Abstract
This chapter discusses the key findings emerging from the case analyses and expands on four key themes from the preceding three chapters. The chapter first discusses think tanks’ divergent approaches and impacts across ideological orientations. The chapter then discusses the divergences and determinants of think tank policy capacities, demonstrating that material resources, while crucial, do not in and of themselves determine policy capacity. Attention then turns to the discussion of theory. While this book does not set out to build or test theories, it does make observations regarding several prominent theories and their application in the Australian context. Network theories receive particular attention here due to their present ascendancy in the literature. Finally, the chapter discusses the various manifestations of think tank influence uncovered in the three case studies. In sum, Chapter Twelve highlights the tremendous diversity in the Australian think tank industry and how it defies uniform characterisation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Interview data facilitate this observation.
- 2.
The ALP, under the leadership of Anthony Albanese, won the 2022 Federal election.
- 3.
Recall that the CIS case focuses on state rather than federal politics. The inferences here therefore assume that right-leaning state and federal representatives are similarly inclined.
- 4.
This section again uses the term ‘policy network’ to generically describe a broad range of network perspectives (see Marsh & Rhodes, 1992).
- 5.
Hajer (2013, p. 47) defines a discourse coalition as the ‘ensemble of a set of story lines, the actors that utter those story lines, and the practices that conform to those story lines, all organized around a discourse.’
- 6.
AHURI’s Michael Fotheringham also notes ‘the informal policy networks [are] crucial to the policy process’ (email communication, 2019).
- 7.
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith’s Advocacy Coalition Framework is likewise a policy process theory, but it is addressed in this section as part of the network theory discussion.
- 8.
The question mark next to Grattan’s name reflects the uncertainty surrounding the extent of the institute’s impact on policy formulation. At a minimum, Grattan helped to bring attention to the issue, and may have played an important role in the reform process priorities.
- 9.
The CIS and the Grattan Institute complemented their direct and detailed proposals with efforts to persuade policymakers indirectly.
References
Abelson, D. E. (2009). Do think tanks matter? Assessing the impact of public policy institutes (2nd ed.). McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Baumgartner, F., Berry, J., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D., & Leech, B. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. University of Chicago Press.
Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Baumgartner, F., Jones, B., & Mortensen, P. (2017). Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In C. Weible & P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. Taylor & Francis Group.
Bettini, Y., & Head, B. (2018). Exploring capacity for strategic policy work: Water policy in Australia. In X. Wu, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh (Eds.), Policy capacity and governance: Assessing governmental competences and capabilities in theory and practice (pp. 289–312). Springer International Publishing.
Campbell, A., & Rigby, R. (2016). Public opinion and public policy. In A. J. Berinsky (Ed.), New directions in public opinion (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Domhoff, G. W. (1967). Who rules America? Prentice-Hall.
Dye, T. R. (1978). Oligarchic tendencies in national policy-making: The role of the private policy-planning organizations. The Journal of Politics, 40(2), 309–331.
Fielding, K., Head, B., Laffan, W., Western, M., & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2012). Australian politicians’ beliefs about climate change: Political partisanship and political ideology. Environmental Politics, 21(5), 712–733.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative processes. Oxford University Press.
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581.
Haas, P. (1992). Epistemic communities and international-policy coordination—Introduction. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.
Hajer, M. (2013). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In F. Fischer, J. Forester, M. Hajer, R. Hoppe, & B. Jennings (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (p. 43). Duke University Press.
Halpin, D. (2014). The organization of political interest groups: Designing advocacy. Routledge.
Head, B. (2015). Policy analysis: Evidence based policy-making. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences (Vol. 18, pp. 281–287). Elsevier Ltd.
Head, B., & Banerjee, S. (2020). Policy expertise and use of evidence in a populist era. Australian Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 110–121.
Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In S. Beer & A. King (Eds.), The new American political system. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhofer, R. (2017). The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In C. Weible & P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. Routledge.
Jenkins-Smith, H., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C., & Ingold, K. (2017). The advocacy coalition framework: An overview of the research program. In C. Weible & P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. Routledge.
Jennings, W., & John, P. (2009). The dynamics of political attention: Public opinion and the Queen’s speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 838–854.
John, P. (2012). Analyzing public policy (ISBN 9780203136218). Routledge. https://acncpubfilesprodstorage.blob.core.windows.net/public/ef93a49c-38af-e811-a963-000d3ad244fd-63fd78e9-4513-4930-8c94-00aaafdf7ffc-Financial%20Report-ed963dc0-44b0-e811-a961-000d3ad24182-LIIP_Statutory_Accounts_FY_14-15_v19_signed_with_Audit_Report.pdf
Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Longman.
Knaggard, A. (2015). The multiple streams framework and the problem broker. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 450–465.
Ladi, S. (2005). The role of experts in the reform process in Greece. West European Politics, 28(2), 279–296.
Lindquist, E. (1989). Behind the myth of think tanks: The organization and relevance of Canadian policy institutes (PhD Thesis). University of California, Berkeley.
Lindblom, C. E., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The policy-making process (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Lindquist, E. (2021). Think tanks and policy communities: Analysing policy influence and learning from the analogue to the digital era. In D. E. Abelson & C. J. Rastrick (Eds.), Handbooks of research on public policy series. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (1992). Policy networks in British government. Clarendon Press.
Martin, A., Dowding, K., Hindmoor, A., & Gibbons, A. (2014). The opinion–policy link in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 499–517.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The power elite (2nd Galaxy Printing ed.). Oxford University Press.
Mintrom, M., Salisbury, C., & Luetjens, J. (2014). Policy entrepreneurs and promotion of Australian state knowledge economies. Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 423–438.
Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Left Coast Press.
Pautz, H. (2018). Think tanks, Tories and the austerity discourse coalition. Policy and Society, 37(2), 155–169.
Peschek, J. G. (1987). Policy-planning organizations: Elite agendas and America’s rightward turn. Temple University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2010). Policy network analysis. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University Press.
Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press.
Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Westview Press.
Schontal, D., & Nordgren, L. (2021). The human element: Overcoming the resistance that awaits new ideas. Wiley.
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 69(Suppl 2), 107–131.
Shiffman, J., & Smith, S. (2007). Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: A framework and case study of maternal mortality. The Lancet, 370(9595), 1370–1379.
Smith, J. (1991). The idea brokers: think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. The Free Press.
van der Heijden, J., Kuhlmann, J., Lindquist, E., & Wellstead, A. (2021). Have policy process scholars embraced causal mechanisms? A review of five popular frameworks. Public Policy and Administration, 36(2), 163–186.
Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 531–545.
Westermeier, C. (2018). The Bank of International Settlements as a think tank for financial policy-making. Policy & Society, 37(2), 170–187.
Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2018). Policy capacity: conceptual framework and essential components. In X. Wu, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh (Eds.), Policy capacity and governance: Assessing governmental competences and capabilities in theory and practice (pp. 1–25). Springer International Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hagland, T. (2023). Influence Processes and Manifestations. In: Think Tanks in Australia. Interest Groups, Advocacy and Democracy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27044-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27044-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-27043-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-27044-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)