Do Think Tanks Matter?: Assessing the Impact of Public Policy Institutes

Segal, Hugh; Abelson, Donald E.

doi:10.2307/3552584

Cited by 32 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For Bourdieu (2003:8), 'The universalization of private interests is the legitimization strategy by excellence, which imposes itself with a particular urgency on cultural producers, always driven, by all their tradition, to be considered as the bearers and spokespersons of the universal, as 'employees of humanity. ' 5 Although Atlas may be considered a think tank (or a network of think tanks), we chose here to avoid an institutionalist perspective, mainly the case in the studies on think tanks (Abelson 2018;McGann 2007;and Medvetz 2012), and treat it as an institute formed by certain individuals that represent the ruling class and work for it through the dissemination of a neoliberal consensus. In this sense, this study treats Atlas from a Gramscian perspective as a private apparatus of hegemony that, through the work of its organic intellectuals, seeks to maintain the privileges and hegemony represented by the ruling class.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hegemony, consensus building, and pedagogical colonisation: new ways of external interference?

Vidal

2023

Contexto int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is a theoretical effort to rethink International Relations from the perspective of Neo-Gramscian Critical Theory in which its empirical object is the US hegemony in the scope of Latin America. More specifically, this study refers to the fabrication of consensus directed by an American ruling class through its own vehicle for this – the Atlas Network – which finds legitimacy and support in its Latin American counterparts. Based on primary data, public documents, and specialised bibliography, this study aims to contribute to the rethinking of International Relations using this institute as an object of empirical relation to theoretical study. More than presenting domination strategies through private hegemony apparatus, this study encourages us to reflect on relatively forgotten (or marginalised) practices and concepts in International Relations, such as imperialism, hegemony, and the role of consensus building. Finally, from Critical Theory, it contributes to understand the role of ruling classes in the creation of consensus in subaltern countries and classes to maintain this same hegemonic structure.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hegemony, consensus building, and pedagogical colonisation: new ways of external interference?

Vidal

2023

Contexto int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Abelson (2002), three broad theories are identified regarding the role of think tanks in the exchange of ideas between various actors, from government, the private sector, academia and civil society.…”

Section: State‐of‐the‐art Theoretical Framework and Propositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soft power in global governance: fsQCA of thematic specialization strategies of European think tanks

Roger‐Monzó

Castelló‐Sirvent

2023

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes the strategies designed after the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) by European think tanks specialized in economic policy and evaluates the main issues that served to boost their capacity for international influence between 2009 and 2018. It studies the 19 European think tanks in the economic policy category highlighted by the 2018 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. 91,393 news items published on the think tanks evaluated during the decade after the GFC are analysed and a causal model is proposed to understand the thematic specialization strategies of think tanks in the media sphere. The model includes economic and media diffusion attributes and was tested using Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). The results confirm that the main areas of specialization of economic policy think tanks include emerging issues related to the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The stability of the Eurozone is a cross-cutting issue that is integrated into the internal policy discourse. The solution to the proposed model reveals five strategies followed by European think tanks.

show abstract

“…On a smaller scale, it functions as a lever in managing PAS, as it enables governments to supplement lacunes in policy capacity, legitimise policy by providing external credibility, and bypass or create alternatives to in-house advisers (Abelson and Lindquist 2017;MacDermott, 2008;Marciano 2023;Martin 1998;Momani and Khirfan 2013). In Australia and Britain, the use of such external advice often depends on the party in power and issue at hand, with some governments drawing on think tanks for policy advisory purposes whereas the comparatively smaller think tank landscape in Canada and New Zealand features their less pronounced regular involvement in policymaking (Abelson 2018;Craft and Halligan 2020;Pautz 2017).…”

Section: Externalisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PAS management-like research that did exist was typically on discrete sets of advisers, particularly the public service who long dominated the world of professional policy advice to government, and to a lesser extent think tanks and international advisory bodies (Abelson 2018;Fleischer 2009;Meltsner 1976;Pautz 2012). Management of PAS itself was not explicitly theorised though researchers recognised a variety of ways in which these systems could be organised, considered the benefits and costs of informal versus institutionalised approaches to advisory activity, and recognised tensions and dilemmas in advisory arrangements in democratic polities (Pierre 1998;Seymour-Ure 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Theorising policy advisory system management: approaches and practice

Marciano

Craft

2023

J. Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article develops the concept of policy advisory system (PAS) management in recognition of the need to better theorise and empirically study how governments approach the complex systems of advice around them. In our analysis, we go beyond the conceptualisation of degrees of government’s “control” over advisory sources. We use the dimensions of government agency and discretion and argue that PAS management falls into four forms: authoritative, dependent, laissez-faire, or absent. Using evidence from Australia, Canada, Britain, and New Zealand, we explore how governments operationalise these approaches through a range of choices and practices. The analysis points to the need to recognise that attempts to manage these systems occur both proactively and reactively with clear differences in the broad or narrow scope of management efforts.

show abstract

Do Think Tanks Matter?: Assessing the Impact of Public Policy Institutes

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

Hegemony, consensus building, and pedagogical colonisation: new ways of external interference?

Hegemony, consensus building, and pedagogical colonisation: new ways of external interference?

Soft power in global governance: fsQCA of thematic specialization strategies of European think tanks

Theorising policy advisory system management: approaches and practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About