Abstract
Despite their burgeoning numbers and overt claims of success, there has been no comprehensive examination of the Australian think tank industry in almost three decades. The historically modest profile of the Australian industry has failed to arouse broad scholarly interest beyond those contributions discussed in Chapter 2. To establish the parameters of this study, this chapter comprehensively details the research design that supports the manuscript. It specifies the supplementary questions that accompany the study’s central research question, and also presents the influence conceptualisation that anchors the study. The chapter then sets out the (Shiffman and Smith, The Lancet 370:1370–1379, 2007) analytical framework that steers the examination of think tank influence across Chapters 9–11.
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.
Following Anderson (2011, p. 40), the policy environment encompasses the broad context and circumstances under which policy is made. Policy outcomes are identifiable measures or actions—such as rules, regulations, and legislation—which formalise decisions made by government officials.
- 2.
This book follows Anderson (2011, p. 48) and defines official policymakers as ‘those with the legal authority to engage in the formation of public policy’. Official policymakers include primary policymakers who ‘have direct constitutional authority to act’ and supplementary policymakers who ‘operate on the basis of authority granted by others’. Supplementary policymakers more broadly include those working in the public service. This book uses the term ‘policymakers’ to refer to ‘official policymakers’—that is, primary and supplementary policymakers in aggregate (see also, Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993, p. 59).
- 3.
This book defines direct influence as the influence that results from non-intermediated interactions between experts and policymakers. Indirect influence arises when experts influence policymakers via third parties—typically the public (where the media serves as an enabler of that indirect influence).
- 4.
Murray (2017) suggests that Australia has forty-two think tanks but does not provide an entity list. Murray also suggests right-leaning institutes dominate the landscape, a finding that is challenged in this book.
- 5.
The Factiva search parameters were ‘think tank’ in ‘Major News and Business Sources: Australian and New Zealand’ for ‘the last two years’. The search was conducted over three days between October 27 and October 29, 2018. The search included all Australian newspapers to ensure the identification of regionally focussed think tanks.
- 6.
An inspection of all APS agency websites was conducted in November 2018.
- 7.
The questionnaires were cross-sectional, self-administered, and almost entirely composed of closed-ended questions.
- 8.
The two-hundred-and-forty-four targeted recipients include the combined two-hundred-and-twenty-seven House Members and Senators, plus eighteen outgoing Senators whose email contact details remained on the Parliament of Australia website (there was a federal election on May 18, 2019). It is unclear whether the questionnaires successfully reached the outgoing Senators. No questionnaires were sent to outgoing House Members due to the absence of contact details. The distribution also excluded the Prime Minister. The census of parliamentarians was taken on June 5, 2019.
- 9.
The surveys were concurrently distributed to all individuals within each respondent group (think tanks, parliamentarians, and journalists) and were designed and delivered using the Qualtrics software package. The think tank survey commenced on June 4, 2019, and closed on July 3, 2019 (thirty days). The journalist survey commenced on June 6, 2019, and concluded on July 5, 2019 (thirty days). The parliamentarian survey commenced on June 17, 2019, and closed on July 31, 2019 (45 days). The parliamentarian survey warranted a longer response window because it was conducted shortly after the 2019 federal election.
- 10.
The average interview length was forty-four minutes for think tank executives, twenty-eight minutes for journalists, and nineteen minutes for parliamentarians.
- 11.
Table 3.4 details seventy-four interviews. Two additional interviews were conducted with experts from other third-party entities. Appendix B lists all interviewees.
- 12.
Interviews were conducted with two separate individuals from seven entities.
- 13.
Baumgartner et al. (2009, p. 9) include a broad range of organisational types in their conceptualisation of ‘lobbyists’. This broad grouping includes think tanks.
References
Abelson, D. E. (2006). A capitol idea: Think tanks and US foreign policy. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Abelson, D. E., Brooks, S., & Hua, X. (Eds.). (2018). Think tanks, foreign policy and geo-politics: Pathways to influence (1st ed.). Routledge.
Anderson, J. E. (2011). Public policymaking: An introduction (7th ed.). Cengage.
Australian Public Service Commission. (2019). APS agency listing—Agencies covered by the Public Service Act 1999 (Online database). Retrieved June 8, 2019, from Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-agency-listing-agencies-covered-public-service-act-1999
Baker, P., Gill, T., Friel, S., Carey, G., & Kay, A. (2017). Generating political priority for regulatory interventions targeting obesity prevention: An Australian case study. Social Science & Medicine, 177, 141–149.
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.
Dahl, R. A. (1970). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city (15th ed.). Yale University Press.
Domhoff, G. W. (1967). Who rules America? Prentice-Hall.
Dur, A., & De Bievre, D. (2007). The question of interest group influence. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 1–12.
Fraussen, B., & Halpin, D. (2017). Think tanks and strategic policy-making: The contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 105–124.
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581.
Halpin, D. (1999). Authenticity and the representative paradox: The political representation of Australian farmers through the NFF family of interest groups (Ph.D. thesis). University of Western Sydney, Sydney.
Halpin, D. (2014). The organization of political interest groups: Designing advocacy. Routledge.
Jones, S. (2020). Establishing political priority for regulatory interventions in waste management in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 211–227.
Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Longman.
Lindblom, C. E., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The policy-making process (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Lindquist, E. (1989). Behind the myth of think tanks: The organization and relevance of Canadian policy institutes (Ph.D. thesis). University of California, Berkeley.
McGann, J. G. (2016). The fifth estate: Think tanks, public policy, and governance. Brookings Institution Press.
McGann, J. G. (2018). 2017 Global Go to think tank index report. University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=think_tanks
Murray, G. (2017). The Australian think tank: A key site in a global distribution of power? In A. Salas-Porras & G. Murray (Eds.), Think tanks and global politics: Key spaces in the structure of power (pp. 53–79). Palgrave Macmillan US.
Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge University 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.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1935). Politics, pressures and the tariff: A study of free private enterprise in pressure politics, as shown in the 1929–1930 revision of the tariff. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Schedler, A. (2012). Judgment and measurement in political science. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1), 21–36.
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.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 671–701). Sage.
Truman, D. B. (1967). The governmental process: Political interests and public opinion. Alfred A. Knopf.
Vromen, A., & Hurley, P. (2015). Consultants, think tanks and public policy. In B. Head & K. Crowley (Eds.), Policy analysis in Australia (pp. 167–182). Policy Press.
Wilson, J. Q. (1980). The politics of regulation. Basic Books.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
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). Studying Australian Think Tanks. In: Think Tanks in Australia. Interest Groups, Advocacy and Democracy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27044-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27044-4_3
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)