Neoliberal Think Tanks and Free Market Environmentalism


Neoliberal Think Tanks and Free Market Environmentalism

Sharon Beder

Citation: Sharon Beder, ‘Neoliberal Think Tanks and Free Market Environmentalism’, Environmental Politics, 10(2) Summer 2001, pp. 128-133.

This is a final version submitted for publication.
Minor editorial changes may have subsequently been made. 

Sharon Beder’s Other Publications


Corporate-funded think tanks have played a central role in promoting free market environmentalism onto the policy agenda throughout the English speaking world. These think tanks have consistently opposed government regulation and advocated the virtues of a ‘free’ market unconstrained by a burden of red tape. The role of think tanks in the establishment of this ‘neoliberal’ agenda in the US and the UK in recent decades has been well documented. However their central role in a range of specific policy areas, such as environmental policy, has been neglected.

Conservative think tanks are generally set up as private, tax-exempt, research and advocacy institutes, and are largely funded by foundations and corporations. They have sought to insert neoliberal ideology into environmental policy. They advocate the use of the market to allocate scarce environmental resources such as wilderness and clean air and promote the replacement of legislation with voluntary industry agreements, reinforced or newly created property rights and economic instruments.

Presidents from Carter through to Clinton have made wide use of think tank personnel to fill high level government positions [Abelson:1995 108-09; Smith:1991 206-07]. Think tanks also employ ex-government officials giving them access to politicians and others in government. The interchange of personnel between think tanks and government officials observed in the US is now a feature of the Australian scene.

In Britain a few conservative think tanks have been extremely influential. These think tanks, particularly the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) and the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), played a major role in setting the policy agenda of the Thatcher government, providing it with most of its policy initiatives, including trade union ‘reforms,’ privatisation of public authorities such as water and electricity, and welfare cuts. The influence of think tanks continues with the Blair government.

To be effective, think tanks insert themselves into the networks of people who are influential in particular areas of policy. They organise conferences, seminars and workshops, publish books, briefing papers, journals and media releases for policy-makers, journalists and people able to sway the policy makers. They liase with bureaucrats, consultants, interest groups, lobbyists and others. They seek to provide advice directly to government officials and to government agencies and committees, through consultancies or through testimony at hearings. Ultimately think tank employees become policy-makers themselves, having established their credentials as a vital part of the relevant policy/issue network.

In their efforts to influence and become part of the policy-making process think tanks have more in common with interest groups or pressure groups than academic institutions. Nevertheless employees of think tanks are treated by the media as independent experts and, as such, are often preferred to representatives from universities or interest groups as a source of expert opinion.

Some Key Think Tanks 

Think tanks put a great deal of effort and expense into ensuring the work of their ‘scholars’ is marketed and disseminated effectively. The Heritage Foundation in the US has often been credited with changing the face of think tanks with its aggressive marketing tactics. The greater proportion of its budget goes on marketing and fund raising, including 35-40 per cent of its budget on public relations. Many other think tanks have emulated Heritages’ marketing techniques.

The Heritage Foundation has a budget of over $25 million per year of which almost 90% comes from more than 6000 private donors. These donors include corporations such as automobile manufacturers, coal, oil, chemical, tobacco companies, foundations (about 25% of the foundation’s total income).

Heritage promotes deregulation of industry, an unrestrained free market and privatisation, including the sell off of public lands. In line with this ideology it advocates free market solutions to environmental problems or free market environmentalism [Anon:1992 49-53; Shanahan:1993]. It seeks to cast doubt on environmental problems such as global warming and to lobby against legislation or international agreements to prevent such problems.

The Institute of Economic Affairs, (IEA) in the UK which has promoted laissez-faire libertarianism or ‘economic liberalism’ for decades. It formed an Environmental Unit and launched Global Warming: Apocalypse or Hot Air in 1994. It promoted property rights as a way of protecting the environment and sought to apply free market solutions to all aspects of society including environmental problems and to reduce the role of government and regulation [Desai:1994 29]. For example, one of its publications stated: “There is a strong case for letting market forces work in energy… A policy for energy is not only unnecessary but undesirable. It hampers market adjustment and induces producers to spend time influencing government rather than improving efficiency.” [Weaver:1989 573]

In Australia a prominent conservative/neoliberal think tank, and the oldest, is the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). Almost one third of IPA’s $1.5 million annual budget comes from mining and manufacturing companies. The IPA produces articles challenging the greenhouse consensus, attacking mandatory recycling, and promoting the use of pesticides. [Burton:1995 279], [IPA Report:1991 1-3].

Additionally a number of smaller specialist think tanks have been set up, particularly in the US, to promote free market environmentalism, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, (CEI) the Political Economy Research Centre and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).

These particular examples are merely illustrative of the much larger push that has been evident in the last decades. What they have in common is the desire to downplay the urgency of environmental problems, to reduce environmental regulations, and to apply neoliberal policies to environmental problems, as has occurred in other areas of policy. These ideologically motivated think tanks have sought to discredit environmental legislation, giving it the pejorative label ‘command and control’, highlighting its deficiencies and ineffectiveness (ineffectiveness that corporations and corporate-funded think tanks have done their best to ensure). In their place they have advocated market-based mechanisms including price-based and rights-based measures.

Free Market Environmentalism 

Think tanks have popularised and promoted the work of environmental economists who promote economic instruments and many of the leading scholars in this area are associated with think tanks. Such scholars include one of the foremost proponent’s of tradeable pollution rights, Robert Hahn, a resident scholar of the American Enterprise Institute, Terry Anderson, who has written for several think tanks in Australia and the US, Robert Stavins and Bradley Whitehead, authors of a Progressive Policy Institute study as well as Alan Moran, from the Tasman Institute.

Think tanks produce numerous books and papers promoting free-market environmentalism. Their books have included Free Market Environmentalism published by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy in 1991; Reconciling Economics and the Environment published by the Australian Institute for Public Policy in 1991; and Markets, Resources and the Environment published by the Tasman Institute in 1991.

The market solutions being advocated by neoliberal think tanks provide corporations and private firms with an alternative to restrictive legislation and the rhetoric to make the argument against that legislation in terms that are not obviously self-interested. While legislation is aimed at directly changing the behaviour of polluters by outlawing or limiting certain practices, market-based policies let the polluters decide whether to pollute or not.

Some neoliberal think tank economists also argue that there is little incentive to protect environmental resources that are not privately owned. The solution put forward is to create property rights over parts of the environment that are currently free. Rights-based economic instruments such as tradeable pollution rights, for example, “create rights to use environmental resources, or to pollute the environment, up to a pre-determined limit” and allow these rights to be traded. [Cth Govt. of Australia:1990 14] Rights-based measures are also a way of providing a pricing mechanism for allocation of scarce environmental resources.

The influence of neoliberal think tanks on environmental policy has been pervasive. Yet their efforts to replace legislative solutions with free market programs have been accepted largely without scrutiny of the ideological agenda behind them. Many environmentalists have been persuaded by the rhetoric of free market environmentalism. For example the US Environmental Defense Fund has been at the forefront of the push for tradeable pollution rights and the Natural Resources Defense Council has also supported them.

The ideological and political shaping of these instruments has been hidden behind a mask of neutrality. Stavins and Whitehead exemplify this in arguing that “Market-based environmental policies that focus on the means of achieving policy goals are largely neutral with respect to the selected goals and provide cost-effective methods for reaching those goals.” [Stavins & Whitehead:1992 8] Far from being a neutral tool, the promotion of market-based instruments is viewed by many of its advocates as a way of resurrecting the role of the market. They serve a political purpose in that they reinforce the role of the ‘free market’ at a time when environmentalism most threatens it.

By accepting market instruments as a solution to environmental problems, environmentalists have accepted the conservative definition of the problem-that environmental degradation is caused by a failure to ‘value’ the environment and a lack of properly defined property rights and therefore environmental degradation results from a failure of the market to attach a price to environmental goods and services [Beder:1996]. By allowing this redefinition of the environmental problem, environmentalists and others not only forestall criticism of the market system but in fact implicitly agree that an extension of markets is the only way to solve the problem.

The root of the environmental problem, however, is the priority given to economic considerations over environmental considerations. Economic instruments, privatisation and environmental ‘valuation’ ensure that priority is still given to economic goals and they enable firms to make decisions that affect others on the basis of their own economic interests. Even if those economic interests have been slightly modified to give a small economic value to environmental impacts, the basic paradigm remains unchanged: whenever big profits can be made the environment will be destroyed.


Professor Sharon Beder is an honorary professorial fellow at the University of Wollongong.
Sharon Beder’s Publications can be found at http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb

Advertisements

Neo-Con Think Tanks that Drive Policy and Send us to WAR


The military-industrial-propaganda complex: The neo-con think tanks that drive policy and send us to war

Well-funded think tanks push corporate agendas through media “experts” and sustain the neo-conservative apparatus


America’s first think tanks developed in the early 1900s and grew out of a desire to improve government and to help government think, according to McGann. The first kind of think tank was the academic model, such as the Brookings Institution, founded in 1916 by reformers devoted to fact-based studies of national public-policy issues. Experts at Brookings played a role in shaping plans for the United Nations and the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II. The next model, McGann says, was the RAND Corporation, established in 1920 as a consulting agency for the government.

The advocacy think tanks emerged in the 1960s. These new-style organizations, which campaigned actively for their policy preferences, tended to reflect that decade’s swing to the political left. But the next two decades saw what McGann calls “a sort of conservative counter-revolution,” leading to a “war of ideas,” with openly ideological or partisan think tanks proliferating on both sides.

In 1963, during the period of the Vietnam War and the Great Society, the first advocacy institution was the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies. The neoconservative Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973.

Conservative think tanks have more power and influence today in U.S. politics, McGann says, adding that there is “increasing criticism and worry over the domination of the right on policy.” David Callahan wrote in the Washington Monthly in November 1999, “The big development of the 1990s is that conservative institutes have had spectacular new success in tapping business money to fund ideologically charged policy research.” According to Callahan, “Corporate giving to right-wing groups has steadily increased as private sector leaders have seen the effectiveness with which conservative think tanks, and their armies of credentialed ‘experts,’ advance business interests in the political arena. Money, it turns out, can buy scholars as well as politicians.”

Callahan wrote that the “current gusher of corporate funding for right-wing policy work has its roots in the 1970s, when leading conservative thinkers appealed to corporations to fund intellectuals who supported their economic interests.” He pointed out that corporate leaders make up the overwhelming majority of board members at most conservative think tanks. “Even the American Enterprise Institute, among the most scholarly of conservative think tanks, has some two dozen corporate leaders on its board and only one academic, James Q. Wilson.” Wilson, who taught at Harvard, died in 2012.

One of the most powerful underwriters of far-right-wing conservative causes is Koch Industries, the oil and chemicals conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas, with annual revenues estimated to be $100 billion. The conglomerate operates oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota and controls some four thousand miles of pipeline.

Writer Jane Mayer described the political activities of Koch’s owners, David and Charles Koch, in an August 30, 2010, issue of The New Yorker magazine. Since the 1980s, the Koch brothers have provided more than $30 million to George Mason University, in Arlington, Virginia, much of it for a think tank called the Mercatus Center, which describes itself as “the world’s premier university source for market-oriented ideas and real world problems.”

Mayer quotes an environmental lawyer who has clashed with the Mercatus Center and who explained to her how corporate interests use think tanks to promote their private agendas. “You take corporate money and give it to a neutral-sounding think tank” that “hires people with pedigrees and academic degrees who put out credible-seeming studies. But they all coincide perfectly with the economic interests of their funders.” Among the largest and most influential of the conservative think tanks, in addition to the American Enterprise Institute, are the Heritage Foundation, based in Washington, D.C., and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California.

More than twenty AEI people wound up with top jobs in the George W. Bush administration. Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary and backer of the Iraq War, is now a visiting scholar at the AEI, which has an annual budget of about $20 million. It has about fifty so-called scholars and about 150 on the payroll. Its objective is to influence public policy. Christopher DeMuth, president of the AEI from 1986 through 2008, who worked in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations, put it this way: “We try to get in the newspaper op-ed pages and hawk our books and magazines much more aggressively than a university would feel comfortable with.”

If you watch the op-ed pages in the newspapers carefully, you will find the AEI and other think tanks well represented, week after week, month after month. You will also see them on television presenting their point of view. When network-television talk shows and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) want “experts” on foreign policy, they often turn to the AEI or other prominent think tanks. But they don’t always tell the public who is paying the salaries of the “experts.” You can bet it is corporate America.

DeMuth, for example, has said that his board of trustees is composed of twenty-four business and financial executives. “They read our work. They tell me what they like, and they tell me what they don’t like.” In his 2005 interview, DeMuth said the AEI raised $20 million to $25 million a year with a third of the money coming from corporations, a third from individuals, and a third from foundations. “We have over three hundred corporate donors,” he said.

Rob Stein, by profession a venture capitalist, but a former strategic adviser to the Democratic National Committee, has spent years studying conservative groups. From 2003 to 2005, by his estimate, conservative organizations spent about $295 million seeking to influence policy while those of the left spent about $75 million.

More recently, bestselling author Thomas Frank wrote in a New York Times column, “During the last three decades a cottage industry of conservative institutions and foundations has grown into a powerful quasi-academy with seven-figure budgets and phalanxes of ‘senior fellows’ and ‘distinguished chairs.’ While real academics dither and fret over bugbears like certainty and balance, the scholars of the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute act boldly in the knowledge, to quote a seminal conservative text, that ideas have consequences.” The AEI “has long been the reliable source of corporate money. Its principals effectively ran the Goldwater campaign in 1964 and it was deep thinkers from the institute who, after moving into the Bush administration, dreamed up the war in Iraq.”

A prominent opponent of the war was the libertarian Cato Institute, which is conservative on domestic issues but traditionally opposed to foreign intervention. In California’s Orange County Register, Cato vice president Ted Galen Carpenter wrote—just days before the war began—that the pro-war camp’s justifications for invading Iraq were faulty: “The United States is supposed to be a constitutional republic. As such, the job of the U.S. military is to defend the vital security interests of the American people. U.S. troops are not armed crusaders with a mission to right all wrongs and liberate oppressed populations. American dollars are too scarce and American lives too precious for such feckless ventures.”

As for the idea that Saddam’s overthrow would trigger a democratic transformation in the Middle East, Carpenter said, “This is a fantasy. The harsh reality is that the Middle East has no history of democratic rule, democratic institutions or serious democratic movements. To expect stable democracies to emerge from such an environment is naïve.” He went on, “If free elections were held today in such countries as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, they would produce virulently anti-American governments.”

The libertarians were right. The hawks were wrong.

HAWKS IN AFGHANISTAN

Two of Washington’s most successful think-tank hawks are Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, the husband-and-wife team who spent a year in Afghanistan working as unpaid volunteers for the U.S. general in charge of the war. Frederick Kagan is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, which has a history of supporting American military intervention around the world.

Having written papers that advocate an aggressive U.S. military policy, the Kagans moved to Afghanistan in 2010 and embedded themselves as “de facto senior advisors” to General David Petraeus. The Kagans were given top-level security clearance in Kabul, where they reviewed classified intelligence reports and participated in strategy sessions. The Kagans used their positions to advocate substantive changes in the U.S. war plan, “including a harder-edged approach,” according to a Washington Post report about them, published December 18, 2012.

Think-tank hawks have always sought to impact defense policy. The Kagans found a way to go beyond traditional influence peddling and gain the ear of the military man in charge of a real war. The Kagans were not paid by the U.S. government for their work, but their proximity to Petraeus provided valuable benefits. The Post article reported that the arrangement with Petraeus “provided an incentive for defense contractors to contribute to Kim Kagan’s think tank,” the Institute for the Study of War, which advocates an aggressive U.S. foreign policy. At an August 2011 dinner, Kim Kagan thanked two contractors, DynCorp International and CACI International, for funding her institute and making it possible for her to spend a year in Afghanistan with Petraeus.


Excerpted from America’s War Machine: Vested Interests, Endless Conflicts by James McCartney with Molly Sinclair McCartney. Copyright © 2015 by Molly Sinclair McCartney and reprinted by permission of Thomas Dunne Books, an imprint of St. Martin’s Press, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

 

Think Tanks Vs. Crony Capitalism


How Did He Get So Rich? Think Tanks Vs. Crony Capitalism


I still recall my long summer vacations in Argentina. That was before globalization and competitive pressures pushed most of the elite of developing countries to take shorter and shorter breaks. Europeans continue to buck the trend. They seem more attached to their long vacations than to the welfare statethat sometimes mandates those long relaxing weeks.

Volleyball was part of my South American beach life. It was easy to recover between endless games by taking a relaxing swim in deep sea water and then the mandatory, and now we know, dangerous sun-bathing. However, I am not writing here about life as a temporary beach-bum; I want to focus on how one of my most admired volleyball partners responded to economic incentives. Being a firm believer that all humans deserve a chance to rebuild their lives, I was hesitant to use his name, but as he wrote a book about this, mentioning him might help him increase his sales.

Enrique Piana was tall and handsome. His girlfriend and future wife, Solange, was also picture perfect. “Quique” as we called him, had a killer volleyball smash and killer looks. His family owned one of Argentina’s oldest and most respected trophy and medals companies. He seemed to have everything.

During part of the ’90s, the government of President Carlos Menem, and then-Minister Domingo Cavallo, had a policy for the importation of gold and exports of gold fabrications that amounted to a major subsidy for exporters. Attracted by the incentives, Quique, who had become CEO of his company, became a key player in a scheme whereby exporting overvalued gold-plated products netted them 30 million in subsidies for fake transactions. As it seems that none of the medals were sold at artificial value to true customers, the only victims here ended up being the Argentine tax-payers.

The scheme involved a “business” in the United States. As there is still substantial respect for rule of law in the United States, Quique was indicted, captured, and—after some months in a U.S. jail—extradited to Argentina. In his book, he lists the government officials who he claims knew about the scheme and who received bribes for his fraudulent activities. I will not mention them here. None of them were sentenced to jail.

If it would not be for the fraud in the value of the medals, the entire scheme would be just a case of crony capitalism. Receiving legal export subsidies (or export reimbursements as they are called in Argentina) is not a crime. No one would have ended up in jail. Quique was greedy. By overvaluing medals and overstating the gold content, he would help maximize his profits—but Quique lost his freedom for a while, and his century-old family company is gone forever.

Those of us who, like most writing for Forbes, believe in capitalism, defined as the private ownership of the means of production, are being faced with many similar cases. Increased publicity about economic transactions where profits are the result of being close to power, rather than serving the customer, have led to a surge in articles and complaints about crony capitalism. Making a moral case for capitalism obliges us to distinguish between “good and bad” capitalism.

Think tanks from all over the world that favor free-enterprise are trying to counter the flood of news about private players who use government and corruption to increase their profits. Through books, videos, and conferences, they are trying to portray the good side of capitalism. (I leave for another article a more complete list of groups engaged in this task.) In the United States, a short list of think tanks investing more of their budget on the moral defense of capitalism or free-enterprise should include the American Enterprise Institute and its Values and Capitalism program, the Acton InstituteThe Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and several organizations which are inspired by Ayn Rand’s writings. Talented entrepreneurs such as John Mackey, author of “Passion and Purpose: the Power of Conscious Capitalism” and Steve Forbes, in his “How Capitalism will Save Us” have also entered the debate. The Centre for Independent Studies in Australia, CEDICE in Venezuela, and PAFERE in Poland, are active in other parts of the world. The battle against this privileged form of capitalism is also taking place in social media, with AgainstCronyCapitalism.org and a special Crony CapitalismFacebook site gradually growing in presence.

As the true story I told about Quique shows, there is a fine line between corruption and crony capitalism. Several think tanks are active in exposing corruption, but they have learned that mentioning culprits can lead to more headaches or worse. The Adriatic Institute in Croatia, has been waging a David-versus-Goliath battle and has received multiple threats. Those who have exposed crony capitalism and corruption in Venezuela are currently being sued in the United States for defamation. The billions earned by cronies can buy lawyer power from the left, center, and worse, from leading rightwing legal counsel. Most free-market think tanks therefore prefer to speak about the generalities of corruption and crony capitalism rather than mention the guilty parties. This is seldom effective. I confess that in this column, I am guilty of the same prudence.

Considerable credit should be given to Transparency International for having created the most important effort to measure the perception of corruption, which has been a helpful tool to combat corruption. Having measurements to assess the magnitude of a problem, like monetary inflation, or huge deficits, helps think tanks confront the problem. To win the moral debate about free-enterprise, it would help to develop a comprehensive index of crony capitalism. There is a need to develop measurements about what percentage of profits in the United States and the world economy come from exchanges which result from favoritism, contracts between state-owned companies, corporate welfare (which the Cato Institute measures for the United States), corruption, and “sanitized corruption”—or getting legal favors, cheap loans, and foreign currency at preferential rates. This won’t be easy, but it’s not impossible.



Transparify


Transparify

Transparify provides the first-ever global rating of the financial transparency of major think tanks. In early 2014, we visited the websites of over 150 think tanks in over 40 countries to find out whether they provide information on who funds them and how much they receive from each source. The good news is that there already is momentumtowards greater transparency. In early 2015, we followed up with a second round of ratings of the same think tanks to see whether their transparency has improved. This momentum has held for our 2016 ratings — think tanks around the world are becoming more and more transparent.

Check our publications here, and sign up for regular updates via EmailFacebook or Twitter to get notified when we release our assessment results.

Why this project is important

Think tanks are playing an increasingly important role in public debates and the formulation of public policy worldwide. Think tanks can play a positive role by generating new ideas and producing independent research to inform politicians, media and the public as they wrestle with complex issues and try to decide on how to tackle them. However, there are concerns that some policy advice provided by some think tanks may be driven more by the vested interests of their funders than by truly independent research and analysis.

Transparency builds credibility

Every think tank needs money to operate, and there is nothing wrong with accepting funding from a variety of public and private sources. The problem is hidden funding, no matter from which source.

Today, some think tanks still fail to disclose who funds them. This can create the appearance or actuality of hidden agendas, and undermines the credibility of the think tank community as a whole. Our project assesses how transparent think tanks currently are about their sources of funding, and challenge them to bolster the credibility of their policy advice by publicly disclosing who funds their research.


Download PDF:
Think Tank Funding – An Overview of Current Debates

Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research Organization


We are the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research Organization (STIPRO), formerly ATPS-Tanzania.

The Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research Organization (STIPRO) is an NGO that is conducting independent policy research on science, technology and innovation (STI) in Tanzania with a view to contributing to the resolution of the contemporary, complex and inter-related issues in STI for the purpose of informing STI policies.

Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research Organization

In its inception, the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research Organization (STIPRO) by then ATPS-Tanzania was a chapter of the pan African ATPS; and therefore, its history is traced back to the history of African Technology policy Studies (ATPS) Network. ATPS’s history dates back to early 1980s when IDRC supported Technology Policy Workshop series organized in three African countries.

These workshops were followed by the establishment of two regional networks – one for Eastern African countries (EATPS) where Tanzania was one of the founding members, and the network was coordinated from Tanzania. The other was for the Western African (WTPS) countries.

These networks provided competitive research grants, together with mechanisms to strengthen capacity for research and to link researchers to each other and policy makers in the area of science and technology. The two networks were brought into a single network (ATPS) in 1994 which was located within IDRC as a semi-independent secretariat.

In 2000, ATPS became an independent organization with objectives, among others, to build individual and institutional capacity in the Sub-Saharan African region. As ATPS became independent from IDRC, it advised its national chapters to register as autonomous non-governmental organizations in their own countries.

Consequently, ATPS-Tanzania was registered as an NGO in Tanzania in December 2001. In 2012, it changes its name to STIPRO (Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research Organization) so as to increase the visibility of this policy research organization by including the word “innovation” in the name itself, among other reasons.

Before TTI support in 2009, STIPRO by then ATPS-Tanzania was – for almost 10 years had been operating on ad hoc basis, relying on and-off research projects, which were also very rare and lacked systematic linkage to the policy process..

In terms of size and organizational structure, it had only one full time employee at the level of Administrative Assistant, and totally relying on network of interested researchers from other organizations to carry out research in the field.

With innovative support from TTI in 2009, STIPRO drew its first comprehensive four years strategic plan that included research programs, research capacity building and policy linkage activities, and started engaging researchers on full time basis.

As a result of this organizational innovation, STIPRO is now a well-recognized and valued organization in the Tanzanian National Systems of Science, Technology and Innovation.


Institute of Economic Affairs


The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA Kenya) is a think-tank that provides a platform for informed discussions in order to influence public policy in Kenya. We seek to promote pluralism of ideas through open, active and informed debate on public policy issues. We undertake research and conduct public education on key economic and topical issues in public affairs in Kenya and the region, and utilize the outcomes of the research for policy dialogue and to influence policy making.

Institute of Economic Affairs

Mission
To inform decision-making in Kenya through policy innovation, research, analysis and dialogues.
Vision
A prosperous Kenya that has a well managed economy and that upholds constitutional principles of governance.
Core Values
Our core values drive IEA Kenya’s mission as we strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in our work:

Professional integrity
We discharge our duties diligently and in line with nationally and internationally recognized ethical and professional standards. Further, we uphold honesty, transparency, reliability and consistency in all our decisions and actions.
Innovation
We are committed to continuous learning and improvement in how we do our work. We produce high quality policy and research products and outputs by encouraging and supporting positive critique, new ideas, tools, methods and techniques in policy analysis, research, planning and capacity building.
Initiative
We believe in initiative as value for encouraging and developing leadership in our organization. We encourage staff to learn to work without supervision and for individuals to be the first in identifying an opportunity and taking appropriate action.
Inclusiveness
We are an inclusive organization where differing points of view and experiences are valued as opportunities for mutual learning.

 

Initiative Prospective Agrole et Rurale


RESEARCH
IPAR’s activities are centered around major themes of intervention at the heart of current agricultural issues: demographics, employment and migration, public policy, performance and productivity of family farms, land and the management of natural resources, support for producer organizations.

Initiative Prospective Agrole et Rurale

DEBATES

The Ipar organizes regular thematic debates and publishes policy briefs and summaries.

TRAINING

Training, conferences and refunds work permit to encourage exchanges between officials of producer organizations, policy makers, development partners, journalists and civil society.


 

Economic Policy Research Centre


 The Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) is Uganda’s leading think tank in economics and development policy oriented research and policy analysis.

The Economic Policy Research Centre was established in 1993 as an autonomous not-for-profit organization limited by guarantee to fill fundamental voids in economics research, policy analysis, and capacity building for effective in-country contributions to Uganda’s policy processes.

Today EPRC is a reputable, credible and independent policy think tank in Uganda renowned for providing research based evidence and policy analysis to support the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of government policies.

Economic Policy Research Centre

Our Mission
To foster sustainable growth and development of the Ugandan economy by advancing the role of research in policy processes. We do this through provision of high quality applied research, practical policy analysis and advice, and policy focused dissemination and discourse. We also undertake capacity building activities through intellectual and scholar exchange, networking with accredited national and international institutions and scholars and hands on skills sharpening for young professionals, technocrats and policy makers.

Our Vision
The EPRC envisions itself as a centre of excellence providing national leadership in intellectual economic policy discourse, through timely research-based contribution to policy processes.

Core Values

Everyone Matters

Professional excellence through quality assurance

Integrity, accountability and transparency

Independence and confidentiality in conduct of research

Efficiency everywhere

Constructive engagement


 

Economic and Social Research Foundation


Introduction

The Economic and Social Research Foundation was established in 1994 as an independent, not-for-profit institution for research and policy analysis.

The formation of ESRF was based on the assumption that there was need and demand for an improved understanding of policy options and development management issues, and that the capacity for this was lacking in the Tanzania civil service.

ESRF addressed this gap by putting into place qualified Professional Staff, modest resources and a favourable research environment for the analysis and discussion of economic and social policy.

The primary objectives of the Foundation are to strengthen capabilities in policy analysis and development management and to enhance the understanding of policy options in the government, the public sector, civil society, and the donor community and the growing private sector.

Economic and Social Research Foundation

Download ESRF Strategic Plan for the period 2016 – 2020

Download ESRF Strategic Plan for the period 2012 – 2015


African Heritage Institution


The African Heritage Institution (AfriHeritage) formerly known as African Institute for Applied Economics (AIAE) was incorporated as a Company Limited by Guarantee in Nigeria in 2000.

African Heritage Institution

It is not-for-profit, non-partisan and independent organization devoted to economic research, capacity building and networking with its corporate headquarters located in Enugu, South Eastern part of Nigeria.Our VISION is a Renascent Africa that is democratic, prosperous and a major player in the global economy. Our MISSION is to provide intellectual leadership in helping Nigeria and Africa think through the emerging economic renaissance.

WHAT WE DO

 The Institution’s approach to achieving its vision include responsive and proactive research, facilitation of evidenced based policy debate, convening stakeholder dialogue on topical issues.

Strategic Approaches

Responsive and Proactive Research, Collaboration with Nigerian and African think-tanks, Facilitating Evidence-based Policy Debate, Convening Stakeholder Dialogue on topical issues, Regional and International Networking.

Activities and Outputs

Research in Applied Economics, Economic Modeling and Analysis, Data Production and Management, Dissemination and Communication, Training and Capacity Building, Facilitation of Policy Dialogue.

Governance

The Board of Director is headed by the chairman, Professor Chukwuma Soludo while the Management is headed by the Executive Director, Prof. Ufo Okeke-Uzodike.


 

Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment


Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) is an independent public policy research and advocacy think tank based in Uganda and working in East and Southern African. ACODE was first registered in 1999 as a Non-governmental organization (NGO). In 2004, the organization was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee and without having a share capital. ACODE is one of the most dynamic and robust regional leaders in cutting-edge public policy research and analysis in a range of areas including governance, trade, environment, and science and technology. ACODE has, for the last four consecutive years, been ranked in the Global Go To Think Tank Index as one of the best think tanks in Uganda and one of the top think tanks in the world. Think Tanks in Africa continue to play a major role in policy development and implementation. The Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) has been ranked 23 out of 92 Top Think Tanks in Sub-Saharan Africa and 29 out of 90 globally with Best Advocacy Campaign in the 2015 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report (TTI), led by the University of Pennsylvania through its Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP).

Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment

ACODE is non-partisan and independent and therefore does not align with any political party or political organisation. However, given the direct relationship between development policy and politics, we believe that our work is political and it must stand for certain political causes of a bi-partisan nature. Such causes are legitimate issues of research interest so long as they are defined on the basis of constitutionalism, the rule of law as well as national and regional interests as expressed in the relevant treaties, strategy documents and declarations. ACODE’s work is based on three broad programmes areas: Environmental DemocracyPeace and Democracy, and Innovation and Biotechnology Policy. Our core business is to undertake advocacy-driven public policy research and analysis on contemporary and emerging public policy and governance issues that have a significant impact on national development.


 

Observer Research Foundation 


The Beginning

ORF began its journey in 1990 at the juncture of ideation tempered by pragmatism. During the period of India’s transition to a new engagement with the international economic order, several challenges emerged, evoking a need for an independent forum that could critically examine the problems facing the country and help develop coherent policy responses. ORF was thus formed, and brought together, for the first time, leading Indian economists and policymakers to present the agenda for India’s economic reforms.

Observer Research Foundation

What We Are Today

Propelled by the process of reforms initiated in the 1990s, ORF, over the past 25 years of its existence, has effectively narrated and participated in India’s story as the country has acquired an unmistakable global footprint. From primarily looking inward and engaging with domestic reforms, to gradually forging global partnerships, ORF today plays a seminal role in building political and policy consensus that enables India to interact with the world.

As new powers re-emerge onto the global stage, existing systems face challenges of agreeing on a new set of rules to control and regulate the new frontiers of space, the oceans, the internet and the human mind. The world continues, also, to navigate persisting concerns related to security and strategy, economy and development, energy and resources. As India begins to play a larger role in the 21st century, ORF continues to push normative boundaries, bring new ideas into the policy discourse and provide a platform to a new generation of thinkers. It is supported in its mission by leading intellectuals, academicians, policymakers, business leaders, institutions and civil society actors.

ORF’s aim is to encourage voices from all quarters, geographies and gender, both those that fallin and those that question dominant narratives. It is this plurality of thought and voice – in a country of over a billion individuals – that ORF seeks to carry abroad, while simultaneously bringing contemporary global debates to India.

The Mandate

ORF seeks to lead and aid policy thinking towards building a strong and prosperous India in a fair and equitable world. It sees India as a country poised to play a leading role in the knowledge age – a role in which it shall be increasingly called upon to proactively ideate in order to shape global conversations, even as it sets course along its own trajectory of long-term sustainable growth.

ORF helps discover and inform India’s choices. It carries Indian voices and ideas to forums shaping global debates. It provides non-partisan, independent, well-researched analyses and inputs to diverse decision-makers in governments, business communities, and academia and to civil society around the world.

Our mandate is to conduct in-depth research, provide inclusive platforms and invest in tomorrow’s thought leaders today.

stories from: Skin | Colour | Race | Caste – Made in India

%d bloggers like this: