From the margins of politics: The influence of think-tanks in Britain

West European Politics

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 675-692

  Stone, Diane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040299641     PISSN: 01402382     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01402389608425160     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. For example, see the definitions and models employed by D. Stone, 'Old Guard versus New Partisans: Think-Tanks in Transition', Australian Jnl of Political Science 26/2 (1991) pp. 197-215; Simon James, 'The Idea Brokers: The Impact of Think-Tanks on British Government', Public Administration 71 (Winter 1993) pp.491-506; and Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett, 'Rethinking "Think Tanks": A British Perspective', in J. Lovenduski and J. Stanyer (eds) Contemporary Political Studies 1995 (Belfast: Political Studies Assoc. 1995) Vol.1.
2. For example, see the definitions and models employed by D. Stone, 'Old Guard versus New Partisans: Think-Tanks in Transition', Australian Jnl of Political Science 26/2 (1991) pp. 197-215; Simon James, 'The Idea Brokers: The Impact of Think-Tanks on British Government', Public Administration 71 (Winter 1993) pp.491-506; and Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett, 'Rethinking "Think Tanks": A British Perspective', in J. Lovenduski and J. Stanyer (eds) Contemporary Political Studies 1995 (Belfast: Political Studies Assoc. 1995) Vol.1.
3. For example, see the definitions and models employed by D. Stone, 'Old Guard versus New Partisans: Think-Tanks in Transition', Australian Jnl of Political Science 26/2 (1991) pp. 197-215; Simon James, 'The Idea Brokers: The Impact of Think-Tanks on British Government', Public Administration 71 (Winter 1993) pp.491-506; and Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett, 'Rethinking "Think Tanks": A British Perspective', in J. Lovenduski and J. Stanyer (eds) Contemporary Political Studies 1995 (Belfast: Political Studies Assoc. 1995) Vol.1.
4. 'Think-tank' was first employed as a nickname in the 1940s for the brain - 'brain box' - but acquired new meaning in the 1960s when it became a description for the RAND Corporation based in the USA. See Paul Dickson, Think Tanks (NY: Atheneum 1971).
5. The Central Policy Review Staff was a central government policy research and co-ordination body attached to the British Cabinet between 1974 and 1989 which drew its personnel from both the civil service and from outside government. See T. Blackstone and W. Plowden, Inside the Think Tank: Advising the Cabinet 1971-1983 (London: Heinemann 1988).
6. But see Wyn Grant, Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf 1995) . Grant considers think-tanks to be pressure groups as they seek to shape the intellectual climate of debate which in turn influences the policy agenda. Conversely, Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett, 'The Nature and Impact of "think-tanks" in Contemporary Britain', Contemporary British History 10/1 (Spring 1996) suggest that think-tanks 'operate across a broad range of policy areas, whereas pressure groups tend to focus on issues that relate to one in particular'. They argue that not only the similarities between think-tanks and pressure groups, but also the relationships between them, is an overlooked area in studies of pressure groups.
7. But see Wyn Grant, Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf 1995) . Grant considers think-tanks to be pressure groups as they seek to shape the intellectual climate of debate which in turn influences the policy agenda. Conversely, Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett, 'The Nature and Impact of "think-tanks" in Contemporary Britain', Contemporary British History 10/1 (Spring 1996) suggest that think-tanks 'operate across a broad range of policy areas, whereas pressure groups tend to focus on issues that relate to one in particular'. They argue that not only the similarities between think-tanks and pressure groups, but also the relationships between them, is an overlooked area in studies of pressure groups.
8. For a discussion of American think-tanks see James Smith, The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite (NY: Free Press 1991).
9. There is, however, a dearth of analysis concerning think-tank organisations in Europe. But see Winand Gellner, Ideenagenturren fur Politik und Offentlichkeit: Think Tanks in den USA und in Deutschland (Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag 1995) and Kevin F. Quigley, 'Think-Tanks in Newly Democratic Eastern Europe', in Jeffrey Telgarsky and Makiko Ueno (eds) Think Tanks in a Democratic Society: An Alternative Voice (Washington DC: Urban Inst. 1996).
10. There is, however, a dearth of analysis concerning think-tank organisations in Europe. But see Winand Gellner, Ideenagenturren fur Politik und Offentlichkeit: Think Tanks in den USA und in Deutschland (Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag 1995) and Kevin F. Quigley, 'Think-Tanks in Newly Democratic Eastern Europe', in Jeffrey Telgarsky and Makiko Ueno (eds) Think Tanks in a Democratic Society: An Alternative Voice (Washington DC: Urban Inst. 1996).
11. These five think-tanks are the Fabians, the Round Table (1909), the Royal Institute of International Affairs (1920), Political and Economic Planning (1931, merged with the Centre for Studies in Social Policy to form the Policy Studies Institute in 1972) and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (1938).
12. J. Pinder (ed.) Fifty Years of Political and Economic Planning: Looking Forward 1931-1981 (London: Heinemann 1981); Kit Jones, 'Fifty Years of Economic Research: A Brief History of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research 1938-88', National Institute Economic Review (May 1988) pp.36-59.
13. J. Pinder (ed.) Fifty Years of Political and Economic Planning: Looking Forward 1931-1981 (London: Heinemann 1981); Kit Jones, 'Fifty Years of Economic Research: A Brief History of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research 1938-88', National Institute Economic Review (May 1988) pp.36-59.
14. R. Cockett, Thinking the Unthinkable: Think-Tanks and the Economic Counter-Revolution, 1931-1983 (London: HarperCollins 1994) p.134. See also A. Seldon, 'Economic Scholarship and Political Interest: IEA Thinking and Government Policies', in A. Gamble et al., Ideas, Interests and Consequences (London: IEA 1989).
15. R. Cockett, Thinking the Unthinkable: Think-Tanks and the Economic Counter-Revolution, 1931-1983 (London: HarperCollins 1994) p.134. See also A. Seldon, 'Economic Scholarship and Political Interest: IEA Thinking and Government Policies', in A. Gamble et al., Ideas, Interests and Consequences (London: IEA 1989).
16. See R. Higgott and D. Stone, 'The Limits of Influence: Foreign Policy Think-Tanks in Great Britain and the USA', Review of Int. Studies 20/1 (1994) pp.15-34; William Wallace, 'Between Two Worlds: Think-Tanks and Foreign Policy', in C. Hill and P. Beshoff (eds) Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners and the Trade in Ideas (London: Routledge and LSE 1994); and N. Bosco and C. Navari (eds) Chatham House and British Foreign Policy (London: Lothian Foundation Press 1994).
17. See R. Higgott and D. Stone, 'The Limits of Influence: Foreign Policy Think-Tanks in Great Britain and the USA', Review of Int. Studies 20/1 (1994) pp.15-34; William Wallace, 'Between Two Worlds: Think-Tanks and Foreign Policy', in C. Hill and P. Beshoff (eds) Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners and the Trade in Ideas (London: Routledge and LSE 1994); and N. Bosco and C. Navari (eds) Chatham House and British Foreign Policy (London: Lothian Foundation Press 1994).
18. See R. Higgott and D. Stone, 'The Limits of Influence: Foreign Policy Think-Tanks in Great Britain and the USA', Review of Int. Studies 20/1 (1994) pp.15-34; William Wallace, 'Between Two Worlds: Think-Tanks and Foreign Policy', in C. Hill and P. Beshoff (eds) Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners and the Trade in Ideas (London: Routledge and LSE 1994); and N. Bosco and C. Navari (eds) Chatham House and British Foreign Policy (London: Lothian Foundation Press 1994).
19. See Alan J. Day, Think Tanks: An International Directory (Harlow, Essex: Longman Group 1993).
20. The research agendas and policy activism of the New-Right think-tanks in Britain has been well canvassed. See e.g. John Gaffney, 'Political Think-Tanks in the UK and Ministerial "Cabinets" in France', West European Politics 14/1 (Jan. 1991); Cockett, (note 9).
21. Sunday Times (21 Aug. 1994) p.3, sect.4.
22. See Yehezkel Dror, 'Think-tanks: A new invention in government', in C. H. Weiss and A. H. Barton (eds), Making Bureaucracies Work (Beverley Hills: Sage 1980) p. 146.
23. James (note 1). Additionally, incorporating external sources of advice and analysis may entail increased expenditure on monitoring, evaluation and coordination. See Jonathon Boston, 'Purchasing Policy Advice: The Limits to Contracting Out', Governance 7/1 (1994) p.24.
24. Martin Bulmer, 'Social Science Expertise and Executive-Bureaucratic Politics in Britain', Governance 1/1 (1988) pp.28-30.
25. For a discussion of the permeability of the American political system to external appointments see Donald Abelson, 'From Policy Research to Political Advocacy: The Changing Role of Think-Tanks in American Politics', Canadian Review of American Studies 25/1 (1995) pp.107-9.
26. Richard Norton-Taylor, 'Ministers abusing Whitehall neutrality', The Guardian, 10 Oct. 1995) p.5.
27. 'The Carousels of Power', The Economist, 25 May 1991, p.24; 'Brains without power', Financial Times, 22 Sept. 1993. Notwithstanding these views, John Major and his colleagues maintain lower profile links with the ASI, the CPS, IEA and Bow Group. Furthermore, assumptions about the declining influence of think-tanks have been based on the New Right think-tanks, neglecting to address the ground that has been gained by new think-tanks such as Demos, the SMF, the European Policy Forum and IPPR.
28. 'The Carousels of Power', The Economist, 25 May 1991, p.24; 'Brains without power', Financial Times, 22 Sept. 1993. Notwithstanding these views, John Major and his colleagues maintain lower profile links with the ASI, the CPS, IEA and Bow Group. Furthermore, assumptions about the declining influence of think-tanks have been based on the New Right think-tanks, neglecting to address the ground that has been gained by new think-tanks such as Demos, the SMF, the European Policy Forum and IPPR.
29. With regard to monetarism, the think-tanks acted in conjunction with leading financial journalists such as Samuel Brittan and Peter Jay, and other political advisers who managed to convince leading figures within the Conservative Party of its utility, and build the popular appeal of the theory, that lead to policy experimentation. See Mark Wickham-Jones, 'Monetarism and Its Critics: The University Economists' Protest of 1981', Political Quarterly 63/2 (1992) pp.171-85.
30. Denham and Garnett (note 4) p.327.
31. Nelson Polsby, Political Innovation in America: The Politics of Policy Initiation (New Haven, CT: Yale UP 1984) pp.171-2.
32. Gaffney (note 12) p.11.
33. See Graham Ward, 'Reforming the Public Sector: Privatisation and the Role of Advisors', Political Quarterly, 64/3 (1993) pp.298-305; and D. Stone, 'Think-Tanks and the Privatisation Policy Bandwagon', in Lovenduski and Stanyer (note 1) Vol.1, pp.332-44.
34. See Graham Ward, 'Reforming the Public Sector: Privatisation and the Role of Advisors', Political Quarterly, 64/3 (1993) pp.298-305; and D. Stone, 'Think-Tanks and the Privatisation Policy Bandwagon', in Lovenduski and Stanyer (note 1) Vol.1, pp.332-44.
35. See e.g. J.A. Kay and D.J. Thompson, 'Privatisation: A Policy in Search of a Rationale', Economic Jnl 96 (March 1986) pp.18-32.
36. Colin Campbell and Graham K. Wilson The End of Whitehall: Death of a Paradigm (Oxford: Blackwell 1995) pp.50-1, 67-8.
37. Perri 6, 'Restricting the Freedom of Speech of Charities: Do the Rationales Stand Up?' The Future of Charities and the Voluntary Sector, Working Paper 6 (London: Demos, n.d.).
38. Institute for Public Policy Research, Annual Report (London: IPPR 1994).
39. Independent On Sunday, 23 July 1995, p.9.
40. Stephen Castle, 'Britain's New Right', The Independent on Sunday, 18 June 1995, p.19.
41. T. Hames and R. Feasey, 'Anglo-American think tanks under Reagan and Thatcher', in A. Adonis and T. Hames (eds) A Conservative Revolution? The Thatcher-Reagan Decade In Perspective (Manchester UP 1994) p.234.
42. Catherine Pepinster, 'Fabian uproar as research chief says: bring back selection in schools', Independent on Sunday, 3 Sept. 1995, p.3.
43. It has, for example, been recognised in the USA that not only do think-tanks benefit from media exposure but that there is a reciprocal relationship whereby think-tankers assist journalists in their tasks by providing acute observations and quotable sound-bites. Statements from think tank scholars provide credibility to reporting and the appearance that journalists have sought independent and unbiased views.See J. Boal, 'Great Thinkers Get the Word Out', American Way, 5 March 1985.
44. Adam Smith Institute, The First Hundred: 'Ideas Have Consequence (London: ASI 1990) p.1.
45. But see Denham and Garnett (note 4) for a critique of ASI claims of parentage for the poll tax idea.
46. Nevertheless, it is recognised in some think-tank circles that think-tanks are 'small players' in politics. See James Cornford, 'Performing Fleas: Reflections from a Think-Tank', Policy Studies 11/4 (1990) pp.22-30.
47. Report of the Commission on Social Justice, Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal (London: Vintage 1994).
48. F. McGlone and Natalie Cronin, A Crisis in Care (London: Family Policy Studies Centre and Centre for Policy on Aging 1994).
49. James (note 4) p.498.
50. Sometimes described as a pressure group, the Low Pay Unit was established in 1974 as a response to growing concern about the problems of the working poor, that is, low pay, poverty and inequality, both in the UK and in Europe. The wealthier Centre for Global Energy Studies was founded in 1990 to conduct research into global energy issues and encourage a greater degree of international energy co-operation in the interests of achieving a better world energy order.
51. Denham and Garnett (note 4) argue that the record of these think tanks is disappointing.
52. Colin Seymour-Ure, 'Institutionalization and Informality in Advisory systems', in W. Plowden (ed.) Advising the Rulers (Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1987) p.177.
53. Campbell and Wilson (note 26) p.68.
54. Rhadika Desai, 'Second Hand Dealers in Ideas: Think-Tanks and Thatcherite Hegemony' New Left Review, Vol.203 (1994).
55. J.A. Kay, 'Research and Policy: The IFS Experience', Policy Studies 9/3 (1989) pp.20-6; James (note 1) p.500.
56. A policy community is composed of pressure group activists and government officials, as well as ministers, parliamentarians, consultants and journalists bound together by a common interest in a particular policy field such as health or telecommunications. These actors are a loose coalition that controls a policy sector and have a shared commitment to certain policies, programmes and ways of doing things. See Martin Smith, Pressure, Power and Policy: State Autonomy and Policy Networks in Britain and the United States (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf 1993).
57. David Coleman, 'Policy Research - Who Needs It?', Governance 4/4 (1991) p.441.
58. For a history of the CPS see Michael Todd, 'The Centre for Policy Studies: Its Birth and Early Days', Essex Papers in Politics and Government, No.81 (Dept of Government, U. of Essex 1991).
59. Willetts is now associated with the Social Market Foundation. Prior to founding the EPF, Mather was Director of the IEA.
60. Blair is believed to have built an inner circle of advisers organised by Peter Mandelson which includes, amongst others, Patricia Hewitt - former Director of IPPR - and Geoff Mulgan, Director of Demos. Financial Times, 11 Aug. 1995, p.6.
61. Abelson, (note 17).
62. On the CEPR see Richard Portes, 'The Centre for Economic Policy Research: A "Think Net" Model', in Jeffrey Telgarsky and Makiko Ueno (eds) Think-Tanks in a Democratic Society: An Alternative Voice (Washington DC: Urban Inst. 1996).
63. Jones (note 8); and Kay (note 45).
64. Media attention is usually welcomed by think tank executives. However, such attention can be double-edged when think-tanks are lampooned by journalists. See Catherine Bennett, 'A think tank to the think the unthinkable', Guardian, 20 Feb. 1996, p.13.
65. Established in 1980, IEDSS is a conservative institute. Its immediate past Director, Gerald Frost, was until late 1995 the Director of CPS. The Research Institute for the Study of Conflict and Terrorism has similar interests.
66. For example, since 1993 the Foundation for Manufacturing and Industry, has conducted research and analysis that is useful to various sectors of British industry, just as the Centre for Global Energy Studies provides information of value to those sectors of society and government interested in energy issues.
67. For the US version of this argument see David Ricci, The Transformation of American Politics: The New Washington and the Rise of American Politics (New Haven, CT: Yale UP 1993).
68. F. Fischer, 'Policy Discourse and the Politics of Washington Think-Tanks', in idem and J. Forester (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (London: UCL Press 1993) p.33.