A Handbook for Researchers - Why is this handbook important

The role of CSOs in policy processes: enlarging the democratic space

The changing nature of the international development context has led to an increasing emphasis on the crucial - and as yet not fully utilised - role of civil society organisations (CSOs) in poverty reduction policy. Experience has shown that when CSOs are able to assemble and communicate information effectively, there is a significant and pro-poor impact on policy. The role of civil society is at the moment especially relevant to the large-scale development efforts around democratisation, where strong CSOs are among the 'drivers' for democratic change, and PRSPs, where CSOs can potentially play a vital part in the planning process - and in the immediate response phase.

The role of CSOs in the South

Although there is widespread agreement that the policy role of CSOs is a key issue within development today, one of the emerging problems is the question of how to enable CSOs to play this role; it will not happen automatically. ODI's research and experience so far suggests that CSOs in the South will be more able to engage with the policy processes of their government and of international institutions if they have a good understanding of how policy processes work; they have the capacity to generate high-quality relevant research or have access to such research e.g. through research/practitioner networks; they are able to access and participate in Southern and Northern policy networks; and they are able to communicate their concerns in an effective and credible manner.

This list, with its focus on Southern CSOs, reflects the changing role of Northern development and research institutions in the current context. Development institutions today need to focus not just on service provision and technical skills, but also on the way knowledge is distributed and used - especially in capacity building efforts. Northern CSOs and institutions have a new role to play in supporting and strengthening the capacity of Southern CSOs to engage with national and global decision-making. As DFID's Research Policy Paper points out 'The evidence suggests that the capacity of developing countries to generate, acquire, assimilate and utilise knowledge will form a crucial part of their strategies to reduce poverty' (Surr et al, 2002).

The ability to manage knowledge about development effectively is not only relevant to CSOs in the South. Northern development NGOs are increasingly called on to do analytical work based on evidence from the South, and to add value to policy debates both nationally and internationally. Yet experience indicates that NGO programme managers and policy officers are under perennial time and funds pressure to move quickly from concept to implementation, with less space than they would wish for undertaking comprehensive research to strengthen their evidence or undertaking analysis on how to influence policy effectively.

The particular role of think tanks

The growth of think tanks
Think tanks are becoming an increasingly marked feature of the CSO institutional landscape. There has been a veritable proliferation of these bodies since the 1970s. Two thirds of all the think tanks that exist today were established after 1970 and over half were established since 1980. In regions such as Africa, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of Southeast Asia, think tanks are a more recent phenomenon, with most of the institutions being created in just the last 10 years. Today there are more than 4,000 think tanks around the world, in almost every country that has more than a few million inhabitants and at least a modicum of intellectual freedom (McGann, 2001).

The remarkable growth of think tanks has been propelled by several different forces, including an increased demand for information and analysis, the increased recognition of the importance of civil society in promoting democracy, improved communications technologies, and the globalisation of think tank funding - especially from the advanced industrial countries to support the development of civil society organisations in the developing and transitional economies (McGann 2001, Stone 2000b). Perhaps because of the recent rise of these organizations, the literature is relatively sparse (Abelson, 2002a).

'Policy research institutes and think tanks are a neglected phenomenon in the social science literature. Yet, think tanks are emerging in such large numbers around the world that questions need to be asked regarding the reasons for their emergence and international spread, the ways in which they seek to influence policy-makers, and how they interact in global society…The lack of attention to think tanks illuminates the biases of social scientists as much as it reflects the late development and characteristics of these organisations.' (Stone, 2000a)

Much of the literature and analysis is American in origin. The term itself originated in the US, and the US environment has proved highly conducive to the growth and diversification of this type of institution. The US political system, coupled with the availability of generous funding streams through foundations, has allowed a wide range of American think tanks to evolve over the last few decades.

'With a government based on separate branches sharing power, a party system in which members of Congress are free to vote as they wish, and a growing number of presidential candidates trying to develop new ideas, [American] think tanks have multiple opportunities to shape public opinion and public policy' (Abelson, 2002a).

The problem of definition
Abelson treats think tanks as 'Non-profit, non-partisan (which does not mean non-ideological), research-oriented institutes among whose primary objectives is to influence public opinion and public policy.' (Abelson, 2002b).

Stone emphasises the difference between think tanks and civil society more generally:

'The term 'think tank' is used here to mean independent (and usually private) policy research institutes containing people involved in studying a particular policy area or a broad range of policy issues, actively seeking to educate or advise policy makers and the public through a number of channels. This paper avoids identifying think tanks as a sub-category of nongovernmental organisation (NGO). Instead, the broader term 'non-state actor' has been adopted. In many cases think tanks are quasi-governmental or quasi-academic and lack the independence and connections to civil society usually associated with NGOs.' (Stone, 2000b)

'…think tanks are found at the intersection of academia and politics, and they often seek to make connection between ideas and policy. Think tanks have one thing in common: the individuals in them attempt to make academic theories and scientific paradigms policy-relevant.' (Stone, 2000b)

Given the difficulty of definition, many scholars have instead resigned themselves to identifying major waves or periods of think tank growth - again, particularly in the US.

Four generations of think tanks
The first major generation of think tanks were foreign policy research institutes. In the US, these began to emerge in the early twentieth century, largely as a result of the desire of leading philanthropists and intellectuals to create institutions where scholars and leaders from the public and private sectors could congregate to discuss and debate world issues.

'These and other think tanks created during the first decades of the twentieth century were committed to applying their scientific expertise to a host of policy issues. Functioning, in the words of Brookings scholar Kent Weaver, as "universities without students." Although scholars from these institutions occasionally provided advice to policy makers when they were first established, their primary goal was not to directly influence policy decisions, but to help educate and inform policy makers and the public about the potential consequences of pursuing a range of foreign policy options. In part, the willingness of policy research-oriented think tanks to remain detached from the political process stemmed from their commitment to preserving their intellectual and institutional independence, something many contemporary think tanks have been prepared to sacrifice.' (Abelson, 2002b).

The second major generation of think tanks, in the aftermath of World War II, functioned as government research contractors, and responded to the need for independent advice. These were policy research institutions largely funded by government departments and agencies, whose research was intended to address specific concerns of policy makers. The third major generation was the rise of the advocacy think tanks. No other type of think tank has generated more media exposure in the last three decades.

'Combining policy research with aggressive marketing techniques, a function they share in common with many interest groups, advocacy-oriented think tanks have fundamentally altered the nature and role of the think tank community. As the US think tank industry has become more competitive, most think tanks have come to realise the importance of capturing the attention of the public and the minds of policy makers.' (Abelson, 2002b).

The most recent type of think tank to emerge in the foreign policymaking community is what some have referred to as 'legacy-based.' Legacy-based think tanks are think tanks created by former presidents intent on leaving a lasting legacy on foreign and domestic policy. They produce a wide range of publications, hold seminars and workshops, and conduct research in a number of policy areas (Abelson, 2002b).

The unique influencing position of think tanks in the policy environment
Think tanks occupy a particular niche within civil society, and face their own particular challenges when it comes to policy influence. The private sector and powerful interest groups have been adept at lobbying for centuries. The lobbying and public affairs professions are also well developed. Similarly, a recent surge of resource kits and training programmes have been produced for campaign and activist groups. There are well developed bodies of knowledge on communications, media relations and public relations. While all of these are, in general, helpful for think tanks, none of them are geared specifically towards think tank needs.

The style of high-profile, confrontational strategies of activists and public campaigners, although often backed up by sound research and evidence, does not suit the think tank that often prefers to work collaboratively with policy makers to feed through new ideas and lead 'from the front', creatively and constructively. Equally the more subtle co-operative approaches of corporate lobbyists and coalition builders are not relevant to think tanks who are concerned less by private gain and more by public good. The think tank's practice of advocacy is a gentle art which is proactive, but not so much that it conflicts or manipulates. Advocacy for intellectuals does not compromise scientific independence or objective opinion, yet it goes out and sells its ideas and does not sit in its ivory towers. This is a difficult balance to maintain. Seeing all sides of an argument means there can be too little conviction to package and promote any one idea. Too little objectivity, and credibility is quickly lost.

Therefore, only some of the influencing techniques and approaches in use are directly appropriate to think tank work, yet many can be adapted to improve think tank impact. Two important dimensions to consider in this respect include the balance between confrontation and cooperation, and rational evidence versus value or interest-based argument (as presented in the axes image). These create four categories of policy influence strategy, which could be typologised as: advising, advocacy, lobbying and activism.

Confrontation is usually the method of advocacy and activism strategies. It seeks to obtain change via pressure and seeks to point out problems rather than offer solutions. It works from the outside, rather than gaining an inside track in policy communities. Cooperation - the practice favoured by advising and lobbying - aims to build constructive, working relations with policy makers in order to develop solutions to complex problems. Both are effective and important ways of bringing about policy change. Both the carrot and the stick will create movement, and both are usually present in most forms of change. But it is difficult for one organisation to do both and, on the whole, think tanks usually lean away from confrontation and towards cooperation.

The reason for this relates to the second axis: rational evidence versus value or interest-based argument. Think tanks tend to operate by proposing change based on research. Their causes tend to be rooted in academic inquiry, and their credibility lies in the objective and scientific approach. As a result, researchers within think tanks can often see all sides of an argument, and don't like to push any one view for fear of being viewed as dogmatic.

James (2000) also draws up a third axis of relevance to think tanks, namely the axis that runs from the direct approach of lobbying government to adopt a particular policy on the one hand, and the indirect approach of seeking to change the framework and content of public debate on a question on the other hand, or simply alerting public and expert opinion to the issue, thereby changing policy makers' frame of reference. 'In essence think tanks have a clear strategic idea of what they want from government: they want to change its mind. The rest is tactical…' (James, 2000).

The means through which they can influence policy are limited, however. First, they can rarely elicit and mobilise the support of members of the public or of interest groups in the way that an advocacy organisation can, because the think tank then risks becoming too political and populist, and too identified with a single issue. Second, think tanks often try to avoid being confrontational, as opposed to activist and campaigning organisations, because this would jeopardise its image of constructive and collaborative problem-solving. Third, a think tank rarely has the financial independence that would enable it to carry the kinds of lobbying and (advertising) campaigning that large companies, interest group bodies or political parties can engage in.

More from the Handbook - including the Context, Evidence and Links Framework

Back to Tools for Policy Impact index