navigatingthroughturbulence.com Open in urlscan Pro
52.20.78.240 Public Scan

Back to summary

Submitted URL:
http://navigatingthroughturbulence.com/
Effective URL:
https://navigatingthroughturbulence.com/
Submission: On November 11 via api (November 11th 2022, 7:32:31 am UTC) from US — Scanned from DE

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

NAVIGATING THROUGH TURBULENCE

THINK TANKS’ IMPACT ON POLICY IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD

* 1
Explore the Report
1. Amplifies Global Threats to Democracy and Prosperity
* 2
2. Local Think Tanks Are Formidable Actors Influencing Policy Decisions
* 3
3. Obtaining Success Despite Operational Obstacles
* 4
4. Think Tanks Will Continue to Play Critical Roles Advancing Reform
* 6. Watch Event

By FP Analytics, the independent research division of Foreign Policy magazine

The last few years have seen rises in authoritarianism, economic protectionism,
poverty, and threats to human rights and civil liberties, trends that were all
further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts to combat such trends take
many forms, but this report is particularly concerned with the role and impact
of think tanks given their capacity to understand, explain, and shape these
trends. Such organizations have proliferated globally since the 1990s, but there
has been limited research and a lack of consensus regarding how successful they
are in counteracting these negative trends. To explore this topic, FP Analytics
conducted an in-depth survey and semi-structured interviews with think tank
personnel to highlight the experiences and viewpoints of the think tank staff
working on the ground to advance democracy, economic openness, human rights, and
poverty reduction in their home countries.

Read the Executive Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated several troubling global trends,
including increasing authoritarianism, economic protectionism, and threats to
human rights and civil liberties. It threatened to undo the significant gains in
global economic and political development since the end of the Cold War. Today,
2.6 billion people—35 percent of the global population—live under regimes that
are becoming more authoritarian. By contrast, just 8 percent of the world’s
population live under regimes that are becoming more democratic.1 For the first
time since 2001, democracies are not the majority regime type in the world.2
Accompanying these shifts in governance are troubling trends across key aspects
of human development. For example, the World Bank estimates that the pandemic
has pushed 115 million people into extreme poverty.3 Likewise, the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has warned that disruptions to food supply
chains, declines in economic activity, and diversions of resources toward
emergency medical responses due to COVID-19 will delay progress toward meeting
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that was already moving at a slower
pace than necessary to meet the targets by their 2030 deadline.4

Local think tanks are among the organizations working at the forefront of these
challenges. With their deep understanding of, and analytical perspectives on,
the domestic power structures in their respective countries of operation, and
through their research and role in informing policymakers, the media, and the
public with their analyses, these organizations can play a vital role in
addressing the root causes and counteracting the impacts of such concerning
trends. However, to date, there have been limited research and a lack of
consensus regarding how think tanks make and measure impact, how they operate,
and the degrees to which they are effectively addressing these and other
challenges within their countries. Understanding these challenges is key to
understanding think tanks’ utility and to maximizing their effectiveness.
Accordingly, FP Analytics (FPA) undertook an in-depth investigation of local
think tanks, interviewing 51 senior think tank leaders from organizations around
the world and surveying another 322. This analysis sheds light on the
perspectives of think tank leaders and how they are working to tackle four major
issues including poverty and standards of living, economic openness, governance,
and declining liberal democratic norms. Several notable findings emerged:

COVID-19 Presents Challenges and New Opportunities for Local Think Tanks: Think
tank leaders felt that the pandemic has had a substantial negative effect on
these four key areas in addition to causing operational challenges. The pandemic
has provided cover for illiberal reforms and retaliation against opposition
activity by authoritarian regimes, putting think tank staff at risk. However,
the pandemic has placed a renewed spotlight on the importance of civil
liberties, human rights, and the organizations and individuals working to defend
them.

Governance and Declining Liberal Democratic Norms Are Major Worries: While all
of the four major issues were serious concerns for survey respondents, two stood
out. Nearly three-quarters of respondents reported being seriously concerned
about governance, and 56 percent reported serious concerns regarding declining
liberal democratic norms.

Local Dynamics Require Local Expertise: Though these organizations often work
globally, around two-thirds of think tank leaders surveyed perceived significant
unique aspects to how the trends of democratic decline, poor governance,
poverty, and economic protectionism are manifesting in their countries. These
leaders contended that local organizations are among the best positioned to
address these challenges, given their local knowledge of the political, social,
and other dynamics influencing socio-political realities on the ground. This
includes an advantage in defining and measuring impact within local contexts.

Local Think Tanks Are Seeing an Impact, Despite Challenges: The vast majority of
survey respondents reported having an impact or a substantial impact addressing
poverty, declining liberal democratic norms, governance, and economic openness
in their countries. How think tank leaders define “impact” is varied, with some
pointing to concrete policy change and others noting amplification of research
and analysis across public media. In countries where governments are actively
suppressing dissent, think tanks are minimizing direct engagement with
policymakers and diversifying their work to include monitoring and evaluating
government activities, offering skills training, building youth capacity,
translating literature, and diversifying school curricula.

While local think tanks are under tremendous pressure in some locations, and
face great challenges globally from the pandemic, think tank personnel report
having positive impacts on governance, declining democratic norms and liberties,
poverty, and economic openness. In part, this is because they have adapted to
the changing political and economic climate. Some have shifted toward a focus on
messaging, public relations, and training students and activists. Others have
continued to produce strong research, meet with political leaders, and spread
their work through mainstream media. Think tank leaders repeatedly emphasized
the value of coalitions and partnerships, noting that they have learned
important lessons and best practices through connecting with others with shared
goals. Specific recommendations for think tanks, as well as donors and
stakeholders, to build on this success include:

For Think Tanks

For Donors and Other Stakeholders

* Foster Relationships in Fragile States: Respondents from think tanks in
fragile states were more likely to report having a greater impact than those
from think tanks in more stable contexts, suggesting that stakeholders would
do well to engage with think tanks in fragile states when seeking new
partnerships and opportunities.
* Build Organizational Capacity: Think tanks that engaged in this study
reported great need for increased organizational capacity, through improved
training and education for staff, and better infrastructure, such as wireless
internet.
* Tailor Work to Local Needs: Local think tanks are often well positioned to
understand the needs of the local government and community and focus their
work accordingly. Stakeholders and donors could benefit from acknowledging
their expertise and deferring to their local knowledge when determining
organizational priorities and action strategies.
* Strengthen Impact Assessments: Think tanks could secure more funding and
build credibility by clearly demonstrating their impact. Stakeholders can
support think tanks by partnering with data scientists and successful think
tanks to offer training and practical support to those interested in
improving their impact-assessment models.

COVID-19 AMPLIFIES GLOBAL THREATS TO DEMOCRACY AND PROSPERITY

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has seen improvements on numerous key
indicators regarding democracy, poverty, human rights and civil liberties, and
economic freedoms. The number of democracies has increased, as have civil
liberties and respect for human rights around the world.5 Extreme poverty has
fallen,6 with many countries making strong progress toward the first United
Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG): ending poverty everywhere. As
evidence of this progress, the number of people living in poverty fell by more
than half between 1999 and 2013, from 1.7 billion to just 767 million,7 even as
the global population increased by about 1 billion in the same period.8

However, in recent years, concerning trends have threatened to undo the progress
achieved since the 1990s.9 Democratic progress has lulled into backsliding and
growing authoritarian populism worldwide,10 including in developed democracies
such as the United States, Poland, Switzerland, Turkey, Austria, the
Netherlands, and Italy.11 This decline has been matched by reductions in civil
liberties and personal freedoms.12 Alarmingly, 2.6 billion people—35 percent of
the global population—live in states that are becoming more authoritarian, while
just 8 percent live in states that are becoming more democratic.13 For the first
time since 2001, democracies are no longer the predominant type of government in
the world.14 These trends were only made worse by COVID-19, which has posed
significant challenges to governance, global health, and prosperity.

Debate continues over the origins of this recent resurgence in illiberalism and
authoritarianism. While some experts argue that it has been a reaction to the
2008 financial crisis, others suggest that it is a cultural backlash to liberal
society in post-industrial countries.15 Most likely, a confluence of factors
contributes to its rise.16,17 These trends have had adverse effects on health
outcomes,18 education levels,19 economic growth,20 and property rights.21 And
this decline in democracy is not an aberration. Freedom House has documented
declining liberal norms globally for 14 consecutive years,22 and the Economist
Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index has captured a similar long-term decline.24
These trends are alarming and portend falling access to education, wealth,
personal and economic freedoms,25 and access to healthcare, and they will
frustrate progress toward overall human development goals.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has pointed out, authoritarian regimes
have capitalized on the pandemic and used it to deploy “heavy-handed security
responses and emergency measures to crush dissent, criminalize basic freedoms,
silence independent reporting and restrict the activities of nongovernmental
organizations.”26 According to Human Rights Watch, at least 83 countries have
seen the pandemic used as an excuse to limit fundamental rights, such as the
freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press. Similarly, the Varieties of
Democracy Project (V-Dem) found major violations of democratic norms around the
world—including in long-established democracies.27

The pandemic has caused severe economic disruptions virtually everywhere, from
shocks to supply chains and personal incomes to border closures and trade
disputes.28 It has pushed 115 million additional people into extreme poverty,29
and disruptions of food supply chains, economic activity, and medical resources
needed for COVID-19 response have frustrated ongoing human development efforts
in numerous spheres.30 One estimate suggests that low-income countries will
require an additional $200 billion in financing until at least 2025 to support
their pandemic responses, including vaccination support, virus containment
strategies, and financial support for workers and companies.31 This need could
lead low-income countries into debt traps,32 which may create opportunities for
authoritarian politics as struggling and vulnerable populations seek stability
and assertive leadership.

GDP growth in 2019 was already at its lowest level in a decade due to changing
business models, rising geopolitical tensions, and climate change,33 all of
which impact human development. Economic recessions are linked to long-term
impacts on educational achievement, private investment, entrepreneurship, and
new business formation, leading to reduced economic outcomes over generations.34
Some states have pursued trade protectionism in the face of such tensions, which
the World Bank warns could push a further 30.7 million people into poverty.35
Likewise, reduced economic vitality can be tied to serious health outcomes, from
lowered life expectancies to less-inclusive medical care.36

The imperative of addressing all of these negative trends could not be clearer.
Simply put, the trajectories of democracy, economic development, poverty, and
human rights and civil liberties are closely intertwined, and they demand
tailored, research-based, and locally-driven actions to address them. Think
tanks around the world, as independent and agile organizations that can use a
range of tools to capitalize and share their local expertise, can play an
essential role in combating these trends. Democracy and progress toward critical
human development goals are at stake and think tanks may be able to answer the
call.

LOCAL THINK TANKS ARE FORMIDABLE ACTORS INFLUENCING POLICY DECISIONS

Think tanks play a key role in addressing the root causes of these trends and
counteracting their impacts both locally and globally. Accordingly, an FP
Analytics global survey found that think tank leaders are particularly concerned
about these four issues: the state of democracy, governance, living standards,
and economic growth (Figure 1).

— Figure 1 —

DEGREE OF CONCERN REGARDING …

* Local Governance Issues
* Democratic Decline
* Poverty
* Economic Issues

According to the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA), these
organizations, while somewhat amorphous, are “often better placed to influence
policy than traditional civil society organizations (CSOs), and their research
tends to be more politically informed than academic research.”37 Local think
tanks often have a deep understanding of domestic power structures due to their
knowledge of local decision-making, including both formal and informal
processes.38 For that reason, according to the Think Tanks and Civil Societies
Program at the University of Pennsylvania, think tanks can, and do, act “as
bridges between knowledge (academia) and power (politicians and
policymakers).”39 They can inform policymakers’ decisions by offering new
research and analysis; evaluating policies, programs, and their impacts; and
educating policymakers, the media, and the public on relevant issues.40 These
capacities make them influential actors in the policy ecosystem, taking ideas
and concepts developed by academics and subject-matter experts, identifying
context-specific and tailored solutions to local challenges, and adapting their
analyses into locally relevant policies and reforms.

Think tanks generally differentiate themselves from politically affiliated
organizations by offering analysis and insights driven by research,41
particularly relevant given the growing distrust in government institutions.42
Although some think tanks are affiliated with universities, political parties,
or even governments,43 independence is a key differentiator for most, as it puts
them “above the political fray” and enables them to make policy recommendations
based on evidence and rigorous analysis. This independence can distinguish think
tanks’ recommendations from the ideological views of politicians or the narrow
interests of lobby groups.44 Establishing a reputation for independence, rigor,
and trustworthiness can assist these organizations in securing public support
and informing policy, with many doing so by serving as sources for journalists
or by publishing articles.45

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFTER A POST-COLD WAR BOOM, THINK TANKS TAKE ON NEW RELEVANCE

Think tanks and other forms of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are
focused on the advancement of democracy and free-market economics have
proliferated around the world since the 1980s, particularly since the end of the
Soviet Union.46 Many of these organizations are therefore not just impacted by
recent trends, such as the rise of authoritarianism and decline in economic
openness, but were established specifically to analyze these trends and identify
and recommend policies to counter them. Think tanks of this type, which
predominantly focus on democracy, free-market economics, poverty alleviation,
and good governance, are the subject of this study, as they are often the first
to recognize these declining trends.

The growth and evolution of think tanks have resulted in a range of
organizations operating with varying forms, goals, and activities. The
University of Pennsylvania, which publishes the sector’s well-known annual
ranking of think tank performance, counted 8,248 think tanks in its database in
late 2019, just over half of which are located in North America and Western
Europe,47 the traditional home of think tanks prior to the 1980s.48 Figure 2
shows how think tanks have been established at different times across the world.
While these organizations have been common in North America for over 50 years,
in Asia and lower-middle-income countries more generally, they are a relatively
new phenomenon, entering the mainstream policymaking community mostly within the
past five to ten years. Today, “think tank” has no single definition, as each
increasingly tailors its activities to context-specific social, political, and
economic challenges.

— Figure 2 —

LENGTH OF TIME THINK TANKS HAVE PLAYED A CENTRAL ROLE IN LOCAL POLICY CREATION

Think tanks have taken myriad forms as they have spread across the world,
responding to the diverse needs of their home countries and cultivating a local
think tank culture that reflects those contexts. While this is a positive
development, it can present challenges: for example, think tanks may be
notorious challengers of power and accepted conventions, or they may assist in
legitimizing regimes and governments on the national and international stages.
In recent months, for example, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India announced
his intention to assign two Indian think tanks to create a new freedom and
democracy index, in light of recent poor scores by Freedom House and the
Varieties of Democracy Project.49 Likewise, China has established or funded
think tanks around the world to produce research in support of its Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI).50 In both cases, increasingly authoritarian governments
finance sympathetic research that can change attitudes and policies toward them
by taking advantage of the assumption that think tanks are independent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROMOTING GOOD GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM

Thriving democracies rely on a robust marketplace of ideas that acts as a
constraint against nationalism and autocratic policies that limit freedoms.51,52
A strong civil society, in which a diversity of think tanks are key actors,
creates competition between the power of the state and the power of society,
which is vital to ensuring that a country remains free and reflective of the
best interests of its population.53 Think tanks can therefore play a vital role
in this marketplace of ideas and assist in the advancement of democracy, good
governance, and economic growth by offering analysis and evidence-based
recommendations on policy issues and exposing the public to new and compelling
concepts advancing these ideals.54 Think tank leaders surveyed by FP Analytics
expressed significant concerns about the states of governance, democracy,
poverty, and economic growth in their countries, and thus are reversing the
worrying direction of these trends.

According to the survey, declining liberal democratic norms and governance are
especially troubling to think tank leaders around the world. Nearly
three-quarters of survey respondents identified poor governance as a serious
concern, and governance was of particular concern to those in
lower-middle-income countries (where 91 percent identified governance as a
serious concern) and countries defined by the Heritage Foundation as having low
economic freedom.55 These include places with limited property rights, expansive
government powers, and poor business and labor regulation. Fifty-six percent of
survey respondents expressed significant concerns about declining democratic
norms in their countries, increasing to 74 percent in countries with low
economic freedom. Poverty was a serious concern for 50 percent of survey
respondents, rising to over 80 percent in lower-middle-income countries and over
90 percent in countries with low economic freedom.

In response to these global concerns, think tanks are contributing to the local
marketplace of ideas by publishing analysis and sharing easily digestible
research that provides evidence-based policy recommendations to address local,
national, and global challenges. Some organizations have made the development
and dissemination of original research the cornerstone of their work,56 while
others refer to themselves as “do tanks”—taking a more direct approach,
advancing policies via publicity campaigns, and working directly with
civilians.57

For example, FP Analytics’ survey found that think tanks in Africa and Southeast
Asia are working to secure property rights for farmers and homeowners and
advocating for the benefits of deregulation as a method of increasing the ease
of doing business. In the Philippines, the Foundation for Economic Freedom
undertook a campaign to safeguard property rights, first for residential
homeowners and later for smallholder farmers. Prior to their intervention in
2010, an average of just 3,840 ownership titles were issued every year, jumping
to an average of 50,853 titles per year after the passage of their policy
recommendations in the form of the Residential Free Patent Act. The foundation
continues to promote property rights by creating resources to guide homeowners
in applying for their titles.58 In 2019, it successfully campaigned for a new
law enabling agricultural landowners to buy and sell land freely, without
government intervention, resulting in changes to over 2.5 million agricultural
property patents.59 Securing property rights makes it easier for entrepreneurs
to access credit to support their businesses and encourages increased
agricultural productivity.60 For example, farmers are more likely to invest in
their land when they are confident that their ownership will not be challenged.
The establishment of such rights feeds into a cycle that improves living
standards and promotes national economic growth.61

In another example, the Samriddhi Foundation launched the Campaign for a Livable
Nepal following the conclusion of the country’s civil war, to safeguard basic
democratic rights in the country’s new constitution. The campaign demanded the
enshrinement of the rule of law, livable wages, and freedom of enterprise in the
new constitution, with the intention of improving living standards for ordinary
Nepalese people, who fully funded the campaign through small donations.62

Think tanks are also working to reduce poverty via campaigns to reduce import
tariffs and lower food prices. The Centre for Indonesian Policy Studies has been
campaigning to increase food security by reducing high import tariffs on
foodstuffs calculated to cost Indonesians $6 billion per year in unnecessary
spending. Over time, the organization has successfully campaigned for the
government to reduce tariffs on a number of vital products, including garlic,
onions, and crop seeds. This effort has saved Indonesians around $1.9 billion
per year and has brought many out of poverty as a result, directly contributing
to improved living standards for the country’s poorest residents.

In South and Central America, where many countries spent decades under the rule
of authoritarian leaders, think tanks are developing policies and legislation to
encourage good governance and improve the functioning of democracy after years
of single-party rule. In Mexico, the think tank Mexico Evalua was instrumental
in the 2014 passage of a nationwide freedom-of-information and transparency law
that enables citizens to request documents and information about government
operations. The National Transparency System was intended by Mexico Evalua to
increase civil society and civilian involvement in government policy development
and decision-making, with the philosophy that “the more voices, the richer the
discussion, the better the public policy.”63 While there is still some
resistance to the law at both the national and state levels, a broad coalition
of think tanks, NGOs, academics, and legislators has been crucial to both its
initial passage and its continued defense, as has the support of the public.
This is consistent with FP Analytics’ survey, which found that more than 15
percent of think tank leaders identified building strong coalitions as the main
reason for their success, with another 30 percent crediting the support of
stakeholders in positions of power, such as legislators and other politicians
(Figure 3).

— Figure 3 —

THE MAIN REASON FOR THINK TANK POLICY "SUCCESSES", ACCORDING TO SURVEY
RESPONDENTS

— CASE STUDY —

Policy Success: Increasing Access to Sanitary Products Through Reduced Tariffs64

Based in Sri Lanka, a country that has been destabilized in recent decades by
civil war, violent non-state actors, and an increasingly authoritarian
government,65 the Advocata Institute focuses on economic policy to advance
reform and avoid the political fray. In 2019, the organization launched a
successful project to improve women’s social welfare and bring attention to the
complexities of the Sri Lankan import tax system by campaigning to reduce
taxation on feminine sanitary products.

The tax system in Sri Lanka is “a cascading tax system where you tax one issue
on top of the other,” according to Advocata representatives. Prior to Advocata’s
campaign, sanitary pads were taxed at a rate of 101 percent, and the
organization’s research found that up to 50 percent of low-income Sri Lankan
women did not use manufactured sanitary pads due to this price barrier. These
barriers and lack of access to feminine hygiene products negatively impact both
women’s health and educational attainment. For example, cervical cancer, which
can be the result of poor menstrual hygiene,66 is the second-most common cancer
in the country, and schoolgirls have a high rate of absenteeism during
menstruation due to social taboos and lack of access to products.

In addition to undertaking research, the Advocata Institute considers itself a
“do tank” because of its interest in “getting policy reforms done.” To amplify
its research, Advocata launched a national campaign via social media, aimed at
challenging stigmas around menstruation and encouraging the public to lobby for
tax reductions. By creating accessible infographics and videos about the harm
being done to women and girls due to a lack of access to products, Advocata’s
work generated public outcry and led to a substantial reduction in taxes. The
government took the total tax rate down to 63 percent, including the complete
removal of the 30 percent import tariff on sanitary products. According to
Advocata’s chief operations officer Dhananath Fernando, this was a victory for
the think tank, but it will continue campaigning for tax reform, as “it’s a
constant battle that we fight.”

The Advocata Institute's advocacy and research for feminine sanitary products
have helped women at work and school.

MEASURING IMPACT IS CRITICAL TO MAXIMIZING USE OF RESOURCES

Many think tanks are proactively working to counteract trends of democratic
decline, decreasing living standards, economic stagnation, and poor governance
around the world. However, to date, there has been limited research and a lack
of consensus regarding how think tanks make and measure impact, how they
operate, and the degree to which they are effectively addressing these and other
challenges. Understanding the ways and the degree to which these organizations
have been impactful is key to understanding their utility and how they can be
most effective in advancing democracy and related reforms around the world.
While the University of Pennsylvania’s rankings measure how think tanks’ impact
is perceived publicly, particularly by others working in the sector, their
reliance on external evaluators reduces the utility of their rankings in
understanding and measuring impact. Beyond these rankings, the literature on
think tank impact is limited. What little exists varies between overly general
references to impact as an important concept and highly specific explanations of
individual organizations’ impact-assessment methods.67

The ability to quantify the impact of think tanks’ work is necessary for their
continued ability to attract partners and allies within civil society, raise
funds for their activities, and justify their continued work. To date,
literature on think tanks has broadly categorized impact as either direct or
indirect. Indirect influence introduces ideas to the public at large, by way of
publishing reports, writing articles in news media, and hosting and attending
events and conferences, while direct influence targets policymakers through
forming relationships and testifying at government hearings.68 Both approaches
help think tanks achieve their goals, but it is often easier for them to track
the progress and impact of direct influence work, including being directly
quoted in legislative reports and hearings and even cited in new laws
themselves. However, think tanks working toward indirect influence are designing
creative and rigorous methods for impact evaluation, including through fielding
regular public opinion polls, organizing focus groups, and tracking outputs such
as social media engagement. Given the lack of research and data on impact, this
report fills a gap in the understanding of think tanks’ relevance in the world
of policymaking by surveying leaders from a broad range of
organizations—including think tanks of varying sizes, age, locations, and
notoriety—to better understand how their work may be having tangible effects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF LOCAL THINK TANKS—A UNIQUE ANALYSIS OF THINK TANK
ACTIVITY

This first-of-its-kind analysis highlights the experiences and perspectives of
local think tank staffers who are working to advance local and national policy
reform to strengthen democracy, increase economic opportunity, and reduce
poverty in their countries. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, FP
Analytics assessed how think tanks around the world define and measure their
impact, explored how they are maintaining transparency and independence while
advancing tangible policy reforms in their countries, and identified the ongoing
challenges they face.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

FP Analytics used a mixed-methodology analysis, including a survey and in-depth,
semi-structured interviews. The survey, sent to high-level think tank staff and
leaders around the world,69 received 322 responses from 80 countries. Outreach
for the survey included:

1. Think tank partners of the Atlas Network, a nonprofit organization that
provides support services to more than 450 independent think tanks that
pursue missions related to the strengthening of liberal democracy in
approximately 90 countries around the world; and
2. An additional 196 non-affiliated think tanks, identified through regional
rankings featured in the 2020 University of Pennsylvania Global Go To Think
Tank Index report.70

Approximately 12 percent of the final sample of 322 respondents consists of
responses from staff at think tanks outside those identified through the Atlas
Network.

The responses were then analyzed across a range of subclassifications,
including:

* Geographical location, based on UN classifications;71
* Income level of the country of operation, based on World Bank
classifications;72
* Regime type of the country of operation, based on data from Polity;73
* Level of economic freedom of the country of operation, based on the Heritage
Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index;74 and
* Main focus of think tank activities, as declared by survey respondents.

Using this analysis, FP Analytics ran a statistical model75 to ascertain whether
these factors were significantly correlated with the level of impact reported by
respondents from think tanks in the survey.76 Over 50 semi-structured interviews
with heads of think tanks around the globe were conducted to explore the
activities of think tanks in more depth, the results of which were quantified to
help identify trends. For more information on the research methodology of this
report, including sample limitations, please see Appendix 1.

- Characteristics of Survey Respondents -

Think Tanks Trend Smaller and Are Primarily Located in Wealthy Democracies

The think tanks represented in the survey (Figure 4) have a broad geographic
distribution but are most heavily concentrated in the Americas. A majority are
in democracies,77 and almost half are in high-income countries.78 Likewise,
nearly half are in countries in the highest global quartile of economic
freedom—a measure of countries’ rule of law, property rights, labor rights,
regulatory efficiency, economic openness, and government size.79

— Figure 4 —

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY …

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

— Figure 5 —

AGE AND SIZE OF THINK TANKS

* Staff
* Years in Operation

The survey also showed that a majority of think tanks had 10 or fewer staff,
with more think tanks in Europe, Asia, and Central and South America fitting
this pattern than North America (Figure 5). Respondents represented a mix of
older and younger think tanks, with more falling in the oldest age category (20
or more years old) in semi-democracies compared to democracies. Respondents from
countries with high levels of economic freedom were also more likely to work at
think tanks that have been operational for more than 16 years than were those
from countries with limited economic freedom. Respondents in North America were
twice as likely to come from think tanks that have been in operation for 20 or
more years than were their European and Asian counterparts (and nearly twice as
likely as respondents working at Central and South American think tanks), which
points to think tanks being a newer phenomenon in these three regions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

— Figure 6 —

PRIMARY ORGANIZATIONAL FOCUS AND CHALLENGES

* Focus
* Perceived Challenges

While working on a range of issues, economic openness was the primary focus of a
plurality of the think tanks surveyed (Figure 6), followed closely by work on
liberal democratic norms. Think tanks in North America were over four times more
likely to have the primary goal of poverty reduction, compared to other regions,
despite the continent’s relative prosperity, whereas twice as many think tanks
in Central and South America, Europe, and Asia were focused on improving
governance than in North America. However, as Figure 6 also shows, governance
and declining liberal democratic norms, not economic openness, were the main
challenges that survey respondents reported facing, with governance being a
particularly high concern among respondents in Europe, and democratic decline a
prominent concern among respondents in North America. Poverty was also a much
higher concern among survey respondents from think tanks in lower-middle-income
countries (in contrast to high-income countries), as was to be expected, as well
as in countries with low economic freedom (vs. high-economic-freedom countries),
and in Central and South America (vs. all other regions).

OBTAINING SUCCESS DESPITE OPERATIONAL OBSTACLES

Despite challenges and concerns over democratic decline and poor governance,
local think tanks are, in many cases, effectively advancing their policies and
making an impact. Around the world, think tanks are working to advance the ideas
and policies they believe will lead to a more prosperous world and improve the
political and social living situations of ordinary people. They are doing so in
a rapidly changing global environment, where countries are struggling to attain
development goals while battling democratic backsliding and economic
protectionism, not to mention the global COVID-19 pandemic. FP Analytics’ survey
and interviews sought to further understand the work of these think tanks, the
challenges they face, and why local think tanks are best placed to effect change
in their own countries.

The results are clear: local think tanks report making a positive impact on
democracy, governance, living standards, and human rights and establishing
themselves as key players in the policy ecosystem. They do so by publishing
novel research and forming relationships with political leaders, educating the
next generation of voters to empower them to make more informed choices, and
enriching the marketplace of ideas within their respective countries. The
interviews shed light on the myriad ways in which local think tanks report
driving significant change and advancing reform.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMID ADVERSITY, LOCAL THINK TANKS ARE FINDING CREATIVE NEW WAYS TO ADVANCE
POLICIES AND AVOID RETALIATION

In 2017, the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) noted that
think tanks will need to adapt to changing policy ecosystems, which may require
different creative routes to influence policy and new focus on activities that
lead to indirect, rather than direct, influence.80 The RSA’s argument—that
indirect influence can be just as powerful and effective as direct influence
when pursued effectively and measured closely—is borne out by the results of the
survey and interviews undertaken for this report. The interviews show that think
tanks are diversifying their activities beyond just research and policy
development. In particular, they are working to influence public opinion, with
the contention that politicians are more likely to take action if their
constituents are pressing for change, as failure to address the public’s
concerns may undermine politicians’ power.81

As illustrated in Figure 7, around 30 percent of those interviewed reported that
their organizations combined research-based work with additional programming,
while an additional 40 percent did not undertake any original research or policy
work at all. That latter group represents leaders almost entirely from small,
recently established think tanks. Some interviewees noted that they opted to
avoid direct policy influence work as a result of the political conditions under
which they operate, which may make it dangerous or difficult for them to form
relationships with policymakers and politicians or to be outspoken in their
advocacy for unpopular ideas.82

— Figure 7 —

THINK TANKS' PRIMARY ACTIVITIES

Non-research-based activities described by interviewees vary widely, depending
on the needs and interests of the local community. Major themes and examples of
work include:

Skills Training
SOLESS, in South Sudan, runs an entrepreneurship course for young people seeking
to start their own businesses, teaching them to navigate costly and complex
regulations that present a high barrier to entry for businesses in the
country.83
Monitoring and Evaluating Government Activities
The Fraser Institute focuses its work on assessing the effectiveness of Canada’s
national public policies and institutions, comparing them to countries around
the world and translating those findings into digestible concepts. Its aim is to
give the public the clearest idea of what is and is not working, and to help
them decide what changes they want to see from government.84
Youth Capacity Building
Students for Liberty, which operates in countries around the world, and actually
trained several current think tank leaders interviewed for this report, focuses
on building the capacity of young people to start their own initiatives and
pursue policy objectives through teaching them how to manage publicity
campaigns, events, and employees.85 Over half of interviewees were eager to
access greater support to build operational capacity and professionalize their
staff, making the work of organizations such as Students for Liberty important
for the future success of new or existing think tanks.
Influencing Public Opinion
In Argentina, Fundación Libertad y Progreso creates viral communications
campaigns, which bring specific ideas and policies connected to economics and
civil liberties into mainstream conversation. The aim of its work is to
encourage Argentinian citizens to push for the adoption of popular policies on
these issues themselves. In addition to Libertad y Progreso, 12 percent of
interviewees actively track changes in public opinion via regularly fielded
opinion polls, while an additional 15 percent track changes in media coverage
and narratives.86
Translating Literature
A number of organizations around the world are working to translate research
into local languages in order to expose the public to new ideas. In Venezuela,
CEDICE translates literature on free-market economics into Spanish, while in the
Middle East, I Believe in Science translates scientific research into Arabic,
Farsi, and Kurdish to challenge conspiracy theories and promote fact-based
decision-making.87
Diversifying School Curricula
In Slovakia, INESS has successfully campaigned for schools to introduce
textbooks that teach a variety of economic theories, including free-market
economics. Operating in a formerly communist country, it sees diverse textbooks
and school curricula as a way to expose young people to alternative viewpoints
and influence the next generation of voters and policymakers.88

Think tanks that are undertaking original research are doing so in ways that
reflect local challenges and are accessible to relevant communities and
politicians. For example, in Muslim-majority countries, including Afghanistan
and Bosnia and Herzegovina, think tanks have worked with religious scholars to
highlight the compatibility between their work and traditional Muslim values.89
Original research demonstrating the links among Muslim scholarship and
democracy, economic openness, and human rights has been vital to establishing
these think tanks in their communities and to overcoming any concerns that their
work solely imports Western concepts that have no role in addressing local
challenges. Through this approach, local think tanks are able to listen to the
concerns of the communities in which they operate and to design projects and
activities that account for those concerns and engage a broad coalition of
allies and supporters.

— CASE STUDY —

A Culturally Relevant Approach in Muslim-Majority Countries

Local think tanks are well placed to advance policy reforms and introduce new
ideas into society due to their knowledge of local context and cultural
sensitivities. This is particularly important in countries where think tanks are
relatively new and have struggled to overcome misconceptions and accusations
that they are importing Western concepts that are incompatible with local
cultures and traditions, such as in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

FP Analytics interviewed the leaders of think tanks in Muslim-majority
countries, including in Afghanistan and Bosnia and Herzegovina, where
organizations are translating texts into Arabic and explicitly linking concepts
such as human rights, democracy, and free-market economics to traditional Muslim
values and texts in order to help mainstream these concepts into society.

A conference hosted by AELSO, an Afghan think tank founded by economists and
Islamic scholars, to confront extremism and promote liberty and democracy.

* A conference hosted by AELSO, an Afghan think tank founded by economists and
Islamic scholars, to confront extremism and promote liberty and democracy.

The Afghanistan Economic and Legal Studies Organization (AELSO) was founded
by economists and Islamic scholars to confront extremism, promote liberty and
democracy, and demonstrate that such concepts are compatible with Islam.
AELSO staff have faced considerable pushback from the public, and even
threats to their safety by the Taliban, but they have successfully lobbied
for free-market economics to be enshrined in Afghanistan’s new constitution.
They credit their success to the fact that “we are working to protect
humanity, we are working to promote tolerance, [and] we are working to bring
positive changes to [people’s] lives . . . [but] we are not changing their
religion. We are not changing their beliefs.”90
* I Believe in Science is a MENA-based think tank with a mission to “use
science as a way to promote equality, whether that is gender equality or
racial equality . . . because we think that knowledge is the basis for human
rights.” With 250 volunteers, the organization translates scientific papers
and articles into Arabic to increase access to this knowledge in the
region—to date, they have translated over 20,000 articles. A key success for
the organization has come from lobbying for the inclusion of evolution in
some schools across the region, and they are now planning to promote LGBTQ+
rights and gender equality through an inclusive sex education curriculum.91
* Multi, a Bosnian think tank, established itself in the policy ecosystem with
the publication of Islam and the Free Market, a book written by an economist
and an Islamic scholar. While the book and Multi’s work have received some
criticism from the country’s religious community, young Bosnians have been
inspired to start their own research, podcasts, and publications on the same
theme.92

LOCAL POLITICAL CONDITIONS AND STABILITY CAN LIMIT IMPACT

The vast majority of survey respondents perceived that their organizations were
achieving impact with their work—47 percent of respondents reported being “very
impactful,” and 52 percent reported being “somewhat impactful.” Relative
reported success can be affected by a number of factors, particularly the
political conditions and the stability of the country of operation. FP Analytics
found that 60 percent of respondents in think tanks operating in
semi-democracies indicated that they believed they were very impactful, compared
to 41 percent in democracies, as seen in Figure 8.

— Figure 8 —

MOST SURVEY RESPONDENTS REPORTED HAVING SOME IMPACT ON KEY POLICY ISSUES

These findings are compelling, particularly in light of reports from think tank
leaders operating in more closed societies, with single-party rule, tight
restrictions on civil society, or far-reaching government control, where
meaningfully engaging in policy dialogue can be challenging and risky. Think
tank leaders in Nepal and Mexico commented that it can be hard for civil society
and the public to engage in policymaking due to a lack of transparency from
government and legislators.93 In countries such as Pakistan, Lithuania, and
Bolivia, think tanks have been required to register as lobbyists or foreign
agents due to government distrust of civil society and official efforts to limit
public criticism.94 Despite these challenging conditions, FP Analytics’ survey
and modeling show that think tanks can be impactful in hostile contexts.

When asked about their impact on the specific global challenges of democratic
decline, poor governance, poverty, and economic protectionism, the responses
were similarly positive: 55 percent of those surveyed reported believing that
their think thanks were somewhat or very impactful in advancing issues of
liberal democratic norms, 59 percent reported the same for advancing good
governance, 54 percent reported similarly for advancing economic openness, and
47 percent reported that believing their organizations were somewhat or very
impactful in reducing poverty, as seen in Figure 16. Interviewees further
enumerated perceived successes in promoting democracy, increasing economic
openness, improving living standards, and defending human rights.

— CASE STUDY —

Advancing Change Under Hostile Conditions

Forty percent of the think tank leaders surveyed for this report work in
countries that are semi- or partially democratic places where the populations
are subject to restrictions on speech, press, and even voting. Under those
conditions, think tanks that are advancing democracy and human rights are often
confronting those in power, which makes them vulnerable to threats and
retaliation.

Interviewees described the actions they take to keep their staff safe and avoid
drawing undue attention while still working to advance their research and policy
goals. These strategies for progress and impact include:

* Focus on Indirect Influence: When threats from the government prevented
CEDICE, a Venezuelan economic think tank, from publishing and promoting
research as it had in the past, its leaders shifted its activities from
direct to indirect research, began translating literature on free-market
economics into Spanish, and established a monitoring project that tracks
inflation and how it affects quality of life.95 Similarly, in Iraq, Ideas
Beyond Borders has focused on translating literature and web resources into
Arabic, Kurdish, and Farsi to educate Iraqis about ideas that had not been
accessible prior to the proliferation of the internet.96
* Link Big Ideas to Personal Experiences: In working to educate Iraqis about
free speech, democracy, and human rights, Ideas Beyond Borders emphasizes
history and narratives that are relatable to their audience. The think tank
recently released a video about Galileo, whose life mirrors those of many
Iraqis who have been imprisoned for criticizing the government.
* Make Use of Networks and Communities: Under hostile conditions, networks and
communities of like-minded organizations and individuals are vital to
success, as knowledge, experiences, and burdens can be shared. In the face of
a new law requiring NGOs to register with the Venezuelan Ministry of the
Interior, which further compels them to share staff and donor lists, CEDICE’s
staff have been working with a coalition of NGOs to oppose the requirements
by presenting a united front.

ASSESSING LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS’ SENSE OF IMPACT

While there is no standard definition for impact, FP Analytics used survey data
and statistical modeling97 to gauge which characteristics were associated with a
think tank’s perceived ability to improve liberal democratic norms, governance,
poverty, and economic openness.98 The models measured which factors were
independently correlated with an improvement in reported impact. Factors that
had statistically significant reported impacts on advancing democratic norms,
reducing poverty, strengthening governance, and liberalizing the economy are
summarized below. Note that modeling results reflect the perceptions of think
tank leadership and staff, making them a subjective measure of impact. For more
on this limitation, and a full description of the methodology, see Appendix 1.

Advancing Liberal Democratic Norms

* Respondents from think tanks whose primary self-reported activities were
focused on liberal democratic norms reported having a greater impact on those
outcomes than did those for which advancing liberal democratic norms was a
tangential aim.
See the data breakdown
Those respondents were 14.7 percentage points more likely to report being
very impactful in affecting liberal democratic norms, and 5.2 percentage
points less likely to report no impact, compared to think tanks that did not
focus on liberal democratic norms.
* Respondents at think tanks operating in more fragile countries, as measured
by the Fragile States Index (FSI),99 had a greater reported impact on
advancing liberal democratic norms than did those in more stable contexts.
See the data breakdown
Respondents at think tanks in countries ranked in the lowest quartile of FSI
scores—the least stable contexts—were 14 percentage points more likely to
report an impact on liberal democratic norms than were those in the highest
quartile—the most stable contexts.

Reducing Poverty

* Respondents from think tanks that are primarily focused on poverty reduction
reported having a greater positive impact on poverty than did those for which
it was a tangential aim.
See the data breakdown
Respondents at these organizations were 29.9 percentage points more likely to
say that they have been very impactful, and 38.8 percentage points less
likely to say that they have had no impact, compared to think tanks that did
not focus on poverty.
* The larger a think tank’s staff size, the greater the reported impact that
staffers indicated it had on poverty reduction, according to survey
respondents.
See the data breakdown
Respondents from think tanks with between 50 and 100 staff members were 12.9
percentage points more likely to report a high impact on poverty reduction,
and 15.3 percentage points less likely to report no impact, than were those
from think tanks with staffs of 10 or fewer.
* Respondents from think tanks in more fragile states reported a greater impact
on poverty reduction than did those in more stable countries.
See the data breakdown
Respondents from think tanks in the lowest quartile of FSI scores—the most
fragile contexts—were 7.6 percentage points more likely to report being very
impactful on poverty reduction, and 10 percentage points less likely to
report no impact, than were those from think tanks in the highest
quartile—the most stable country contexts.

Strengthening Governance

* Respondents from think tanks that primarily focused on advancing good
governance reported having a greater positive impact than did those from
think tanks where it was not a primary aim.
See the data breakdown
Respondents were 12.3 percentage points more likely to say they had been very
impactful, and 7.5 percentage points less likely to say they had had no
impact, compared to respondents from think tanks that did not focus on
governance.
* The larger a think tank’s staff size, the greater reported impact the think
tank had on influencing governance, according to survey respondents.
See the data breakdown
Respondents from think tanks with between 50 and 100 staff members were 12.9
percentage points more likely to report being very impactful in strengthening
governance practices, and 7.1 percentage points less likely to report no
impact, than were those from think tanks with a staff size of 10 or fewer.

Liberalizing the Economy

* Respondents from think tanks primarily focused on the economy reported having
a greater impact on economic outcomes than did those from think tanks for
which it was a tangential aim.
See the data breakdown
Respondents were 24.4 percentage points more likely to say they had been very
impactful, and 11.8 percentage points less likely to say they had had no
impact, compared to respondents from think tanks that did not focus on
economic openness.
* The larger a think tank’s staff size, the greater the impact it reported
having on advancing economic liberalization policies, according to survey
respondents.
See the data breakdown
Respondents from think tanks with between 50 and 100 staff members were 17.7
percentage points more likely to report being very impactful on the economy,
and 7.9 percentage points less likely to report no impact, than were those
from think tanks with 10 or fewer staff members.

Overall, the modeling highlighted several key themes. As one might expect,
respondents reported having a greater impact on an issue if it was the primary
focus of their think tank’s work. However, FP Analytics’ survey revealed that
economic openness was not as pressing an issue as governance, democratic
decline, or poverty. Though over 40 percent of survey respondents worked at
think tanks with a primary stated goal of improving economic openness, those
particular respondents were actually most concerned about the effects of
democratic decline and poor governance. Additionally, the modeling suggests the
importance of institutional capacity, which can be measured by staff size.
Larger staffs may enable think tanks to devote more resources to particular
issues or campaigns—one common theme during interviews was the effect of limited
capacity, particularly staff size, on think tanks’ ability to advance reform.
Finally, respondents from think tanks operating in fragile countries, those that
perform worst in the annual Fragile States Index, reported having greater impact
on liberal democratic norms and poverty reduction than did those from think
tanks operating in more stable contexts. Fragile states are often characterized
by weak governance, providing the opportunity for non-state actors to step in to
provide policy guidance and strengthen local governance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNIQUE CONTEXTS REQUIRE LOCAL EXPERTISE AND TAILORED APPROACHES TO POLICY REFORM

While global in scope, trends such as democratic decline, economic stagnation,
poor governance, and poor living standards manifest in unique ways from country
to country, highlighting the need for organizations and stakeholders with local
expertise to identify and implement solutions. Nearly three-quarters of survey
respondents noted that local dynamics were contributing to issues of poor
governance somewhat or significantly (Figure 9), particularly in
lower-middle-income countries and countries with low economic freedom.
Similarly, respondents from lower-middle-income countries and countries with low
economic freedom identified somewhat or significantly unique aspects to the
challenges of poverty and economic openness. Finally, respondents from countries
in Asia and Central and South America reported particularly unique dynamics
driving democratic decline.

— Figure 9 —

PERCEIVED UNIQUE ASPECTS TO …

* Democratic Decline
* Governance Challenges
* Poverty Challenges
* Economic Challenges

Local think tanks are acknowledging the unique dimensions of these challenges by
creating their own parameters to define and measure impact that reflect the
local context as well as their stated goals and activities. As a result, there
is a wide variation in how survey respondents and interviewees defined “impact.”
(Figure 10). Thirty percent of interviewees measured outputs such as the number
of reports published and downloaded, social media and website engagement,
citations, and news media mentions. These outputs quantify the level of
engagement the public is having with their ideas, but they cannot provide a
concrete metric of their influence over personal opinions, legislative votes and
other political actions, or outright policy changes, and they are not easily
measured. Several interviewees made use of public opinion polls as another means
to gauge impact.100 By contrast, just 16 percent of interviewees defined and
measured their impact purely in terms of whether their desired policy change has
taken place. Local contexts matter greatly when creating a definition for think
tank impact. For instance, in countries where the ruling government is hostile
to an organization’s specific ideas, or to the overall concept of an active
civil society, simply surviving and cultivating a community of supporters is a
success.101 In others, a well-placed and well-organized think tank may be in a
position to assist in writing their policy goals into the country’s new
constitution.102

— Figure 10 —

METRICS RESPONDENTS USED TO MEASURE IMPACT

The broad definition of “impact” illustrates how the work and goals of think
tank as a sector have shifted and expanded over time. One reason may be the
length of time often required to advance policy. As seen in Figure 11, nearly
half of survey respondents reported that policy successes took over five years
to achieve, compared to just one-third who saw success in under a year. Smaller
projects, with more conservative or creative definitions of impact, may require
less time commitment and thus be prioritized, particularly due to financial
constraints. This variation in the definition of “impact” creates complexity,
particularly for those who seek to understand think tank success by comparing
outputs from different think tanks, even if they are operating in the same
country or working on influencing the same policies. However, that variation
reflects the reality that policy ecosystems differ by country, and even by
issue, and that different organizations taking creative approaches to the same
problems can lead to innovation and success by multiple means.

— Figure 11 —

LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN FOR RESPONDENTS TO ACHIEVE A POLICY "SUCCESS"

Philanthropists and other stakeholders invested in think tank success may find
it helpful to work with individual organizations to identify the most suitable
impact definitions and metrics for their work, based on the best fit practices
of similar organizations and the specific limitations or opportunities provided
by the local context, in conjunction with working more closely with social
scientists and evaluation experts. In this way, definitions for success can
differ based on local circumstances while still being rigorous and providing a
method for accountability.

— CASE STUDY —

Innovative Impact Assessment in Costa Rica

Measuring impact accurately is a key concern of the think tanks that
participated in this study. Interviewees consistently noted that impact
assessment is one of the most difficult aspects of their work, particularly
since their organizations are often not the only actors working to advance a
specific issue or policy. Luis E. Loria, founder of IDEAS Labs, provided insight
into ways that think tanks can create highly specific impact metrics that take
this challenge into account.103

IDEAS Labs is a Costa Rican “social, political, and regulatory innovation lab”
that focuses on increasing public participation in politics and policymaking. A
former academic, Loria focused on identifying the most useful and accurate
metrics to measure the think tank’s impact and success, and as a result, IDEAS
Labs creates new, tailored metrics for each project it undertakes. The team maps
out their planned activities for the project (the outputs) and creates a clear
definition of success for its work (the outcomes), before identifying the most
relevant metrics to measure progress. Key to this process is identifying how
IDEAS Labs can collaborate effectively with stakeholders with shared goals.
Because the team views success as almost always a result of such collaboration,
finding those opportunities is part of its impact assessment.

As an example, the think tank ran a publicity campaign in 2020 to reform Costa
Rica’s pension scheme, which paid out thousands of dollars per month to former
politicians and other powerful elites. IDEAS Labs defined success for this
project as:

* Educating the public about the issue;
* Mobilizing public support to push for pension reform;
* Establishing support for the reforms in the press and among politicians; and
* Achieving partial or total reform.

In light of these goals, the think tank measured the number of signatures on its
public petition (50,000, or 1 percent of the population); the engagement with
its project’s Facebook page; the number of endorsements it received from public
figures; the number of media mentions; event attendance; the annual savings to
the public in both U.S. dollars and as a share of GDP; and whether the reform
was passed. The reform passed in 2020.

Luis Loria, head of IDEAS Labs, a think tank focused on increasing public
participation in politics and policymaking in Costa Rica.

MAINTAINING INDEPENDENCE FROM EXTERNAL INFLUENCE, BUILDING CREDIBILITY WITH THE
PUBLIC, AND KEEPING STAFF SAFE

Staff at think tanks focusing on democracy-building, civil liberties and human
rights, and economic openness reported facing misconceptions about their aims,
funding, and leadership that undermine their efforts to establish themselves as
trusted local institutions. As demonstrated in Figure 12, nearly two-thirds of
survey respondents in high-income countries reported that they were mistakenly
thought to be working on behalf of corporations to further their aims, while in
lower-middle-income countries, the most common misconception, according to over
half of survey respondents in those places, was that think tanks are false
fronts for foreign governments. These concerns are not unfounded: a recent
report by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) found that authoritarian
governments around the world are establishing think tanks abroad, or co-opting
existing ones, to publish research supporting their policy aims, as a method of
increasing their credibility and support abroad.104 The NED report highlighted
Chinese-backed organizations as illustrative of this type of activity. This
concern was reflected in the survey responses: 58 percent of survey respondents
in Asia reported having been accused of working on behalf of foreign
governments, compared to just 28 percent of those in Europe, and 13 percent in
the Americas.

— Figure 12 —

MISCONCEPTIONS THINK TANKS FACE ABOUT THEIR WORK

Instances of state-backed activity and misconceptions regarding independent
think tanks present serious challenges to independent organizations and their
ability to operate effectively, according to interviewees. Several think tank
leaders discussed making decisions to focus entirely on poverty alleviation and
the improvement of living standards, issues that they can directly work on
without interacting with the government and policymakers, which in some
countries are increasingly skeptical of the motivations of think tanks. Ten
percent of interviewees refused almost all funding from foreign organizations
and individuals in order to maintain credibility. Misconceptions may be
particularly risky for think tanks operating in semi-democracies and
autocracies. As the global data indicate an ongoing democratic decline, and an
increasing number of think tanks are brought under restrictive or hostile
regimes, it will become vital for think tanks to demonstrate their independence
in order to increase local credibility and trustworthiness. Supporters and
funders will need to work collaboratively with local think tank staff to
identify the best means of improving trust.

In the face of mistrust and misconceptions regarding the aims and motivations of
think tanks, interviewees universally agreed that safeguarding and demonstrating
independence from influence is vital for think tanks to operate successfully and
to grow trust among local populations. Independence is also necessary to help
ensure the safety of think tank staff in countries or regions where states are
moving rapidly toward authoritarianism105 or where terrorist groups have gained
control of territory.106 Clearly demonstrating independence from both foreign
influence and local political alliances can help secure physical safety and
enable the continued operation of the organization, even if its policy goals are
not popular with those opponents.107

Interviewees articulated that demonstrating independence from political
influence and from funders and donors is critical. Nearly two-thirds of
interviewees reported that they avoid taking funding from controversial
companies and from governments, instead focusing their fundraising efforts on
philanthropic foundations, which are more often regarded as politically
independent.108 Twenty percent of interviewees made a point to engage in
non-partisan activities and interact with parties and representatives from
across their national political spectrum.109

Select local think tanks have developed creative funding models that avoid
outsized donor influence. Seeking to avoid reliance on corporate funding to the
greatest extent possible, think tanks are creating subscription models aimed at
ordinary citizens, who can directly support the organizations and policies they
believe in through a monthly or annual fee, averaging a few hundred dollars per
year.110 More than one organization, including CEPOS in Denmark, limit funding
contributions to no more than a certain share of their overall operational
budget, thus ensuring that all voices are heard equally and making it easier for
think tank leaders to reject attempts at organizational capture or outsized
influence.111

— CASE STUDY —

Maintaining Organizational Independence

Maintaining and demonstrating organizational independence is an effective method
of dispelling misconceptions regarding think tanks’ aims and motivations and
building trust with both policymakers and the public. CEPOS, a Danish think tank
dedicated to economic reform and improving living standards, provides an
interesting example of how to demonstrate independence via strict public-donor
guidelines:

* Donation Caps: CEPOS works to ensure that no donor provides more than 15
percent of the think tank’s total annual contributions, preventing any single
donor from wielding outsized influence.112
* Limited Anonymity:All donors must be known to the CEPOS board, and the names
of donors to specific think tank projects are published online as part of
impact analysis, ensuring the public knows who is supporting each project.113
* No Public Money: CEPOS refuses donations from political parties and from the
government to avoid being affiliated with one political party over another
and maintain their independence.
* Duty to Report: If CEPOS staff believe a donor intends to challenge the think
tank’s independence or attempt to influence research outputs, they report
their concerns to the board, who have the power to terminate any donor
relationship at will.

Despite its potential as a means of demonstrating independence to the public and
any hostile actors,114 only one-fifth of interviewees worked at organizations
that publish their finances in full by publishing the names of individual donors
and the projects to which they are contributing. Instead, many organizations
take an approach that follows local tax laws but protects donor privacy.
Generally, this practice was explained as an outcome of safety concerns, for
both the think tanks themselves and their funders, whether private citizens or
philanthropists. As many think tanks do take money from foreign organizations,
such as charitable foundations, the publication of finances can fuel and
exacerbate misconceptions surrounding foreign interference, while historic court
cases have acknowledged the risk to donors, including private citizens, of
retaliation from those who disagree with the work to which they are
contributing. In light of legitimate concerns over the safety of both staff and
donors, think tank leaders can signify their organizational independence by
emphasizing the local expertise of their organizations and particularly that
most activity—whether designing research projects, identifying policy goals, or
creating outreach programs—is led by staff on the ground. Nearly 70 percent of
interviewees noted that staff take the lead in identifying organizational
priorities and directing strategy, sometimes in combination with leadership and
boards. Interviewees underscored the need to identify allies in civil society
and the political arena by finding those who share their ultimate goals
regardless of political affiliation.

In the face of misconceptions from the public regarding their motivations,
working with allies from across the political spectrum and non-political,
non-partisan allies can go a long way to build trust with both the public and
policymakers.115 For example, Advancement of Liberty, a Spanish think tank
working to promote democracy and free-market economic policies, makes a point of
working with organizations with shared goals for each individual campaign and in
each place it operates. Recently, it has worked closely with a left-leaning
political party for a campaign in the Canary Islands and at the same time was
allied with a right-leaning political party for a campaign in Madrid,
demonstrating that ideological differences do not preclude shared societal goals
and outcomes.116 In Spain, where the twentieth century saw a long period of
fascism, followed by a swing to the left, and the twenty-first century has seen
politicians divided over issues around economics and migration, Advancement of
Liberty’s director sees her organization’s ability to find common ground across
the political spectrum as a model for greater collaboration and less political
polarization in the years ahead. Stakeholders who are invested in the success of
local think tanks can encourage them to emulate this approach as a means of
achieving their goals while building trust and relationships across the
political and social spectrums.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPANDING REACH DUE TO COVID-19

Think tank leaders report that the pandemic has had a substantial negative
effect on democracy, governance, poverty, and economic openness, in some cases
undermining years of progress. COVID-19 has had a particularly large impact on
think tanks in Central and South America and Asia, where more than-three
quarters of survey respondents reported a major impact on poverty (Figure 25).
The pandemic also had a large impact among survey respondents in North America
and in think tanks that focus primarily on liberal democratic norms, who noted
the pandemic’s substantial impact on the state of democracy (Figure 26).
Interviewees and survey respondents also agreed that the pandemic has raised
logistical challenges that have, in some cases, been difficult to overcome.

The widespread application of stay-at-home orders, social distancing
regulations, and restrictions on gatherings have prevented the use of office
space and necessitated shifting operations online, a particular challenge in
countries where internet infrastructure is not yet reliable117 and where those
in power often use internet outages as a form of social control.118,119
Pandemic-related restrictions have been used by authoritarian regimes as a cover
for illiberal reforms120 and a way to clamp down on opposition activity with
relative impunity, putting think tanks promoting democracy and economic openness
both directly and indirectly at risk of reprisal.121 As seen in Figure 13, over
three-quarters of survey respondents based in countries with limited property
rights and rule of law and heavy government involvement in the economy felt that
COVID-19 restrictions had somewhat or substantially impacted their operations,
compared to fewer than half of respondents in countries with secure property
rights and a free-market economy. This indicates that organizations in less free
countries may be subjected to harsher restrictions or find themselves targets of
retribution and reprisal under the guise of pandemic restrictions.

— Figure 13 —

COVID-19'S PERCEIVED IMPACT ON …

* Poverty
* The State of Democratic Norms
* Governance Challenges
* Economic Challenges
* Think Tank Operations

The pandemic has also presented a direct challenge to the activities of local
think tanks. Interviewees reported struggling to draw attention to the
importance of issues and policies unrelated to COVID-19.122 Similarly, 28
percent of interviewees reported challenges relating to fundraising as a result
of the pandemic due to the prevalence of emergency situations and their
inability to fundraise in person or at events.123 This is likely to become an
increasingly frequent problem for some of these organizations—the United Nations
Office on Disaster Risk Reduction recorded twice as many disaster events,
including pandemics and extreme weather events, from 2000 to 2019, compared to
the previous 20 years, and it is predicting a further rise, necessitating
increasing amounts of emergency-response funding that will divert funds from
other causes.124 Emergency situations can provide a convenient way for
authoritarians to secure popular support by providing relief and aid both
domestically and abroad, which can undermine the arguments and effectiveness of
democracy-promoting think tanks and other civil society actors.125 As a result,
the pandemic may help entrench authoritarianism in many parts of the world while
reducing local support for the work of democracy-building organizations.

However, the pandemic has also presented opportunities for a number of local
think tanks. COVID-19-related restrictions on movement, gathering, and speech
have placed a renewed spotlight on the importance of personal freedom and civil
liberties, and think tanks active in these areas were able to introduce their
work to a public that is now acutely aware of these issues. Interviewees were
developing new metrics to measure poverty and living standards in light of the
pandemic,126 expanding their work in public health policy,127 and specifically
advocating for or opposing COVID-related emergency measures on the grounds of
freedom,128 bringing their work to new audiences. While shifting to
internet-based operations can be a challenge, it also brings the ability to
reach new and wider audiences, with several interviewees noting that their event
attendance has grown rapidly, now that they can reach people outside their
immediate physical vicinity.129 Creating an online presence has also enabled
think tanks to connect and collaborate with other civil society actors within
their own countries and to form cross-border alliances with think tanks working
on similar policies. Such coalition-building provides an opportunity for think
tanks to share resources and best fit practices, increasing their chances of
success.130

THINK TANKS WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY CRITICAL ROLES ADVANCING REFORM

This report shows that, while local think tanks are under tremendous pressure in
some locations, and face great challenges globally from the pandemic, they have
managed to make positive impacts on governance, declining democratic norms and
liberties, poverty, and economic openness. They have adapted to the changing
political and economic climate. Some have shifted their focus to place greater
emphasis on messaging, public relations, and training students and activists.
Others have continued to produce strong research, meet with political leaders,
and spread their work through the mainstream media. Think tank leaders
repeatedly emphasized the value of coalitions and partnerships, noting that they
have learned important lessons and best practices through connecting with others
with shared goals. Specific recommendations for think tanks, as well as donors
and stakeholders, to build on this success include:

FOR THINK TANKS:

* Build and Join Networks of Think Tanks and Civil Society Actors with Shared
Goals: Coalitions of local, regional, and global organizations can share
resources and ideas, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and
build a strong community working toward shared outcomes. The survey data and
interviews revealed the value of think tanks being a part of these networks,
for both ideas and encouragement.
* Diversify Funding Sources: COVID-19 has demonstrated that as natural
disasters and other crises become increasingly common, think tanks will no
longer be able to rely on funding from philanthropic foundations and
international institutions, whose money will be diverted more frequently to
emergency relief. Diversifying funding sources and finding creative methods,
such as subscription models, will be vital to think tanks’ ability to
continue doing their work and continue focusing on what they believe to be
the most pressing issues. Several interviewees noted the need for more local,
regional, and national support. This practice would also help dispel
misconceptions about think tanks working on behalf of foreign actors or
corporations.
* Publicly Demonstrate Independence to Improve Credibility: While keeping
safety concerns in mind, think tanks should strive for financial transparency
wherever appropriate and to the maximum extent possible, and consider
additional methods for formalizing and communicating organizational practices
for maintaining independence. Some interviewees noted the positive impact of
having clear and transparent policies about editorial and programmatic
independence from donors.

FOR DONORS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS:

* Build Relationships in Fragile States: As this report has shown, respondents
from think tanks in fragile states were more likely to report having a
greater impact than those from think tanks in more stable contexts. This
finding suggests that stakeholders would do well to engage with think tanks
in fragile states when seeking new partnerships and opportunities.
* Build Organizational Capacity: Interview and survey respondents emphasized
the need to increase their organizational capacity through improved training
and education for staff and better infrastructure, such as wireless internet.
Donor-funded capacity-building would help remove concerns regarding donor
influence over think tank output, as it remains separate from programmatic
work such as research and publicity campaigns.
* Tailor Work to Local Needs: Local think tanks are best placed to understand
the context of their work and the needs of the government and local
community. Stakeholders in their success can support think tanks’ work while
acknowledging their clear expertise and deferring to their wisdom in deciding
on priorities and strategies for action.
* Strengthen Impact Assessments: Securing additional funding and building
credibility with both the public and policymakers requires the ability to
clearly demonstrate the aims and impact of think tank activities. As
demonstrated above, identifying the most relevant metrics for impact
assessment necessitates a clear understanding of local contexts,
organizational goals, and knowledge of the monitoring and evaluation options
available. Stakeholders can support think tanks by partnering with data
scientists and successful think tanks to facilitate learning and practical
support to those that are interested in improving their impact-assessment
models.

In the face of democratic decline, diminishing living standards, and threats to
economic prosperity and human rights, think tanks remain important actors in the
policy ecosystem. They provide both advice and challenges to government and
politicians and educate the public on the options available to improve lives and
achieve prosperity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

FP Analytics would like to acknowledge and thank the many interviewees who
shared their insights and experiences for this study.

This report was produced by FP Analytics with support from the Atlas Network. FP
Analytics is the independent research division of The FP Group. The content of
this report does not represent the views of the editors of Foreign Policy
magazine, ForeignPolicy.com, or any other FP publication.

Illustrations by Klawe Rzeczy for FP Analytics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 1: Methodology

FP Analytics used a mixed methodology research approach for this project,
consisting of a comprehensive literature review, a global survey, and one-on-one
interviews.

All think tanks incorporated into this study have a broad focus on
democracy-building, economics, poverty, and/or good governance.

LOCAL THINK TANK SURVEY

FPA fielded a survey to think tank leaders and high-level staff around the globe
to learn about their work in the context of declining liberal democratic norms,
governance challenges, and rising poverty. The survey questions were designed to
elicit information regarding the characteristics of a diverse set of
organizations, their respective areas of focus, operational strategies and
challenges, and perceptions of impact. The think tanks to which the survey was
sent was broad and diverse. The sample size included 322 respondents from 80
countries. Approximately 12 percent of the final sample of 322 respondents were
from think tanks outside of the Atlas Network. From that sample, survey
responses were analyzed across a range of subclassifications, including:

* Geographic location, based on United Nations classifications;131
* Income level of the country of operation, based on World Bank
classifications;132
* Regime type of the country of operation, based on data from Polity;133
* Level of economic freedom of the country of operation, based on the Heritage
Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index, which measures property rights, business
regulations, and general rules of law for commerce, of the respondent’s
country.134

FPA conducted survey outreach in two ways:

1. FPA invited over 2,600 people to participate, including leadership and staff
of think tanks within and across the Atlas Network inviting participation in
the survey.
2. Beyond the Atlas Network, FPA identified an additional 196 think tanks to
invite to participate. They were identified and prioritized by utilizing the
regional rankings featured in the 2020 University of Pennsylvania’s Global
Go To Think Tank Index Report.135

FPA focused on independent think tanks with no affiliation to government,
political parties, or universities, and worked to create a sample with a diverse
range of organizations with regard to staff size, geographical location, and
mission. Responses from the two groups were combined into one sample for
analysis.

Survey data is represented for the overall sample as well as differentiation in
responses by region, income-level, and type of national governance structure.

Additionally, FPA ran an ordered logistic regression model with robust standard
errors, using the survey data to try to ascertain whether specific factors were
significantly correlated with reported outcomes. The model used survey
respondents’ self-reported level of impact (with the response options “No
impact,” “Somewhat of an impact,” “Substantial impact”) that they believed their
think tanks’ activities had on democratic decline, poverty, economic openness,
and governance as the key outcome variables.136 This method was chosen because
the key outcome variables were categorical and had more than two outcomes.

SURVEY LIMITATIONS

There are four important limitations to note regarding survey data:

1. While the think tanks in the sample reflect diverse views and geographies,
responses were drawn from a convenience sample, not a random sample. Readers
should therefore not assume that the results here can apply to all think
tanks but rather are only reflective of this sample.
2. While FPA obtained a reasonably large sample, respondent bias could impact
results. However, survey data obtained still contained notable variation.
3. Survey responses reflect perceptions of think tank staff regarding their
operational challenges and perceived impact. The variation of organizations
and their activities and the lack of a standardized means to assess impact
necessitated a reliance on self-reported perceptions of impact.
4. The survey was only available in English, thus limiting participation from
non-English speakers.

THINK TANK LEADER INTERVIEWS

FPA conducted 51 semi-structured interviews with leaders of think tanks around
the globe, with a particular focus on Africa and the Middle East, two regions
that returned fewer survey responses in comparison to the rest of the sample, in
an effort to ensure a broad geographic spread. The interviews aimed to deepen
the research team’s understanding of the operational strategies, challenges, and
perceived impacts of these organizations within their local contexts. Interview
responses were then coded to quantify results and identify themes and variations
among interviewees.

References

1 Maerz, S.F., Lührmann, A., Hellmeier, S., Grahn, S., & Lindberg, S.I. (2020).
State of the World 2019: Autocratization surges–resistance grows.
Democratization, 27(6), 909–27.

2 Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Democracy Index 2020: In Sickness and in
health? https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/

3The World Bank. (2020, October 7). COVID-19 to Add as Many as 150 Million
Extreme Poor by 2021.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/10/07/covid-19-to-add-as-many-as-150-million-extreme-poor-by-2021#:~:text=The%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic%20is,severity%20of%20the%20economic%20contraction

4United Nations Development Programme. COVID-19 and the SDGs. UNDP.
https://feature.undp.org/covid-19-and-the-sdgs/

5Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2021). The Global State of
Democracy Indices, Data set and Resources.
https://www.idea.int/gsod-indices/dataset-resources

6World Bank. (2020). Poverty.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview

7United Nations. (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/thesustainabledevelopmentgoalsreport2017.pdf

8BBC. (2011, October 26). Population seven billion: UN sets out challenges. BBC
News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-15459643

9United Nations. (2020, July 7). UN report finds COVID-19 is reversing decades
of progress on poverty, healthcare and education. UN News.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/sustainable/sustainable-development-goals-report-2020.html

10Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Democracy Index 2020: In Sickness and in
health? https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/

11Norris, P., Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cultural-backlash/3C7CB32722C7BB8B19A0FC005CAFD02B

12Repucci, S. (2020). A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy. Freedom House.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2020/leaderless-struggle-democracy

13Maerz, S.F., Lührmann, A., Hellmeier, S., Grahn, S., & Lindberg, S.I. (2020).
State of the World 2019: Autocratization surges–resistance grows.
Democratization, 27(6), 909–27.

14Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Democracy Index 2020: In sickness and in
health? https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/

15Norris, P., Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cultural-backlash/3C7CB32722C7BB8B19A0FC005CAFD02B

16Tepperman, J. (Host). (2019). How to Reverse the Global Drift Toward
Authoritarianism. In And Now the Hard Part. Foreign Policy Studios.
https://foreignpolicy.com/podcasts/and-now-the-hard-part/how-reverse-global-drift-toward-authoritarianism-john-allen-interview-podcast-brookings/

17Norris, P., Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cultural-backlash/3C7CB32722C7BB8B19A0FC005CAFD02B

18Franco, A., Alvarez-Dardet, C., & Ruiz, M.T. (2004). Effect of Democracy on
Health: Ecological Study. BMJ, 329 (7480), 1421–23.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC535957/

19Lake, D., & Baum, M. (n.d.). The Invisible Hand of Democracy: Political
Control and the Provision of Public Services.
https://quote.ucsd.edu/lake/files/2014/07/CPS-34-6-2001.pdf

20Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P., & Robinson, J. (2019). Democracy Does
Cause Growth. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 127, No. 1.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w20004

21Prindex. (July 2020). Prindex Comparative Report.
https://www.prindex.net/reports/prindex-comparative-report-july-2020/

22Repucci, S. (2020). A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy. Freedom House.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2020/leaderless-struggle-democracy

23Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Democracy Index 2020: In Sickness and in
health? Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Democracy Index 2020: In sickness
and in health? https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/

24Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P., & Robinson, J. (2019). Democracy Does
Cause Growth. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 127, No. 1.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w20004

25Democracy does have a positive impact on specific aspects of economic freedom,
particularly government regulations and international exchange, but it does not
appear to impact inflation or discriminatory taxation. Lundström, S. (2005). The
Effect of Democracy on Different Categories of Economic Freedom. European
Journal of Political Economy, 21(4), 967–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2004.11.005

26Guterres, A. (2021, February 22). The World Faces a Pandemic of Human Rights
Abuses in the Wake of COVID-19. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/22/world-faces-pandemic-human-rights-abuses-covid-19-antonio-guterres

27Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Democracy Index 2020: In sickness and in
health? https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/

28Shih, W.C. (2020). Global Supply Chains in a Post-Pandemic World. Harvard
Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2020/09/global-supply-chains-in-a-post-pandemic-world

29The World Bank. (2020, October 7). COVID-19 to Add as Many as 150 Million
Extreme Poor by 2021.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/10/07/covid-19-to-add-as-many-as-150-million-extreme-poor-by-2021#:~:text=The%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic%20is,severity%20of%20the%20economic%20contraction

30United Nations Development Programme. COVID-19 and the SDGs. UNDP.
https://feature.undp.org/covid-19-and-the-sdgs/

31International Monetary Fund. (2021, March 30). Macroeconomic Developments and
Prospects in Low-Income Countries—2021. IMF.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2021/03/30/Macroeconomic-Developments-and-Prospects-In-Low-Income-Countries-2021-50312

32International Monetary Fund. (2021, April 6). IMF Seminar: Avoiding a COVID-19
Debt Trap.
https://meetings.imf.org/en/2021/Spring/Schedule/2021/04/06/imf-seminar-averting-a-covid-19-debt-trap

33IISD’s SDG Knowledge Hub. (2019). OECD Economic Outlook Highlights Threats to
Global Living Standards.
https://sdg.iisd.org/news/oecd-economic-outlook-highlights-threats-to-global-living-standards/

34Irons. J, (2009, September 30). Economic Scarring: The long-term impacts of
the recession. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/bp243/

35World Bank (2018). Global Trade Watch 2018: Trade Amid Tensions. World Bank.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/trade/publication/global-trade-watch-2018-trade-amid-tensions

36Hone, T., Mirelman, A. J., Rasella, D., Paes-Sousa, R., Barreto, M. L., Rocha,
R., & Millett, C. (2019). Effect of economic recession and impact of health and
social protection expenditures on adult mortality: a longitudinal analysis of
5565 Brazilian municipalities. The Lancet Global Health, 7(11),
e1575–e1583. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(19)30409-7

37Lodge, G., Paxton, W. (2017, March). Innovation in Think Tanks. The RSA.
https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_innovation-in-think-tanks.pdf

38Lodge, G., Paxton, W. (2017, March). Innovation in Think Tanks. The RSA.
https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_innovation-in-think-tanks.pdf

39McGann, J.C (2020). 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. University of
Pennsylvania.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=think_tanks

40McGann, J.C. (2016). The Fifth Estate. Brookings Institution Press.

41McGann, J.C. (2016). The Fifth Estate. Brookings Institution Press.

42Edelman. (2021). Edelman Trust Barometer.
https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2021-03/2021%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer.pdf

43McGann, J.C. (2016). The Fifth Estate. Brookings Institution Press.

44Pautz, H. (April 30, 2020). Think Tanks and Policymaking.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1420

45Pautz, H. (April 30, 2020). Think Tanks and Policymaking.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1420

46Sunn Bush, S. (2019). NGOs and Democracy. In T. Davies (Ed.), Routledge
Handbook of NGOs and International Relations. Routledge.

47McGann, J.C (2020). 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. University of
Pennsylvania.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=think_tanks

48Sunn Bush, S. (2019). NGOs and Democracy. In T. Davies (Ed.), Routledge
Handbook of NGOs and International Relations. Routledge.

49Ganguly, S. (2021, March 19). India’s “Electoral Autocracy” Hits Back. Foreign
Policy
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/19/electoral-autocracy-india-modi-democracy-rankings-freedom-house/

50Rolland, N. (2020). Commanding Ideas: Think Tanks as Platforms for
Authoritarian Influence. National Endowment for Democracy.
https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Commanding-Ideas-Think-Tanks-as-Platforms-for-Authoritarian-Influence-Rolland-Dec-2020.pdf?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=intellectual%20inquiry

51Snyder, J., & Ballentine, K. (1996). Nationalism and the Marketplace of Ideas.
International security, 21(2), 5–40.

52Snyder, J. (2000). From Voting to Violence. Democratization and Nationalist
Conflict. New York: W.W. Norton.

53Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J.A. (2020). The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies,
and the Fate of Liberty. Penguin Books.

54McGann, J.C (2020). 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. University of
Pennsylvania.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=think_tanks

55The Economic Freedom Index measures a country’s rules of law (property rights,
government integrity, judicial effectiveness), government size (government
spending, tax burden, fiscal health), regulatory efficiency (business freedom,
labor freedom, monetary freedom), and the level of open markets (trade freedom,
investment freedom, financial freedom). This is referenced throughout the report
as “economic freedom.” The Heritage Foundation. (2021). 2021 Index of Economic
Freedom. https://www.heritage.org/index/about

56Think tank leader–Europe, personal communication. May 6, 2021, Think tank
leader–Asia, personal communication, April 29, 2021.

57Think tank leader–Asia, personal communication, May 13, 2021.

58More information regarding the Residential Free Patent Act, aimed to improve
property rights in the Philippines, and its impact can be found here:
Residential Free Patent Act.
https://www.trust.org/contentAsset/raw-data/c557cd47-f872-46c5-b54b-34df7b9b0f67/file

59C. Chikiamco, personal communication, May 3, 2021.

60World Bank. (2020). Doing Business 2020. Washington, DC: World Bank.
DOI:10.1596/978-1-4648-1440-2

61Prindex. (July 2020). Prindex Comparative Report, July 2020.
https://www.prindex.net/reports/prindex-comparative-report-july-2020/

62R. Sitoula, personal communication, May 5, 2021.

63E. Jaime, personal communication, May 11, 2021.

64D. Fernando, personal communication, May 13, 2021.

65Mashal, M. (2019, April 21). For Sri Lanka, a Long History of Violence. The
New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/world/asia/sri-lanka-history-civil-war.html

66Parameswaran, S. (2017, September 9). Why used sanitary pads are being
collected in India. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-41147664

67For example, a 2018 article on the American Enterprise Institute’s
impact-measurement strategy: Brooks, A.C. (2018, March). AEI’s President on
Measuring the Impact of Ideas. Harvard Business Review:
https://hbr.org/2018/03/aeis-president-on-measuring-the-impact-of-ideas

68Shlozberg, R. (2015, December 10). How do you measure a think tank’s impact?
TLDR.
https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/mowatcentre/how-do-you-measure-a-think-tanks-impact/

69This analysis incorporates 322 responses from think tanks located around the
world. The sample includes diverse organizations with respect to their missions,
geographic location, and staff sizes. These organizations include those from
within the Atlas Network as well as unaffiliated organizations. All of the think
tanks involved in this study are independent organizations with a broad focus on
democracy-building, economics, poverty reduction, and/or good governance, as
outlined in the report. Approximately 12 percent of survey respondents were from
outside the Atlas Network. All responses were combined all into a single sample
for the analysis.

70McGann, J.C (2020). 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. University of
Pennsylvania.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=think_tanks

71FPA included the Caribbean in Central/South America and used the United
Nations’ geography data.

72Based on the World Bank income classifications, this analysis focused on
lower-middle-income instead of low-income, because there were very few
low-income countries in the sample.

73FPA did not use authoritarian countries for classification purposes because,
similar to the income issue noted above, the sample had very few authoritarian
countries in it.

74FPA used the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index for this measure and
broke down all countries into quartiles, then matched countries in the sample
with the quartile they were in globally.

75FPA ran an ordered logistic regression model, which was appropriate because
the key outcome variable was categorical and had more than two outcomes. (Here,
there were three levels of impact.)

76The other potential outcome variable, overall think tank impact, did not have
enough variation to be used in the statistical model. Specifically, there were
no examples of think tanks having no impact at all, and for the type of
statistical model run, there should be observations at all levels of the outcome
variable.

77Referencing the Polity dataset for regime type classifications. Center for
Systemic Peace. (2020). Polity V Dataset. Retrieved from:
https://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html

78Referencing the World Bank’s income classifications for countries. World Bank.
(2020). World Bank Country and Lending Groups.
https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups

79Referencing the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index. Since this index
has scores, not classifications, scores were divided into quartiles, and the
countries represented in the survey were assigned the corresponding quartiles.

80Lodge, G., Paxton, W. (2017, March). Innovation in Think Tanks. The RSA.
https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_innovation-in-think-tanks.pdf

81Think tank leader–Asia, personal communication, May 04, 2021. Think tank
leader–North America, personal communication, May 4, 2021.

82Think tank leader–Africa, personal communication, June 8, 2021.

83J. Mustapha, personal communication, June 2, 2021.

84N. Veldhuis, personal communication, May 4, 2021.

85W. von Laer, personal communication, April 28, 2021.

86A. Etchebarne, personal communication, May 3, 2021.

87R. Guijarro, personal communication, May 25, 2021. I. Fawaz, personal
communication, May 14, 2021.

88R. Durana, personal communication, May 12, 2021.

89K. Ramizy, personal communication, May 20, 2021. A. Cavalic, personal
communication, May 12, 2021

90K. Ramizy, personal communication, May 20, 2021.

91I. Fawaz, personal communication, May 14, 2021.

92A. Cavalic, personal communication, May 12, 2021.

93Think tank leader–Asia, personal communication, May 5, 2021. Think tank
leader–Central & South America, personal communication, May 11, 2021.

94Think tank leader–Central & South America, personal communication, April 23,
2021. Think tank leader–Asia, personal communication, April 30, 2021. Think tank
leader–Europe, personal communication, May 10, 2021.

95R. Guijarro, personal communication, May 25, 2021.

96F. al Mutar, personal communication, April 29, 2021.

97Specifically, it was an ordered logistic regression model, with robust
standard errors.

98These outcomes were used in the analysis, because there was sufficient
variation in the data for statistical modeling. In contrast, there was not
sufficient variation to run a model with overall impact as the key outcome
variable.

99Fragile States Index. https://fragilestatesindex.org/

100Think tank leader–Europe, personal communication, April 29, 2021.

101Think tank leader–Central & South America, personal communication, May 3,
2021.

102Think tank leader–Asia, personal communication, May 20, 2021. Think tank
leader–Asia, personal communication, May 5, 2021.

103L. Loria, personal communication, May 3, 2021.

104Rolland, N. (2020). Commanding Ideas: Think Tanks as Platforms for
Authoritarian Influence. National Endowment for Democracy.
https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Commanding-Ideas-Think-Tanks-as-Platforms-for-Authoritarian-Influence-Rolland-Dec-2020.pdf?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=intellectual%20inquiry

105Think tank leader–Asia, personal communication, May 13, 2021.

106Think tank leader–Asia, personal communication, May 20, 2021.

107Think tank leader–Europe, personal communication, April 29, 2021.

108Think tank leader–Africa, personal communication, June 2, 2021. Think tank
leader–Africa, personal communication, June 8, 2021.

109Think tank leader–Europe, personal communication, May 19, 2021.

110Think tank leader–Asia, personal communication, May 13, 2021. Think tank
leader–Europe, personal communication, May 12, 2021.

111M. Agerup, personal communication, May 12, 2021.

112M. Agerup, personal communication, May 12, 2021.

113CEPOS. CEPOS Donor Principles. (Danish language site).
https://cepos.dk/stoet-cepos/cepos-donorprincipper/

114Rolland, N. (2020). Commanding Ideas: Think Tanks as Platforms for
Authoritarian Influence. National Endowment for Democracy.
https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Commanding-Ideas-Think-Tanks-as-Platforms-for-Authoritarian-Influence-Rolland-Dec-2020.pdf?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=intellectual%20inquiry

115Think tank leader–North America, personal communication, April 27, 2021.

116Think tank leader–Europe, personal communication, May 4, 2021.

117Think tank leader–Africa, personal communication, May 11, 2021.

118Bock Clark, D. (2021, March 2). Internet Access Complicates the Coup in
Myanmar. The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/in-myanmar-a-digital-savvy-nation-poses-a-new-challenge-for-the-military

119Think tank leader–Asia, personal communication, May 12, 2021.

120Human Rights Watch. (2021, February 11). COVID-19 Triggers Wave of Free
Speech Abuse.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/11/covid-19-triggers-wave-free-speech-abuse#

121Schenkkan, N., Linzer, I. (2021). Out of Sight, Not Out of Reach:
Understanding Transnational Repression. Freedom House.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/transnational-repression

122Think tank leader–Asia, personal communication, May 20, 2021.

123Think tank leader–Africa, personal communication, April 29, 2021.

124United Nations. (2020, October 12). ‘Staggering’ rise in climate emergencies
in last 20 years, new disaster research shows. UN News.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/10/1075142

125Hamid, S. (2020, June 16). Reopening the World: How the pandemic is
reinforcing authoritarianism. Brookings Institution.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/06/16/reopening-the-world-how-the-pandemic-is-reinforcing-authoritarianism/

126Think tank leader–Europe, personal communication, May 19, 2021.

127Think tank leader–North America, personal communication, May 4, 2021.

128Think tank leader–North America, personal communication, May 13, 2021.

129Think tank leader–North America, personal communication, April 29, 2021.

130Think tank leader–Africa, personal communication, May 17, 2021.

131FPA included the Caribbean in Central & South America and relied on United
Nations geography data.

132This analysis focused on lower-middle-income countries instead of low-income
countries, because there were very few low-income countries in the sample.

133The sample included very few authoritarian countries. FPA used the Polity
dataset for regime classification.

134Based on country performance in the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom
Index reflected in quartiles.

135McGann, J.G. (2020). 2020 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. Scholarly
Commons. https://repository.upenn.edu/think_tanks/18/

136The other potential outcome variable, overall think tank impact, did not have
enough variation to be used in the statistical model, as there were no examples
of think tanks having no reported impact at all. For an ordered logistic
regression model, there should be observations at all levels of the outcome
variable.

navigatingthroughturbulence.com Open in urlscan Pro 52.20.78.240 Public Scan

Form analysis 0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

navigatingthroughturbulence.com Open in urlscan Pro
52.20.78.240 Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM