Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - Page 9 News List

The three major challenges facing think tanks

By Yoichi Funabashi

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.

This story has been viewed 2084 times.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top