Think Tanks
This week’s
speaker highlighted many points of overlap between his experience in the world
of think tanks and the academic literature presented in class. In addition to
the overlap, he also expanded on the many roles and “idioms” that are found in
a think tank to expand its credibility and its influence. The speaker also
introduced many new ideas about the strengths and weakness of think tanks that
were not mentioned in the readings
Both the
literature and the speaker discussed the important niches found within the
think tank infrastructure, specifically the scholar, policy aid, entrepreneur
and the journalist. Despite the overlap in the categories, the speaker expanded
on each of these roles. The speaker expanded on the ideas of the scholar and
entrepreneur, stressing there are no “pure” academic scholars as there would be
at a university, but rather the scholar had more practical applications of the
field of study rather than a theoretical or philosophical understanding of the
subject. He expanded on the entrepreneur by stressing that a salesperson should
have both the knowledge of a policy and the ability to explain it well as
compared to Medvetz belief that the entrepreneur simply needs to be able to
sell the legislation. The speaker believed that the entrepreneur role involves
much more overlap between the other roles than Medvetz had described in his
essay.
Unlike the
literature that focused on the 4 roles in the think tank, the speaker believed
that two additional roles existed in the infrastructure of the think tank. The
speaker discussed the tropes of the advocate and the ideologically driven
people. He described the ideologically driven people as the people who have a
specific belief on how the system should work. He described this by using the
CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, who form all policies and
perspectives based on the view of a limited role of government. While I believe
that this trope has a lot of overlap with the scholar, Medvetz and the Rich
never overtly address the role of ideologically people. In Rich’s chapter about
the influence of think tanks, he chooses to describe a think tank by ideology
when discussing Republican and Democratic plans to alter healthcare, the tax
code, and telecommunications, but doesn’t separate the people from the think
tanks. While I do feel that employees and think tanks certainly have overlap, as
Medvetz suggests when he says, “the policy expert mirrors the [structure] of
the think tank”, I also believe that there are certainly degrees of separation
between unbiased research and statistics and a group’s ideological bent. I
believe this was emphasized by the speaker and professor’s comments that think
tanks should be able to exchange statistic and demographic data and be able to
agree on the same set of facts.
The advocate role was another trope
mentioned by the speaker that was not explicitly mentioned by either Medvetz or
Rich. The speaker described the advocate role as the people in think tanks that
want to see progress and will do so by lobbying for and against policies. Rich
vaguely addresses this in his chapter on the influence of think tanks but only
to describe the lobbying efforts of the conservative think tanks during the
early 1990’s attempt to overhaul healthcare reform. While I see how the
advocate could be a unique role in the infrastructure of a think tank, I find
it difficult to separate this trope from the entrepreneur which the speaker
described as a person who is an expert in the issue and can explain it well
while selling it to a legislator or other entity. Medvetz describes the
entrepreneur as both personable and innovative. These two are both qualities
that are advantageous to an advocate that wishes to effectively spread their
message and rally others to their cause. Both tropes involve similar characteristics
as lobbyists and as a result, I struggle to distinguish the two.
One of the speaker’s topics I found
most interesting was his discussion of the challenges facing think tanks, specifically
the role of funding in both politics and in think tanks. Our previous study of
interest groups revealed the major role that funding plays in the working of
our politics. This is exemplified in Rich’s diagrams in his chapter on the
influence of think tanks. In the telecommunications debate, the vast majority
of references made on the floor of the house and senate came from
telecommunication interest groups. In my opinion, the role of funding in the
world of think tanks is more refined. Funding translates more to credibility
which is clear in Rich’s analysis of the health care reform. Influential and well-funded
think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and important liberal advocates had
the highest level of influence because of their funding and their credibility. This
contrasts with the opinion of the speaker. The speaker explained that the more
patrons and donors a think tank may have, the more likely they are to conform
to the ideology of the donors. This rationale explains the change in the
political culture in the U.S. and the increased skepticism in wealthy donors.
While this is a common practice today, the role of funding in the 90’s was no
less important, but viewed as corrupt. This change in the view of funding and
credibility is likely a result of the Citizens United case in 2010.
The speaker shared many of the same
views as Rich and Medvetz, while expanding on the types of tropes found in a
think tank. The speaker did however introduce many thoughts that were
incongruous with the literature, specifically on the role of funding and
credibility. This is mostly impart to the change in the political culture of
the U.S., specifically a distrust for wealthy donors representing special
interests.
Sean, I very much enjoyed your analysis on our speaker’s take, especially regarding the additional “tropes” he introduced and the idea of funding and credibility (which is one of the topics I discussed in my own post). You made a lot of good connections, and I especially enjoyed your acknowledgement of the impact of Citizens United might have had on the funding issue.
ReplyDeleteMy post focused mainly on credibility being weakened by three ideas: partisanship, funding/lack of transparency, and the ambiguity that surrounds the roles of think tanks. I believe that your post corroborates or contends with two of my points which I would like to address in collaboration with your thoughts and arguments.
In regards to the two additional “tropes” – the ideologically driven and the advocate – I believe that these two tropes add to the issue of partisanship that our speaker addressed. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the fact that our readings also somewhat addressed these tropes, but that it was hard to separate ideologically driven individuals from their institutions, and advocates from salesmanship. You mention Medvetz’s point that “the policy expert mirrors the [structure] of the think tank,” and that you believe that there are certainly degrees of separation between unbiased research and statistics and a group’s ideological bent; however, as we all know as students who do research for a variety of projects, is it not possible that an individual who is ideologically driven can have biased research – and that this biased research usually reflects an institution, in this case the think tank? What I mean to say is that, often when one does research, they already have a stance and idea in mind and usually look for facts that corroborate their ideas in order to produce work that reflects their values. For me, this indicates that an ideologically driven policy expert would produce ideologically based research that may fuel partisanship.
As for the advocate role, I agree with you that it is hard to distinguish this role from a “salesman” based policy expert. Your point, using Rich’s examples of lobbying experts, also lends itself to an argument against credibility. If we look down on special interests so harshly because of their role in influencing policy and advocating for ideologically-based values, why don’t we treat think tanks the same? I agree with you that think tanks should be producing unbiased research as that would be most helpful to policy makers, but by “selling” ideas from institutions that are more often than not partisan, advocates and salesmen feed into Rich’s argument that these “policy experts” are fueling the war on ideas. To me, this weakens credibility on the front of finding the truth and doing good research.
To add to my last point here, you bring up Rich’s argument that funding translates to more credibility, but I agree with our speaker and you, and see it as the other way around, similar to how we view special interests – that funding can influence the research that is produced and therefore detract from credibility of “good research,” as I mentioned above. I do not mean to say that we shouldn’t trust think tanks at all based on who funds them, but we should be skeptical of their influence because it is usually partisan in some way or another and I believe that this can direct narratives around policy in different directions, some that may not be good for the general public.
I appreciate your analysis of these points and believe that this idea of think tank credibility is a discussion that we in the political world should be having, just as we question the credibility and usefulness and influence of special interests.
I had similar thoughts about the fifth trope, but for different reasons. I think it is distinguishable from the business entrepreneur because I understood that role to be more about fundraising and interaction with donors and elected officials likely of the same political mindset. In contrast, the role of the advocate is more to enlighten people on the agenda of the think tank and convert their original beliefs to be in line with whatever policy or initiative the think tank is currently working on. My issue for the fifth trope was more about how similar it seemed to lobbying. To create a trope solely based on ideology would give too much power to the beliefs of the think tank and make it difficult to collaborate across policy lines. However, I do think it is important for people who work in a think tank to have an ideology you believe in I do not think it needs to be a trope. And I think this idea is enforced by the few bipartisan think tanks and the spectrum of ideologies that their employees sustain.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the discussion on think tanks’ funding was a lot more interesting than the grey areas involved in lobbying and interest groups. This may be biased though since I started out with a heavily stigmatized and negative view for lobbying and interest groups and I had a neutral opinion on think tanks because I did not know what they were. While interest groups can gain better access to more officials through funding, think tanks use their leverage to clean up their research and make them more credible. Think tanks create more credibility in order to get more recognition and influence. I think this is a better way to gain influence than just money and power. And yes, I understand that both money and power are needed in order to start a successful think tank, but I feel the scholarly educational background can protect more against corrupted funding. Similarly, I just feel think tanks have a more deliberate an upfront approach to policy change. However, my main concern with the funding of think tanks are the companies that combine think tanks and lobbying.
I was disappointed but not totally surprised to hear that money does influence what data some think tanks produce because of the Citizen United ruling you mentioned. I feel as though that SCOTUS decision there is no way to regulate this money and that seeps into even the more educational and previously more ethical parts of politics like think tanks. The speaker did a good job of recognizing the challenges for think tanks, even at his own place of work. And he did an especially good job of mentioning think tanks for both the progressive and conservative movements.
The speaker this time around did a great job at relating real world experience to the text we’ve been reading. I’m glad that you point out that there were many points of overlap between his work and the literature. Our speaker did talk about Medvetz four tropes. It is interesting that you mentioned that the role of the scholar as a policy expert should not be theoretically or philosophically driven. As students, we do this a lot. We over analyze information. It is kind of weird to think about how simplified the scholar would have to be to be a policy expert, especially when thinking about how much time students spend in school. It would be hard to not be theoretical or philosophical. I wonder if the transition between being a student and a policy expert is challenging. Even though this is not in the context of a think tank, I have to reflect back on our situation. We went from full time students to being full time in an actual workforce. For me, it did definitely take me a little bit to get adjusted. And, at the beginning, it took time for me to wrap my head around the idea of waking up early to go to work, not go to class. It feels different to not have to take your work home with you though. Whereas in school, that’s all we do.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s important that you touched on an advocate having to be personable. This is key. How else can advocates relate to others without being personable? I agree with your view of it being hard to separate the role of an entrepreneur and advocate. Both terms need to be personable in order to flourish and thrive. However, I think it is possible to separate the two. When I think of the business side of it, I think of the policy expert’s ability to be able to sell their ideas and persuade others to accept it. When I think of the advocate side, I think of the policy expert’s ability to work within populations to help others, encourage them, and support them.
I know you also touched on our speaker talking about the problems that think tanks face, specifically funding. When is money not a problem in politics? Today, I’m glad funding is more relatable to the credibility of a think tank. Think tanks are more beneficial than they are harmful, every little bit of progression is important, especially in our current administration.