nach oben

Policy Sciences

Erschienen in:

16.02.2016 | Research Article

Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems

verfasst von: Bert Fraussen, Darren Halpin

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences | Ausgabe 1/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Think tanks have proliferated in most Western democracies over the past three decades and are often considered to be increasingly important actors in public policy. Still, their precise contribution to public policy remains contested. This paper takes the existing literature in a new direction by focusing on the capacity of think tanks to contribute to strategic policy-making and assessing their particular role within policy advisory systems. We propose that strategic policy-making capacity requires three critical features: high levels of research capacity, substantial organizational autonomy and a long-term policy horizon. Subsequently, we assess the potential of think tanks to play this particular role in policy-making, using empirical evidence from structured interviews with a set of prominent Australian think tanks.

Vorheriger Artikel Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: the hybridization of advisory capacities in Germany

Nächster Artikel Quantitative differences in think tank dissemination activities in Germany, Denmark and the UK

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

In the latter case, a regime is defined as a “governing arrangement for addressing policy problems” that consists of institutional arrangements, ideas and interests (May and Jochim 2013: 428). Our concern here is mainly with the latter component. Next to institutional arrangements and ideas, interests also play a crucial role in shaping the legitimacy, coherence and durability of policy regimes. These interests can relate to advocacy organizations, yet also research organizations such as think tanks. Not only do these interests represent constituencies that can provide support or opposition to policymakers, they are also expected to shape the governing capacity of a regime.

This search was conducted on 17 November 2014.

An alternative explanation would be that there is high turnover among think tanks, with only a few of them surviving over time. While we do not have historical data on think tank foundings and disbandings, the proliferation hypothesis seems in line with findings on think tank establishment in other countries (e.g. Rich 2001: 585).

The set of questions was inspired by earlier research on think tanks (e.g. Fraussen et al. 2016), as well as previous survey research on interest groups (Walker 1991; Gray and Lowery 1996; Schlozman and Tierney 1986).

One think tank opted not to complete this question.

These nine think tanks are: Grattan Institute, Lowy Institute, Institute of Public Affairs, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Australia Institute, Sydney Institute, Centre for Independent Studies, Climate Institute and Committee for Economic Development of Australia.

In such a position, interest groups or parties would typically be expected to feel pressure from their supporters/members to act (or be seen to act).

Prasser (2006).

To evaluate the value of such a typology, one obviously needs both more fine-grained measures of organizational autonomy and research capacity, as well as (ideally) some comparative benchmarks that go beyond the Australian case.

Abelson, D. E. (2002). Do think tanks matter? Assessing the impact of public policy institutes. Ithaca, NY: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Berkhout, J. (2013). Why interest organizations do what they do: Assessing the explanatory potential of ‘exchange’ approaches. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 22(2), 227–250.CrossRef

Bertelli, A. M., & Wenger, J. B. (2009). Demanding information: Think tanks and the US Congress. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 225–242.CrossRef

Boswell, C. (2008). The political functions of expert knowledge: Knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 471–488.CrossRef

Bouwen, P. (2002). Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3), 365–390.CrossRef

Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40.CrossRef

Campbell, J. L., & Pedersen, O. K. (2014). The national origins of policy ideas: Knowledge regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Christopoulos, D., & Ingold, K. (2015). Exceptional or just well connected? Political entrepreneurs and brokers in policy making. European Political Science Review, 7(3), 475–498.CrossRef

Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(02), 79–98.CrossRef

Craft, J., & Wilder, M. (2015). Catching a second wave: Context and compatibility in advisory system dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, doi:10.1111/psj.12133.

Daviter, F. (2015). The political use of knowledge in the policy process. Policy Sciences, 48(4), 491–505.CrossRef

della Porta, D. (2013). Can democracy be saved: Participation, deliberation and social movements. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Donas, T., Fraussen, B., & Beyers, J. (2014). It’s not all about the money: Explaining varying policy portfolios of regional representations in Brussels. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 3(1), 79–98.CrossRef

Drutman, L. (2015). The business of America is lobbying: How corporations became politicized and politics became more corporate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Fraussen, B., Pattyn, V., & Lawarée, J. (2016). Thinking in splendid isolation? The organization and policy engagement of think tanks in Belgium. In M. Brans & D. Aubin (Eds.), Policy analysis in Belgium. Bristol: Policy Press.

Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). The population ecology of interest representation: Lobbying communities in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRef

Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public sector. In G. B. Peters & D. T. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment (pp. 138–172). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Halpin, D. (2014). The organization of political interest groups. Designing advocacy. New York: Routledge.

Halpin, D. (2015). Interest group policy agendas. In A. Cigler, B. Loomis, & A. Nownes (Eds.), Interest group politics (9th ed.). Washington: CQ Press.

Halpin, D., MacLeod, I., & McLaverty, P. (2012). Committee hearings of the Scottish parliament: Evidence giving and policy learning. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(1), 1–20.CrossRef

Hill, C. J., & Lynn, L. E. (2005). Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 173–195.CrossRef

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Wu, X. (2015). Understanding the persistence of policy failures: The role of politics, governance and uncertainty. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 209–220.CrossRef

Howlett, M., Tan, S. L., Migone, A., Wellstead, A., & Evans, B. (2014). The distribution of analytical techniques in policy advisory systems: Policy formulation and the tools of policy appraisal. Public Policy and Administration, 29(4), 271–291.CrossRef

Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jordan, G. (2007). Policy without learning: Double devolution and abuse of the deliberative idea. Public Policy and Administration, 22(1), 48–73.CrossRef

Jordan, A. G., & Greenan, J. (2012). The changing contours of British representation: Pluralism in practice. In D. Halpin & A. G. Jordan (Eds.), The scale of interest organization in democratic politics: Data and research methods (pp. 67–98). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Maloney, W., Jordan, G., & McLaughlin, M. (1994). Interest groups and public policy: The insider/outsider model revisited. Journal of Public Policy, 14(1), 17–38.CrossRef

Marsh, I. (1994). The development and impact of Australia’s “Think Tanks”. Australian Journal of Management, 19(2), 177–200.CrossRef

Marsh, I. (1995). Beyond the two party system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marsh, I., & Miller, R. (2012). Democratic decline, democratic renewal: Britain, Australia, New Zealand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Marsh, I., & Stone, D. (2004). Australian think tanks. In D. Stone & A. Denham (Eds.), Think tank traditions: Policy research and the politics of ideas (pp. 247–263). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Marsh, D., Toke, D., Belfrage, C., Tepe, D., & McGough, S. (2009). Policy networks and the distinction between insider and outsider groups: The case of the countryside alliance. Public Administration, 87(3), 621–638.CrossRef

May, P. J., & Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.CrossRef

May, P. J., Koski, C., & Stramp, N. (2014). Issue expertise in policymaking. Journal of Public Policy, doi:10.1017/S0143814X14000233.

McConnell, A. (2008). Governing after crisis: The politics of investigation, accountability and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McGann, J. G. (2015). 2014 Global Go to Think Tank Index Report Think tanks and civil societies program. University of Pennsylvania.

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–380.CrossRef

Pautz, H. (2010). Think tanks in the United Kingdom and Germany: Actors in the modernisation of social democracy. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 12(2), 274–294.CrossRef

Pautz, H. (2011). Revisiting the think-tank phenomenon. Public Policy and Administration, 26(4), 419–435.CrossRef

Pautz, H. (2013). The think tanks behind ‘Cameronism’. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 15(3), 362–377.CrossRef

Pautz, H. (2014). British think-tanks and their collaborative and communicative networks. Politics, 34(4), 345–361.CrossRef

Peters, B. G. (2015). State failure, governance failure and policy failure: Exploring the linkages. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 261–276.CrossRef

Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Prasser, S. (2006). Providing Advice to Government. Papers on Parliament. Canberra: Senate of Australia. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/~/link.aspx?_id=11AB0553BB894CD4A00F5E67C6A0B649&_z=z.

Rasmussen, A., Carroll, B., & Lowery, D. (2013). Representatives of the public? Public opinion and interest group activity. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), 250–268.CrossRef

Rich, A. (2001). The politics of expertise in congress and the news media. Social Science Quarterly, 82(3), 583–601.CrossRef

Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Rich, A. O., & Weaver, R. K. (1998). Advocate and analysist: Think tanks and the politicization of expertise. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics. Washington, CQ: CQ Press.

Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1986). Organized interests and American democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

Schmitter, P. C., & Streeck, W. (1999). The organization of business interests. Studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. MPifG discussion paper. Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Köln.

Schrefler, L. (2010). The usage of scientific knowledge by independent regulatory agencies. Governance-an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 23(2), 309–330.CrossRef

Shaw, S. E., Russel, J., Parsons, W., & Greenhalgh, T. (2015). The view from nowhere? How think tanks work to shape health policy. Critical Policy Studies, 9(1), 58–77.CrossRef

Smith, M. A. (2000). American business and political power: Public opinion, elections, and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Smith, M., & Marden, P. (2008). Conservative think tanks and public politics. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 699–717.CrossRef

Stone, D. (1991). Old guard versus new partisans: Think tanks in transition. Australian Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 197–215.CrossRef

Stone, D. (2000). Introduction to the symposium: The changing think tank landscape. Global Society, 14(2), 149–152.CrossRef

Stone, D. (2007). Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public Administration, 85(2), 259–278.CrossRef

Stone, D., & Denham, A. (2004). Think tank traditions: Policy research and the politics of ideas. New York: Manchester University Press.

‘t Hart, P., & Vromen, A. (2008). A new era for think tanks in public policy? International trends, Australian realities. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(2), 135–148.CrossRef

van der Steen, M. A., & van Twist, M. J. W. (2013). Foresight and long-term policy-making: An analysis of anticipatory boundary work in policy organizations in The Netherlands. Futures, 54, 33–42.CrossRef

Vromen, A., & Hurley, P. (2015). Consultants, think tanks and public policy. In B. Head & K. Crowley (Eds.), Policy analysis in Australia (pp. 167–183). Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRef

Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRef

Weaver, R. K. (1989). The changing world of think tanks. PS: Political Science & Politics, 22(03), 563–578.

Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to public judgement. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Titel: Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems
verfasst von: Bert Fraussen
Darren Halpin
Publikationsdatum: 16.02.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Policy Sciences / Ausgabe 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9246-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Policy advisory systems: change dynamics and sources of variation

Quantitative differences in think tank dissemination activities in Germany, Denmark and the UK

Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: the hybridization of advisory capacities in Germany

There at the beginning: we’re still “emerging,” maybe forever

Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience

Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy

Premium Partner