For more than a century, public policy research institutes, or think tanks as they are more commonly known, have played an important role in informing and educating policymakers on Capitol Hill, at the White House and across the the entire intelligence community on how to protect and promote U.S. interests around the world. Created in very different and often unusual circumstances, think tanks, particularly those with expertise in defense and foreign policy, have attracted the interest, attention and sometimes suspicion of those trying to explain how organizations ostensibly operating on the periphery of government have managed over the past few decades to leave an indelible mark on several national security initiatives. Yet although they are subject to increased scrutiny, important questions remain about how and under what conditions think tanks can and do shape public opinion and public policy.
Understand how and where in the policymaking process of such prominent think tanks as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Center for National Security Studies , the Hudson Institute and Rand, to name a few, trying to make their presence felt is not hard to see. For some time, researchers familiar with the world of think tanks have identified several governmental and nongovernmental channels that these institutions rely on to convey their ideas to elected and appointed officials.
Testify before legislative committees, hold workshops, seminars and conferences on key defense and foreign policy issues where policymakers, journalists, academics and others can exchange ideas, produce opinion pieces for various national and international newspapers, make themselves available to the media for interviews and commentary, volunteer to work as advisors and/or speechwriters on congressional and presidential campaigns and political working groups, and generating and disseminating publications designed for specific target audiences are just some of the ways think tanks can help shape the discourse on key themes. policy issues. But there are even more obvious access channels.
One of the most important ways for think tank researchers to contribute to policymaking is to become policymakers themselves, and there is no better opportunity for them to do so than in states. -United States, which has a political system particularly suited to think tanks and other non-governmental organizations. -government organizations to infiltrate and navigate the corridors of power. And there’s no better time to watch the flow of think tank researchers to and from the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Council, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and other federal government departments and agencies engaged in protection and security. advance U.S. national security only when one presidential administration is coming to an end – and a new one is about to begin. It is during this transition period that researchers can monitor where foreign and defense policy experts who leave government end up, and where a new group of analysts eager to enter government land. This is what experts generally call the “revolving door phenomenon.”
How often researchers recognized for their expertise in domestic and foreign policy move to think tanks after leaving government or prepare for positions in federal departments and agencies after working at leading think tanks for years, testifies to the reputation of public policy research institutions in terms of transformation. academics into politically astute and savvy practitioners. After all, as organizations committed to helping government think through complex policy issues, what better way to lend a hand than to prepare our own staff to take on leadership roles?
The exodus of think tank researchers from their more academic environment to government is another way for think tanks to gain a firm foothold in the policy-making process. With an ever-growing network of former colleagues entering public service, think tanks can extend their tentacles to the far reaches of the bureaucracy, which is essential for organizations seeking to inform content and direction of government policy. However, relying on their government contacts and relying heavily on the other governmental and non-governmental channels mentioned previously does not guarantee that think tanks will be able to exert discernible influence.
As an expert on think tanks, I am often asked how much influence they have on domestic and foreign policy. I usually respond by reminding those present of the importance of focusing on the nature of influence, what it involves, and who or what it is aimed at. Although I would much prefer to provide a less obtuse answer, the dynamics and reality of policymaking prevent me and others from doing so. There is no simple recipe or approach to assessing influence, especially when so many people and organizations are involved in efforts to affect policy change. So what is the answer? Better understanding what influence is and how to exercise it can be a good place to start.
In much of the defense and foreign policy literature, influence is treated in a linear fashion. In other words, one is believed to have exerted influence if A was able to convince B to do X; A managed to convince B not to do X; or A was able to convince B to maintain the status quo. Simply put, influence is presented as an all-or-nothing proposition. Either you have influence or you don’t.
Applying this model or approach to the study of influence can be useful in some cases, but it can also be problematic. After all, influence can be achieved in different ways and at different times in the political cycle. For example, during the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, High Frontier, a Virginia-based think tank, received support from the Heritage Foundation to work on a project that would help lay the groundwork for the President’s Strategic Defense Initiative Reagan, known as Star Wars, revealed. ” by the President on national television on March 23, 1983. In this case, it could be argued that High Frontier had a considerable influence on Reagan’s thinking about finding an alternative to the nuclear doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD ). However, while there is no doubt that High Frontier has played an important role in discussions about deploying ground- and space-based weapons systems that could in principle track, intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles, several Other individuals and organizations have helped galvanize support and/or opposition to this initiative. As Martin Anderson, a former Hoover Institution scholar who would go on to advise President Reagan on a multitude of issues, pointed out, “Every successful policy idea has a hundred mothers and fathers.” Every bad idea is an orphan. »
Anderson’s comment speaks to the difficulties researchers often encounter when trying to trace the origin of an idea to a particular person or organization. The policy-making process is not only difficult to maneuver for those who intend to shape it, but it is also extremely difficult to understand given the number of participants who enter and exit the process at different times. In the case described above, Reagan certainly recognized the valuable contributions of High Frontier, but he also benefited from the vast expertise provided by the defense policy establishment, of which High Frontier was only one player.
This is one of many reasons why I avoid discussions that lead only to speculation about the influence exerted by think tanks, interest groups, domestic and foreign lobbies and others. organizations seeking to play a role in defense and foreign policy; rather, I believe that a better understanding can be gained by isolating think tank involvement and activity to specific stages of the policy cycle: question framing, formulation, implementation and evaluation. In doing so, it is possible to better identify and assess the contribution that certain institutions have made to help structure the discourse around an issue, for example by transmitting their ideas and policy recommendations to the media, organizing conferences and workshops and publishing a report. an avalanche of publications. Highlighting how think tanks have or have not contributed to the formulation, implementation and evaluation of the success or failure of specific policies would also be useful in providing a more accurate assessment of their relevance in and around key political debates.
After years of studying think tanks and evaluating their motivations and strategies, I concluded that they can actually have an impact on policymaking when they present the right ideas, to the right people, to the right people. right time and in the right form. It is also important to keep in mind, however, that think tanks may have the best, most creative and innovative policy recommendations, but unless the political stars are aligned, their efforts risk to have no perceptible impact.
Think tanks have no shortage of ideas to convey to multiple stakeholders, but for their ideas to take effect, policymakers and other leaders with the power to shape their countries must have the ability to listen. In the United States, there is rarely a shortage of ideas related to defense and foreign policy, or the many domestic policy issues that regularly resurface. It’s more a question of demand. What kind of information do policymakers in Congress, the White House, and throughout the bureaucracy demand from think tanks and other nongovernmental organizations so that they can carry out their duties more effectively? responsible ? How can these organizations help government officials think, rather than validate what they already know or want to hear? The answers to these and other questions could go a long way toward providing those with the power to govern what they need to protect the American people, while allowing think tanks to fulfill their mandate and mission.
Further reading on international electronic relations
