The Role of Think Tanks and Research Institutes for More National Ownership and Alignment of Evidence to Policy

This discussion paper explores research on the role think tanks and research institutes play in developing governance evidence and having it enter the governance reform discourse and policy process. (The term "think tanks" is understood here to describe a wide range of research organisations which undertake public policy research and analysis and intend to influence policy dialogues and advocate policy solutions.)

The paper is the outcome of a conference organised by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Oslo Governance Centre (OGC) with support from International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Canada entitled: "Evidence on Governance into Policy: The Role of Research Institutes and Think Tanks", January 18-19 2009. The conference was organised as a side-event of the Information and Decision Support Center (IDSC) International Conference on "The Role of Think Tanks in Developing Countries" in Cairo, Egypt. The paper reports on the discussion, which was informed by a series of case studies that looked at China, India, Ghana, Kenya, Peru, and Serbia.

The opening section of the paper presents 3 typologies to help understand the relationship between evidence dialogue and policy:

1. Context: 3 specific contexts have been highlighted: (i) developing countries in the context of rapid economic growth and less open political systems; (ii) developing countries with successful growth models yet more open political systems; and (iii) countries that have experienced /are experiencing severe violent conflict. While rapid growth may reduce the incentive to accept dissenting evidence on governance, democratic institutions may encourage some types of governance evidence and provide an enabling environment for think tanks. Conflict, on the other hand, often hampers the development of governance evidence and its usage.
2. Scope: Some governance evidence is macro in scope, i.e. perceptions of corruption or trust in institutions. Other governance evidence is sector-specific, e.g. health and education. How contested knowledge is in a sector and how dense political and economic interests are in specific sectors may affect the ability of think tanks to collect evidence, create knowledge, and bring them to bear on policy.
3. Actors: Most evidence on governance is produced predominantly by international actors that score and rank countries. In-country producers of governance evidence (esp. national think tanks and research institutes) may, in contrast, face questions about their rigor and/or independence and may be burdened not only with technical capacity deficits but also with the burden of managing relationships with government and civil society - especially in post-conflict countries.

An excerpt from the paper - highlighting communication elements - follows:
..."If one is to assume that national research institutes and think tanks are channels of local voice, then it is apt to pose...[these] questions:

• Which mechanisms of evidence creation, dissemination, & networking with policy circles, civil society & media can be identified and replicated in the developing world?
• Under which conditions will research institutes and think tanks perceived as producers of data, analysis and trend identification function best as agenda setters and as providers of public space for the voices of the marginalized and vulnerable groups whose concerns may be less well represented in official data?
• Are participative methods of collecting evidence and creating knowledge useful across the board, also in conflict contexts?

...We adopt a political power lens that includes looking at the policy environment in different political economy settings, conflict vulnerabilities, technical capacities, values and linkage to national-regional-international development discourses. The central hypothesis is the positive relationship of inclusive participation, in terms of users and producers of data, on the one hand, and success in improving policy making, in the direction of more responsiveness.

...Exchange of field experiences facilitated through the roundtable was preceded by two analytical frameworks on policy processes and governance evidence in sectors, with special reference to conflict countries...

...UNDP and ODI will explore how to bring the findings of this research and workshop down to country level in order to enhance national ownership of evidence on governance and its uptake into policy processes to reflect voices of the people.

...[This] opens the road for some concrete action on the part of developing agencies with respect to:

• Helping to foster some elements of financial and political autonomy as well as an enabling environment of freedom of expression and access to information
• Helping to enhance national capacities for applied governance evidence to sector specific and pro poor policies
• Helping to enhance capacity for participative methods to evidence creation
• Helping to enhance think tank ability to build alliances with the state and civil society and mange these alliances without losing autonomy
• Help[ing] to enhance think tank ability to systematically create sticky messages, use opportune moments in policy processes, foster champions and maintain their influence in an institutionalized manner..."