LIST OF PANELS

We are happy to invite academic colleagues and fellow practitioners to join our efforts and contribute to our research interest in the growing role of think tanks as meaningful actors in the policy making processes at local, national and global levels. For different reasons - in different political regimes – think tanks are playing increasingly a more visible role, affecting policy agendas and processes, in conjunction with traditional and social mass media. For example, international organizations are being increasingly served by a growing plurality of think tanks, several of whom are becoming important actors themselves. At the same time, in BRIC countries, where growing authoritarian tendencies deny or even ban traditional political actors, some think tanks have become platforms for alternative views on the  policy-making process. In different cases, some are ready to demonstrate full loyalty to official policies and decisions while others become direct and outspoken critics and opponents, producing alternative solutions to public policy agendas. We consider that think tanks are discrete actors in different policy environments of different nations - working in conjunction or in competition with Universities, Academies of Sciences, research teams in corporate Business and research-focused NGOs - striving to produce policy alternatives vis-à-vis central, regional and local authorities. At the same time, think tanks behave very differently, depending on both “external” and “internal” factors: where “external” refers to political, economic and regulatory “environments”; while “internal” points to their own "organizational” and "academic" traditions  (Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas by Diane Stone and Andrew Denham. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2004). For this panel, we are intending to bring together a group of international scholars interested in presenting their case studies and/or general studies, which will shed some light on the role and functions of think tanks in the policy process of specific countries or on the theoretical level of their “policy environment”. For the sake of wider comparison, we welcome participants from the European Union, United States, the Middle East, Latin America and South-east Asia including China, India and Japan. Therefore, as a result of this panel, we hope to learn more about think tanks as actors in their own right in the policy process and to advance the understanding of what is their role in "policy advisory systems" - in different countries and at different levels- and how it helps or prevents them to become effective policy advisors who can contribute their knowledge and expertise. We believe that this panel will enable us to compare the experiences of think tanks in Europe and elsewhere as advocates and analysts in the local, national and global policy making process. In this way we can learn from experencies in different political contexts, as well as develop some theoretical conclusions on when, why and how the voice of think tanks is heard in the policy process, as well as how to keep their contribution independent, professional and serving public and general interest. Understanding that the issue of think tanks as advisers to policy makers as well as the framework of policy advisory systems is an inter-disciplinary and complex enterprise, so we are expecting three types of contributions: academic papers, practitioners’ case studies and contributions for discussion.

The purpose of the proposed panel is to explore the organisational dynamics of think tanks around the world and their practices to advance their political influence or the policy aims they implicitly or explicitly endorse and, in particular, the roles they occupy in the political structures and policy fields at the national, regional and global level. Think tanks - broadly defined as organizations specialized in public policy analysis and advice - have become influential worldwide in re-articulating private, state, media and academic elites to shape public policies in most countries, but especially for foreign policy in new emerging powers, taking as a template the model of organizations active in the United States (US). In fact, much of the literature and analysis of the phenomenon of think tanks has an Anglo-American outlook. The term itself originated in the US, as its political environment has proved highly conducive to the growth and diversification of this type of organization. The US political system, coupled with the availability of generous funding streams through foundations, is generally credited for allowing a wide range of American think tanks to evolve over the last few decades (Abelson, 2002). In the exercise of the definition of think tanks, dominated by a US-centric perspective, one common assumption is that they constitute a distinctive class of organizations that are formally and substantially autonomous from governments, business, media and universities (Weaver, 1989). This is clear in the definition given by McGann defining think-tanks as “policy research organizations that have significant autonomy from government and from societal interests such as firms, interest groups, and political parties.” (McGann & Weaver, 2000: p. 5). In the same perspective, as civil society organisations, think tanks are actors independent of the state and of private interests and act as “crucial organisations in civil society, existing in the space between the public and private sectors and constituting ‘critical balancing forces’ against state power and agency” (McGann & Weaver, 2000: 7). Following this lead, other authors often define think tanks as independent actors in the policy process (Denham & Garnett 1998; McGann& Weaver 2000) or as political actors which are “knowledge-based” (Thunert, 2006: 206). Stone speaks somewhat cautiously about independence, defining think-tanks as: « relatively autonomous organizations engaged in the research and analysis of contemporary issues independently of government, political parties, and pressure groups, containing people involved in studying a particular policy area or a broad range of policy issues, actively seeking to educate or advise policy-makers and the public through a number of channels » (Stone, 2001: 15668). In fact, think tank must have some “kind of engagement with government if they are to succeed in influencing policy” (Stone& Ulrich, 2003: 5). More so that think tanks have become a permanent part of the political landscape in many different countries, so much so that they are now an integral part of the policy process. Stone, moreover, prefers to “avoid identifying think tanks as a sub-category of nongovernmental organisation (NGO). Instead, the broader term ‘non-state actor’ has been adopted. In many cases think tanks are quasi-governmental or quasi-academic and lack the independence and connections to civil society usually associated with NGOs.’ (Stone, 2000). In spite of these precautions, the emphasis on the autonomy of think tank has the merit to set them apart from other kinds of organizations, performing similar tasks such as political clubs or business foresight centres. However, such definition has also several disadvantages. First, it privileges the Anglo-American model to the detriment of other political contexts where think tanks are less likely to assert their independence from the state apparatus, such as in Asia and Europe. Moreover, independence or autonomy as prerequisite for free discourse is a distinctive feature of Western political culture. This was acknowledged by Stone herself: “The Western view that a think-tank requires independence or autonomy from the state, corporate, or other interests in order to be free-thinking does not accord with experiences in other cultures” (Stone, 2001, 15688). In order to overcome these difficulties, the most common solution found in the literature is to underline the fuzzy borders of definition and acknowledge that think tanks operate in a variety of institutional forms and legal arrangements, which opens the way to different ways of classification, referring tautologically to think tank as a “slippery term” (Stone, 2004: 4). At the organizational level, think tanks often are organizations concentrating expertise and knowledge, functioning as informal platforms sharing policy ideas, practitioners’ agendas and academic contributions. However, they are far from being homogeneous as they espouse different ideologies and political affiliations, deal with different policy issues, and command different degrees of organizational resources and political opportunities. On the one hand, they can contribute decisively to shape political debates with the reforms and policies they recommend and defend. On the other hand, they can struggle to construct alternative strategies to the most acute policy problems; including human, social, economic, security and environmental dimensions. But in all these regards their initiatives and actions are frequently under-analyzed academically and over-hyped politically. This panel tries to bridge this gap and advance the research on the role of think tanks on the following subjects: Policy advice, expertise and evaluation; Public problem and agenda setting; Policy formulation and decision making; Policy Process Theory.