People walk out of one of the venues of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) Summit, in Benaulim, in the western state of Goa, India in 2016. REUTERS/Danish Siddiqui
OPINION: It is universally acknowledged that think tanks play a crucial role in public policy-making processes in the festival of ideas intended to impact future policy interventions.
Dr Sello Mokoena
Lewis, S, in a scholarly article titled “What is a think tank?” states: “A think tank is an organisation that gathers a group of interdisciplinary scholars to perform research around particular policies, issues, or ideas.”
“Topics addressed by think tanks can cover a wide range, including social policy, economic policy, political strategy, culture, and technology. Think tanks can also be referred to as think factories or policy institutions. The work of all think tanks includes conducting scholarly research, creating a space for debate, generating ideas, monitoring public policy, and providing intellectual resources to the public.”
Generally, the growing literature agrees that, among other things, the role of think tanks is to assist evidence-informed decision-making in a bid to enhance policy-making, planning and budgeting.
She says different types of think tanks can be grouped by function in a variety of ways, the most common being:
Ideological tanks. These organisations work towards solving a problem based on an ideological perspective and philosophy. Also known as advocacy think tanks, research is targeted towards convincing policymakers to adopt proffered solutions.
Specialist tanks. These institutes have a specific thematic focus, such as foreign policy, poverty, or the environment.
Practical tanks. Referred to as “think and do” tanks, these institutes are similar to NGOs and conduct more practical efforts, such as funding charity projects.
Subnational tanks. These government-related think tanks operate below the national level. Think tanks so focused deal with the policies of specific states.
South Africa is not immune to this phenomenon, as it has think tanks such as the SA Institute of International Affairs, the Economic Policy Research Institute, and the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection, all of which play a critical role in shaping public policy debates locally.
Think tanks extend to university-based ones such as the Centres for Learning on Evaluation and Results, which inter alia conduct rapid impact evaluations and participant-observer evaluations of development projects on national, provincial and local issues in an effort to produce studies of direct value to policymakers, as in the endeavour to address systemic inequalities and promote a more inclusive and equitable society, sometimes under contract with various spheres of government or directly with government agencies or state enterprises.
The exercise here is to reflect on the role played by think tanks in policy-making, and to point out that, although they play an important role in society like the mass media, as they provide access to an assortment of diametrically opposed views in the quest to serve the public interest, they are not entirely unproblematic.
For example, if left unchecked, think tanks have the potential to persuasively hijack the rhythm of public debates. This they do wittingly or unwittingly in their respective attempts to adhere to their individual organisation’s mission, vision and philosophical learnings and objectives.
The majority of South African think tanks’ learnings are not easily decipherable compared with those in the US. Anderson, JE, in his book The Policy-Making Process, says: “Many of these research organisations have policy biases and distinct ideological leanings. The orientations of the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, for example, are widely regarded as conservative and liberal, respectively.”
“In addition to their policy-analysis activities, these organisations may also engage in policy advocacy. The Heritage Foundation, which is staunchly conservative, played an important role in launching the Reagan administration in 1981, and in shaping its policies on issues such as environmental protection, social welfare, and economic regulation. For a time, its study Mandate for Leadership was a best-seller in Washington. Other research organisations, taking their cue from the Heritage Foundation, developed ”policy blueprints“ to influence the Bush administration in 1988; none appeared to make much difference.”
Gurucharan G, director at the Public Affairs Centre, argues that, while think tanks have an important role to play in any society, such as “speaking truth to power, giving voice to the community, and holding the state to account and helping to improve the quality of governance for better development outcomes, (they) are at times constrained by the funding model and agreements of their respective donors”. Notwithstanding their funders’ learnings and other constraining imperatives, which have the potential to hamper them from optimally contributing to policy-making, think thanks have a duty to ensure that the needs of marginalised communities are not of peripheral interest.
Given the lack of adequate precedent for such practices in South Africa, there is little evidence to support this argument or theory. There is a need to conduct comprehensive evaluation research in order to have a better understanding of the nature and scope this issue.
This will enable us to have a better understanding of the state of South Africa’s think tanks in the quest to ensure that they argue for the development of more appropriate policy interventions responsive to verifiable societal well-being.
Cowen, S expands on the above principles for meaningful policy-making processes and change management. It is crucial to involve both internal and external stakeholders because this ensures all interested parties, political parties, communities, businesses and trade unions are engaged to arrive at a clear understanding and vision of what needs to be done. It is also important to pursue the thinking and interests of all stakeholders. This assists in the creation of a shared vision so that every stakeholder understands the basic objective and goals of the envisaged policy imperatives for common-good purposes.
It is thus advisable to use the principle of multifaceted leadership that includes community leaders, to avoid a “top-down” approach that only superficially engages local stakeholders in policy-making debates. As history is replete with evidence that in situations where grassroots leaders were not deeply engaged, or where the process was top-down, critical grassroots stakeholders did not develop a sense of process ownership and a lasting commitment to ensuring that proposed interventions were sustainable.
Evidently, it is not enough to superficially engage some of the intended beneficiaries, as “support for the plan must start with the grassroots”. Global trends show that it is essential to tap into the lived experiences of a multifaceted leadership, which involves active citizenship from grassroots structures, such as ward or street committees and civic movements, to bring real changes in people’s lives through policy development processes.
As G Esteva, S Babones and P Babcicky put it in their book titled The Future of Development: “Real change does not happen as a series of cataclysmic moments associated by great leaders but conceived and implemented by ordinary people.”
* Dr Sello Mokoena is Director for Research in the Gauteng Department of Social Development and an independent researcher in educational telecommunications, strategic communication, globalisation, and development economics. He writes in his personal capacity.