Think Tanks and Global Politics: Key Spaces in the Structure of Power

Do Business-Backed Think Tanks Represent Class Interests? The Co-evolution of Policy Learning and Economic Elites in the Canadian Knowledge Regime

“…The evolution of predominant policy paradigms among business aligned think tanks can serve to highlight elements of class coordination, while diversity in the cohesion and radicalness of their ideas can be explained as a by-product of different niches in the ecology of corporate actors and the organizations that serve them (Carroll & Shaw, 2001; Peetz, 2017). However, if “capital is not homogenous” (Salas-Porras & Murray, 2017b, p. 4) it is not just variations in the “fractions of [economic] capital” (Salas-Porras & Murray, 2017b, p. 4) that are observable in these niches. The state, for starters, is seen as playing an important role in moderating the construction of distinct niches and of civil society actors themselves (see Pal, 1993).…”

“…The relationship between think tanks and economic and political elites have garnered attention for some time (e.g., Carroll & Shaw, 2001; Domhoff & Dye, 1987; Peschek, 1987; Salas-Porras & Murray, 2017a; Saloma, 1984). Neo-Gramscian theories of class hegemony and elitist theories of power inspired by Marxism often suggest a thorough integration of economic interests and the positions worked out by political and intellectual elites.…”

An introduction to critical studies of think tanks

“…The aim of this volume is to develop the study of think tanks from a critical perspective, while supplying a point of reference for this scholarship. Broadly critical research on think tanks has seen a resurgence in recent years (for example, Carroll 2013;Gonzalez Hernando 2019;Medvetz 2012b;Pautz 2012;Plehwe 2014;Ruser 2018;Salas-Porras and Murray 2017), but there is a need to construct a more synthetic point of departure for understanding these approaches. This volume aims to provide this reference.…”

“…However, think tanks can also shape the arena of policymaking itself by contributing to its rules, dynamics and institutional barriers (Medvetz 2015) or by redrawing the terrain of recognizable political adversaries (Cahill 2010). By shifting the composition of expressed political and public opinions, think tanks can reorder dominant conceptions of what counts as political moderation (Gonzalez Hernando 2019;Stahl 2016) and alter the background conditions of political bargaining (Salas-Porras and Murray 2017).…”

“…These studies provided enduring insights into the interconnections that structure the networks in which insular policy elites operate. However, recent critical scholarship increasingly avoids the idea of a single coordinated elite and engages with alternative frameworks for relaying both multiple sites of power and endemic struggles over values and ideas (Fischer 1993;Salas-Porras and Murray 2017). Among other inspirations, critical studies of think tanks have borrowed from: neo-Gramscian perspectives on cultural hegemony and counter-hegemonic struggles (Carroll 2013(Carroll , 2014Carroll and Sapinski 2010;Carroll and Shaw 2001;Desai 1994;Pautz 2011;Peetz 2017); Bourdieusian models of field relations (Landry 2020;McLevey 2015;Medvetz 2012aMedvetz , 2012bMedvetz , 2015; Salas-Porras 2018); Hajer's discourse coalition framework (Pautz 2012;Plehwe 2015); discursive institutionalism (Ladi 2011;Ladi et al 2018); and the knowledge regime framework (Campbell andPedersen 2011, 2014;Nachiappan 2013;Ruser 2018).…”