Conclusions: The Challenges of Policy Relevance

In commissioning this paper, the central question the ADBI wanted addressed was: “What are the attributes of an effective think tank?” There is no simple answer to the question and there are no technocratic ‘quick fixes’.

Focusing on internal management issues can not be considered in isolation from the wider political and economic context. Management is important to the sustainability and quality of work of individual institutes. Nevertheless, it is also essential to consider Vietnamese governmental institutes in aggregate. The strong departmental affilliations and the weak interaction with research counterparts in other departments points to a broader governance problem. The Americans would see this dynamic the result of departments set up as (vertical) ‘stove-piping’ without sufficient structures for (horizontal) coordination, and the British would describe it similarly as a ‘silo’ structure and absence of ‘joined-up-government’. In short, the effectiveness of Vietnamese institutes can be undermined by the very architecture of the state. Nevertheless, there are some actions that are within the scope of Vietnamese think tank processes.

• Attention to quality control and other management issues is an enduring and constant fact of organisational life. It is not an occasional task of once-yearly review. See Section 4., and Appendix 1.
• Diversification of funding base. The most stable and independent institutes are those with a mix of revenue sources. Developing new revenue sources takes time and it should be done without damaging an institute’s reputation and quality of product.
• Some (not all) Vietnamese think tanks (and not all the time) need to become more transnational in their activities and or engagements to stay abreast of global policy debates. This can be achieved via professional exchanges, fellowships, graduate study overseas as well as involvement in international research partnerships and global (or regional) policy networks. Viet Nam is not immune to the pressures of globalisation, and that includes pressure on policy communities.
• Deepening and widening of policy communities. By developing more horizontal relationships with counterparts in other institutes it is possible to expand beyond the vertical organisation based on departmental or party bureaucratic lines of authority. This can also include engagement with some private researchers in the business sector, the media or certain NGOs

Another question from the ABDI: What can be learnt from international trends and patterns in the think tank industry?

Given the world-wide boom of think tanks or policy institutes, it seems evident that these organisations are important vehicles for conducting research on social and economic affairs. In Viet Nam, the analytic needs of the state to steer Doi Moi are probably on the increase and there will be increasing demand on Vietnamese institutes to assist in economic transition and public sector reform. The international trend is for more, not fewer, think tanks. This think tank development has been diverse but on balance, most new think tanks in the past two decades have been established as independent bodies. By contrast, private policy research bodies in Viet Nam are few and they operate in an environment where partnership with the state is the norm; a norm that is substantially different from Western civil society notions of advocacy, confrontation and critique. Although a pluralistic transition to a boistrous civil society is not on the horizon, other reform dynamics -- such as the spread of the new public administration – could be more pervasive in Viet Nam. A salutary lesson from the former Soviet Union and the transition states of Central and Eastern Europe, is that some day in the future the very many institutes currently based inside Vietnamese government departments may become among the first casualties of public sector reforms and cut-backs.

Finally, there is the inevitable anxiety and vexed questions about “independence”. To many Western observers, Asian think tanks are considered to have an unhealthily close relationship with government. Given perceptions that they “serve to toe the official line”, even The Straits Times has asked the question: “Can Asian Asian Think Tanks Think?” (Rekhi, 2002).

Independence must be assessed on more than one criteria whilst recognising that calls for independence can sometimes conflict with and contradict calls for policy relevance. Dimensions of independence can include:

1. Political independence from vested interests
2. Legal independence
3. Financial independence
4. Scholarly autonomy and ‘freedom of research’

A western think tank may trumpet its status as a non-profit organisation with no affiliations to political party or business interests. Yet, funding dependence on one client – such as a government department – will raise questions about freedom to set research agendas and subtle forms of self-censorship in ensuring the delivery of desired research results. In the end, perfect and complete independence is neither possible nor desirable for organisations such as think tanks. Instead, independence, autonomy and scholarly freedom is based on strong professional norms, (institutional) relationships open to scrutiny and tolerant but vigilant political cultures.

Download this Discussion Paper [ PDF 567.2KB| 30 pages ].

Comment(s)

There are [0] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.