Skip to main content
Donate

James McGann Explains: What is a Think Tank?

By Jeremy Rosenberg
May 4, 2009
Support Provided By

In the third segment of TTLA's six part conversation with James McGann about his global think tank rankings, we ask him the million dollar question.
TTLA: What is a think tank? How difficult was it to come up with a definition, and how long did it take for you and your collaborators to do so?

James McGann: "Some of it is fairly straightforward, although I think that distinguishing between -- in terms of clarifying the definition between academic research and policy-oriented research and what are the distinguishing elements and characteristics -- was the time-consuming part of it. And then what I wanted to do was to reflect a new reality which has not really been captured in traditional definitions, which is the concept of engagement.

"Clearly in terms of genesis, it was that think tanks do research, But I had to further clarify that they not only do research, but they do policy analysis "? which is in the area of clarifying and distinguishing between academic research where the principal objective is to create knowledge. While that may be a characteristic of policy-oriented research, it's not its primary purpose. The primary purpose in policy analysis is to inform public decision-making around key policy issues.

"And then the other element which I referenced is engagement. As I said, there was agreement about research and analysis, whether it's in a think tank or a university-based research organization. But the question of engagement was not agreed upon by most scholars of think tanks, those who have written about it.

"I wanted to reflect what are fundamental changes that really came into focus with the democracy movements, principally in eastern and central Europe, where in terms of these "color revolutions" [Ed.: like Prague's Velvet Revolution] that took place, engagement with the public and the press was principal to the success of those efforts.

"And then at the same time, in the U.S. there was a realization of the importance of the media, and engaging the public and understanding public opinion "? not being slaves to them but understanding they do have an impact on policy.

[That previous lack of engagement] I think, was shattered after the 1980s and `90s when we would write great books about policy and policy makers and the public would beat a path to our door. The reality is that's no longer the case. There's a lot of information, a lot of competition for ideas, and to be effective one not only has to be able to produce high-quality research but be able to effectively disseminate to groups "? whether they are civil society groups or the media "? that play an essential role in the dissemination of the policy issues and hopefully solutions."

TTLA: When this blog was launching, we heard from people at what we thought of as "think tanks" who objected "? not vociferously "? to their organizations being labeled that way. Has the term "think tank" become too encompassing? Has it been co-opted? Did it ever possess a pure, universal meaning?

JM: "I haven't heard that, to be quite honest with you.

"["Think tank"] has to be given greater definition in terms of what type of think tank are you talking about. The term is clearly accepted globally as the descriptive for policy-oriented organizations that are independent from the government. But I do agree, like you are talking about, that the landscape of think tanks is now quite varied. So adding adjectives is essential to understanding what the organization is about.

TTLA: Your report mentions governments-in-waiting. Among tanks and their staffs, how literal a phenomenon is this?

JM: "Certainly, there were a whole host of examples in eastern and central Europe where the staffs who in the early [post-Soviet] days created the space for all the legislation and the space for all NGOs [non-governmental organizations] to exist. In terms of key policy areas "? and specifically in terms of economic policy "? [those staff members were hired] by the governments who came into existence, and they ended up heading key ministries in governments throughout the region.

"The nourishment of governments-in-waiting "? or what is commonly referred to as the revolving door "? is in many respects a uniquely American phenomenon, because of unique elements to the American political culture. There's a whole long history that goes back to the inception of the republic that contributes to that and makes for the dramatic proliferation of think tanks in the U.S.

"There are 1,777 [U.S.] think tanks. The question is, what it is about the American political culture makes that possible? There are a series of explanations, I'll just go through them quickly.

"One is the fact that it's not just a Republican mantra, [but] deeply part of the American culture is that, 'the government that governs best, governs least.'

"Another part goes back to [Alexis] de Toqueville's observations how we're a pluralistic society, and some would say a hyper-pluralistic society, in which there are factions "? what the founders described and were concerned about. Interest groups. One of which are our think tanks.

"And each and every group has a group representing it. And we tend to "? relative to the parliamentary system, where the legislative and executive branch is diffused "? in the U.S. context it's a highly decentralized system where you have not only in terms of the separation of powers, but you have central, state, and local further decentralize this decision-making. So that a governor like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is leading a state that has land mass and in terms of economic activity is larger than most countries.

"So those elements "? in addition to the fact that relative to the Germans, French, Japanese, there is the reverence and a significant and strong civil service "? whereas we, because of our strong individualism and fear of big government have looked to outside experts as opposed to focusing hard-pressed and looking for analysis to the civil service of the bureaucracy. All of that really contributes to the reliance on experts outside the government, which helps understand why there are so many think tanks in the United States."

TTLA: In the U.K, the opposition parties have shadow portfolios for the different ministries "?

JM: "But once again, they are part of the formal structure of government. What we have chosen to do is have a structure that is independent of government because the circumstances on which our government was established was a fear of creating a King in a centralized system. So we decentralized, made clear that most things would occur outside of government, would limit both the power and the decision-making that takes place within government."

TTLA: Your study details the post-World War II proliferation of tanks. What are the pros and cons of that proliferation, in your view and from what others tell you?

JM: "It depends on whether you're talking globally, or the U.S. "? every country is different. Having more voices that are essentially helping government think [is a positive], given the complexity and the array of issues, having specialized experts who can help with key policy issues in a moment of crises or try to deal with practical issues such as how to fair in the economic crisis.

"A very good illustration was the 9/11 Commission. Most of the people on that commission had some strong connection to think tanks. So it really becomes an example of what I've been talking about. We chose not to go to the beurocracy to create a commission. They essentially staffed that, all the key people had outside affiliations, most of which were with think tanks. In a country as large and complex as ours, that's a very good thing.

"There is the caphochpany of voices in the U.S. that at times doesn't make it, or that crowd things. But I think on the whole it's a good thing that we have these competing and offsetting ideas about credible policy issues.

"On the global scale? we have tended to export to developing countries the highly advanced and developed model of think tanks that tend to be single-issue, as opposed to supporting multi-purpose [tanks]. That in my mind would be a more appropriate model. And rather than supporting a large number of smaller, poorly-funded institutions that are tied to a program or a project, [the focus should be on] creating a strong institutional capacity to provide analysis on a broad range of issues to the legislative and executive branch in developing and transitional countries."

CONTINUING WEDNESDAY "? McGann on RAND, Hoover, and west coast think tanks...

James McGann Week on TTLA:

Illustration copyright and courtesy Richard Nielsen, 2009

Support Provided By