Think Tank Diplomacy

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-96
Author(s):  
Melissa Conley Tyler ◽  
Rhea Matthews ◽  
Emma Brockhurst
Keyword(s):  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Information Gathering ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Safe Space ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Personal Trainers ◽  
Communication Methods

AbstractThink tanks demonstrably play a role in diplomacy. Not long ago, the idea of think tank diplomacy would have provoked scepticism, but the nature of diplomacy has changed from a state-centric club to a polylateral network characterised by a diversity of actors and communication methods. As organisations producing independent intellectual outputs to influence public policy, think tanks engage in at least four diplomatic functions: negotiation, communication, information-gathering and promoting friendly relations in international affairs. Case studies show that think tanks both directly perform diplomatic functions and act indirectly as facilitators of diplomacy: as metaphorical hired guns, charm offensive, witnesses and safe space; as a school for diplomats, personal trainers, chief knowledge officer and wise council. Think tanks need to overcome obstacles including resource constraints and relationships with policy-makers to reach their full potential in contributing to diplomacy.

scholarly journals The operation of Russian “think tanks” in an information society

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-164
Author(s):  
Maria S. Ivchenkova
Keyword(s):  
Information Society ◽  
Communication Technologies ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Political Institution ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Main Function ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
The Government ◽  
Analytical Centers

An information society sets new vectors for the development of all socio-political and socio-economic institutions. The efficiency and professionalism with which these institutions implement communication technologies into their practices and adapt to challenges of the modern world determine its potential and further development. This article examines the operation of such a socio-political institution as a “think tank”, given conditions of the internet’s ever growing importance and the expansion of social media. Traditionally “think tanks”, or “analytical centers”, are considered by political experts and specialists in international affairs to be components of political systems, however, the expansion and development of such organizations all around the world, together with their increasing functional capacity, leads to the need for interpreting the place and role in society of such think tanks from a sociological standpoint. This article examines them as a socio-political institution, which simultaneously generates and conveys information which is of importance to both the government and society. The main function of such an institution is designated as “communicative”, which encompasses the social potential of think tanks as a crucial component to developing social awareness and democracy. In order to evaluate the operation of Russia’s analytical centers, the author refers to the “Global Go To Think Tank Index” global ranking. Russian analytical centers are generally held in high regard by foreign experts, despite them possessing a few peculiar traits. Most of these Russian think tanks are affiliated with branches of the government, or exist within scientific institutions under the Russian Academy of Sciences or certain higher educational facilities, while being funded by the government. Their scope of research-analytical activity primarily includes issues such as foreign policy, international affairs, and global economy. As for sociological analysis of the processes occurring within society, only fragments of the former are present in the agenda of Russian think tanks. Analytical centers have an inconsequential presence in media space. They barely use modern communication technologies, which affects the isolation of the expert community from society.

scholarly journals Narrating the China Threat: Securitising Chinese Economic Presence in Europe

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Rogelja ◽  
Konstantinos Tsimonis
Keyword(s):  
Reference Frames ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Chinese Investment ◽  
Investment And Financing ◽  
Idea Formation ◽  
European Economies ◽  
China Threat

Abstract This article unpacks the discursive construction of a European ‘China Threat’ narrative by European think tanks. We theorise think tanks as crucial actors in the securitising process, especially at the initial stages where ideas and reference frames are formed. Despite having no decision-making authority, think tanks participate as securitising actors in the process of idea formation and bidding, articulating a securitised frame of reference for policy makers. In the case of EU–China relations, we observe an emerging congruence between think tanks and policy makers that engage in a non-linear construction of a ‘China Threat’ policy frame. In this article, we review key think tank reports that are circulated through official EU policy channels and deconstruct the assumptions behind the ‘China Threat’ discourse. We first argue that, analytically, their securitising attempt is characterised by a distorted representation of Chinese economic activities abroad, including those falling under the Belt and Road Initiative. Second, politically, this narrative produces a distorted notion of European politics where pluralism is weakness and disagreement dissent, promoting a view of the EU where ‘responsible’ core countries must contain the periphery’s ‘opportunism’. Third, we contend that despite defending ‘Europeanness’ as the epitome of human rights and democracy, the securitisation of Chinese FDI rests on othering practices that risk undermining those very ideals. By identifying the problematic undertones of this securitising effort, we call for a fact-based and pluralistic debate on the challenges of Chinese investment and financing for European economies and societies.

scholarly journals Think Tanks in Nepal: Emergence and Growth

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 17-20
Author(s):  
Birendra Prasad Shah
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Private Institutions ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Government Investment ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Language Form ◽  
Research Activities

Think tank is bridging gap among academic and policy making communities, states and civil society to serve in the public interest as independent voices that translate applied and basic research into a language, form that is understandable, reliable, and accessible for policy makers and the public. Hence, Nepal is officially far from it. Although, practices in Nepal is very limited as well as narrow ideas, thinking, and approaches to sake prosperities of divergent Nepali societies and cultures. Government investment is very poor in these works. However, newly opened universities, private institutions and NGOs are work like as hybrid, are engaged in educational research activities. Over the last 10-15 years, governments, and civil society have come to rely on it, and this trend will continue to input better future of Nepal.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/av.v4i0.12351Academic Voices Vol.4 2014: 17-20

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.

scholarly journals Knowing when to talk? Plant genome editing as a site for pre-engagement institutional reflexivity

2021 ◽  
pp. 096366252199979
Author(s):  
Robert D.J. Smith ◽  
Sarah Hartley ◽  
Patrick Middleton ◽  
Tracey Jewitt
Keyword(s):  
Genome Editing ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Plant Genome ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Institutional Dynamics ◽  
Social Studies Of Science ◽  
High Profile ◽  
A Site

Citizen and stakeholder engagement is frequently portrayed as vital for socially accountable science policy but there is a growing understanding of how institutional dynamics shape engagement exercises in ways that prevent them from realising their full potential. Limited attention has been devoted to developing the means to expose institutional features, allow policy-makers to reflect on how they will shape engagement and respond appropriately. Here, therefore, we develop and test a methodological framework to facilitate pre-engagement institutional reflexivity with one of the United Kingdom’s eminent science organisations as it grappled with a new, high-profile and politicised technology, genome editing. We show how this approach allowed policy-makers to reflect on their institutional position and enrich decision-making at a time when they faced pressure to legitimate decisions with engagement. Further descriptions of such pre-engagement institutional reflexivity are needed to better bridge theory and practice in the social studies of science.

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.

Political Voice through Organized Interest Activity

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kay Lehman Schlozman ◽  
Sidney Verba ◽  
Henry E. Brady
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Data ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
The Political ◽  
National Politics ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Institutional Settings ◽  
Organizational Activity ◽  
Political Voice ◽  
Organized Interest

This chapter maps the terrain of political activity by organizations using systematic empirical data to reveal something about the political voice emerging from organized involvement in various domains of national politics. For various domains of organizational activity, the chapter characterizes categories of organizations with respect to the likelihood that organizations are active and, if active, how much they do. In the process this chapter clarifies the strategic considerations and resource constraints that shape the involvement of different kinds of organizations in different arenas. Here, it becomes apparent that the policy makers in different institutional settings hear quite different mixes of messages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document