Thinking About Think Tanks
 D. STONE and A. Denham (eds), Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas, Manchester University Press, 2004, 322 pp., ISBN 0 7190 6478 3, hb. £45, ISBN 0 7190 6479 1, pb. £18.99.

2006 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 380-384
Author(s):  
John Fenwick
Keyword(s):  
Policy Research ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Think Tank

Changing Windows on a Changing China: The Evolving “Think Tank” System and the Case of the Public Security Sector

2002 ◽  
Vol 171 ◽  
pp. 559-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murray Scot Tanner
Keyword(s):  
Second Generation ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Public Security ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Security Sector ◽  
The Public ◽  
Tank System ◽  
Chinese Policy ◽  
Policy Communities

The entrepreneurial “second generation” of Chinese policy research institutes (often called think tanks) that emerged during the 1980s played a pivotal role in the policy process of reform. Since Tiananmen, China's growing commercialization is spawning a “third generation” of think tanks characterized by even more ambiguous links to sponsoring leaders and institutions, greatly expanded commercial links, greater exposure to Western theories and techniques, and the gradual emergence of wide-ranging “policy communities.” The extent of this change varies greatly across policy sectors, however. Generational change is evident in China's previously unstudied network of public security (police) think tanks. Though clearly still of the “second generation” variety, these institutes have been in the forefront of importing and incorporating more sophisticated crime-fighting techniques and less class-based and conspiratorial theories of crime and social unrest.

scholarly journals Organizational Identity of Think Tank(er)s: A Growing Elite Group in Swedish Civil Society

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pelle Åberg ◽  
Stefan Einarsson ◽  
Marta Reuter
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Large Mass ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Shared Understanding ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Policy Actor ◽  
Policy System ◽  
Elite Group ◽  
Movement Organizations

Think tanks, defined as organizations that produce policy research for political purposes (McGann, 2007; Medvetz, 2008), are an increasingly ubiquitous type of policy actor world-wide. In Sweden, the last 20 years’ sharp increase in think tank numbers (Åberg, Einarsson, & Reuter, 2019) has coincided with the decline of the traditional Swedish corporatist model based on the intimate involvement of the so-called ‘popular movements’ in policy-making (Lundberg, 2014; Micheletti, 1995). Contrary to the large, mass-membership based and democratically organized movement organizations, think tanks are small, professionalized, expert-based, and seldom represent any larger membership base. Their increasingly important role as the ideological greenhouses in Swedish civil society might, therefore, be interpreted as an indication of an increasingly elitist and professionalized character of the latter. But what is a think tank? The article explores how a shared understanding of what constitutes a think tank is constructed by think-tankers themselves. In the study, interviewed think tank executives and top-level staff reflect upon their own organizations’ missions and place in the Swedish policy system.

Case study 2

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewan Ferlie ◽  
Sue Dopson ◽  
Chris Bennett ◽  
Michael D. Fischer ◽  
Jean Ledger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Informal Networks ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Significant Potential ◽  
Key Stakeholders

This chapter analyses the role of think tanks in generating a distinctive mode of policy knowledge, pragmatically orientated to inform and shape issues of importance to civil society. Drawing on political science literature, we argue that think tanks exploit niche areas of expertise and influence to actively mobilize policy analyses and recommendations across diverse stakeholders. Through our exploratory mapping of think tanks, geographically concentrated within London, we characterize their influence as significantly boosting knowledge intensity across the regional ecosystem. In particular, we study the empirical case of one London-based think tank which powerfully mobilized policy knowledge through its formal and informal networks to build influential expert consensus amongst key stakeholders. We conclude that such organizations act as key knowledge producers and mobilizers, with significant potential to influence policy discourses and implementation.

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.

scholarly journals Authority signaling: How relational interactions between journalists and politicians create primary definers in UK broadcast news

Journalism ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 896-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Chadwick ◽  
Declan McDowell-Naylor ◽  
Amy P Smith ◽  
Ellen Watts
Keyword(s):  
Think Tanks ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
Broadcast News ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Relational Approach ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Journalism Studies ◽  
Sociology Of News ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Relational Interactions

How journalists construct the authority of their sources is an essential part of how news comes to have power in politics and how political actors legitimize their roles to publics. Focusing on economic policy reporting and a dataset of 133 hours of mainstream broadcast news from the 5-week 2015 UK general election campaign, we theorize and empirically illustrate how the construction of expert source authority works. To build our theory, we integrate four strands of thought: an important, though in recent years neglected, tradition in the sociology of news concerned with ‘primary definers’; the underdeveloped literature on expert think tanks and media; recent work in journalism studies advocating a relational approach to authority; and elements from the discursive psychology approach to the construction of facticity in interactive settings. Our central contribution is a new perspective on source authority: the identification of behaviors that are key to how the interactions between journalists and elite political actors actively construct the elevated authoritative status of expert sources. We call these behaviors authority signaling. We show how authority signaling works to legitimize the power of the United Kingdom’s most important policy think tank and discuss the implications of this process.

scholarly journals RESEARCH ON THE PROMOTION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THINK TANKS IN LOCAL NEWLY BUILT UNDERGRADUATE UNIVERSITIES—TAKING THE BRAND STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT THINK TANK OF SHANDONG WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY AS AN EXAMPLE

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHI-GUO HUANG ◽  
PEI-BIAO LIU
Keyword(s):  
Social Service ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Brand Strategy ◽  
Women's College ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Healthy Development ◽  
Existing Problems

The think tank of universities is an important carrier for scientific research, social service and talent training. At present, the construction of the think tank in local newly-built undergraduate universities is increasingly intensified, but its related functions have not been fully developed and played yet. Taking the brand strategy and development think tank of Shandong Women’s College as an example, this paper investigates and analyzes the current situation, existing problems and causes of its construction and development, and then proposes corresponding countermeasures, the purpose is to provide guidance for the sustainable and healthy development and growth of the think tank. At the same time, it can provide reference for the construction and development of the think tank in similar newly-built undergraduate universities.

Think tanks y la diplomacia académica de la Fundación Ford en Argentina (1975-1983)

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (24) ◽  
pp. 48-72
Author(s):  
Peter Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Think Tanks ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
La Red

Este artículo analiza desde una perspectiva socio-histórica el papel que jugó la Fundación Ford en la promoción, financiación y exportación del modelo think tank a la Argentina entre los años 1975 y 1983, examinando en particular la relación que existió entre la Fundación y los investigadores de dos centros académicos argentinos fundados en 1975: el Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) y el Centro de Investigaciones Sociales sobre el Estado y la Administración (CISEA). A través de un análisis de la red de centros académicos privados hilada y financiada por la Fundación Ford en Argentina durante estos años, propone examinar el papel de los oficiales de la Fundación como "diplomáticos académicos" para la internacionalización de las ciencias políticas argentinas y como agentes exportadores del modelo think tank al país. Asimismo, interpreta y analiza las repercusiones de las acciones de diplomacia académica y de la financiación de la Fundación en la adquisición del papel de think tanks por parte de los centros de estudios CEDES y CISEA durante la reconstrucción del Estado democrático argentino.

Thinks tanks and their role in policy making in ireland

2021 ◽  
pp. 157-170
Author(s):  
Chris McInerney
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
International Experience ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Complex Issue ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Broad Variety

This chapter reviews the role of think tanks in policy making. Like most modern democracies, Ireland relies on a range of sources to influence the choices and designs of public policy. Apart from political and administrative influences, a broad variety of civil society, academic and private sector actors seek to access, influence, advise, inform and sometimes embarrass those in power. The chapter focuses on ‘think tanks’, defining them, reviewing international experience, examining different types and considering the complex issue of assessing think tank influence. It maps out Ireland’s limited think tank landscape and examines recent developments. Think tanks’ influence on Irish policymaking is assessed across a number of indicators.

Genesis of a Social Space: Think Tanks in Belarus 1992–1995

2020 ◽  
pp. 088832542093779
Author(s):  
Maria Bigday
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Social Space ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Social Structures ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Political Field ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Science And Politics

This article belongs to the special cluster, “Think Tanks in Central and Eastern Europe”, guest-edited by Katarzyna Jezierska and Serena Giusti. The article looks at think tanks through the prism of a specific social space whose emergence is ascribable to both transnational processes and local social structures. Four processes are identified as shaping the institutionalization of the first think tanks in Belarus, founded as a tool for the “desovietization” of science and “democratization” of politics in the early 1990s: (1) the destabilization of relations between science and politics spurred by the Soviet perestroika beginning in 1986; (2) the autonomization of national elites and a political field in Belarus following the collapse of the Soviet Union; (3) the transformation of the labor market, including the crisis of state-supported research and academia, which ejected a large number of well-educated professionals; and (4) the intensification of transnational exchanges and the legitimization of references to Western practices. To systematically analyze these processes, a model consisting of the following four dimensions is proposed: configuration of relations between science and politics, position of the think tank space in the field of power, professional logics of career or competition, and transnational diffusion of resources and their local appropriation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document