Chapter 11. Public Policy Analysis and Think Tanks

150



Handbook of Public Policy Analysis



WAVES OF DEVELOPMENT

The waves of think tank development from early in the twentieth century parallel the evolution of

policy analysis. Three broad stages can be identified: the first generation of think tank prior to World

War II; the second wave of Cold War, peace research and development studies institutes alongside

those with a domestic social and economic policy focus; and third, the global think tank boom

from the 1980s onward (Stone and Denham 2004). Often with funding support from the National

Endowment for Democracy, USAID (United States Agency for International Development), the

World Bank or private philanthropic foundations, the Western organisational format of think tank

has been spread internationally. In tandem, Western models and norms of policy analysis have also

spread.

First generation think tanks were responses to societal and economic problems spawned by

urbanization, industrialization, and economic growth. Think tanks became established in Englishspeaking countries, but most prominently in the United States. Many reasons for uneven development

have been posited: the strong philanthropic sector, a conducive tax system, weak political parties,

a pluralistic political system, and the division of powers in its federal structure as well as between

executive and legislature of the United States (Smith 1991; Abelson 2002). These factors presented

favorable political opportunities and policy niches for think tank development. In general, think tanks

emerged in North America and the British dominions as a response to the growth of the state—the

“progressive era”—expansion of universities with increased literacy and professionalization of public service that facilitated demand for independent policy analysis for the rational improvement of

society (Heineman 2003). Organizations such as the Brookings Institution, the 20th Century Fund,

and the Russell Sage Foundation in the United States, and the Fabian Society and National Institute

for Economic and Social Research in the UK are typical of the first wave.

The post-World War II era brought more extensive role for the state in social and economic

affairs, prompting a second wave of think tank developments in North America and in European

liberal and social democracies. In the United States, the New Deal and the Great Society period

along with the Korean and Vietnam wars prompted the development of government contract research

institutions. In the United States, RAND and the Hudson Institute were exemplary of the new breed

of think tank increasingly reliant on government contracts rather than private philanthropy. A number

of other institutes acquired substantial input into social policy, most notably the Urban Institute.

Created in 1968, it had the mission of researching and analyzing American social problems such as

the inner city and urban decline, state work-welfare programs, Medicare payments, transport policy,

and so forth. Similar institutes emerged in other developed countries: the Institut für Sozialpolitik

und Sozialreform in Austria in 1953, the Studiefšbundet Näringsliv och Samhälle in Sweden in

1948, and the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) in 1943 in Australia. Many of the second generation

think tanks pioneered applications of new statistical techniques, economic modeling and cost-benefit

analysis. As government demand for this kind of analysis expanded, so, too, did the number and

variety of think tanks. Institutes with a social policy focus were increasingly out-numbered by the

proliferation of foreign policy institutes, centers for the study of security, and development studies

institutes, in an era defined by the Cold War, superpower rivalries, and Third World issues

From the 1980s, a world-wide boom of think tanks was apparent. In Anglo-American political systems, think tank communities matured. Whether as a cause or a consequence of the rise of

environmental considerations, environmental policy institutes have burgeoned. Specialization has

evolved on other fronts: inter alia, women’s policy institutes, business ethics think tanks, and centers

for democracy promotion. Many of the new institutes adopted a more strident ideological stance

alongside a greater organizational propensity for advocacy (Abeson 2004). The rise of so-called New

Right think tanks such as the Adam Smith Institute in London also illustrates how free market and

conservative think tanks were one set of actors constitutive of the paradigm shift from Keynesian



Fisher_DK3638_C011.indd 150



10/16/2006 10:45:46 AM



Public Policy Analysis and Think Tanks



151



policy making toward neoliberal principles government organisation (Denham and Garnett 2004).

Today, as governments clamor for evidence-based policy, think tanks are ready to provide their

evidence in support of policy reform and innovation.

Outside the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), think tanks

exhibit an evolution that occurred later in the twentieth century. In the newly industrialized countries of Asia, rapid economic growth freed resources for policy research while increasing levels of

literacy and greater opportunity for university education created new generations of intellectuals.

Northeast Asian institutes are relatively numerous but are also more likely to be affiliated with a

government ministry or large corporation. A number of Latin American countries such as Argentina, Peru, and Chile also have a healthy population of research institutes; many are affiliated with

universities, and have had a new breath of life with democratization in the region. Western-style

independent think tanks in former Soviet Union appeared after 1989. Examples include the Center

for Social and Economic Research in Poland and the Center for Liberal Strategies in Bulgaria, but

the bureaucratic legacy of the old, if impoverished, Soviet-style Academies of Science still looms

(Minggui-Pippidi 2004). As relatively young organizations, with limited resources, the new policy

institutes are often over-stretched in their policy focus on the problems of transition. This is even

more pronounced with think tanks in many African countries (Johnson 2000). In weak and failed

states, the presence of think tanks tends to be very limited. Elsewhere the weak policy environment

of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the dominance of the Office of the High Representative post-1995

in structuring both the demand and supply of policy analysis has curtailed think tank development

(Miller and Struyk 2003).

The global reach of think tank development is reflected in the cottage industries that have

evolved around the phenomenon. There are practical guides on how to manage think tanks (Struyk

2002). Workshops are convened regularly by USAID, the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Freedom

House, the World Bank, UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and the Open Society

Institute (among many others) on how to start and then manage a think tank. Specialist consultants

and firms cater to both think tanks that need management advice and to their donors who require

evaluation of the think tank analysis they have funded. There are parallels in the development of

the academic literature. Into the 1990s, analysis of think tanks was devoted almost exclusively to

think tank growth within Anglo-American systems as “third sector” organizational solutions applying knowledge and expertise to public problems (see inter alia, Smith 1991; Weiss 1992). Current

research trends are comparative and focused on think tank political roles in developing and postcommunist states (McGann and Weaver 2000), in global governance (Stone 2003; Ladi 2004), and

addressing issues of think tank influence in policy networks and public discourse (Ullrich 2004;

Lucarelli and Radaelli 2004).

In a maturing world-wide industry, think tanks are in a constant state of reinvention. The scaling down of Open Society Institute offices in Central and Eastern Europe has seen the transformation of some of these capacity building NGOs into independent policy institutes, reflective of the

so-called policy turn of the Soros funded OSI (Krizsan and Zenta, 2004). In other contexts, some

think tanks evolve into, or evolve from, consulting firms (Minggiu-Pippidi 2003). Some institutes

might be better defined as “vanity tanks” that help launch the political careers of aspiring leaders

(Abeslon 2004).

As think tanks proliferate and diversify, there is less agreement on how they might be defined.

The think tank idea has been stretched. Journalists, academics, and other commentators have applied

the term haphazardly as a label for any institution undertaking policy-related technical or scientific

research and analysis. This could be an international agency, a non-governmental organization, a

scientific laboratory, a commercial research enterprise, or policy analysis units inside government.

Increasingly, the boundaries between think tanks and other groups are blurring. Pressure groups

and NGOs such as Amnesty or Transparency International have their own capacity for policy



Fisher_DK3638_C011.indd 151



10/16/2006 10:45:46 AM



152



Handbook of Public Policy Analysis



analytic research. Some think tanks are not devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis but

are “think-and-do-tanks” involved in advocacy, technical assistance, and training. Many institutes

are informally incorporated or coopted into policy development whereas in other political systems,

institutes conform to the strictures of state monitoring and censorship. Consequently, the variety of

think tanks in operation defies simple generalization about their standards of research and integrity

of policy analysis.



MODES OF POLICY ANALYSIS

One of the most important functions of think tanks is the specialized research activity that leads to

policy analysis. The primary targets of think tank analysis are legislatures and executives as well

as bureaucrats and politicians at local, national, and international levels of governance, but other

actors in society interact with or support think tanks. Further distinctiveness lies in: (1) their capacity to act as a clearinghouse, (2) their involvement in the advocacy of ideas, (3) their incorporation

in domestic and transnational policy networks, and (4) their specialized intellectual and scholarly

base providing expertise on policy issues.

As a clearinghouse, think tanks represent a concentration of cheap or free information and

expertise. The revolution in information technology has made think tank products—working papers,

books, training manuals, draft legislation, e-forums—a readily accessible source of policy relevant

research and analysis. In addition, think tanks are a repository of “independent” and “scholarly”

experts who can provide information that frequently represents a credible alternative to information coming from government or from the corporate sector. This information is used readily by the

media, interest groups, business associations, trade unions, churches, NGOs, and social movements;

it is often made available as a “public good.”

As “advocates” think tank scholars/activists are driven by ideological, scholarly, or professional principles to broadcast and spread specific practices or policies. In general, later generations

of American, Canadian, British, and Australian think tanks have been more advocacy-oriented in

order to maintain both media and political attention in the increasingly competitive market place

of ideas. Stylistically, this has meant that think tanks do not communicate ideas solely through the

policy professional domains of seminars, conferences and publications. Think tanks also seek to

press their views in public domains such as television and radio or through newspaper commentary

where there is increasingly a symbiotic relationship via sound bite policy analysis.

Both individuals in think tanks and the organization need to act as policy entrepreneurs; that is,

as educators, advocates, and networkers. Effective communication to policy audiences is as important

to the success of a think tank as the production of high-quality policy analysis. Many think tanks are

not only more adept at political communication than universities and NGOs, but the organizational

format of think tank is itself an institutional response to the difficulties of bridging research and

policy and applying (social) science to national problems of economy and society.

Where advocacy is often the strategy of the “outsider” think tank, some think tanks become

“insiders” to policy communities. These networks are a sectoral mode of governance incorporating

actors from inside and outside government to facilitate decision-making and implementation. As

suppliers of expertise and analysis, think tank staff can be coopted into policy deliberation either

informally through consultations and personal interactions or more formally through appointment

to advisory bodies. In such circumstances, there is a relationship of trust between a think tank and

a government ministry or set of officials where the think tank’s expertise is recognized in return for

some policy access (Ullrich 2004). The Overseas Development Institute in London, for instance,

has a strong and long-standing relationship with the UK Department for International Development.

Additionally, as conveners of conferences and research projects, think tanks represent interlocutors



Fisher_DK3638_C011.indd 152



10/16/2006 10:45:46 AM



Public Policy Analysis and Think Tanks



153



among business executives, government officials, and other experts, and thereby provide environs

conducive for off-the-record discussions. Indeed, a number of think tanks around the world that

enjoy the trust of governments have played a quiet but effective behind the scenes role as agents of

“track two diplomacy” (Simon, 2001).

As centers for policy analysis, think tanks need to sustain their professional credibility and

reputation as repositories of policy knowledge. Chief think tank staff members are usually highly

qualified, with a PhD, and continue to participate in the professional meetings of their discipline.

Some teach on a part-time basis as adjunct faculty of universities (that also provides opportunity

to recruit new talent for the think tank); a small percentage of think tanks are formally linked with

universities. However, the primary orientation is the production of policy analysis, not higher education. Nevertheless, think tanks are a vehicle for policy training and a site for political “wannabes”

to hone their rhetorical skills and induct themselves into policy communities. Think tanks produce

human capital in the form of specialized analysts who often move between think tank, university,

and government service. The long-term ramifications indirectly interweave the think tank with

government agencies via its former fellows.

Some have spent careers working with governments or international organizations before

bringing their professional experience to the think tank while other think tank scholars regularly

seek appointment to official committees and advisory boards. Usually, staff can legitimately claim

knowledge and detailed awareness of the internal workings of government. Consequently, the mix of

staff experiences and formal qualifications is important for the organization to establish credibility

with political audiences as reliable ”thinking outfits” providing rigorous policy analysis. In short,

the human capital of a think tank is its primary asset in producing policy analysis and sustaining

reputation.



TRANSNATIONALIZATION OF THINK TANKS

Think tanks are an excellent barometer of the transnationalization of policy analysis. The dual

dynamic of globalization and regionalization has transformed the research agendas of these organizations. Institutes have been compelled to look beyond primarily local and national matters to

address global issues. Many think tanks have been at the forefront of public debate, policy analysis

and research into the global reach and ramifications of policy concerns such as the environment,

security, trade, refugees and human rights. In conjunction with academics in universities, a notable

number of think tank researchers have been leading commentators on globalization. Their transnational research agendas have been complemented by global dissemination of policy analysis via

the Internet.

In the evolving shape of global civil society, think tanks are also prominent players. It is common

for think tanks to liaise with like-minded bodies from other countries. The Open Society Institute

PASOS association in CEE is a regional network that operates in the same field as the Transition

Policy Network of think tanks coordinated by the Urban Institute. Global ThinkNet, convened by

the Japan Center for International Exchange, hosts meetings of think tank directors and senior

scholars. The Global Development Network is an extensive international federal network primarily

of economic research institutes. There are many more. These networks provide an infrastructure

for global dialogue and research collaboration, but institutes generally remain committed to the

nation-state where they are legally constituted. Nevertheless, there is a nascent global marketplace

of ideas. Although North American and European think tanks dominate this marketplace, it provides

a rich source of radical thinking as well as orthodox policy analysis.

International organizations like the World Bank, European Union (EU), the World Trade Organization (WTO) or UNDP are important financiers and consumers of research and policy analysis.



Fisher_DK3638_C011.indd 153



10/16/2006 10:45:47 AM



154



Handbook of Public Policy Analysis



They have provided capacity building and training programs throughout the world for local elites to

establish new think tanks and policy networks (UNDP 2003). They also require independent policy

analysis and research. This is not only to support problem definition and outline policy solutions,

but as civil society actors or as highly reputed expert organizations, think tanks are often effective

bodies to monitor and evaluate existing policy as well as to provide scholarly legitimating for policy

development. Moreover, a few think tanks have become transnational in orientation; for instance,

the Evian Group revolves in the orbit of the WTO but is an independent body that convenes meetings of, and studies by, trade experts in support of an open world economy.

Think tanks have become key actors in a thickening web of global/regional institutions, regulatory activities and policy practices. Global governance structures such as the Global Water Partnership or UNAIDS are in response to the increasing prevalence of global policy problems that do not

respect national boundaries. These contemporary policy problems provide a structural dynamic for

research collaboration, sharing of responsibilities, regularized communication, and expert consultation. Global public policy networks are neocorporatist arrangements that act alongside international

organizations, government officials, business representatives, and stakeholders to a policy area to

provide policy analysis (Reinicke and Deng 2000). Within these networks, selected think tanks

have become useful in building the infrastructure for communication between transnational policy

actors; that is, Web sites, newsletters, organizing international meetings, and managing the flow

of information coming from numerous sources. Consequently, through their policy analysis and

participation in global or regional policy dialogue, the transnationalization of think tanks can be

regarded as one transmitter of global policy processes.

Think tank activity within the European Union has been considerable, reflecting the deepening

of European integration (Boucher et al. 2004). Despite differences between think tanks in relation to

specific policy remits, structural and membership profiles, and ideological perspectives on European

integration, they have common features such as close relations with the European Commission and

a research focus on distinctively European issues (Ladi 2004; Ullrich 2004). CEPS (the Center for

European Policy Studies in Brussels) is the exemplar of this style. Think tanks have also been key

players in European harmonization of national structures through cross-national processes of policy

transfer, where they go beyond detached policy analysis to spread certain European standards and

bench marks (Ladi 2004). Regionalism elsewhere in the world—ASEAN, the African Union, or

NAFTA—has also acted as a magnet for think tank activity.



THE INFLUENCE OF THINK TANK POLICY ANALYSIS

One of the most vexed questions concerning think tanks is whether or not they have policy influence.

Notwithstanding extensive growth, think tanks do not enjoy automatic political access. Attempting to broker policy analysis to decision makers does not equate with immediate policy impact on

forthcoming legislation or executive thinking. Relatively few think tanks make key contributions

to decision making in local, national, or regional global fora, or exert paradigmatic influence over

policy thinking. Instead, it is more appropriate to view them as cogs in the wider machineries of

governance. Furthermore, think tank research and reports do not escape challenges or criticism

from other knowledge actors in universities, whilst they may be ignored or patronized at will by

governments, corporations, and international organizations. However, this is not to suggest that

these organizations are without intellectual authority or policy influence.

First, think tanks appropriate authority on the basis of their scholarly credentials as quasiacademic organizations focused on the rigorous and professional analysis of policy issues. Many

use their presumed “independent” status as civil society organizations to strengthen their reputation

as beholden neither to the interests of market nor the state. These endowments give think tanks

some legitimacy in seeking to intervene with knowledge and advice in policy processes. However,



Fisher_DK3638_C011.indd 154



10/16/2006 10:45:47 AM



Public Policy Analysis and Think Tanks



155



a recent empirical survey of European decision makers, journalists, and academics’ views about

the impact of think tanks discovered critical and cautious perceptions of influence:

All (interviewees) insisted on the importance of a healthy think tank sector for E.U. policy

making while criticising their relative lack of strength and ability to provide added-value,

sometimes their lack of impact and relevance; and finally an approach seen as too technocratic and elitist. (Boucher et al. 2004, 85)

Nevertheless, these organizations acquire political credibility by performing services for states

and for non-state actors. In short, the sources of demand help explain think tank relevance and

utility if not direct policy influence. Think tanks respond to demand for high-quality and reputable

research and analysis, ideas, and argumentation. In addition, they provide services such as ethics

or policy training for civil servants, or by organizing conferences or seminars. Similarly, they have

become useful translators of the abstract modeling and dense theoretical concepts characteristic of

contemporary social science. For governments concerned about evidence-based policy, think tanks

potentially help create a more rational policy process by augmenting in-house research capacities,

circumventing time and institutional constraints, and alerting elites to changing policy conditions

(Dror 1984). Thus, it may be less the case that think tanks have an impact on government and more

the case that governments or certain political leaders employ these organizations as tools to pursue

their own interests and provide intellectual legitimation for policy.

Think tanks also contribute to governance and institution building by facilitating exchange

between official and other private actors as interlocutors and network entrepreneurs. Networks are

important to think tanks both in embedding them in a relationship with more powerful actors, and in

increasing their constituency, thereby potentially amplifying their impact. However, such relationships also pull think tanks toward advocacy and ideological polemic or partisanship and politicization. Too close an affinity with government, a political party, or NGOs can seriously undermine their

authority and legitimacy as objective (or at least balanced) knowledge providers, and potentially

dissolve important distinctions between the research institute and advocacy group.

Rather than organizations for rational knowledge utilization in policy, think tank development

is also indicative of the wider politicization of policy analysis. In a few countries, think tanks are

a means of career advancement or a stepping stone for the politically ambitious. This has lead to

the hollowing out of British think tanks after election of a new government (Denham and Garnett

2004). The revolving-door of individuals moving between executive appointment and think tanks,

law firms, or universities is a well-known phenomenon in the United States and is increasingly seen

in Central and Eastern Europe and sub- Saharan African countries. In short, rather than the policy

analysis papers—or published output—having influence, it is the policy analytic capacity—or

human capital—that has long term influence and resonance inside government, and increasingly

international organizations.

Some think tanks attract more media than government attention. The capacity to gain funds from

foundations, governments, and corporations to undertake their policy analysis is indirect recognition of the value of many institutes. Others value the pluralism of debate that think tanks can bring

to liberal democracies, and this is one rationale behind the think tank capacity building initiatives

of development agencies. In neopluralist thinking, independent think tanks are often portrayed as

creating a more open, participatory and educated populace and represent a counter to the influence

of powerful techno-bureaucratic, corporate, and media interests on the policy agenda. Moreover, a

more informed, knowledge-based policy process—a role that think tank experts help fulfill—could

enlighten decision making (Weiss 1990).

Early American studies of think tanks often adopted power approaches to the role of think

tanks in decision making. Elite studies of institutes such as the Brookings Institution (Dye 1978)

emphasized how think tanks are key components of the power elite where decision making is



Fisher_DK3638_C011.indd 155



10/16/2006 10:45:47 AM



156



Handbook of Public Policy Analysis



concentrated in the hands of a few groups and individuals. Similarly, some Marxists argued that

establishment think tanks are consensus-building organizations developing and debating the ideology and long-range plans that convert problems of political economy into manageable objects of

public policy. As the common economic interests and social cohesion among the power elite or

ruling class is insufficient to produce consensus on policies, agreement on such matters requires

“research, consultation and deliberation” to form a coherent sense of long-term class interests

(Domhoff 1983, 82) and maintain hegemonic control (Desai 1994). However, these studies direct

analysis toward well-known policy institutions with solid links to political parties or the corporate

sector, neglecting the role of smaller, lesser-known institutes which thrive in much larger numbers

than the elite think tanks.

In general, contemporary analysts are skeptical of think tanks exerting consistent direct impact

on politics (see essays in Stone and Denham 2004). Instead, they develop wider and more nuanced

understandings of think tank policy influence and social relevance in their roles as agenda-setters

who create policy narratives that capture the political and public imagination. This ability to set

the terms of debate, define problems and shape policy perception has been described elsewhere as

“atmospheric” influence (James 2000, 163). Moreover, the fluctuating and changing influence of

think tanks has much to do with the way in which think tanks interact over time in epistemic communities, advocacy coalitions, and discourse coalitions. The epistemic community concept (Haas

1992) focuses on the specific role of experts in the policy process and the heightened influence of

consensual knowledge in conditions of policy uncertainty (Ullrich 2004). In this perspective, think

tanks wield their expertise and analysis as objectified scientific input to policy. The advocacy coalition

approach emphasizes an alternative view that analysis has a long-term enlightenment function in

altering policy orthodoxies, and highlights the role of beliefs, values and ideas as a neglected dimension of policy making (Lucarelli and Radaelli 2004). By contrast, discourse approaches emphasize

the role of language and political symbolism in the definition and perception of policy problem. It

is a constructivist approach that emphasizes intersubjective knowledge—common understandings

and shared identities—as the dynamic for change and in which think tanks are wordsmiths. In these

perspectives, it is in the longue duree that think tank policy analysis and activity has achieved wider

social relevance and shaping patterns of governance and moving paradigms.



REFERENCES

Abelson, Donald. (2002) Do Think Tanks Matter? Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Boucher, Stephen, et al, (2004) Europe and its think tanks; a promise to be fulfilled. An analysis of think tanks

specialised in European policy issues in the enlarged European Union, Studies and Research No 35,

October, Paris, Notre Europe.

Critchlow, D. T. (1985) The Brookings Institution, 1916–52: Expertise and the Public Interest in A Democratic

Society, Dekalb, Northern Illinois Press.

Denham, Andrew & Garnett, Mark. (2004) “A Hollowed Out Tradition? British Think Tanks in the Twenty

First Century,” in Diane Stone and Andrew Denham (eds) Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and

the Politics of Ideas, Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Desai, Rhadika. (1994) “Second-hand Dealers in Ideas: Think Tanks and Thatcherite Hegemony,” New Left

Review, No. 203: 27–64

Domhoff, William. G. (1983) Who Rules America Now? A View for the ‘80s, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Dror, Yehezkel (1984) “Required Breakthroughs in Think Tanks,” Policy Sciences, 16: 199–225

Dye, Thomas. R. (1978) “Oligarchic tendencies in national policy making: The role of private planning organisations,” Journal of Politics, 40(May): 309–31.

Haas, Peter (ed.) (1992) “Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization, 46(1).

Heineman, Robert A. et al. (2003) The World of the Policy Analyst, Chatham House Publishers 2002.



Fisher_DK3638_C011.indd 156



10/16/2006 10:45:47 AM



Public Policy Analysis and Think Tanks



157



James, Simon. (2000) “Influencing government policymaking” in Diane Stone (ed.) Banking on Knowledge:

The Genesis of the Global Development Network, London, Routledge.

Johnson, Erik. (1997) “Improving Public Policy in the Middle East and North Africa: Institution Building for

Think Tanks,” Washington D.C.: Center for International Private Enterprise.

Krizsán, Andrea and Zentai, Violetta. (2004) “From Civil Society to Policy Research: The Soros Network and

Roma Policy,” in Diane Stone and Simon Maxwell (eds.) Global Knowledge Networks and International Development: Bridges Across Boundaries, London, Routledge.

Ladi, Stella. (2004) Globalization, Policy Transfer and Think Tanks, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Lucarelli, Sonia and Radaelli, Claudio (2004) “Italy: Think Tanks and the Political System,” in Diane Stone and

Andrew Denham (eds.) Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas, Manchester,

Manchester University Press.

McGann, J. & Weaver, K. eds. (2000) Think Tanks and Civil Societies. Transaction Press.

Miller, Christopher. and Struyk, Raymond. “Policy Research in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The role and Impact

of Local Thinks,” Southeast European Politics, 5(1): 45–59.

Minggiu-Pippidi, Alina. (2003) “Designing the new social contract: trends and threads in CEE public policy

research,” in United Nations Development Program (ed.) Thinking the Unthinkable: From Thought

to Policy. The Role of Think Tanks in Shaping Government Strategy: Experiences from Central and

Eastern Europe, Bratislava, UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Reinicke, Wolfgang and Deng, Francis. (2000) Critical Choices: The United Nations, Networks and the Future

of Global Governance, Ottawa, International Development Research Centre.

Simon, Sheldon, (2001) “Evaluating Track II Approaches to Security Diplomacy in the Asia Pacific: The

CSCAP Experience,” National Bureau for Asian Research Special Report, September.

Smith, James (1991) The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite, New York, Free

Press.

Stone, Diane (2003) “The ‘Knowledge Bank’ and the Global Development Network,” Global Governance,

9: 43–61.

Stone, Diane and Denham, Andrew. Eds. (2004) Think Tank Traditions, Manchester, Manchester University

Press.

Struyk, Raymond J. (2002) Managing Think Tanks: Practical Guidance for Maturing Organizations, Budapest,

Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative and Washington DC., the Urban Institute.

Ullrich, Heidi. (2004) “European Union think tanks: generating ideas, analysis and debate,” in Diane Stone and

Andrew Denham (eds.) Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas, Manchester,

Manchester University Press.

UNDP (2003) Thinking the Unthinkable: From Thought to Policy, Bratislava, United Nations Development

Program.

Weiss, Carol. (1992) Organizations for Policy Analysis: Helping Government Think, London, Sage.



Fisher_DK3638_C011.indd 157



10/16/2006 10:45:47 AM



Fisher_DK3638_C011.indd 158



10/16/2006 10:45:47 AM



Part IV

Policy Decision Making:

Rationality, Networks, and Learning



Fisher_DK3638_P004.indd 159



9/22/2006 6:13:23 PM



Fisher_DK3638_P004.indd 160



9/22/2006 6:13:28 PM