Abstract
Sukhadeo Thorat, Ajaya Dixit and Samar Verma (Eds.), Strengthening Policy Research: Role of Think Tank Initiatives in South Asia, 2019, New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 388 pp., ₹1,195. ISBN: 978-93-532-8216-5.
A scientist engaged in a piece of research, say in physics, can attack his problem straight away. S/he can go at once to the heart of the matter: to the heart, that is, of an organized structure. For a structure of scientific doctrines is already in existence; and with it, a generally accepted problem-situation. While the philosopher [a social scientist, especially policy researcher] finds himself [herself] in a different position. S/he does not face an organized structure, but rather something resembling a heap of ruins (though perhaps with treasure buried underneath). S/he cannot appeal to the fact that there is a generally accepted problem-situation; for that there is no one fact which is generally accepted. Indeed it has by now become a recurrent question in philosophical circles whether philosophy will ever get so far as to pose a genuine problem. (Karl Popper [1959], The Logic of Scientific Discovery)
Institutionally speaking the ‘think tanks (TTs)’ oscillate between the government and society. This book throws new dimensions between academic universities and indigenous TTs with distinctive thrust on social science research in South Asia. South Asia because of variety of reasons, primarily due to rising global demographic share, shifts economic and political fulcrum towards the distinctive policy ecosystem. Though modern government works as an administrative enterprise (Gray, 1978), that seaworthiness inevitably takes pride in policy navigation in solving public problems. The policy change implies the redistribution of resources and influence between offices and agencies, the TTs with problem-solving abilities often feed pre-occupied orderly administered government that dwells between the politics of economics and evidence. Every government shifts its policy stance by minor degrees, but substantive shifts for a ‘disruptive policy’ poses truly major bureaucratic and political risks.
While South Asia’s development index is different, the political culture is also very different in West. Were in America, TTs engage largely in defence and foreign policies, Britain and Canada do not entertain ‘outsiders’. South Asian TTs need to rent their expertise to defend poverty, marginalization with spatial and social groups, especially empowering the youths. The book is an outcome of intellectuals and institutional understanding. The authors of the book raise a fundamental question—Can TTs in South Asia serve policy research to subsume public problems and public action? The book Strengthening Policy Research: Role of Think Tank Initiative in South Asia, edited by Sukhadeo Thorat, Ajaya Dixit and Samar Verma, has 22 chapters. The book is a journey of 14 TT organizations in South Asia supported by IDRC. All these 14 TTs are established reputed organizations in their respective counties, barring few with limited years of prior experience. Think Tank Initiative (TTI) was initiated by IDRC in 2008 with the idea conceived by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Subsequently supported by DFID, BMGF, DGIS and NORAD. The TTI programme was an attempt to bridge the gap between policy and practice by strengthening the organizational capacity of the existing organizations for ‘think to tank’ as a source with limited leakage of knowledge targeted through piped supply of policy knowledge.
The TTI is based on an assumption that fertilization of TT organizations in bridging the evidence gap between policy and practice depends upon the research ecosystem of the country. The ecosystem itself is embedded in the governance paradigm. South Asia has witnessed the emergence of international TT and national TTs with varied scale and scope of their operation. This phenomenon is not limited to South Asia. According to a study, it is estimated that there are 5,500 TTs in 170 countries1; what distinguish them is (a) their location relative to the bureaucracy (b) their thematic focus and (c) the political interests they represent (Nachiappan, Mendizabal, & Datta, 2010). This book in part I, II and III illustrates the case of 14 TTs. The journey of all these TTs varies with their varying age of existence that extends from 5 years of age to 55 years. Their distinctive character in terms of aim and scope, more importantly, the phases of organizational challenges. These case studies are an important source of learning in the following three senses:
It is the self-description of organizational challenges, in terms of internal system and resources for social science research. It depicts how flexible financial resources provided by TTI helped even the established TTs to enable systems within organization to retain and sustain good scholars. The cases suggest that the success of all the 14 organizations’ influence lies in distinctive policy research designed to deliver policy goals.
Section IV in the book analyses the distinctive national characteristics within which social science policy research exists and evolves. This section infers social science research as an outcome of the geopolitical paradigm of governance. There is a dedicated section on the ecosystem of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Section VI chapters are by Fahima Khatun on Bangladesh, Sanghmitra and Chandrani on India, Abid Suleri on Pakistan and Dilrukshi Ranathunge on Sri Lanka. The country-specific chapters are a holistic analysis of experience and evidence that conform to country’s ecosystem within which the social science research propels and prosper. Probably these chapters could do more justice to readers if they had come on the onset of the book, followed by case studies.
Section V of the book is on the role of a TT in South Asia. It is an attempt to the synthesis of the success of TTIs in the respective countries. Overall, it highlights the two fundamental characteristics of TTs to achieve their desired goals: (a) credibility and independence and (b) ownership and flexibility. Often TTs are marred between the conformist views of the government and funding agencies. Since the policy outcomes are complex and nonlinear, its pathways are multifaceted. What the TTI experience suggests it breaking the silos between TTs. Often there remains a challenge of collaboration. The authors suggest the rise of social capital with the exchanges between South Asian TTIs and global TTI network of 43 TTs in 23 countries representing Latin America, Africa, and South Asia. This could in future result in a collaborative common policy research across the region.
The TTI programme enriched the organizational capacity to expand, inter-organizational exchange, and outreach of research dissemination and publication. The 14 cases of TTs identify challenges they faced prior to TTI. According to Ajaya Dixit, ISET-Nepal faced three challenges: (a) devising an institutional strategy (b) putting in place a mechanism that would deliver administrative, financial, research dissemination and policy outreach functions and (c) building its capacity to partner with other knowledge policy organizations. While the TTI framework proposed three pillars of change: (a) improve the quality of research (b) strengthen the policy of engagement process and (c) develop robust administration, finance and human resource management mechanisms to support the first two pillars. The ability to strike match between the organizational need, policy paradigm and TTI approach to funding resulted in the research-knowledge ecosystem to overcome exogenous and endogenous factors. The distinctive shift was in bridging the research advocacy into an average ratio of 60:40.
Some of the questions raised by Ajaya Dixit and Ashutosh Shukla in case of synthesis of social science research and TTI sum up well: How do agencies with the responsibility for making policy value new knowledge? How is the knowledge produced used in policymaking? How has the knowledge produced in past changed policies? To minimize risk, policymaking needs to be based on knowledge at the intersection of social and natural science. It is in contrast to the distinctive boundaries prescribed in the late 1970s in an article by Colin Gray. In the book The Fifth State, according to McGann,
[O]ne should ask from the government—were the right policies pursued? and were they pursued effectively? For think tank, one should ask—what contribution has been made to the identification /solution of public/ policy problem? Similarly to Universities, one should ask—what contributions have been made to knowledge?
James G. McGann in 2010 wrote an article ‘The Fifth Estate: Think Tanks and American Foreign Policy’ stating that ‘the promise and peril of globalization have transformed how we view international relations and opened the policymaking process to a new set of actors, agendas, and outcomes’. While some of the important actors are born of globalization, many are empowered by it. All the 14 TTs do fall under the latter category. Irrespective of their origin and objectives, what matters most are the alternatives they ‘offer’. The Chapter 22 is the challenge and way forward largely rests on a similar fund that fends flexible opportunity to garner organizational capacity towards sustainable production and promulgation of evidence based knowledge for policy shifts.
The success of 14 TTs in influencing policy and practices suggests that social science policy research can immensely be useful in understanding evidence from the perspective of describing policy change. Overall, this book shares ‘what works’ for the TTs in social science policy research. In the absence of the South Asian experience and evidence of South Asian TTs, the book does justice to fill this academic void. The book is a must read for all the TTs, more so for the funding agencies and government to overcome the challenges that social science policy research suffers.