I wanted to recommend Enrique Mendizabal’s blog on think tanks since long time and finally found time to do so.

Enrique Mendizabal is the Head of the ODI RAPID Programame, a position that gives him a great insight in the work of many think tanks across the world. However, his blog is more than just a reflection of his work. It is  really useful collection of references, resources and reflections on think tanks globally.

My favorite posts from the last few weeks:

On the formation of think tanks

On rankings of British based think tanks

On the definition of think tanks

There are many more posts on broader topics. I hope you find them useful.

No Comments

Recently a visitor on my blog commented on one of my earlier posts that I have not given a definition of think tanks. By default, I shy away from generalizations and attempt to box-in organizations that are relatively diverse. Anyway, as with many things in life we have to generalize from time to time . So here is an evolution of definitions I have used in my texts (from newest to oldest) and some other interesting definitions I have stumbled upon:

Continue reading →

1 Comment

Three theoretical underpinnings

Recently I have been writing a longer piece on the quality of the work of think tanks in central and Eastern Europe. This has inspired me to try to look at think tanks through the lenses of two ‘classical’ political theories (pluralism and elitism) and one up and coming concept (knowledge regimes).

Excerpts from this study:

The influence[1] on policies and policy debates has been a paramount issue in the debate around think tanks. While not central to this paper, it is important to consider this issue when placing the quality of policy research in the wider political and policy environments in which think tanks operate. Stone provides an excellent overview of “different approaches to the role of think tanks in policy making” (2004:10-15). Her analysis canvases a wide array of theoretical lenses such as elite theory, pluralism, Neo-Marxist interpretations, discourse construction, and touches upon the neo-Gramscian framework, listing various network theories (knowledge networks, epistemic communities, advocacy coalition frameworks and policy entrepreneurship). Each theoretical framework makes certain assumptions about the role of ideas. Given that policy research is key step in analyzing, presenting and advocating for those ideas, the same assumption extends to the role of (quality) policy research. Therefore, this chapter briefly lists all considered theoretical frameworks and then discusses in depth the three most appropriate theories for the purposes of this paper.[2]

Some approaches, although useful in many other contexts, seem to have limited use in explaining the situation in the region. For example, the local political and business elites have never explicitly employed think tanks in their pursuit to maintain hegemonic control over society, as the Neo-Marxist frameworks would suggest. Likewise, a few of the network theories, such as the advocacy coalition approach, are simply too complex (with their emphasis on values and beliefs), to properly depict the current system of policy making in Central and Eastern Europe[3]. Next, proponents of epistemic communities who emphasized the role of experts in the policy-making process had their fine hour in the EU accession process[4]. When it comes to knowledge of the region’s political system, the more pressing debate is to identify the centers of knowledge and determine if and how knowledge influences policy before employing a theoretical framework that defined by narrow clustering of knowledge/expertise[5]. While the presented approaches are not a good fit for the purposes of this article, they single out three key features: interest groups, the role of knowledge, and the nature of the policy process. These three key features (knowledge replaced with the more narrow evidence-based analysis), will be of key importance when selecting the appropriate theoretical foundation. For each theory, in addition to listing its general definitions and features, it will be important to determine how it treats and/or perceives the quality of analytical products and their communication. Finally, the importance of evidence-based policy research for the successful promotion of ideas and a think tank’s subsequent influence on policies operating within these theoretical frameworks will be reviewed.

Continue reading →

2 Comments

Think tanks and individual researchers very often struggle to define what constitutes  quality in their analysis. While academic and policy writing manuals are not short of prescriptions for good writing, indicators or benchmarks for successful policy briefs and papers, this is still an elusive thing. I am sure you have all had a feeling of satisfaction when reading a good policy paper. And that has been first it: a feeling! – a feeling of reading a useful and pleasant read. The rationale and justification, analysis and structure of the paper/ brief have come only later. Similarly, I am sure you have also read many more papers where you felt the information is really useful, the writing is correct, but you miss the sensation of a good read, you felt the paper dry (like a cigarette smoke in a Balkan restaurant) that choked you as you progress reading it.

I do not dare to give my own definitions, anyway there are plenty of others out there. Instead find below two interesting observations about quality of research that I heard recently:

1. On the substance of research:

In the opening speech at this year’s Bled Strategic Forum , Danilo Türk , the President of the Republic of Slovenia has paid a tribute to research and in few words captured the essence of captivating policy analysis and recommendations:

He said ‘Honesty starts with intellectual honesty first’. Then, he listed imagination as an essential ingredient to scientific policy thinking, but also as a necessary step in finding strategies to implement policies. As strategy he defined a carefully thought-through set of measures. Finally, in my opinion he summarizes the essence of every analytical piece:

-         Honest analysis

-         Realistic assessment

-         Imaginative policy recommendations

2. On the form of writing and power of words:

At a recent event that PASOS and Think tank Fund organized at the premises of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), Mark Leonard, its director  speaking on communication of policy research quoted Tom Stoppard to depict the importance/value/necessity of captivating writing on part of policy analysts:

“Words… They’re innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they’re no good any more… I don’t think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little or make a poem which children will speak for you when you’re dead.” Taken from Tom Stoppard in ‘The Real Thing‘

These are two recent gems helping me to ‘corner’ quality of policy research. What are yours?

1 Comment

That think tanks compete on two separate markets, for funding and for the opportunity to provide policy advice, is a common wisdom today. Likewise it is clear that the small size of the underdeveloped national markets for policy analysis forces think tanks either to expand their analytical work regionally or undertake other (non-policy related / non- analytical) activities and operate as hybrid organizations. Another, third model is for the same group of people use their analytical skills and compete at two markets: a) the market for grants  – and thus produce publicly available policy products, and b) the market for consultancy contracts – and thus produce analysis that is a ‘private good’ in the hands of  the client who paid for it. While many organizations have tried to organized these two different types of tasks within the same entity (usually an NGO and called think tank), an emerging number of organizations open a consultancy firm (a for-profit arm) under the same name and practically operated by the staff that is also active in the public domain.

This model has recently become particularly enticing to think tanks in Western Balkans and a few have already started similar practice. While the model itself is possible and in some environments plausible, it has many embedded risks. The current scandal with Hayek Foundation, once a notable think tank in Slovakia, issues a stark warning about the consequences when consultancy is involved in murky dealings.

In a nutshell, the scandal is linked to a deal that Hayek Consulting, a for-profit arm of the better known Slovak liberal think tank FA Hayek, signed with the previous Slovak government in the range of 1.4 million Euros.  This scandal has heated the political debate and worsen the relations among the current coalition partners and the case has reached the State Supreme Audit Office and will probably will have far-reaching consequences for the main actors involved and the Slovak political scene. My interest here is to observe the irrevocable damage that Hayek, the think tank, has suffered in this process.

First there is a personal dimension in the case – whether the fees paid were realistic and to what extent the allegations that the silence of one of the most critical Slovak think tanks was bought by the previous government with this contract.  The reputation of this government critic is shredded into pieces (the situation is even more complex since two of the main actors hold high positions in the current government).  Second, the type of consultancy that Hayek Consultancy undertook in a critical period before parliamentary elections suggests that if a think tank wants to be serious / committed about its public function, it should not have never undertaken a task that would compromise its reputation and integrity.  I am not sure if Hayek – the think tank has had a code of conduct or ethical code to arrange the relations between the two entities and draw a red line to indicate what type of consulting engagement would jeopardize the reputation of the think tank. Regardless, even if they did, they would have certainly been violated in this case.

Leaving Hayek scandal and its key people to salvage their political careers and maybe save the think tank in some form, a broader question begs my attention: Is the think tank-consulting firm a viable model for sustainability of think tanks? Is it possible for a think tank to secure its integrity when signing consultancy contracts with the government or political parties knowing the how contested are the national political scenes? Or one should simply accept that following the money is ethical and leave the ethics behind ?

(More on this topic)

1 Comment

Sometimes you stumble about something in the web and think: “This is very cool”. That was my reaction towards the animations of RSA, an abbreviation for Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce based in London.

“In the light of new challenges and opportunities for the human race, the RSA seeks to develop and promote new ways of thinking about human fulfilment and social progress.  We do this by providing a platform for ideas and debate, a programme of innovative research and development, and through the activities of our 27,000 strong Fellowship.  By combining thought leadership, social engagement and powerful forms of collaboration, the RSA can make a vital and unique contribution to civic capacity.” (Taken from thersa.org)

My favorites are

a) the professor Philip Zimbardo talk & animation on how our individual perspectives of time affect our work, health and well-being. Those who prefer prof. Zimbardo’s mustaches to the animation, see the video of his talk.

b) 21^st century enlightenment – more for philosophy buffs .

My second stumble for this week is a somewhat unusual but useful repository of material and data on the Balkans and South Caucasus.

Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso (OBC) is a research and electronic media centre devoted to social and political change in South-East Europe, Turkey and Caucasus. The OBC team, based in Rovereto (Trento – Italy), cooperates with a network of over 40 correspondents and local contributors to deliver daily online articles and in-depth analysis on these areas.

In the world dominated by English language and sources from the Anglo-Saxon world this is some refreshment. And it is in English, too for those of us that do not speak Italian. . Check out their latest addition: Postcards from Albania. Look at vibrant Tirana between the two wars and would not find its current strive for modernity surprising. (Thanks to The Economist Blog Eastern Approaches for this gem).

Finally, I share one source that I did not stumble upon. J. Aaron Presnall from The Jefferson Institute has sent the info some months ago. I have finally found some time to play VIDI-Dataviz only now.

I hope you will also find these resources useful

No Comments

I have been following (and trying to learn ) about communication of policy products. In learning about it, I have taken two main avenues: a) learn from think tanks which do it well, but also b) look in other ‘industries’ where similar challenges exist.

Naturally media has been one of the inspirations. Few months ago I have discovered an innovative design of a Portuguese newspaper and recommend policy centers to look at i (the name of the newspaper) principles and try to apply when designing their own policy briefs.

Now I have stumbled upon a creative designer of newspapers in Central and Eastern Europe. Jacek Utko, a Polish designer has managed to make miracles with some of Eastern European newspapers. I really recommend you to spend 6 minutes and watch his talk on TED.

Two key messages I drew from this talk:

Continue reading →

No Comments

‘Processes of innovation and research are fundamental to improvements in quality of life and to creating a better society. But to realise these benefits, the quality of research alone is not enough. Organisations engaged in policy-relevant research and innovation must continually take into account and balance the needs of a diverse set of stakeholders: from the intended research users, to their clients and donors, to the research community and the research participants. Responsiveness to all of these is crucial if they are to be legitimate and effective. In this, accountable processes are as important as high quality research products.’ – OWT Announcement of September 9th.

These are the premises on which One World Trust has built their work on research accountability tools. The work has resulted in an excellent database.

The database is available here. . The database is an output of a three-year project, entitled “Accountability Principles for Research Organisations.” Working with partners across the globe, the project has generated an accountability framework which is sufficiently flexible to apply to many contexts and different organisations.

Too often think tanks go headlong into various research projects without paying enough attention to the ethical aspect of their work and accountability of their policy products and work in general. One World Trust (Brendan Whitty is the key engine behind this project) has produced a commendable and useful depository online for all those who want to ensure that their research work is accountable.

To fulfill all the requirement (according to the OWT model) would certainly require an overall organizational effort to embed the suggested principles in every research design. However, this online depository should be consulted also by those researchers / think tanks who are interested to improve their accountability in a piecemeal fashion. I really recommend you to browse through it. The tools go beyond accountability of research;  some of the posted documents could help think tanks and research organizations to re-think and improve their research design, implementation plans and advocacy efforts. 

1 Comment

Press often writes based on what it has been told by think tankers but rarely writes about them. Elite press even more so. So ‘Send for the wonks’, the article that appeared in the Economist on July 27,  is worth highlighting for all those who follow the developments in the world of think tanks. Especially those who trace the transfer of think tankers into politics (so called revolving door function of think tanks). Those who search for the elusive definition of impact in the work of these organizations would be even more delighted to read how ResPublica, the Institute for Economic Affairs, Reform and Policy Exchange, four British think tanks are making an impact on the current policies. Of course, ‘impact’ based on the transfer from ‘policy’ into ‘politics’.

Transfer of Eastern European ‘wonks’, albeit not reported by the Economist, follows similar trends in some countries. This year’s notable mentions come from Slovakia following the recent parliamentary elections: Eugen Jurzica, who stepped down as INEKO executive director last year, became the Minister of Education, Science, Research and Sport two months ago; Miroslav Bebaly traded his place at the Slovak Governance Institute for a seat in the Slovak Parliament. And there are not the only ones . In Slovakia, the think tanks have always been traditionally linked with the liberal and center-right ideologies and consequently in favor of those political parties. Therefore the transfer to and from Government in Slovakia is very common and does not undermine the credibility of the sector (OK, I am sure that Robert Fico will disagree with my interpretation ).

Regrettably, this cannot be said for the countries in the Western Balkans (Albania was in the limelight last year) . But this is a different story that deserves a special blog-post in future to follow some of my previous musings.

No Comments

In the past, independent think tanks have tended to perceive communications as an optional, marginal activity. However, the creation of a comprehensive annual communications strategy is becoming integral to the activity of any think tank including those in Central and Eastern Europe. Every organization requires a communications strategy to maximize its work’s impact, but technological advancement and the perception that there is abundant information and analyses at policy makers’ disposal complicate the task of choosing appropriate channels of communication.

At the end of May 2010, Policy Association for Open Society (PASOS) and the Think Tank Fund gathered 20 executive directors and/or directors of communication of CEE think tanks at a workshop in London (insert the agenda). The 2-day workshop hosted by the European Council of Foreign Relations (ECFR) benefited from the experiences of the London- based think tanks (IPPR, DEMOS, CER, Chatham House and several other organizations such as Global Witness, Open Society Institute). While participants have positively evaluated the events, PASOS has recorded some of the presentations and put them available here:

1. Developing and implementing a communications strategy – overview

Peter Harrington, former Communications Director, DEMOS, UK

download Powerpoint of Peter Harrington’s presentation (3.8Mb)

listen to Peter Harrington’s presentation (MP3, 31Mb, 45 minutes)

2. Developing and implementing a communications strategy – New media tools

Kathryn Corrick, digital media consultant
listen to Kathryn Corrick’s presentation (MP3, 45Mb, 49 minutes)

3.  Communication strategy – Case study of Center for Research and policy Making (CRPM) – Macedonia. Presenter: Marija Risteska, Director

download Powerpoint of Marija Risteska’s presentation (610kb)

listen to Marija Risteska’s presentation (MP3, 20.5Mb, 23 minutes)

4. Communication strategy of a particular project – Case study of Providus Center for public Policy – Latvia. Presenter: Krista Baumane, Development Director
download Powerpoint of Krista Baumane’s presentation (173kb)

listen to Krista Baumane’s presentation (MP3, 15.6Mb, 23 minutes)

5. Building relations with media and policy stakeholders/ Effective advocacy strategies

Nicholas Walton, Head of Communications, European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
listen to Nicholas Walton’s presentation (MP3, 15.5Mb, 17 minutes)

Fiona Napier, International Advocacy Director, Open Society Institute

listen to Fiona Napier’s presentation (MP3, 21.8Mb, 24 minutes)

I hope you find them useful. Let me know your comments and ideas below.

Important note: All presentation slides are property of the presenters and should not be copied

4 Comments