Skip to main content

Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems

Abstract

Think tanks have proliferated in most Western democracies over the past three decades and are often considered to be increasingly important actors in public policy. Still, their precise contribution to public policy remains contested. This paper takes the existing literature in a new direction by focusing on the capacity of think tanks to contribute to strategic policy-making and assessing their particular role within policy advisory systems. We propose that strategic policy-making capacity requires three critical features: high levels of research capacity, substantial organizational autonomy and a long-term policy horizon. Subsequently, we assess the potential of think tanks to play this particular role in policy-making, using empirical evidence from structured interviews with a set of prominent Australian think tanks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. In the latter case, a regime is defined as a “governing arrangement for addressing policy problems” that consists of institutional arrangements, ideas and interests (May and Jochim 2013: 428). Our concern here is mainly with the latter component. Next to institutional arrangements and ideas, interests also play a crucial role in shaping the legitimacy, coherence and durability of policy regimes. These interests can relate to advocacy organizations, yet also research organizations such as think tanks. Not only do these interests represent constituencies that can provide support or opposition to policymakers, they are also expected to shape the governing capacity of a regime.

  2. This search was conducted on 17 November 2014.

  3. An alternative explanation would be that there is high turnover among think tanks, with only a few of them surviving over time. While we do not have historical data on think tank foundings and disbandings, the proliferation hypothesis seems in line with findings on think tank establishment in other countries (e.g. Rich 2001: 585).

  4. The set of questions was inspired by earlier research on think tanks (e.g. Fraussen et al. 2016), as well as previous survey research on interest groups (Walker 1991; Gray and Lowery 1996; Schlozman and Tierney 1986).

  5. One think tank opted not to complete this question.

  6. These nine think tanks are: Grattan Institute, Lowy Institute, Institute of Public Affairs, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Australia Institute, Sydney Institute, Centre for Independent Studies, Climate Institute and Committee for Economic Development of Australia.

  7. In such a position, interest groups or parties would typically be expected to feel pressure from their supporters/members to act (or be seen to act).

  8. Prasser (2006).

  9. To evaluate the value of such a typology, one obviously needs both more fine-grained measures of organizational autonomy and research capacity, as well as (ideally) some comparative benchmarks that go beyond the Australian case.

References

  • Abelson, D. E. (2002). Do think tanks matter? Assessing the impact of public policy institutes. Ithaca, NY: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkhout, J. (2013). Why interest organizations do what they do: Assessing the explanatory potential of ‘exchange’ approaches. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 22(2), 227–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertelli, A. M., & Wenger, J. B. (2009). Demanding information: Think tanks and the US Congress. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boswell, C. (2008). The political functions of expert knowledge: Knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 471–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwen, P. (2002). Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3), 365–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L., & Pedersen, O. K. (2014). The national origins of policy ideas: Knowledge regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christopoulos, D., & Ingold, K. (2015). Exceptional or just well connected? Political entrepreneurs and brokers in policy making. European Political Science Review, 7(3), 475–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(02), 79–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J., & Wilder, M. (2015). Catching a second wave: Context and compatibility in advisory system dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, doi:10.1111/psj.12133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daviter, F. (2015). The political use of knowledge in the policy process. Policy Sciences, 48(4), 491–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • della Porta, D. (2013). Can democracy be saved: Participation, deliberation and social movements. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donas, T., Fraussen, B., & Beyers, J. (2014). It’s not all about the money: Explaining varying policy portfolios of regional representations in Brussels. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 3(1), 79–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drutman, L. (2015). The business of America is lobbying: How corporations became politicized and politics became more corporate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fraussen, B., Pattyn, V., & Lawarée, J. (2016). Thinking in splendid isolation? The organization and policy engagement of think tanks in Belgium. In M. Brans & D. Aubin (Eds.), Policy analysis in Belgium. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). The population ecology of interest representation: Lobbying communities in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public sector. In G. B. Peters & D. T. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment (pp. 138–172). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpin, D. (2014). The organization of political interest groups. Designing advocacy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpin, D. (2015). Interest group policy agendas. In A. Cigler, B. Loomis, & A. Nownes (Eds.), Interest group politics (9th ed.). Washington: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpin, D., MacLeod, I., & McLaverty, P. (2012). Committee hearings of the Scottish parliament: Evidence giving and policy learning. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. J., & Lynn, L. E. (2005). Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Wu, X. (2015). Understanding the persistence of policy failures: The role of politics, governance and uncertainty. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., Tan, S. L., Migone, A., Wellstead, A., & Evans, B. (2014). The distribution of analytical techniques in policy advisory systems: Policy formulation and the tools of policy appraisal. Public Policy and Administration, 29(4), 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, G. (2007). Policy without learning: Double devolution and abuse of the deliberative idea. Public Policy and Administration, 22(1), 48–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. G., & Greenan, J. (2012). The changing contours of British representation: Pluralism in practice. In D. Halpin & A. G. Jordan (Eds.), The scale of interest organization in democratic politics: Data and research methods (pp. 67–98). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, W., Jordan, G., & McLaughlin, M. (1994). Interest groups and public policy: The insider/outsider model revisited. Journal of Public Policy, 14(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, I. (1994). The development and impact of Australia’s “Think Tanks”. Australian Journal of Management, 19(2), 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, I. (1995). Beyond the two party system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, I., & Miller, R. (2012). Democratic decline, democratic renewal: Britain, Australia, New Zealand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, I., & Stone, D. (2004). Australian think tanks. In D. Stone & A. Denham (Eds.), Think tank traditions: Policy research and the politics of ideas (pp. 247–263). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D., Toke, D., Belfrage, C., Tepe, D., & McGough, S. (2009). Policy networks and the distinction between insider and outsider groups: The case of the countryside alliance. Public Administration, 87(3), 621–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, P. J., & Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, P. J., Koski, C., & Stramp, N. (2014). Issue expertise in policymaking. Journal of Public Policy, doi:10.1017/S0143814X14000233.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, A. (2008). Governing after crisis: The politics of investigation, accountability and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGann, J. G. (2015). 2014 Global Go to Think Tank Index Report Think tanks and civil societies program. University of Pennsylvania.

  • Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pautz, H. (2010). Think tanks in the United Kingdom and Germany: Actors in the modernisation of social democracy. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 12(2), 274–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pautz, H. (2011). Revisiting the think-tank phenomenon. Public Policy and Administration, 26(4), 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pautz, H. (2013). The think tanks behind ‘Cameronism’. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 15(3), 362–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pautz, H. (2014). British think-tanks and their collaborative and communicative networks. Politics, 34(4), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2015). State failure, governance failure and policy failure: Exploring the linkages. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prasser, S. (2006). Providing Advice to Government. Papers on Parliament. Canberra: Senate of Australia. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/~/link.aspx?_id=11AB0553BB894CD4A00F5E67C6A0B649&_z=z.

  • Rasmussen, A., Carroll, B., & Lowery, D. (2013). Representatives of the public? Public opinion and interest group activity. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), 250–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. (2001). The politics of expertise in congress and the news media. Social Science Quarterly, 82(3), 583–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. O., & Weaver, R. K. (1998). Advocate and analysist: Think tanks and the politicization of expertise. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics. Washington, CQ: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1986). Organized interests and American democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter, P. C., & Streeck, W. (1999). The organization of business interests. Studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. MPifG discussion paper. Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Köln.

  • Schrefler, L. (2010). The usage of scientific knowledge by independent regulatory agencies. Governance-an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 23(2), 309–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, S. E., Russel, J., Parsons, W., & Greenhalgh, T. (2015). The view from nowhere? How think tanks work to shape health policy. Critical Policy Studies, 9(1), 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. A. (2000). American business and political power: Public opinion, elections, and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., & Marden, P. (2008). Conservative think tanks and public politics. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 699–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (1991). Old guard versus new partisans: Think tanks in transition. Australian Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2000). Introduction to the symposium: The changing think tank landscape. Global Society, 14(2), 149–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2007). Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public Administration, 85(2), 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D., & Denham, A. (2004). Think tank traditions: Policy research and the politics of ideas. New York: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ‘t Hart, P., & Vromen, A. (2008). A new era for think tanks in public policy? International trends, Australian realities. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(2), 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Steen, M. A., & van Twist, M. J. W. (2013). Foresight and long-term policy-making: An analysis of anticipatory boundary work in policy organizations in The Netherlands. Futures, 54, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vromen, A., & Hurley, P. (2015). Consultants, think tanks and public policy. In B. Head & K. Crowley (Eds.), Policy analysis in Australia (pp. 167–183). Bristol: Policy Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, R. K. (1989). The changing world of think tanks. PS: Political Science & Politics, 22(03), 563–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to public judgement. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Previous versions of this article were presented at the International Conference in Interpretive Policy Analysis, 8–10 July 2015; and the Australian Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 28–30 September 2015. We would like to thank the participants in those panels for their helpful comments and suggestions. The research presented in this article has been supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Scheme (DP140104097). We would like to thank the interviewees for their time in answering our questions. We would also like to thank Dr. She Hawke for her assistance in conducting these telephone interviews. Last but not least we thank the anonymous referees and the journal editor for their critical yet constructive comments which have improved the article considerably.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bert Fraussen.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Overview of Australian think tanks, year of establishment (n = 59)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fraussen, B., Halpin, D. Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems. Policy Sci 50, 105–124 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9246-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9246-0

Keywords

  • Think tanks
  • Strategic policy-making
  • Policy advisory systems
  • Policy advice
  • Policy capacity