Donald E. Abelson

Do think tanks matter? : assessing the impact of public policy institutes

Do Think Tanks Matter? evaluates the influence and relevance of public policy institutes in todays political arena. Many journalists and scholars believe the explosion of think tanks in the latter part of the twentieth century indicates their growing importance in the policy-making process. This perception has been reinforced by directors of think tanks, who often credit their institutes with influencing major policy debates and government legislation. Yet the basic question of how and in what way they influence public policy has, Donald Abelson contends, frequently been ignored. Abelson studies the experiences of think tanks in the United States, where they have become an integral feature of the political landscape, and in Canada, where their numbers have grown considerably in recent years but where, compared to their U.S. counterparts, they enjoy less prominence in policy-making. By focusing on the policy cycle, issue articulation (that is, getting issues on the political agenda) and policy formation and implementation (actually affecting the outcome of policies already on the political agenda), he argues that think tanks have sometimes played an important role in shaping the political dialogue and the policy preferences and choices of decision-makers, but often in different ways and at different stages of the policy cycle.

From Policy Research to Political Advocacy: The Changing Role of Think Tanks in American Politics

Introduction The relationship between political leaders and those who advise them is critically important to the study of governmental decision making. By providing their expertise to members of Congress, the Executive and the bureaucracy, policy advisors play a vital role in formulating and injecting ideas into the policy-making process. While policy makers in the United States continue to solicit the advice of experts in universities, interest groups, professional and business associations, corporations and law firms, they are relying increasingly on scholars from think tanks or policy research institutions to identify, develop, shape, and at times implement, policy ideas.

Do Think Tanks Matter? Opportunities, Constraints and Incentives for Think Tanks in Canada and the United States

Implicit in this observation is that think tanks tend to play a more signi® cant role in the United States. The United States has a much more highly decentralised and fragmented political system than Canada. In the latter, the principles of strong party unity, cabinet solidarity and the presence of a permanent senior civil service entrusted with advising policy-makers are thought to limit opportunities for think tanks and other non-governmental organisations to in ̄ uence policy-making.

Following Suit or Falling Behind? A Comparative Analysis of Think Tanks in Canada and the United States

Policy institutes, or think tanks, have become increasingly visible on the political landscape. However, their policy role has varied in different countries. This article seeks to explain why, compared to think tanks in the United States, Canadian institutes have maintained a relatively modest presence in the policy-making community. Although many Canadian think tanks have made concerted efforts to replicate the strategies of their American counterparts, they have had far less success employing them in an effective and meaningful manner. While many American think tanks have both the resources and the opportunities to convey ideas to policy makers, Canadian organizations must overcome institutional, cultural and economic barriers before they can play a decisive role in policy-making circles. This article also makes reference to the experiences of think tanks in some parliamentary systems, notably Great Britain, to demonstrate that although these barriers are formidable and need to be addressed in some detail, they are not insurmountable.

Old world, new world: the evolution and influence of foreign affairs think‐tanks

The rise of think-tanks in the United States, in Europe and around the world has generated considerable scholarly attention in recent years. Much of this interest has been fuelled by the widespread belief that these institutions have come to play an increasingly influential role in shaping both public opinion and the domestic and foreign policy preferences and choices of high-level decision-makers. This perception was reinforced when several think-tanks with close ties to the administrations of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair advocated a far more muscular posture towards Iraq in the months and years following the events of 9/1ya. As think-tanks on both sides of the Atlantic continue their efforts to become more entrenched in the policy-making process, scholars are beginning to pay closer attention to how these institutions, established ostensibly to engage in policy research, have become even more adept at political advocacy. Not surprisingly, as think-tanks have devoted more resources to affecting policy change, speculation about how much or little influence they wield has become more intense. The purpose of this article is to explore the evolution and transformation of foreign affairs think-tanks in North America and Europe since the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and to highlight, by relying on specific foreign and defence policy issues, the extent to which a handful of think-tanks have been able to become important fixtures in the policy-making community.

The Government Taketh Away: The Politics of Pain in the United States and Canada.

The Government Taketh Away: The Politics of Pain in the United States and Canada. , Leslie A. Pal and R. Kent Weaver, eds., Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003, pp. xii, 340. Compiling edited collections is notoriously difficult because editors and contributors frequently work from a different script. The result is that instead of producing a coherent volume which addresses a particular theme, readers are often left with a collection of scholarly papers that share little in common. What may have started as a project with a single goal and focus can quickly disintegrate into a patchwork quilt. This major problem has been avoided in Leslie Pal and Kent Weavers edited book, The Government Taketh Away: The Politics of Pain in the United States and Canada , a sophisticated and richly detailed analysis of how decision-makers in the two countries attempt to introduce policies that may adversely affect the economic, social and political interests of various groups while trying to minimize political fallout. As the title of this book suggests, the editors are not concerned about why policy makers reward certain sectors and groups in society. After all, common sense dictates that politicians need votes and attempt to acquire them by appealing to the broadest segment of the population. In this book, the focus is on how policy makers, when faced with potential opposition from different groups, make strategic decisions that result in the imposition of losses. Although the editors do not offer a concrete definition of loss, examples include policy decisions that result in the de-indexation of old age pensions, the closure of military bases and the retraction of tax benefits. This book is not an indictment of government—the editors acknowledge that in democracies politicians must often make difficult choices that will help some and hurt others. Rather, it is a thorough exploration of how decision makers make these decisions and how various groups and sectors react.