The Brookings Institution in Washington — perhaps the world’s top think tank — is under scrutiny for receiving six-figure donations from Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies Co (華為), which many consider to be a security threat, and since the barbaric murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October last year, many other Washington-based think tanks have come under pressure to stop accepting donations from Saudi Arabia.
These recent controversies have given rise to a narrative that Washington-based think tanks are facing a funding crisis.
Traditional think tanks are actually confronting three major challenges that have put them in a uniquely difficult situation. Not only are they facing increased competition from for-profit think tanks such as the McKinsey Global Institute and the Eurasia Group; they must also negotiate rising geopolitical tensions, especially between the US and China.
Complicating matters further, many citizens, goaded by populist harangues, have become dismissive of “experts” and the fact-based analyses that think tanks produce, or at least should produce.
With respect to the first challenge, Daniel Drezner of Tufts University says in The Ideas Industry: How Pessimists, Partisans, and Plutocrats are Transforming the Marketplace of Ideas that for-profit think tanks have engaged in thought leadership by operating as platforms for provocative thinkers who push big ideas.
Whereas many non-profit think tanks — as well as universities and non-governmental organizations — remain “old-fashioned” in their approach to data, their for-profit counterparts thrive by finding the one statistic that captures public attention in the digital age.
Given their access to public and proprietary information, for-profit think tanks are also able to maximize the potential of big data in ways that traditional think tanks cannot.
Moreover, with the space for balanced foreign-policy arguments narrowing, think tanks are at risk of becoming tools of geopolitical statecraft. This is especially true now that US-China relations are deteriorating and becoming more ideologically tinged.
Over time, foreign governments of all stripes have cleverly sought to influence policymaking, not only in Washington, but also in London, Brussels, Berlin and elsewhere, by becoming significant donors to think tanks.
Governments realize that the well-connected think tanks that act as “power brokers” vis-a-vis the political establishment have been facing fund-raising challenges since the 2008 financial crisis. In some cases, locally based think tanks have even been accused of becoming fronts for foreign authoritarian governments.
In terms of shadowy influence-peddling, China’s actions have been particularly concerning.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has explicitly encouraged his country’s think tanks to “advance the Chinese narrative” globally, and in many cases, China-based think tanks have become instruments for expanding the country’s sphere of influence.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative, with its need for complex coordination, has created the perfect policy space for think tanks that “tell a good China story” to prosper, a European Council on Foreign Relations report said.
These include networks such as the Silk Road Think Tank Network and individual think tanks, such as the Charhar Institute, which also recently established a National Committee for China-US Relations.
Given their links to the Chinese government, these organizations threaten to muddy the waters in which genuinely independent think tanks operate.
However, the most significant threat to think tanks is coming from the global populist backlash against “experts” and evidence-based research.
As Michael Rich and Jennifer Kavanagh of RAND Corp have said, we are living through a period of “truth decay.”
The line between fact and opinion has become blurred, and people have increasingly grown distrustful of respected sources of information and data.Populist politicians have exploited and accelerated this phenomenon by depicting experts as “enemies of the people” and think tanks as “ivory institutions” that are out of touch with the concerns of everyday citizens.
These pressures are combining to erode civil discourse, critical thinking, and thus, the foundations of liberal democracies.
To survive, traditional think tanks must innovate while staying true to their principles. As a start, they should draw on their unique power to convene thinkers from across the political spectrum. By creating a forum for members of civil society to debate major policy issues, think tanks can help to build a consensus and encourage cross-party cooperation.
The need for think tanks to reaffirm their core purpose of validating evidence-based arguments has never been more urgent.
Whereas corporate interests often sway the conclusions of for-profit think tanks, non-profit think tanks can and must offer independent and accurate analyses to help the public understand an increasingly complex world.
Think tanks should also maximize the potential of technology to unmask authoritarian influence. As matters stand, the shortage of information about authoritarian governments benefits such regimes.
One promising model for addressing this problem is the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, which has used satellite imagery to track and expose China’s militarization and construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea.
Finally, governments of like-minded democracies must come together to protect the status of independent think tanks as a vital pillar of the liberal order.
Even in hard financial times, when supporting independent research might seem like a luxury, the role of think tanks in promoting evidence-based policymaking is indispensable.
At the end of the day, there can be no liberal international order without critical policy debates. The contributions of think tanks are vital to those debates’ success.
Yoichi Funabashi is chairman of the Asia Pacific Initiative (formerly the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation), a Tokyo-based independent think tank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry