A Transatlantic Network

Author(s):  
Daniel Stedman Jones

This chapter explores how a transatlantic network of sympathetic businessmen and fundraisers, journalists and politicians, policy experts and academics grew and spread neoliberal ideas between the 1940s and the 1970s. These individuals were successful at promoting ideas through a new type of political organization, the think tank. The first wave of neoliberal think tanks were set up in the 1940s and 1950s and included the American Enterprise Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education in the United States, and the Institute of Economic Affairs in Great Britain. A second wave of neoliberal think tanks were established in the 1970s, including the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute in Great Britain, and the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute in the United States.

1947 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 386-387

Established by a Memorandum of Agreement signed by Argentina, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States in April, 1942, the International Wheat Council was set up as an agency to deal with the allocation of wheat surpluses. During the war it has served as a central organ to administer and coordinate the work of implementing the commitments of member-states to a pool of wheat for the relief of war-stricken and other necessitous areas. It held two sessions in Washington during 1946.


2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony M. Bertelli ◽  
Jeffrey B. Wenger

The recent growth in the formation of think tanks in the United States raises questions about their role in the democratic process. A theory of think-tank formation is pre here, which posits that committee debate creates incentives for legislators to seek research-based, policy-analytic information supporting competing policy positions. As political entrepreneurs recognize this demand, they supply think tanks, just as scholars have suggested they supply interest groups. An important macro-level implication of this theory is that as legislators’ ideological polarization increases, the demand for policy analysis increases, as does the number of think tanks supplied. Empirical support for this proposition in the United States from 1903 to 2003 is shown, while controlling for market factors measuring the opportunity cost of investing in think tanks.


Author(s):  
Lou Wei

Think Tanks are the organizations specialized in the research of development, in which experts and scholars of various disciplines using data to analyze the required disciplines or fields, and come up with optimal solutions to problems. In the beginning, the establishment of Think Tanks was to give advice on policy-decision of foreign and domestic policies. With the development and needs of the society, the types of Think Tanks have been diversified. The United States was the first country to found Think Tanks in the world. With accurate and comprehensive analysis and judgment, the U.S. Think Tanks have extensive and in-depth contact with the ruling authorities and have deep influence in the public, influencing the major decisions of the U.S. politics, economy, society, military, diplomacy, science and technology. In the past three decades, China has made great achievements in economic development. Although the current situation of Chinese Think Tanks’ development ranks second in the world in terms of the total volume, the influence is still limited and the quality needs to be improved. At present, influential Think Tanks mainly gather in Beijing, Shanghai and other political and economic centers, most of which are comprehensive and mainly focus on national strategy. In the process of transformation to new types, the main problems of Think Tanks are inability to provide forward-looking and time-sensitive products, are lack of reasonable talent composition and internal division of labor, and are difficulty in forming an effective government, society and international influence. By comparing the development of think tanks between the United States and China, this paper proposes that there are significant differences in the construction and application of think tanks between the two countries. As a developing country, China has to keep improving its own think tanks, vigorously raise the number and scale of the private think tanks, and intensify their influence steadily so that a relatively mature think tank market can be developed gradually. Talents pool is the most important strategic resources in the 21st century. In order to make rapid economic development and cope with the international situation, almost every country is attaching a great importance to the training of the talents at home and the talent introduction from other countries. Relatively speaking, the construction and development of think tanks is crucial to the strategic talents reserve. Only by constantly filling the think tanks with more talents can China cope with the ever-changing international situation and have a better solution to the internal conflicts. Key words: Think Tanks; China; the United States; Sino-U.S. Relations.


Author(s):  
Andrew Rich

Since the 1960s, think tanks have proliferated in the United States, especially ideological think tanks, with conservative think tanks coming to substantially outnumber liberal organization. In this environment, the quality of analysis from think tanks is often in question and consumers of their work seem to be more often attracted to analysis that supports preexisting point of view rather than the most rigorously produced research. For sure, think tanks matter; they are among the most important sources of analysis in American policymaking. But in order to be influential, think tank analysts must target their audiences clearly and be relentless in marketing their work.


Public Voices ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Ivo Engels

The so-called “long 19th century”, from the French Revolution to the First World War, ranks as the crucial phase in the genesis of the modern world. In the Western countries this period was characterized by the differentiation of the public and the private spheres, the birth of the modern bureaucratic state and the delegitimation of early modern practices such as clientelism and patronage. All these fundamental changes are, among other things, usually considered important preconditions for the modern perception of corruption.This paper will concentrate on this crucial phase by means of a comparative analysis of debates in France, Great Britain and the United States, with the aim to elucidate the motives for major anti-corruption movements. The questions are: who fights against corruption and what are the reasons for doing so? I will argue that these concerns were often very different and sometimes accidental. Furthermore, an analysis of political corruption may reveal differences between the political cultures in the countries in question. Thus, the history of corruption serves as a sensor which enables a specific perspective on politics. By taking this question as a starting point the focus is narrowed to political corruption and the debates about corruption, while petty bribery on the part of minor civilservants, as well as the actual practice in the case of extensive political corruption, is left aside.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document