For more than a century, public policy institutes, or think tanks as they are more commonly known, have played an important role in informing and educating policymakers on Capitol Hill, the White House, and throughout the Intelligence Community about how to protect and protect public policy. Promote U.S. interests around the world. Think tanks, particularly those with expertise in defense and foreign policy, were established under very different and often unusual circumstances, giving rise to those seeking to explain how organizations ostensibly operating on the periphery of government have become, over the past few decades, It left an indelible mark on several national security measures. Yet, despite increasing scrutiny, important questions remain about how and under what conditions think tanks can and do shape public opinion and public policy.
Learn how and where decisions are made at renowned think tanks such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Center for National Security Studies, and the Hudson Institute. De, to name a few, tries to make their presence feel easy to pin down. For some time, scholars familiar with the think tank world have identified a number of governmental and nongovernmental conduits that these institutions rely on to communicate their ideas to elected and appointed officials.
Testify before legislative committees, organize workshops, seminars and conferences around key issues in defense and foreign policy where policymakers, journalists, academics and others can exchange ideas, write for various national and international newspapers Op-eds, open media outlets for interviews and commentary, volunteering as consultants and/or speechwriters on congressional and presidential campaigns and policy working groups, and producing and disseminating publications designed for specific target audiences are just a few of the think tanks Some ways to help shape discussions around key topics. But there are more obvious access channels.
One of the most important ways for think tank scholars to contribute to policymaking is to become policymakers themselves, and their best opportunity to do so is in the United States, which has a political system uniquely suited to think tanks and other nongovernmental organizations. Government organizations in the corridors of power. Now is a perfect time to observe think tank academics moving in and out of the State Department, Department of Defense, National Security Council, Department of Homeland Security, CIA, and other federal government departments and agencies engaged in protecting and protecting humanity. It is about to begin and better promote U.S. national security. It is during this transitional period that scholars can monitor where the foreign and defense policy experts who left the government ended up, as well as where the new analytical cadre eager to enter government soil is. This is what scholars often call the “revolving door phenomenon.”
That academics with expertise in domestic and foreign policy have either moved to think tanks after leaving government or are preparing to serve in federal departments and agencies after years at established think tanks speaks to the public policy research community’s reputation for transformation. Politically astute and astute practitioner. After all, as an organization dedicated to helping governments think through complex policy issues, what better way to help than by preparing its own staff to take on leadership roles?
The transfer of think tank scholars from more academic settings to government is another way in which think tanks gain a strong foothold in the policy-making process. With a growing network of former colleagues entering public service, think tanks can extend their reach into the deepest reaches of the bureaucracy, which is crucial for organizations dedicated to informing the content and direction of government policy. Still, relying on government connections and making heavy use of the other governmental and non-governmental channels mentioned earlier does not guarantee that a think tank will be able to exert significant influence.
As a think tank scholar, I am often asked how much influence think tanks have on domestic and foreign policy. I usually remind attendees of the importance of focusing on the nature of influence, what it means, and who or what the influence is directed at. Although I would prefer to provide a less obtuse answer, the dynamics and realities of policymaking prevent me and others from doing so. There is no simple recipe or method for measuring impact, especially when so many people and organizations are involved in the effort to effect policy change. So what’s the answer? A better understanding of what impact is and how to achieve it might be a good place to start.
In much of the defense and foreign policy literature, influence is treated in a linear fashion. In other words, someone is considered to have exerted influence if A has been able to convince B to do X; A has been able to convince B not to do X; or A has been able to convince B to maintain the status quo. Simply put, impact is an all-or-nothing proposition. You either have influence or you don’t.
Applying this model or approach to impact research may be helpful in some cases, but it may also be problematic. After all, influence can be achieved in different ways and at different times in the policy cycle. For example, during the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, High Frontier, a Virginia-based think tank with support from the Heritage Foundation, embarked on a project that would contribute to President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, known as Star Wars. ”) lay the foundation. Influence. However, while there is no doubt that High Frontier played a major role in discussions about fielding land- and space-based weapons systems that could in principle track, intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles, there were several other individuals and organizations that helped Stimulate support and/or opposition to this initiative. As former Hoover Institution scholar Martin Anderson (who later advised President Ronald Reagan on many issues) noted, “Every successful policy idea has a hundred parents. Every bad idea is an orphan.
Anderson’s review addresses the difficulties that scholars often encounter when tracing the origins of an idea to a specific person or organization. The policy-making process is not only difficult to navigate for those interested in developing policy, but also extremely difficult to understand given the number of actors who enter and exit the process at different times. In the above case, Regan did acknowledge High Frontier’s valuable contributions, but he also benefited from a wealth of expertise provided by the defense policy establishment, of which High Frontier was just one.
This is one of the many reasons I avoid discussions that would only lead to speculation about the extent of influence exerted by think tanks, interest groups, domestic and foreign lobbying groups, and other organizations seeking to play a role in defense and foreign policy. Rather, I argue that deeper insights can be gleaned by isolating the engagement and activities of think tanks at specific stages of the policy cycle (problem articulation, formulation, implementation, and evaluation). By doing so, it is possible to better identify and assess the contribution of a particular institution in helping to shape the discussion around an issue, for example by communicating its ideas and policy recommendations to the media, hosting conferences and workshops, and publishing a series of publication. Highlighting how think tanks contribute to the formulation, implementation and evaluation of the success or failure of specific policies can also help to more accurately assess their relevance in key policy debates.
After years of studying think tanks and evaluating their motivations and strategies, I have concluded that think tanks can truly have an impact on policymaking when they present the right ideas to the right people in the right format at the right time. However, it is also important to remember that think tanks can have the best, most creative and innovative policy proposals, but unless the political stars align, their efforts may not have a noticeable impact.
Think tanks have no shortage of ideas to convey to multiple stakeholders, but in order for their ideas to take hold, policymakers and other leaders with the power to shape the country must have the ability to listen. There is rarely a shortage of ideas in the United States related to defense and foreign policy, or in the many domestic policy issues that arise on a regular basis. This is more of a demand issue. What types of information do policymakers in Congress, the White House, and throughout the bureaucracy need from think tanks and other nongovernmental organizations to carry out their duties more responsibly? How do these organizations help government officials think without validating what they already know or want to hear? The answers to these and other questions could be helpful in providing those empowered to govern with the resources they need to protect the American people while allowing think tanks to carry out their duties and missions.
Further reading on electronic international relations
