balanced consideration of the degree of distinctiveness of the various concepts. The network concepts are not mutually exclusive. Epistemic communities can also function as discourse coalitions while the subsidiary concepts of discourse structuration and discourse institutionalisation are useful in identifying degrees of penetration into policy thinking of an epistemic community or other network arrangement. Furthermore, epistemic communities are not static or permanent networks. In some circumstances, they can dissolve into more structured and heterogeneous policy communities within national contexts or alternatively into the broader category of transnational advocacy network. More recently, I became interested in the idea of networks as a mode of governance whereby the patterns of linkages and interaction as a whole should be taken as the unit of analysis, rather than simply analysing think tanks as actors within networks. The analytical approach describes the context of, and factors leading to, joint policy making, whereas the governance approach focuses on the structure and processes through which joint policy is organised. In short, there is a functional interdependence between public and private actors whereby networks allow resources to be mobilised towards common policy objectives in domains outside the hierarchical control of governments (see Börzel, 1998). This tendency is particularly noticeable in global politics where governance structures are more diffuse and lack the central coordination hierarchies characteristic of national polities. The transnational character of many policy problems establishes a dynamic for research collaboration, sharing of information and co-operation on other activities that pull think tanks into the global domain to meet not only the demands of governments and international organisations for information, analysis and other knowledge services, but also the common policy aims of networks. Although they are private organisations, by helping to reduce the costs of information and transactions, and by building mutual trust in networks, think tanks can produce public goods.

7 5. Activities As outlined below, I have presented a number of conference papers. Participation in one - the Policy Transfer Conference at Birmingham - sparked a broader interest in the concept of policy transfer. Work in this area proved to be timely. I was requested to write a paper on this subject in May 1998 and again next year for a joint British and Finnish seminar series. As a consequence, I am now part of a research network known by its acronym as GASPP (Global Social Policy Programme) and from which a new journal, Global Social Policy, is emerging Participation in the 1995 Political Studies Association Conference brought me into contact with two other UK researchers on think tanks (Dr Andrew Denham at Nottingham University and Dr Mark Garnett, formerly at Bristol University). Our meeting lead to a collaboration on edited volume which involved searching out people in other countries willing to write on think tanks. In short, this book project was a fruitful exercise that has allowed me to develop a valuable worldwide network of social scientists researching think tanks and related organisations. As a consequence of presenting a paper at the 1997 European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, I came into contact with a small research group of academics based in Germany interested in the role of private organisations in global politics and governance. A workshop of authors was convened in Konstanz in April 1998 at which I delivered a paper. Another paper on a related theme was delivered at the inaugural conference of the ESRC funded Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation on Non State Actors and Authority in the Global Order. Finally, I have been invited to participate in a book project on think tanks world-wide. Sponsorship and support for these activities (during 1998 & 1999) will come from a think tank consultancy company, the World Bank and the Brookings Institution. This is bringing me into direct contact with user groups in foundations, think tanks and international organisations. Research on Asian think tanks was greatly facilitated by time spent in Thailand. From late July through to September 1997, I was a Visiting Professor in the Department of International Relations of the Faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand as part of an exchange arrangement with the University of Warwick. I presented two seminar papers in the Department and was involved in a number of other activities in the Faculty. I re-visited the Faculty in April 1998 and August I also visited the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University in Australia to make use of their facilities, and presented a seminar paper. Conferences During the course of the ESRC award I presented eight conference or workshop papers. These meetings included two referreed academic conferences such as the International Studies Association and participation in the Joint Sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research. These presentations are outlined below. Think Tanks in South, Southeast and Australasia, paper presented to the World Bank Conference, Think Tanks and Civil Societies: Catalysts for Ideas and Action, Barcelona, 28th June - 1st July 1998: Think Tanks, Lesson-Drawing and Networking Policy Ideas paper in preparation for Global Governance and Social Policy Conference, Organised by the Globalism and Social Policy Programme at the University of Sheffield and STAKES, the National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, Helsinki, 29th May 1998: Think Tanks in the Global Political Order, Private Actors in Global Politics Workshop, Waidhaus Jacob, Konstanz, Germany, 17-19th April, 1998: 1-27 Think Tanks As Global Policy Actors, Non State Actors and Authority in the Global System, Inaugural Conference of the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation,

8 University of Warwick, 31st October - 1 November 1997: Networks, Second Track Diplomacy and Regional Cooperation: The Role of Southeast Asian Think Tanks, paper presented to the 38th Annual International Studies Association Convention, Toronto, Canada, March 1997: Second Track Diplomacy: The Role of Private Actors and Experts, Paper for the European Consortium of Political Research 25th Joint Sessions of Workshops, Bern, Switzerland, 27 February --4 March Workshop 15, Private Organisations in Global Politics: Non-Governmental Policy Transfer: The Strategies of Independent Policy Institutes, paper prepared for the Policy Transfer Conference: The Global Spread of Ideas, Policies and Institutions, University of Birmingham, 26-27th October Think Tanks and the Privatisation Policy Bandwagon, Political Studies Association, University of York, At the 1996 meeting of the Political Studies Association in Glasgow, I was Chair and Co- Convenor of a panel of three papers on think tanks. For this Conference I secured a British Academy conference Grant of 600 in order to bring two overseas speakers to the PSA Conference. Their papers were subsequently incorporated into the co-edited volume, Think Tanks Across Nations. In addition, I presented numerous seminar papers in academic departments including the University of Durham (November 1997) and the American Studies Department, University of Manchester (November 1995). Overseas, I made presentations at the Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University (July 1997), the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University (August 1997) and the Department of Politics, University of Western Australia, (March 1998). Additionally, I have been invited to present research seminars for staff and students in graduate teaching programmes. These included presentations in November 1994 and 1995 in the Centre for International Studies, Leeds University; and in January 1997 at the University of Kent, London Centre for International Relations. Finally, in June 1995, I prepared a presentation on think tanks at the 21st Annual Short Course for Teachers of Politics, University of Westminster. 6. Outputs 1.) Books Capturing the Political Imagination: Think Tanks and the Policy Process, London: Frank Cass, 1996: i-xviii, (hardback and paperback) Think Tanks Across Nations: A Comparative Approach, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1998: i-xvi, co-edited. (hardback) Ideas, Interests and Identity: Think Tanks in Southeast Asia, (book manuscript in preparation) Estimated completion date, June Articles in Refereed Journals Non-Governmental Policy Transfer: The Strategies of Independent Policy Institutes paper delivered at the Policy Transfer Conference: The Global Spread of Ideas, Policies and Institutions, Governance (accepted and forthcoming 1999) Learning Lessons and Transferring Policy Across Time, Space and Disciplines, Politics, 19(1) 1999:

9 Principles and Pragmatism in the Privatisation of British Higher Education, Policy and Politics, 26(3), 1998: From the Margins of Politics: The Influence of Think Tanks in Great Britain West European Politics, 19(4) 1996: A Reply to Ramesh Thakur, Richard Searby and John Ravenhill, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 51(1)1997: A Think Tank in Evolution or Decline?: The Australian Institute of International Affairs in Comparative Perspective, The Australian Journal of International Affairs, 50(2) 1996: Articles Completed for Journal Submission Regional Cooperation via Second Track Diplomacy: The Role of Southeast Asian Think Tanks, Comparative Politics. Think Tanks, Lesson-Drawing and Networking Policy Ideas paper for a proposed new journal, Global Social Policy. 4. Chapters in Edited Anthologies Private Authority, Scholarly Legitimacy and Political Credibility: Think Tanks and Informal Diplomacy, in Richard Higgott, Geoffrey Underhill and Andreas Bieler (eds) Non State Actors and Authority in the Global System, (Routledge, in press). Policy Research Institutes in Southeast and Australasia, chapter completed for a book to be co-edited by James McGann and Kent Weaver, Think Tanks and Civil Societies: Catalysts for Ideas and Action (Brookings Institution and the World Bank, 1999 completed and forthcoming). The Policy Roles of Private Research Institutes in Global Politics, Karsten Ronit and Volker Schneider (eds.) Private Organisations, Governance and Global Politics (Routledge, completed and forthcoming 1999). Introduction: The Politics of Ideas (with Mark Garnett) in Diane Stone, Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett (eds.) Think Tanks Across Nations: A Comparative Approach (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1998). The Development and Discourse of Australian Think Tanks. in Diane Stone, Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett (eds.) Think Tanks Across Nations: A Comparative Approach (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1998). Think Tanks and the Privatisation Policy Bandwagon, in J. Lovenduski and J. Stanyer (eds.) Contemporary Political Studies 1995 (Belfast: Political Studies Association, 1995) Vol 1: Other The British Think Tank Tradition, Nina Review (Japan), Summer, 1997: Think Tanks Capturing the Political Imagination, The Reformers, 5(2) 1997: 29-30

10 7. Impacts Indicative of growing appreciation of think tank role in knowledge creation and governance is the recent interest of the Economic Development Institute (EDI), an operational unit of the World Bank, in sponsoring global and regional think tank conferences in the late 1990s. The objective of the EDI is to cultivate and strengthen interaction between these organisations, funding agencies and the World Bank in the general promotion of human capital development. I presented a paper in July 1998 to a World Bank meeting and I have been invited to participate in their world think tank congress in Washington DC. in mid I have also achieved some interest in my research outside the academic community. I responded to two requests to write short pieces on think tanks originating from a political party and from a large Japanese think tank - the National Institute for Research Advancement. An article published in 19% - A Think Tank in Evolution or Decline?: The Australian Institute of International Affairs in Comparative Perspective - generated substantial debate in Australia amongst those connected with the AIIA. As a consequence, I was invited to respond to comment on my article with another short publication in the Institute s journal. 8. Future Research Priorities The immediate research priority is to complete the book on Southeast Asia think tanks. I am working with a draft of words and intend completing the manuscript in mid In future work on think tanks, I have three modest projects in early stages of development: (i) Think Tank Transnationalisation, a paper in preparation for the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, in Washington DC. February I have convened a panel on think tanks at this meeting. It is my intention to place the four papers as a special colloqium within a journal. I will investigate this possibility with either the European Journal of lnternational Relations or Global Society. (ii) A rough working paper on Civil Society and Think Tanks (iii) A plan to co-author a paper on British and German Party Institutes. In general, I will broaden my empirical focus to address a wider range of knowledge actors. That is, foundations, NGOs, scientific associations, consultancies and so forth. In terms of my conceptual foci, I envisage that my research interests will turn more towards policy transfer and social learning. References Börzel, Tanja. (1998) Organizing Babylon - on the different conceptions of policy networks, Public Administration, 76 (summer): Cockett, Richard. (1994) Thinking the Unthinkable: Think Tanks and the Economic Counter- Revolution, , London, Harper Collins, Day, Alan. J. (1993) Think Tanks: An International Directory, Essex, Longman Group. Gill, Stephen. (1990) American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hellebust, L. ed. (1997) Think Tank Directory: A Guide to Nonprofit Public Policy Research Organizations, Kansas, Government Research Service.

11 Fischer, Frank. (1993) Policy Discourse and the Politics of Washington Think Tanks, in F Fischer and J Forester (eds.) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, London, UCL Press. Keck, Margaret. and Sikkink, Kathryn. (1997) Transnational Issue Networks in International Politics, Ithaca NY. Cornell University Press. Kerr, Pauline. (1994) The security dialogue in the Asia-Pacific Pacific Review, 7(4): Kingdon, J. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Boston: Little Brown & Co. McGann, Jim. & Weaver, R. Kent. eds. (1999) Think Tanks and Civil Societies: Catalysts for Ideas and Action, Washington DC., Brookings Institution and the World Bank. Polsby, N. (1983) Tanks but no Tanks, Public Opinion, April/May: 14-16, Ricci, David. (1993) The Transformation of American Politics: The New Washington and the Rise of Ameri can Politics, New Haven, Yale University Press. Sabatier, Paul. A. (1987) Knowledge, Policy Oriented Learning, and Policy Change: An Advocacy Coalition Framework, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(4): Smith, James. A. (1991) The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite, New York, The Free Press. Wallace, William. (1994) Between Two Worlds: Think Tanks and Foreign Policy, in C. Hill and P. Beshoff (eds.) Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners and the Trade in Ideas, London, Routledge and London School of Economics: Weaver, R. K. (1989) The Changing World of Think Tanks, PS: Political Science and Politics, September: