How is the think tank tempered?

In 200 1 year, Marshall Burton became the chairman of the Chicago global affairs Committee. This is a think tank that studies foreign policy, but it is not in DC. After Bouton took office, the Chicago Global Affairs Committee was gradually marginalized. They have a traditional project, a global policy poll every two years, but fewer and fewer people pay attention to it. After careful consideration, Burton decided to fight a turnaround. He didn't want to retreat, but wanted to attack. He wants the Chicago Council on Global Affairs to become a national think tank, not a regional one. This requires bold and careful planning. Bouton's strategy is to choose research topics that are related to regional interests and have national influence: for example, food policy, because Chicago is the granary of the central United States; Another example is the Muslim immigration policy. In the midwest where Chicago is located, the proportion of Muslim immigrants has risen sharply. After repositioning, the Chicago Global Affairs Committee quickly became a dead tree. In five years, their funds increased from $4.8 million to $7.3 million, their members increased by 49%, and the number of guests attending their annual meeting increased by 50%.

Think tanks also need strategies. For a think tank, the first task is to determine its own position. You can either find a field that others have not found, or find an angle that others have not found. As Weican Jin and Renee Mobney, supporters of the Blue Ocean Strategy, said, the best way to stand out from the competition is to avoid it. Think tanks, like enterprises, should also find their own "niche". Various think tanks, such as the Eight Immortals Crossing the Sea, have their own magical powers. Relying on the strong support of the military, RAND Institute can devote itself to in-depth technical research. The Heritage Foundation clearly flaunts itself as a "conservative" think tank, attracting countless die-hard supporters. The Institute of Immigration Policy (MPI) insists on "boiling a pot of water" and only focuses on immigration-related policy research. Carnegie Institute for International Peace is not content to be an American think tank. They want to build their influence around the world and act as a bridge between domestic politics and international politics. The Pew Research Center is even more unique. What they did was to conduct a public opinion survey. They only put facts and are unreasonable. They call themselves "fact tanks". Former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson set up a think tank to study foreign investment after leaving office. His ambition is to build a tank.

Think tanks are called "brokers of ideas", and their main purpose is to influence decision-making. There are many people doing research, but most of them are in colleges and universities. The research of colleges and universities is to further advance the frontier of science, and the research of think tanks follows the ear-picking. Do think tank research, you don't need too high IQ, but you need a generalist. You should be able to do research, know how to use theory and data to get credible analysis, and also express complex ideas in simple and popular language, so that leaders and ordinary people can understand them. You should not only figure out what it is, but also figure out what to do and what a brilliant plan you have. We should not only put forward "on the one hand" and "on the other hand", but also dare to judge under different scenarios: will bird flu break out on a large scale? Will the European Debt Crisis Spread to China? Will oil prices go up or down? This is simply an "impossible task". Many scholars can do profound knowledge, but they can't write policy reports. One reason is the so-called "curse of knowledge": he knows too much, and he doesn't know which points to highlight and which details to ignore. The language used by officials and scholars is not a system, and experienced policy researchers must learn to jump between two different language systems.

For think tanks, in order to influence policy decisions, it is generally in three stages: proposing issues, looking for different policy plans, and pushing the proposal through. Most research think tanks will focus on the first stage. For example, during the Korean War, the RAND think tank only told the US government that China would send troops to North Korea. As for how to make a decision, it is the government's own business. Most think tanks will also serve the second stage, that is, come up with different policy options for decision makers to choose from. Some think tanks that are particularly close to the government will be keen to play a role in the third stage. For example, during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established in the United States, no one knew what this new department should do. The Heritage Foundation immediately took action, wrote reports, held seminars and lobbied everywhere, which had a far-reaching impact on the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.

It is impossible for a think tank to exert great influence just by following the government's ass step by step. The government has not prepared for many long-term problems, and it is even more impossible to assign specific research tasks to think tanks. First-class think tanks will spend more time and energy on studying forward-looking issues, prepare policy suggestions in advance, get to the front early, move a small bench and wait where the government will pass by. According to the Brookings Foundation, their scholars will spend about 60% of their time on long-term strategic research and 40% on emergency projects. Another problem you will encounter is that no one knows what will happen in the future, so strategic and forward-looking research will inevitably fail. This is an "intellectual venture capital". A dynamic think tank will be more tolerant of failed research.

Think tanks should not only face the government, but also influence the public. Think tanks are different from universities. They don't take publishing papers in academic journals as their assessment criteria. They encourage their researchers to write in newspapers, go on TV, participate in various public forums and make their own voices heard. Think tanks such as the Brookings Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations encourage domestic scholars to write books, not obscure academic monographs, but popular books that can tell the ins and outs of a policy in popular language. In the Internet age, think tanks have also learned to use various social media to promote their views. Compared with traditional media, social media has lower cost, wider spread and can form interaction. Of course, the Internet will also greatly lower the threshold for everyone to express their opinions, which is already the heart of Si Mazhao. The ability to distinguish one's own views from those of netizens ultimately depends on the credibility of think tanks, which ultimately comes from solid research.

Generally speaking, the size of think tanks is not large. Of course, there are also very big ones. For example, the annual budget of the Brookings Foundation is about $80 million or more. Some think tanks are surprisingly small. Bruegel University in Brussels has performed outstandingly in the past two years, surpassing the Peterson Institute for International Economics and ranking first in the global economic policy think tank. Bruegel has only 10 researchers, including part-time staff. Most small-scale think tanks have to learn to flexibly use visiting scholars, visiting researchers and other mechanisms to build themselves into a platform for academic exchanges. The competitiveness of think tanks lies not in one or two first-class scholars, but in a team full of fighting capacity. Small and capable think tanks are also competitive, because they train administrative logistics personnel like the backbone of scientific research, have standardized and streamlined work plans and have various scientific research management innovations. Many unsung heroes behind these researchers are undiscovered talents. The head of media liaison in Brugell used to be an experienced war correspondent.

What is more troublesome than doing research is raising money. The sources of funds for think tanks are, on the one hand, the support of foundations, on the other hand, large and small donations, and of course, project funds and donations from companies and individuals. Think tanks with distinctive ideological colors are more likely to raise donations, such as the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, which mainly rely on donations. Their donations are very large, just like collecting party dues. Politically neutral think tanks mainly rely on the support of foundations and projects. Why is financing difficult? It's not difficult to ask for money. It's difficult to convince more people that your career is their career, and what you want to do is what they want to do. Fundraising is not just about raising money, but gathering like-minded forces. An excellent think tank must have a soul and appeal. Without this soul, the think tank will be lifeless.

Therefore, the strategy of think tanks is not learned. The strategy of the think tank is engraved in its DNA, and every move and smile reflects its strategy.

Author's Note This article is based on Andrew Selee. What should think tanks do? Guide to Policy Impact Strategy, Stanford University Press, 20 13. The writer is a senior consultant of the Mexican Institute of Wilson Center. His book is mainly about American think tanks, but less about think tanks in other countries, especially in developing countries. The construction of think tanks in China is very different from that in western countries. This article is for reference and criticism only.