A thing we wrestle with at think tanks is what is our impact
Karin von Hippel
Read the transcript:
Think tanks can play an important role in prompting debate and providing a forum to convene a variety of actors, and in particular think tanks that do not have a particular agenda or focus.
A think tank like RUSI –and there are many other think tanks like RUSI- that are politically non-aligned, that do not come to the table with a point of view but really are focused on evidence-based data-driven research and sharing those findings in the most accessible way possible to try to, sometimes, influence policy, but other times just prompt a debate, sometimes involve the public in a discussion about what’s going on –like currently with Ukraine.
Other times, think tanks can play a role behind the scenes, doing quiet conversations with a variety of actors. So, there are a number of roles think tanks can play but I think we need to be careful not to overestimate their value and their worth, and what they can do. Sometimes people say, ‘what impact are you having?’ and ‘what kind of difference are you making?’. I think we need to be careful not to assume that we’re going to change things in a significant way.
We exist to provide the time to focus on big issues, to focus in depth on big issues and offer a range of recommendations.
If you’re working in government you’re often really focused on the day-to-day demands of the job- you don’t have time to think about what’s going to happen in the next year or two, what are the trends, how can we better prepare for those trends. Think tanks really do offer that service in the best circumstances.
On RUSI’s relationships to government
RUSI in the UK is funded by a range of actors, public and private, governments and non-governmental actors. We do not get a subvention from the British government, some think tanks in some countries do get a majority of their funds from the government. Our preference is not to do that because that way we lose our independence. So we say at RUSI we are a friend of the government but we’re a critical friend of the government and we’re not afraid to speak truth to power. It sounds cliché, but we’re not afraid to do that. And I think my colleagues have done that recently on a number of occasions, whether it’s about the British defense strategy, or the approach to Ukraine, or a number of other issues.
Engaging with think tanks
I’ve gone back and forth between governments, or the United Nations, or the EU and think tanks, and I’ve always tried, in each place, to bring my learning from the previous place but recognising limitations. When I worked in the government I tried to engage with think tanks to understand what researchers are doing. Researchers at think tanks, universities and elsewhere often just speak to different people than the people in the government do.
You learn many things from think tanks if you’re in government if you’re open to it, but not everybody’s open to it. I had colleagues at the State Department who said: ‘Why bother with think tanks? We have intelligence. We know everything’, which of course isn’t the case. Likewise, when I was at a think tank I tried to make recommendations that I thought were practical and doable, knowing how difficult it is to make change sometimes in government.
Having worked in government, having worked for the United Nations, the European Union and others you realise how hard it is to change things in a bureaucracy and the ways that you can do it that make sense. I always try to make recommendations that I think are practicable- that are implementable. I try to make practical recommendations that would make sense if you were in government and you say: ‘Oh yeah, okay, we may need to think about it that way’. But recognising limitations.
Sometimes you can work in a think tank, and make a recommendation and then it gets into a government, and then it’s so watered down that actually, even if it was a good idea, the way they’re implementing it isn’t going to work because of all sorts of micro-motives, all sorts of turf wars.
When I was at CSIS in Washington, right before I joined, CSIS was involved in a project at the start of the Iraq war about ‘should the government get better at nation building’. And they just said: ‘Yes, we need a government department in the State Department that can help rebuild other countries after the war’. Discounting the fact that’s actually a bad idea- it’s never a good idea for external people to go and build other countries - the recommendation was adopted after this panel at CSIS said: ‘Okay, they need some sort of body’. State Department adopted this, it was called ‘The Office for Stabilisation Reconstruction’ and instead of working on Iraq and Afghanistan at the time they were pushed out of those areas because the people in charge of the State Department didn’t want a new office that they didn’t think knew what they were doing. So, they just sort of shoved them to the side and they ended up working on marginal issues, and it took many years for that office to even get some power again.
So here’s an idea that came from a think tank, that was adopted by government and then it didn’t have any teeth once it was inside. Once that happens it’s often out of your control if you’re at the think tank coming up with the idea. It’s a thing we wrestle with at think tanks, what is our impact, how do you demonstrate impact, how do you demonstrate that an idea that you came up with, that was debated around town, part of it may have been implemented, had anything to do with you. It may not have or it may have, it’s really hard to demonstrate that. And we have those conversations all the time with potential funders and with people that we meet with.
On building experience in government
It’s really important if you want to work on research that impacts governments to be able to spend some time in government. In the United Kingdom there is less of a practice of going back and forth than in the United States. Typically, people in think tanks go back and forth between think tanks and government. In the UK it’s actually changing and it’s increasing much more. We’ve had a number of colleagues, younger and older, who have had secondments for a year or two and then they come back- or sometimes they don’t come back.
I think it’s very important because you do need that practical experience. Then you’re not going to run around and say, ‘We need to end poverty’. You’re going to be quite practical about the recommendations and try to make those changes.
I was in the Obama administration for almost six years and I was a technical expert but I was still sort of a political appointee. I remember people telling me when I started, ‘If you want to get something done, don’t try to do too much. Focus on just one or two things and then work really hard on getting those things done’. If you come into government and say, ‘I’m going to solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute’, you’re never going to achieve that. If you go in and you say, ‘I want to work on protecting civilians in conflict and peacekeeping missions and I’m going to work on it in this way’, you have a much better chance of making a difference.
Strengthening the relationship
If you’re on the think tank side you have to make sure your work is backed up and that you’re transparent about what you do and where your sources come from. We are very transparent about our funding. We’re very careful when we get a funder that that funder knows that they can’t change the conclusions of our research. They may not like what we come up with and then, sometimes, that’s the last time someone funds you.
There’s a duty on the think tank side to make sure that they are transparent, that they’re following the rules, that they remain independent –if they’re an independent think tank.
On the government side, it’s being open to being challenged. You don’t need to do what someone’s recommending but certainly be open to it and engage in conversations. Our best experiences are when we go back and forth with governments. We say: ‘This is what we’re doing, we’ll share the results halfway through and get your feedback,’ and incorporate some and have an iterative conversation with government officials.
In countries like the UK, smaller countries versus the United States, there is more opportunity to engage with government officials. I’ve been very impressed in the UK how often and on how many levels we are able to engage with government actors. Whether they’re desk officers or the Chief of the Defense staff, we have a lot more opportunity to engage than I ever did in the United States when I worked at CSIS. This includes MPs and others. They’re open to it, and they like having that opportunity to speak because it gives them a chance to publish a speech or test some of their ideas.
Different people come at it from different ways in government. Some of them are sincere about engaging and some of them aren’t. But you don’t always know. I think generally we have very strong relationships with government but I think we work very hard to make sure that we’re, as I said earlier, a critical friend, we’re not going to promote everything that they do. There are some think tanks that are aligned to political parties and then they play a different role than independent ones likes us do.
Watch next:
Think tanks and parliament, Dapo Oyewole
