The Socio-Political Environment for Policy Research Institutions

The proliferation of think tanks worldwide can be explained as a response to increasing demand for policy research. Much of this demand could be said to originate within government or ruling parties. Bureaucracies have been unable to expand sufficiently to develop the necessary analytical base for decision-makers. Alternatively, civil servants do not have the skills or training or adequate resources. Indeed, a certain form of expertise may be required only on an ad hoc basis or only for a few years. Think tanks can be used to fill some of the gaps. As Wu Rong-i, a president of TIER in Taipei,China¹³ noted, "government needs good advice to help solve problems, but it can't afford to hire hordes of experts in different fields. Think tanks are an efficient and affordable solution" (Hwang, 1996: 19).

However, while the utility of these organisations is frequently recognised, there is often reluctance for governments to pay fully for it. Increasingly, international organisations and international NGOs advoacating the uitlity of enhanced policy analytic capacity for contemporary governance and/or democratisation have provided development assistance.

The uneven spread of think tank development across political systems appears to be a consequence of factors such as the extent of foundation support, legal structures, the political situation, civil society development, and the tax environment. However, the character of demand helps to explain why different kinds of think tanks have emerged throughout Asia. For example, in Malaysia and Indonesia the Islamic tradition and revival has lead to a demand for an Islamic perspective on many policy issues. The following factors are outlined in brief to indicate how context shapes prospects for the development of think tanks as well as the routes for policy influence.

The Political Architecture and Regime Type: The structure of political systems in Asia vary considerably in their institutional arrangements and political culture. However, it does not appear that federal systems such as can be found in Malaysia (or in Australia) necessarily provide more opportunities for the establishment of think tanks than the unitary systems such as Singapore, Japan or Brunei. The differences between presidential and parliamentary cultures do not appear to present significant differences in the opportunities. Centralisation of policy making and political functions and concentration of power is a strong feature of governments in the region.

Bureaucratic structures and styles differ markedly among all countries. In most of the countries discussed here, bureaucracies are very strong and often retain a monopoly on policy advice. The strength of bureaucracies has implications for the structure and operation of think tanks. It is not unusual for think tanks to be created by governments as an extra-bureaucratic arm of government. This is the case for both the Institute for Strategic and International Studies (ISIS)¹⁴ and Institut Kefahaman Islam Malysia (IKIM)¹⁵ in Malaysia, although both are constituted as autonomous organisations not dissimilar to PIDS. In short, most Southeast Asian think tanks have some form of bureaucratic entrée or official patronage.

Democratisation. Opportunities for genuine political liberalisation and democratic reform are apparent but nonetheless, have been inhibited by a number of factors specific to each Southeast Asian country. In Indonesia, for example, important elements of the bourgeoisie are Chinese (as in Malaysia) and have been proscribed from playing a prominent political role in the interests of ethnic stability. Additionally, an interventionist state is still largely necessary for creating conditions for profitable capital accumulation. Thailand is often portrayed as an example of the forces of democratisation, particularly when General Suchinda's regime was overthrown in 1994. Rather than any liberalisation or democratisation in a representative sense, what has emerged is a system of electoralism or parliamentarism as an institutional framework for contending groups of businessmen, notables and political entrepreneurs (Robison, 1995: 18). While the political regimes of Southeast Asia are changing and incorporating democratic features, the military and bureaucratic strata of these states are responding to new social forces – growing middle classes, new sectors of capital power, NGOs – it does not entail that these forces will lead to liberal democracy. Instead, democratisation serves the purposes of elite transition and is a state-led process rather than one dependent on the strength of civil society or the middle classes.

Civil society development is a recent dynamic in a number of Asian countries but this dynamic is not one with which Western liberal democrats are familiar leading to pluralistic societies of competitive groups communicating their preferences through fair and free elections, an independent media and political activism. Rather, the processes of change remain illiberal in many societies, as evinced by the internal security act in Malaysia, the ‘soft authoritarianism’ of Singapore, etc. The boundaries between the state, the market and civil society are blurred to such an extent that it is difficult for interests to develop autonomously within civil society. Civil society is a domain where the state intervenes and manages. It is more likely to be the case that think tanks, and NGOs in general, are organised and funded by the state. Rather than a confrontational relationship, NGOs tend to work in partnership with the state.

Laws regarding non-governmental or non-profit organisations can often be very restrictive. In parts of Asia, the rights of citizens to organise, lobby and protest -- such as by contributing to the establishment of an alternative think tanks -- cannot be taken for granted. Such organisations where they exist often cannot afford to challenge state prerogatives. Indeed, it can be very difficult for new organisations to acquire credibility and recognition in societies where political subservience is ingrained or where oppositionary bodies are viewed with hostility. In Singapore, the Societies Act of 12967 is seen by some outside observers as instrument for "blunting political opposition" and challenges to the authority of the PAP dominated state (Rodan, 1996: 100).

Political parties and party competition often do not have as long a tradition in Asia as in Europe or North America. Indeed, some governments of the region have adopted repressive tactics to prevent the emergence of oppositionary political parties. In Indonesia, until recent years, the alternative parties were managed and restricted by the authoritarian regime under Suharto to such an extent that they were not permitted to be active other than around election time. Consequently, there were neither the same opportunities for think tanks to interact with political parties in the same way that many of their Western counterparts do, nor sufficient demand from these emasculated parties to generate partisan institutes.

Philanthropy: The role of business, community foundations and private benefactors in providing financial and other resources is crucial in many countries. Private think tanks cannot survive on project income alone but require grants and gifts that will help promote the longevity of the organisation. Corporate philanthropy has grown within the region but little information is as yet available.¹⁶ Corporate philanthropy in Japan such as through the One Percent Club and the Council for Better Corporate Citizenship (both at the initiative of the Keidanren) has been particularly noticeable and partly the consequence of Japanese direct investment in other countries (Yamamoto & Hubbard, 1995: 51).

Business Independence and Interest Representation: The strength of the state and/or the character of statebusiness relations can shape the demand for think tank services and products. In the case of Hong Kong because of the state-embedded nature of business interests, the need for establishment of the independent business funded think tanks has been dampened. By contrast, in Taipei,China, internal competition among rival factions and forces within the KMT state, and later on competition between the KMT and DPP camps – intermingling with their respective business supporters - helped create and environment for the emergence of think tanks.

In Malaysia, MIER is the most business-oriented think tank. It actively provides information for business and Bank Negara is its prime benefactor. It responds to requests from business to organise forums for closed policy discussion. At times, it operates similar to a consultancy. Think tanks in a number of the Northeast Asian countries have been useful in providing analysis on foreign markets for companies seeking to enter new markets or expand their operations overseas. In general, however, corporate creation of think tanks and consumption of their products is less pronounced in Southeast Asia compared to Northeast Asia. There is a closer relationship with government, bureaucracy or political leaders than with the corporate sector.

Regime Support and Legitimation: The intelligentsia is an important source of legitimation for many regimes of the region. They provide theoretical justification for government policies, a necessary component in the legitimation process. Intellectuals and experts are required to give substance and coherence to the ideas articulated by political leaders. Institutes act as a government research centre where politicians and bureaucrats rely upon it for reports, briefings and drafting speeches. As a consequence, the fortunes of an institute can be dependent on the continuing grip on power of existing leaders. This is especially the case in Malaysia and Indonesia where a number of think tanks have been closely identified with certain regimes or political figures.

Policy Training needs of the State: Universities with strong disciplinary foundations are often not well structured to provide multi-disciplinary degrees in the policy sciences and there can sometimes be academic resistance to applied or vocational studies. University-based think tanks are well placed to provide degree courses. Other think tanks can provide short term executive courses for civil servants in methodology, ethics or latest industry standards. The Ho Chi Minh National Political Academy (HCMNPA) of the Vietnamese Communist Party and the Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government (APSEG)¹⁷ in Australia have joined to conduct a project on public policy research and teaching. ADBI has similar aspirations with the Japan Fund for Public Policy Training. More generally, the Singaporean government policy of establishing the city-state as a “global education hub” is highly indicative of regional competitive pressures to create ‘knowledge based economies’ (Olds, 2005) and, I would add, ‘evidence based policy making’.

The Symbolic Function of Think Tanks: The growth of a think tank community also performs a symbolic role representing national advancement in political, economic and educational development. In the words of one British think tank director, think tanks are “an essential attribute of an advanced society with liberal/democratic aspirations" (Chipman, 1987: 5). They serve other symbolic roles. IKIM in Malaysia is a powerful symbol of the Mahathir Government's commitment to Islamic values and principles. IKIM was government sponsored to promote within Malaysia and project internationally a moderate and tolerant form of Islam and an alternative to Islamic fundamentalism. ISEAS, established in 1968 in a relatively hostile environment for young Singaporean nation, played an important role signifying not “a threat oriented think tank but a respected research institution “in tune with the region”” (Reid, 2003: 10).

International Demand and Funding. Bilateral aid agencies such as USAID and NORAD, international organisations such as the World Bank and UNDP, and philanthropic foundations such as Ford Foundation and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, have taken great interest in think tanks over the past decade. The support think tanks with research funding for the country-specific analyses they need. However, think tanks are also regarded as vehicles for capacity building for policy analysis. ADBI is not unlike other international organisations, the experts and official staff of which require like-minded counterparts in-country with whom they can effectively interact.

Indeed, the leaders of economically powerful nations of Asia sometimes face the exhortations of Westerners that it is their "duty" in the post Cold War era of multi-polarity to establish non-governmental policy research institutions to address significant international issues. Robert McNamara's pronouncements on the absence of an independent think tank sector in Japan are exemplary.

Japan needs to create and nurture a cadre of researchers and nonprofit organizations that will focus on ... global problems ... (and) should be prepared to contribute in this way ... as a Great Power with enormous economic and technological resources it has a duty to do so (1996: 142).

Such statements are also illustrative of growing global pressures upon think tanks.

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

Comment(s)

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