Think Tanks and Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Brozus ◽  
Hanns W. Maull
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Global Perspective ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
Think Tank

Foreign policy think tanks originated in the context of the Industrial Revolution and world wars in Western industrialized countries and then spread to all parts of the globe. In the process their national orientations toward governments and their attentive national public audiences have evolved toward a global perspective. As a consequence, they also have been drawn into, and have contributed to, the debate about the future of the Western-dominated international order. What exactly makes a think tank remains contested, but there is broad agreement on the variety of functions they fulfill. They bring knowledge to power, but power also uses them to advance its political agenda. As the idealistic notion of expert knowledge as a solution to political problems has fallen by the wayside and advocacy think tanks have flourished, the interaction of think tanks with governments, the media, and the public has become politicized. In liberal-democratic countries, there is a growing trend toward competitive knowledge production by think tanks, whereas in authoritarian systems, think tanks are increasingly being used as instruments of state-controlled public diplomacy. Ultimately, think tanks have to bridge the tension between the needs of decision-makers, on the one hand, and the standards of scientific inquiry and orientation toward the common good, on the other hand. This tension cannot be resolved, but it can be made productive. For this, a strong emphasis on professional integrity will be essential.

Think Tanks and Foreign Policy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuti Bhatnagar
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Social Actors ◽  
Policy Frames ◽  
Policy Actors ◽  
The Media ◽  
Intellectual Elites

The role of think tanks as policy actors has developed over time and created significant global scholarship. Widely understood as non-state policy actors, think tanks established either with or without the support of government have evolved in various political contexts with varied characteristics. They are avenues for the discussion of new policy ideas as well as used for the consolidation of existing understandings of global and national political issues. As ideational actors think tanks interact with policy frameworks at different levels, either in the framing stage or at the stage of consensus building towards certain policies. Intellectual elites at think tanks allow for the introduction of think tank ideas into the policy frames as well as the creation of public opinion towards foreign policy decisions. Think tank deliberations involve an interaction with policymakers, academic experts, business and social actors, as well as the media to disseminate ideas. Institutionally, think tanks in a wide variety of political contexts play a critical role in the making of foreign policy and bring closer attention to processes of state–society interactions in different political environments.

Brazilian businessmen movements: Right-wing populism and the (dis)connection between policy and politics

Organization ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amon Barros ◽  
Sergio Wanderley
Keyword(s):  
Free Market ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
The Political ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Political Role ◽  
Right Wing Populism

We advocate for the relevance of taking Brazilian past experience and theorization of populism into account to understand present-day challenges. We depart from Weffort’s conceptualization of populism to discuss the role of businesspeople movements in supporting and taking control of the political agenda through think tanks. According to Weffort, populism is built over precarious alliances that tend to favor policy or politics in different moments. During times of divergence among political elites, a populist leader emerges as a mediator in orchestrating an unstable hegemony among asymmetric classes. At the same time, the classes included in the populist alliance give legitimacy to the populist leader; they hinder his capacity of imposing decisions. However, treason of the weakest within the alliance is certain. We suggest that the political role played by the think tank IPES, in 1960s Brazil, in reframing middle-class demands is akin to contemporary populist events in Brazil—represented by the election of Jair Bolsonaro—and in the Anglo-Saxon world. Trumpism and Brexit are examples of a still-powerful free-market ideology project wrapped up under a populist discourse (re)framed with the support of businessmen and think tanks. A corporate takeover of government and the imposition of a free-market agenda are certain, as it is the treason of the weakest in the populist coalition. CMS academics should engage with the demands that give birth to populist movements as a way to dispute the neoliberal hegemony and anti-democratic populist solutions.

Unofficial Officials

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dayna L. Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Personal Networks ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Accessible Information ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Long Range Planning ◽  
The Government

This chapter looks at the think tanks of policymaking. In the early wartime period, official long-range planning was stunted by a lack of government resources and interest in the subject. The bureaucrats in charge of American foreign policy came to rely on information and expertise from outside the government as they formed their views. Specialist research organizations, later known as “think tanks,” leaped to fill gaps in official expertise. Eventually, think tank staffs became unofficial officials, taking full part in the development of policy. They provided reports, recommendations, and accessible information, informed by their specific institutional viewpoints. They also maintained personal networks between members and policymakers and created space for officials and private experts from the business and scholarly communities to discuss ideas.

scholarly journals Swedish Advocacy Think Tanks as News Sources and Agenda- Setters

Politik ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sigurd Allern ◽  
Ester Pollack
Keyword(s):  
Relative Strength ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Turn Of The Millennium ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
News Sources ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
The Media

The topic of this paper is the media visibility of Swedish advocacy think tanks, as measured by references to these think tanks in leading Swedish print newspapers. Advocacy think tanks are, in contrast with more research-oriented think tanks, characterised by their outspoken ideological and political agenda. In public debates, they often have a partisan role. Four research questions will be answered: How often are these advocacy think tanks referred to in the news? How important are they as commentators and opinion-makers? How are they presented as sources in the news? What is the relative strength of market-liberal and right-wing think tanks versus red/green think tanks, in terms of media representation and agenda-setting?The selection criteria, type of newspapers, and time period used in this study of Swedish advocacy think tanks have been coordinated with parallel, national think tank studies by media researchers in Denmark, Norway, and Finland. Several changes in the think tank landscape took place after the turn of the millennium, which motivated us to select two full newspaper years, 2006 and 2013, to better cover these developments. To gain a deeper understanding of the think tanks’ backgrounds, their cooperation with other think tanks, and their media strategies, we conducted background interviews with representatives from four advocacy think tanks. We met with Karin Svanborg-Sjövall, CEO of Timbro; Boa Ruthström, CEO of Arena Idé, and Maja Dahl, communication manager of Arena Idé; Mattias Goldmann, CEO of Fores; and Daniel Suhonen, the leader of Katalys.

The Power of Knowledge: How Think Tanks Impact US Foreign Policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmitry G Zaytsev ◽  
Valentina V Kuskova ◽  
Alexandra Kononova
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Nonstate Actors ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
The Public ◽  
Different Origins ◽  
Policy Proposals

Abstract Studies on foreign policy consider government as the key actor in policy formulation and implementation. Research, apparently, has devoted far less attention to impact of knowledge brokers, such as think tanks, on policy-making. How and why do think tanks influence US foreign policy? An analysis of five think tanks that differ in terms of their proximity to elites, origin, and ideology reveals two types of nonstate actors’ impact on foreign policy. Think tanks either advocate for own alternative policy proposals, solutions, and actions (“alternatives’ facilitators”), or clarify, justify, and legitimize those of the governments (“policy legitimizers”). These two roles dictate special mechanisms and think tank impact directions. In the first type, think tanks are less oriented toward mass media, but more oriented toward coalitions with nonstate actors and influence the opinions of elites. The second type is the opposite: higher orientation toward mass media and more pronounced connections with elites, and influence on the public. Different origins and strategy of think tanks may be the reasons for some observed differences.

scholarly journals Institutionalization of Foreign Policy Think Tanks in Italy and in the UK: An Explanatory Framework

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Longhini
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Funding Policy ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Italian Case ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
Closed Door ◽  
Few Data ◽  
The Uk

Abstract This article explores the phenomenon of foreign policy think tanks in Europe in a comparative perspective and offers a framework of analysis for this topic. Assuming that think tanks were largely imported from the US after World Wars I and II, the article argues that European think tanks have been influenced by the different national political contexts in which they have undergone a process of institutionalization. First, the article hypothesizes that such contexts have contributed to determining different incentives for cooperation between think tanks and national policymakers. Such cooperation is based on the willingness of policymakers to turn to think tanks for expertise, advice or validation of policy decisions. Secondly, different political contexts are expected to influence the strategies of action that think tanks have developed towards policymakers and their audience. In this respect, the article identifies three strategies: the generalist, the advocate and the lobbyist. Empirically, the article is based on a survey of eleven organizations conducted in two countries, Italy and the United Kingdom, in 2013-14. Given that very few data are available on this type of organization, their activities, funding, policy audience and goals are investigated. These indicators are used to investigate the main commonalities and differences between the two cases and to compare them with the hypotheses. The results first show that there is comparatively more funding available for think tanks in the UK system than in the Italian one. Secondly, there is apparently more willingness from policymakers to turn to think tanks for expertise in the former case, considering that the UK think tanks hold a higher number of closed-door events and parliamentary hearings. On the contrary, where policymakers tend, instead, to more scarcely rely on external expertise - as it seems more evident in the Italian case - the core audience of think tanks tends to shift to other, more accessible targets (the public opinion, the academia or even businesses). The case study makes it more evident how advocacy becomes a far less important activity for an Italian think tank than a UK one.

Any better ideas? Think tanks and policy analysis in Canada

2018 ◽  
pp. 275-296
Author(s):  
Donald E. Abelson
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Policy Initiatives ◽  
Appointed Officials

This chapter explores the role of think tanks in Canada, and their efforts to contribute to the formulation and implementation of public policy. As the Canadian think tank population continues to grow, more questions about how and under what conditions they are able to shape public opinion and the policy preferences and choices of elected and appointed officials are being asked. This chapter highlights the diverse and eclectic nature of Canadian think tanks, and the various ways they have been able to offer their insights and analysis of domestic and foreign policy issues. In doing so, consideration is given to the methodological hurdles scholars must overcome to evaluate more accurately the extent to which think tanks are able to influence both the content and outcome of major policy initiatives.

The European Guilds

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheilagh Ogilvie
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ages ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Dark Side ◽  
Market Failures ◽  
Women Migrants ◽  
Work Skills ◽  
The Common ◽  
Economic Reasoning ◽  
European Economies

Guilds ruled many crafts and trades from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution, and have always attracted debate and controversy. They were sometimes viewed as efficient institutions that guaranteed quality and skills. But they also excluded competitors, manipulated markets, and blocked innovations. Did the benefits of guilds outweigh their costs? Analyzing thousands of guilds that dominated European economies from 1000 to 1880, this book uses vivid examples and clear economic reasoning to answer that question. The book features the voices of honourable guild masters, underpaid journeymen, exploited apprentices, shady officials, and outraged customers, and follows the stories of the “vile encroachers”—women, migrants, Jews, gypsies, bastards, and many others—desperate to work but hunted down by the guilds as illicit competitors. It investigates the benefits of guilds but also shines a light on their dark side. Guilds sometimes provided important services, but they also manipulated markets to profit their members. They regulated quality but prevented poor consumers from buying goods cheaply. They fostered work skills but denied apprenticeships to outsiders. They transmitted useful techniques but blocked innovations that posed a threat. Guilds existed widely not because they corrected market failures or served the common good, but because they benefited two powerful groups—guild members and political elites. The book shows how privileged institutions and exclusive networks shape the wider economy—for good or ill.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document