Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T06:39:35.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The limits of influence: foreign policy think tanks in Britain and the USA*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Richard Higgott  and
Diane Stone
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

International non–governmental organizations and their influence over policy in international relations have become subjects of scholarly attention in recent years. One sector of the international policy-cum-analytic community that has received little attention, however, is that group of nationally based non-profit independent policy research institutes—popularly known as ‘think tanks’. This is a strange omission. Foreign policy think tanks and institutes of international affairs are of interest to the wider debates in international relations for two reasons. On the one hand, they aspire to be participants—if mostly marginal ones—in the foreign policy making process. On the other hand, notwithstanding the tension between these two roles, some contribute directly to international relations as a field of study. Yet a common theme prevails. All foreign policy institutes are founded upon a conviction that ideas are important. Researchers and executives of institutes, as well as their corporate, government and foundation supporters, often believe that their intellectual input into policy debates makes a difference. While this can be the case, we suggest that it is less so than many advocates often assume.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 15 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Zacher, M. W., ‘The Decaying Pillars of the Westphalian Temple: Implications for International Order and Governance’, in Rosenau, James N. and Czempiel, Ernst–Otto (eds.), Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar.

2 In addition to long–standing think tanks in the major European countries, especially France, Germany and Scandinavia, there has been considerable recent growth in other parts of the world—especially in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. For a discussion of think tanks in the Asia Pacific, see Langford, J. W. and Brownsey, K. L. (eds.), Think Tanks and Governance in the Asia–Pacific Region (1992)Google Scholar. For examples from Canada and Australia, see Redford, R. W., ‘Canada and the World: The Work of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs’, The Canadian Business Review, 3 (1976), pp. 26–28Google Scholar and Millar, T. B., ‘The Role of the Australian Institute of International Affairs’, Australian Outlook; The Australian Journal of International Affairs, 30 (1976), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

3 See Orlans, H., The Non–Profit Research Institute: Its Origin, Operation, Problems and Prospects (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; Dickson, P., Think Tanks (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; and Weiss, C. (ed), Organizations for Policy Advice: Helping Government (California, 1992)Google Scholar.

4 Any such studies have been organization–specific rather than conceptual. On the Council on Foreign Relations, see Schulzinger, R. D., The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs: The History of the Council on Foreign Relations (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Shoup, L. and Minter, W., Imperial Brains Trust (New York, 1977)Google Scholar. On the Royal Institute of International Affairs, see Morgan, R., ‘To Advance the Sciences of International Politics: Chatham House's Early Research’, International Affairs, 55 (1978), pp. 240–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘The Study of International Polities’, in Morgan, R. (ed.), The Study of International Affairs: Essays in Honour of Kenneth Younger (London, 1972)Google Scholar and Thome, C., ‘Chatham House, Whitehall, and Far Eastern Issues: 1941–15’, International Affairs, 54 (1978), pp. 1–29Google Scholar. On RAND, see Smith, B., The RAND Corporation: Case Study of a Nonprofit Advisory Corporation (Cambridge, MA, 1977)Google Scholar. On think tanks as foreign policy actors, see Fauriol, G. A., ‘Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy’, in Lee, Thomas B. (ed.), Ideology and Practice: The Evolution of US Foreign Policy (Taipei, 1985)Google Scholar. There have also been a range of analyses of related organizations—such as the Trilateral Commission. See Gill, S., American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar; Sklar, H. (ed), Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management (Boston, 1980Google Scholar) but the Commission does not conform to our understanding of a think tank as an independent policy research institute.

5 Polsby, N., ‘Tanks But No Tanks’, Public Opinion (April/May 1983), pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

6 See Domhoff, G. W., Who Rules America Now? A View for the '80s (New Jersey, 1983)Google Scholar and Peschek, J. S., Policy Planning Organizations: Elite Agendas and America's Rightward Turn (Philadelphia, 1987)Google Scholar and Dye, T. R., ‘Oligarchic Tendencies in National Policy Making: The Role of Private Policy Planning Organizations’, Journal of Politics, 40 (1978), pp. 309–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Smith, J., The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite (New York, 1991)Google Scholar.

8 For an analysis of the dilemmas of definition, see Stone, D., ‘From Old Guard to New Partisans: Think Tanks in Transition’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 26 (1991), pp. 197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 King–Hall, S., Chatham House: A Brief Account of the Origins, Purposes, and Methods of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (London, 1973), p. 7Google Scholar.

10 Foster, L., High Hopes: The Men and Motives of the Australian Round Table (Melbourne, 1986), p. 11Google Scholar.

11 Originating in London, Milner built the organization with the men who worked with him in South Africa—the so–called ‘Kindergarten’. Recruitment into this select group relied on personal friendship, Colonial Office connections and Oxford University associations. Its primary product was The Round Table which first went into print in 1910. Articles in the journal were unsigned as often they were joint efforts of a discussion group.

12 Foster, High Hopes, p. 56.

13 The Carnegie Endowment has ‘incubated’ other organizations and maintains a loose affiliation with the Arms Control Association which had its genesis at the Endowment and a common goal of enhancing world peace.

14 Annual Report 1988–89, Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs (New York, 1989)Google Scholar.

15 See Critchlow, D., The Brookings Institution, 1916–52: Expertise and the Public Interest in a Democratic Society (Dekalb, 1985), p. 9Google Scholar.

16 Smith, J., Brookings At Seventy–Five (Washington, 1991), p. 104Google Scholar.

17 Members of the German delegation to Versailles also established a body in Hamburg, which was disbanded in the 1930s, as were Institutes in Rome and Paris. See Wallace, W., ‘Chatham House at 70: To the 1990s and Beyond’, The World Today, 46 (1990), p. 75Google Scholar.

18 Thomas, J., The Institute of Pacific Relations: Asian Scholars and American Politics (Seattle, 1974)Google Scholar.

19 Quoted in Kendle, J. E., The Roundlable Movement and Imperial Union (Toronto, 1972), p. 288Google Scholar.

20 Mitrany, David, The Functional Theory of Politics (London, 1975), p. 39Google Scholar.

21 Quoted in Annual Report 1988–89, Carnegie Council, p. 7.

22 The Atlantic Council of the United Slates (Washington DC, 1992)Google Scholar.

23 Howard, M., ‘IISS—The First Thirty Years: A General Overview’, Adelphi Papers, 235 (1989), p. 11Google Scholar.

24 Howard, ‘IISS’, pp. 12–13.

25 Smith, The Idea Brokers, p. 186.

26 Bethall, T., ‘Liberalism, Stanford–Style’, Commentary, 11 (1984), pp. 42–7Google Scholar. The new director, John Raisian, is more diplomatic in style and has attempted to smooth over past difficulties.

27 See Friedman, J. S. (ed.), First Harvest: The Institute for Policy Studies, 1963–1983 (New York, 1983)Google Scholar.

28 , R. J. and Isaac, E., The Coercive Utopians: Social Deception By America's Power Players (Chicago, 1983), p. 108Google Scholar.

29 World Resources Institute At A Glance 1991 (Washington DC, 1991), p. 3Google Scholar.

30 The RISCT, established in 1989, was originally the Institute for the Study of Conflict. IEDSS was set up in 1979 and has links with the Heritage Foundation.

31 Pragmatic Steps Toward Ideal Objectives, Henry L. Stimson Center (Washington DC, nd).

32 Goodwin, C. D., Report on the US–European Economics Program, German Marshall Fund Strategic Review, Trustee Committee No. 1 (1990), p. 6Google Scholar.

33 Prestowitz, C. V., Morse, R. A. and Tonelson, A. (eds.), Powernomics: Economics and Strategy After the Cold War (Lanham MD, 1991), p. xviiGoogle Scholar.

34 Prestowitz, C. V., Trading Places: How We Allowed Japan to Take the Lead (New York, 1988)Google Scholar.

35 Annual Report, Tasman Institute (Melbourne, 1991), p. 15Google Scholar.

36 Zacher, ‘The Decaying Pillars’, pp. 58–65.

37 Zacher, ‘The Decaying Pillars’, pp. 67–75. See also Mueller, J., ‘The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons’, International Security, 13 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Gray, C., ‘Strategists: Some Views Critical of the Profession’, International Journal, 26 (1970–1), pp. 773–4Google Scholar.

39 Gray, C., ‘What RAND Hath Wrought’, Foreign Policy, 4 (1971), p. 116Google Scholar.

40 Gray, ‘What RAND Hath Wrought’, p. 119.

41 Gray, C., ‘The Rise and Fall of Academic Strategy’, RUSI Journal, 16 (1971), p. 55Google Scholar. For a discussion of RAND's role as part of an epistemic community, see Adler, E., ‘The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Ideas of Nuclear Arms Control’, International Organisation, 46 (1992), pp. 37–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 See Doyle, M. W., ‘Liberalism and World Polities’, American Political Science Review, 80 (1986), pp. 1,151–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Fukayama, F., The End of History and the Last Man (London, 1992)Google Scholar.

43 Muravchik, J., Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny (Washington DC, 1991), p. 6Google Scholar. The Center for Democracy in Washington DC, in addition to research, conferences and publications, has recently organized a Gift of Democracy programme of donations of personal computers, printers, copiers, fax machines and other communication facilities to the Polish legislature; international observer delegations for elections in Latin America; the Library of Democracy collection of ‘classic’ works on democracy for distribution to civic groups in Eastern Europe, and an international legislative development programme for new and re–emerging democracies.

44 See Packenham, R., Liberal America and the Third World: Social Science Ideas in Foreign Aid and Political Development (Princeton, 1973)Google Scholar.

45 See Matthews, J. Tuchman, ‘Redefining Security’, Foreign Affairs, 68 (1989), pp. 162–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 See for example, Aho, M. and Aronson, J. D., Trade Talks: America Belter Listen, 2nd edn (New York, 1988)Google Scholar; Frost, E., For Richer, For Poorer: The New US–Japan Relationship (New York, 1987)Google Scholar.

47 Sundquist, J. L. ‘Research Brokerage: The Weak Link’, in Lynn, Laurence E. (ed.), Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection (Washington DC, 1987)Google Scholar.

48 This Centre has produced a useful directory of foreign policy think tanks around the world. Similarly, the IISS publishes directories of security studies institutes—see Der Woerd, Nicoline Van, World Survey of Strategic Studies Centres (London, 1992)Google Scholar and Chipman, John, Survey of International Relations Institutes in the Developing World (London, 1987)Google Scholar.

49 The CFR produces Foreign Affairs and Critical Issues, Chatham House publishes International Affairs and The World Today. The Carnegie Endowment has published Foreign Policy since 1970, while the Carnegie Council launched the highly successful Ethics and International Affairs in 1987. IISS produces the Adelphi Papers and Survival. CSIS produces the Washington Quarterly, the WPI's major output is the World Policy Journal.

50 See X (Kennan, George), ‘The Sources of Soviet Conduct’, Foreign Affairs, 25 (1947)Google Scholar and Strange, Susan, ‘International Relations and International Economics: A Case of Mutual Neglect, International Affairs, 46 (1970), pp. 304–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Morgan ‘The Study of International Polities’, p. 277.

52 Olson, Bill and Groom, John, International Relations Then and Now: Origins, Trends and Interpretations (New York, 1991)Google Scholar, demonstrate the manner in which Chatham House was an important locus for the development of the discipline of international relations in the UK in the inter–war period.

53 See Cox, Robert, ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, in Keohane, R. O. (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (New York, 1986)Google Scholar.

54 Demonstrating influence and assessing the impact of ideas on policy is a dilemma constantly faced by think tanks. Generally, crude measures are used—number of media reports on its work and/or appearances of its staff, increases in funding, increases in staff size, increases in the circulation of journals or the volumes of sales of reports, the praise of politicians or the use of publications on university course lists are used as indicators when soliciting financial support.

55 Hall, P. (ed.), The Political Power of Economic Ideas (Princeton NJ, 1989), p. 350Google Scholar.

56 Smith, Bruce, ‘The Non Governmental Policy Analysis Organization’, Public Administration Review, 3 (1977), pp. 257Google Scholar.

57 Viscount Grey of Falloden, quoted in Morgan, ‘To Advance the Science of International polities’, p. 242.

58 Wallace, ‘Chatham House at 70’, p. 76.

59 Thorne, ‘Chatham House’, p. 9.

60 Thorne, ‘Chatham House’, pp. 17–23.

61 See Kedourie, Elie., The Chatham House Version and Other Middle Eastern Studies (Hanover, 1984), pp. 351–2Google Scholar, passim.

62 Wallace, ‘Chatham House at 70’, p. 76.

63 See Dickie, John, Inside the Foreign Office (London, 1992), pp. 298–9Google Scholar. This is a role played by many other institutes such as the Australian and Canadian Institutes of International Affairs.

64 In the research for this paper, both authors came across considerable anecdotal evidence of FCO influence of aspects of Chatham House's work. Vetting can occur through the study group system whereby ‘All manuscripts submitted for publication have to pass the scrutiny of specialists from relevant government departments, the academic world, the business community and the media’. See Jack Spence, ‘The House that Research Built’, RTZ Review, 22 June 1992. The Foreign Office is a corporate member of the RIIA. It contributes approximately £50,000 of the Institute's research project income of approximately £1 million. See Dickie, Inside the Foreign Office, p. 299.

65 Brewin, Christopher, ‘Research in a Global Context: A Discussion of Toynbee's Legacy’, Review of International Studies, 18 (1992), p. 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Silk, L. and Silk, M., The American Establishment (New York, 1980), p. 198Google Scholar.

67 Ikenberry, J., ‘A World Economy Restored: Expert Consensus and the Anglo–American Post War Settlement’, International Organization, 46 (1992), pp. 289–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Domhoff, Who Rules America Now?, p. 87.

69 Silk and Silk, The American Establishment, p. 203.

70 Schulzinger, The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs, p. 19.

71 Quoted in Mandelstam, E. F., ‘Shrinking Sphere of Influence’, The New York Observer, 11 December 1989Google Scholar.

72 See T. Wright, F. Rodriguez and H. Waitzkin, ‘Corporate Interests, Philanthropies, and the Peace Movements’, Monthly Review, February 1988 and Berman, Edward H., The Ideology of Philanthropy: The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy (Albany, 1983)Google Scholar.

73 Smith, The Idea Brokers, p. 215.

74 Carol Weiss, ‘Introduction: Helping Government Think: Functions and Consequences of Policy Analysis Organizations’, Organizations for Policy Advice, p. 6.

75 J. Smith, The Idea Brokers, pp. 113–16.

76 Edwin J. Feulner, ‘Ideas, Think Tanks and Government’, Quadrant, November 1985, p. 24.

77 Thomas, The Institute of Pacific Relations, p. 79.

78 See Silk and Silk, The American Establishment, p. 160, and Smith, The Idea Brokers, p. 97.