Almost a week ago from today, I had the pleasure of attending a December 2018 graduation ceremony at the now renamed Sarah Baartman Hall at the University of Cape Town. It was a proud moment for not only my friend who was now to reap the benefits of her labour, but also for the scores of other graduates who were to share the joy of having completed a chapter of their academic journey successfully.
Guests were ushered into proceedings by the melodic sounds of Black Roots Marimba. The Vice Chancellor, Professor Kgethi Phakeng, with poise and elegance, welcomed all present and convened the meeting. The singing of the national anthem of the Republic of South Africa, Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika, was followed by a rendition of 'The Impossible Dream' from the Man of La Mancha by Mitch Leigh and Joe Darion.
One of the most powerful declarations made, after the item by Imbongi, a traditional Xhosa praise singer and the guest speaker's address in poignancy, Mrs Mamello Selamolela, a Managing Executive at Vodacom, was by the SRC President, when she read the university dedication. "At this time of celebration, we, the members of the University of Cape Town, reaffirm our mission: to nurture rational, creative thought and free inquiry, to strive for excellence in teaching and in research, to educate for life and to address the challenges of our society. We undertake to advance these ideals in a spirit of freedom and responsibility and through consultation and debate. We celebrate our benefactors and predecessors, those who have built the fabric and nourished the values of UCT. To those of you who will graduate today, we wish you courage, wisdom and purpose. To those who will leave the university to work elsewhere, may you be sustained by those values which unite us here today and advance them in the world beyond. A love of truth and of learning, and of this, our university."
This was a wonderful opportunity for me to mull about the academy. More specifically, it aroused my curiosity about the origins, role and effectiveness of think tanks in Africa and globally. According to the 5th Estate: Think Tanks, Public Policy and Governance, Brookings Institution Press 2016 as well as Think Tanks and Policy Advice in the US, Routledge 2007, think tanks are public-policy research and engagement organisations that generate policy-orientated research, analysis and advice on domestic and international issues, thereby enabling policy makers and the public to make informed decisions about public policy. Meriam-Webster defines it as," an institute, corporation or group organised to study a particular subject (such as a policy issue or scientific problem) and provide information, ideas and advice.
CNet
Thanks to the directorates of Sections 59 and 72 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, and my work at the Parliamentary Monitoring Group, I was able to see their value during the Constitutional Review Committee meetings which took place at the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. The debates and submissions which took place in Parliament were lively, highly thought-provoking and informative in grappling with a centuries-old problem in South Africa.
The Brookings Institute is credited as one of the world's first think tanks in 1916, employing a 'university without students' model, with an emphasis on research and providing public policy solutions. Tevi Troy highlights that a lot of public solutions came about as a result of think tanks in the US. The Marshall Plan, an American initiative to help rebuild Western European economies is an example of this. Nicholas Marosszeky suggests that the term ,"think tank", was first applied to the RAND Corporation, ironically the namesake of the South African currency, in the 1960s. Initially, a think tank was a research institute that came up with new ideas which could influence or inform public policy. It is important to note that while think tanks are synonymous with specific political or ideological agendas, RAND states that they are strictly nonpartisan, with a focus on facts and evidence.
In 2005, the Los Angeles Times, of RAND, said that it was," arguably the grandest experiment ever undertaken to test the idea that even mankind's most pressing problems can be solved." There are several challenges facing Africa and South Africa: funding for postgraduate students, high levels of inequality, food and water security, high levels of youth unemployment, the future of work etc. Despite incredible acts of servant leadership such as that of Professor Kgethi Phakeng, which will go down in the annals of history as a truly watershed moment in the praxis of higher education funding after Fees Must Fall, (Prof Phakeng decided to forego an inauguration party as Vice Chancellor at UCT and instead, channeled such resources towards clearing student debt for 100 students in order to enable their graduation) funding for postgraduate students is a stubbornly persistent challenge for a developmental state such as South Africa and requires more rigorous efforts to tackle it systematically. One hopes her actions will inspire more solutions in this area.
According to the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, an initiative of the University of Pennsylvania's Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, there are more than 7800 think tanks globally. Their categories range from autonomous and independent, quasi independent, government affiliated, quasi-governmental, university affiliated, political party affiliated to corporate (for profit) public policy research organisations, affiliated with a corporation or specifically operating on a for profit basis.
ACCORD
As per the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, the countries with the most think tanks are as follows:
- United States of America- 1872
- China- 512
- United Kingdom- 444
- India- 293
- Germany- 225
- France- 197
- Argentina- 146
- Japan- 116
- Russia- 103
- Canada- 100
- Brazil- 93
- South Africa- 92
The highest ranked African think tank in the "Top Think Tanks Worldwide (Non-US)" category was the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD) at 26th and 37th out of 7815 in the "Top Think Tanks Worldwide (US and non-US) category. The Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis was ranked in 1st place in the "Top Think Tanks in Sub-Saharan Africa" category.
Despite the above, there exists some noteworthy dissent of think tanks globally. John B Judis has even gone as far as suggesting that credible think tanks are extinct. Having written extensively about them, one specific incident is a classical example for his case: the purging of a Google critic at the New America Foundation, which, he states," shows how donors have corrupted Washington's policy and research institutes." The New America Foundation is a non-partisan think tank established in 1999 which focuses on an array of public policy issues such as energy, health, technology, national security studies, asset building, gender, education and the economy. In late 2017, the New America Foundation severed ties with anti-monopoly advocate Barry Lynn and his Open Markets project.
The New York Times as well as communication by the New America Foundation reveal that Google and Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google's parent company, are substantial donors to New America. Schmidt was chairman of the New America Foundation. Lynn and his project had been critical of Google, and even published support of the European Union's anti-trust judgment against Google. Slaughter subsequently requested Lynn and Open Markets to depart from the New America Foundation, accusing them of "imperiling the institution as a whole".
Lynn said that he was purged because Slaughter caved in to pressure from Google. Despite a lack of evidence which had come to the fore regarding Google demanding he be removed, Judis suggests that there is little doubt that their conflict was as a result of Lynn 'imperiling' a large donor. As an individual who has spent years at a Washington think tank and knows these issues intimately well, he notes that the New America saga highlights the credibility conundrum think tanks must contend with. He adds, "Instead of bolstering public trust in expertise, as think tanks were initially supposed to do, they are increasingly feeding the growing distrust."
Their origins, such as those of the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution, which was founded by wealthy businessman and philanthropist, Robert Brookings, were transformative and progressive. Brookings, for example, firmly believed that the application of social science would yield government policies which would stifle rising conflict between the classes, parties and also achieve world peace. Brookings envisioned a research institute which was "free from any political or pecuniary interest". The scholars never had to raise their own funds and were employed like university lecturers. So progressive was Andrew Carnegie when he established the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that in 1910, he endowed the institution with bonds, with the desire that they could steer clear from fundraising completely. Other organisations which started during that era were the Council on Foreign Relations and the National Bureau of Economic Research.
The organisations grew in stature as bona fide institutions with a reputation for intellectual independence. When officials of coal mining companies expressed their dissatisfaction to Brookings first president, classical Economist Harold Moulton in 1933 about a study recommending their nationalisation, his reply was simply that," We are concerned only in finding out what will promote the general welfare." This was the case up until the 1960s, when significant changes in Washington took place.
The first of these developments was as a result of conservative Republicans and business groups forming think tanks with specific factional and or economic interests. Businessmen unhappy with the New Deal, in 1943, formed the American Enterprise Institute. The AEI played a role as Barry Goldwater's policy arm in his campaign for president in 1964. It also became the think tank of choice for the Fortune 500 and centre-right Republicans, despite retaining a few liberal researchers for the sake of appearances. Sophisticated business lobby groups such as the Heritage Institution founded in 1973 as well as other groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, "action tanks" such as Citizens for a Sound Economy and FreedomWorks all demanded attention for their 'experts' in the media, on Op-ed pages and later on television.
The second development, occurring around the 1970s, related to the first, was the expansion of lobbying operations by businesses in Washington. They formed corporate offices in Washington and employed the services of lobbying firms. There was also a great deal of expenditure on studies which supported their point of view. In the new environment which prevailed in Washington, older think tanks developed an impetus for funding, even at the expense of their intellectual independence.
The earlier formed think tanks had the organisational structure of small universities, or university departments where scholars didn't have to teach. However, with the ascendance of AEI and Heritage, a third development occurred. Both older and newer think tanks were swept up in a competition akin to the business world: a race for the highest number of researchers as well as the most elaborate headquarters both nationally and abroad. This takes a large amount of money to do.
As think tanks sought donors, the donors in turn wanted influence on the product they were funding. Some groups such as Brookings made a concerted effort, and still do, to keep the donors at arms length. However, the relationship between donors and think tanks has produced a series of scandals over the last 3 decades. For example, a New York Times investigation in 2014 revealed that ," More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years, while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors' priorities."
The influence of donors has been heightened by the fact that think tanks often require scholars to seek funding for their research. Judis says that when he became a "visiting scholar" at Carnegie in 2003, he was under the illusion that think tank scholars were still like university lecturers. However, after he had completed a book about the Iraq war, he was informed that if he wanted to stay in his office and write a book about the history of US foreign policy toward Israel, he would be required to find funding. Not wanting to get funding from either side of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because this would allow either side to discredit his research, the quest for uncomplicated funding proved to be a Pandora's box, leading to him leaving Carnegie. This has become commonplace in Washington and has the potential to give donors untoward influence over what is produced.
New America is not known as a think tank where researchers are let go on dubious reasons or where donors have a particularly heavy influence. It was formed as a progressive policy group in 1999. It abhorred the "dogmatic two-party system" in the US and predicted that "political transformations and realignments" were necessary. It was originally based on scholars who were employed for a defined period of time and guaranteed independence in their work. It boasts a range of intriguing books it has produced. Sadly, it got caught up in the competition which ensued in the think tank world, forming centres in New York and California. New America also initiated an array of funded projects such as those of Lynn's Open Markets. As the controversy involving Lynn shows, the proliferation of projects sparked conflict between donors and researchers. Had Lynn, who is now establishing a new group, Citizens Against Monopoly, concentrated his efforts towards oil companies, it is questionable whether he would have encountered conflict with Slaughter.
In an article for Medium, Slaughter sought to give her perspective on the matter. "Nothing we say is going to convince the many people who want to believe a David vs Goliath story of Barry Lynn vs big bad Google." She proceeded," On the contrary, Barry's new organisation and campaign against Google is the opening salvo of one group of Democrats vs another group of Democrats in the run up to the 2020 (US) election, at a time when I personally think the country faces far greater challenges of racism, violence, a broken political system, and geographic and partisan divisions so great that we are losing any common sense of what we stand and strive for as a country."
Ironically, Slaughter's statement suggests that, what was really at stake here was, as Lynn had purported, a "campaign against Google" and not 'collegiality' as she had initially claimed. She seemed to suggest that the challenges she had mentioned were more important than this matter. However, by any and all standards, the question of how to relate or deal with the might of large technology companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon in the 21st century is certainly no trivial matter either.
Think Tank Impact Assessment Tool
The 2017 Global Go to Think Tank Report sensibly notes that evaluating the impact of think tanks is a challenging endeavour, given the "various and conflicting actors, events and politics involved in the policy making process." Regardless of the significant hurdles in establishing a causal relationship between knowledge and policy, it is important for think tanks to give a response to the increasing number of questions raised by donors, the public and journalists about the influence and role of think tanks in governments and civil societies around the world.
Different metrics can be applied by think tanks to assess their impact, including measures such as growth rates in analysis, research produced as well as contributions to civil society and the policymaking environment. McGann's 2008 research concentrated on formulating a comprehensive assessment tool to evaluate the impact of think tanks. The following are provided by the index as useful when assessing the impact of think tanks and differentiating between impact and output:
The New York Times as well as communication by the New America Foundation reveal that Google and Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google's parent company, are substantial donors to New America. Schmidt was chairman of the New America Foundation. Lynn and his project had been critical of Google, and even published support of the European Union's anti-trust judgment against Google. Slaughter subsequently requested Lynn and Open Markets to depart from the New America Foundation, accusing them of "imperiling the institution as a whole".
Lynn said that he was purged because Slaughter caved in to pressure from Google. Despite a lack of evidence which had come to the fore regarding Google demanding he be removed, Judis suggests that there is little doubt that their conflict was as a result of Lynn 'imperiling' a large donor. As an individual who has spent years at a Washington think tank and knows these issues intimately well, he notes that the New America saga highlights the credibility conundrum think tanks must contend with. He adds, "Instead of bolstering public trust in expertise, as think tanks were initially supposed to do, they are increasingly feeding the growing distrust."
Their origins, such as those of the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution, which was founded by wealthy businessman and philanthropist, Robert Brookings, were transformative and progressive. Brookings, for example, firmly believed that the application of social science would yield government policies which would stifle rising conflict between the classes, parties and also achieve world peace. Brookings envisioned a research institute which was "free from any political or pecuniary interest". The scholars never had to raise their own funds and were employed like university lecturers. So progressive was Andrew Carnegie when he established the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that in 1910, he endowed the institution with bonds, with the desire that they could steer clear from fundraising completely. Other organisations which started during that era were the Council on Foreign Relations and the National Bureau of Economic Research.
The organisations grew in stature as bona fide institutions with a reputation for intellectual independence. When officials of coal mining companies expressed their dissatisfaction to Brookings first president, classical Economist Harold Moulton in 1933 about a study recommending their nationalisation, his reply was simply that," We are concerned only in finding out what will promote the general welfare." This was the case up until the 1960s, when significant changes in Washington took place.
The first of these developments was as a result of conservative Republicans and business groups forming think tanks with specific factional and or economic interests. Businessmen unhappy with the New Deal, in 1943, formed the American Enterprise Institute. The AEI played a role as Barry Goldwater's policy arm in his campaign for president in 1964. It also became the think tank of choice for the Fortune 500 and centre-right Republicans, despite retaining a few liberal researchers for the sake of appearances. Sophisticated business lobby groups such as the Heritage Institution founded in 1973 as well as other groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, "action tanks" such as Citizens for a Sound Economy and FreedomWorks all demanded attention for their 'experts' in the media, on Op-ed pages and later on television.
The second development, occurring around the 1970s, related to the first, was the expansion of lobbying operations by businesses in Washington. They formed corporate offices in Washington and employed the services of lobbying firms. There was also a great deal of expenditure on studies which supported their point of view. In the new environment which prevailed in Washington, older think tanks developed an impetus for funding, even at the expense of their intellectual independence.
The earlier formed think tanks had the organisational structure of small universities, or university departments where scholars didn't have to teach. However, with the ascendance of AEI and Heritage, a third development occurred. Both older and newer think tanks were swept up in a competition akin to the business world: a race for the highest number of researchers as well as the most elaborate headquarters both nationally and abroad. This takes a large amount of money to do.
As think tanks sought donors, the donors in turn wanted influence on the product they were funding. Some groups such as Brookings made a concerted effort, and still do, to keep the donors at arms length. However, the relationship between donors and think tanks has produced a series of scandals over the last 3 decades. For example, a New York Times investigation in 2014 revealed that ," More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years, while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors' priorities."
The influence of donors has been heightened by the fact that think tanks often require scholars to seek funding for their research. Judis says that when he became a "visiting scholar" at Carnegie in 2003, he was under the illusion that think tank scholars were still like university lecturers. However, after he had completed a book about the Iraq war, he was informed that if he wanted to stay in his office and write a book about the history of US foreign policy toward Israel, he would be required to find funding. Not wanting to get funding from either side of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because this would allow either side to discredit his research, the quest for uncomplicated funding proved to be a Pandora's box, leading to him leaving Carnegie. This has become commonplace in Washington and has the potential to give donors untoward influence over what is produced.
New America is not known as a think tank where researchers are let go on dubious reasons or where donors have a particularly heavy influence. It was formed as a progressive policy group in 1999. It abhorred the "dogmatic two-party system" in the US and predicted that "political transformations and realignments" were necessary. It was originally based on scholars who were employed for a defined period of time and guaranteed independence in their work. It boasts a range of intriguing books it has produced. Sadly, it got caught up in the competition which ensued in the think tank world, forming centres in New York and California. New America also initiated an array of funded projects such as those of Lynn's Open Markets. As the controversy involving Lynn shows, the proliferation of projects sparked conflict between donors and researchers. Had Lynn, who is now establishing a new group, Citizens Against Monopoly, concentrated his efforts towards oil companies, it is questionable whether he would have encountered conflict with Slaughter.
In an article for Medium, Slaughter sought to give her perspective on the matter. "Nothing we say is going to convince the many people who want to believe a David vs Goliath story of Barry Lynn vs big bad Google." She proceeded," On the contrary, Barry's new organisation and campaign against Google is the opening salvo of one group of Democrats vs another group of Democrats in the run up to the 2020 (US) election, at a time when I personally think the country faces far greater challenges of racism, violence, a broken political system, and geographic and partisan divisions so great that we are losing any common sense of what we stand and strive for as a country."
Ironically, Slaughter's statement suggests that, what was really at stake here was, as Lynn had purported, a "campaign against Google" and not 'collegiality' as she had initially claimed. She seemed to suggest that the challenges she had mentioned were more important than this matter. However, by any and all standards, the question of how to relate or deal with the might of large technology companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon in the 21st century is certainly no trivial matter either.
Think Tank Impact Assessment Tool
The 2017 Global Go to Think Tank Report sensibly notes that evaluating the impact of think tanks is a challenging endeavour, given the "various and conflicting actors, events and politics involved in the policy making process." Regardless of the significant hurdles in establishing a causal relationship between knowledge and policy, it is important for think tanks to give a response to the increasing number of questions raised by donors, the public and journalists about the influence and role of think tanks in governments and civil societies around the world.
Different metrics can be applied by think tanks to assess their impact, including measures such as growth rates in analysis, research produced as well as contributions to civil society and the policymaking environment. McGann's 2008 research concentrated on formulating a comprehensive assessment tool to evaluate the impact of think tanks. The following are provided by the index as useful when assessing the impact of think tanks and differentiating between impact and output:
- Resource indicators: Ability to recruit and retain leading scholars and analysts, the quality, level and stability of financial support, access and proximity to decision makers, staff with the ability to conduct rigorous research and the ability to produce timely and incisive analysis, institutional currency, reliability and quality of networks, key contacts in the policy academic communities and the media
- Utilisation factors: Quantity and quality of media appearances and citations, reputation as a 'go to' organisation by policy elites and the media in the country, web hits, testimony before executive and legislative bodies, books sold, reports distributed, briefings, official appointments, consultation by officials or departments/agencies, references made to research and analysis in scholarly and popular publications and attendees at conferences and seminars hosted
- Output indicators: Staff who are nominated to government and advisory posts, number and quality of policy proposals and ideas generated, publications produced (books, policy briefs, journal articles etc), news interviews conducted, briefings, conferences and seminars organised
- Impact indicators: Advisory role to political parties, candidates, transition teams, awards granted, recommendations adopted or considered by policymakers and civil society organisations, issue network centrality, publication in or citation of publications in academic journals, public testimony and the media that influences the policy debate and decision-making, listserv and website dominance, success in challenging the conventional wisdom, standard operating procedures of bureaucrats and elected officials in the country
In the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Report, TTCSP assert their commitment to improving the quality and representativeness of the index every year. Scores of expert panelists have participated in the assessment of the ranking criteria, nominations and indexing processes. As a result, several iterations have been made since 2010, designed to limit bias, expand the rankings representativeness and indexing processes. For example, in 2010, a ranking list of think tanks with an annual budget of less than $5 million US was developed. This category assists in recognising the work of smaller think tanks which produce influential research, but might otherwise be toppled off the ranking list by think tanks with larger budgets and teams. The methodology also included an open nominations process in which all 6480 think tanks identified by the TTCSP at the time were invited to submit nominations. This replaced a system in which the expert panel developed the initial slate of organisations.
In 2012, categories such as "Top Energy and Resource Policy Think Tank", "Top Education Policy Think Tanks" were incorporated, all aimed at recognising the diverse issues think tanks tackle. Other categories, focusing on the areas of research include: Top Domestic Economic Policy Think Tanks, Top Environment Think Tanks, Top Science and Technology Think Tanks, Top Transparency and Governance Think Tanks, Top Social Policy Think Tanks, Top Food and Water Security Think Tanks etc.
Top Think Tanks by Achievement featured categories such as Best New Think Tanks (unranked), Best Institutional Collaboration, Involving 2 or more think tanks, Best Think Tanks with Political Party Affiliation, Best University Affiliated Think Tanks, Best Policy Study/Report issued by a Think Tank, Best Independent Think Tank, Best For-Profit Think Tank etc.
Africa's Think Tank Sustainability Crunch
Dr Frannie Leautier reported in 2014 at the Africa Think Tank Summit in South Africa that 30% of Africa's think tanks may fold or be in dire straits. Dr James McGann reports that based on his research, another 25%-30% are failing or at high risk of failure. Some of the challenges faced by African think tanks include small staff components and budgets due to inadequate and irregular funding, high staff turnover due to low salaries and financial instability. Cumulatively, these challenges cause systemic risk and a sharp sustainability crisis in the region. Efforts to bolster think tanks are necessary to ensure their long-term prospects.
Despite some of the pitfalls inherent in the think tank arena, it is important to note that in a world in which matters such as climate change, migration, technological advancement and the future of work require urgent attention, it is possible for entire nations with tens or hundreds of millions of people to be caught unprepared to deal with an exodus of millions of people from one place to another due to climate change, for want of opportunities, food and or water insecurity. Think tanks have the potential to play a vital role in helping societies to not only understand these problems, but to also assist policymakers to provide a systematic response to them.
Conclusion
The African continent has its fair share of trials to negotiate, however, it also offers many exciting opportunities for the shrewd. As the East and West court the African continent in efforts to build partnerships, governments would be wise to take heed of the successes and failures of the Washington think tank complex as well as the reasons why the above have prevailed. A well informed citizenry coupled with strong institutions holds the promise of improved welfare for society at large.
