As a taster I provide you some of the questions we will ask to Ivan Krastev in his key-note address.

The current economic crisis has exposed the deep gaps in the political governance of the European Union and the surrounding countries that belong to the continent. The general population has lost trust in the liberal elites to govern their countries and the European Union. This has prompted an upsurge in populist politics and a rise in extremist parties, and has undermined expertise-based politics (despite some expert governments such as in Italy). Under such circumstances, it is not only the political and policy arenas that are changed, but the entire perception about the role of think tanks and civil society organizations. In the Western Balkans, the value of these organizations has already been questioned for quite some time. In a time when the EU accession agenda is waning and economic stagnation will certainly linger for a while, few societies have a vision on how to move forward. Talking to Ivan Krastev, we hope to learn more about where think tanks and advocacy organizations are positioned in their societies, what they are doing and what they should be doing?

Q1: Europe has changed and is changing as we speak. What are the key changes in ‘old Europe’ that have affected governance ( both political and economic) within EU and beyond its borders?

Q2: How this change has affected / will affect the think tanks / analysts in the EU?

Q3: And, how the changes affect Western Balkans? Where do they place policy analysis and think tanks and NGOs as one of the key ‘independent’ aspirants to influence the policy processes?

Q4: What is the biggest opportunity ( every crisis brings opportunities J) and what is the biggest threat for civil society (specifically advocacy organizations and think tanks) in the Western Balkans?

All of you not there follow the web-streaming on the specially dedicated Facebook page.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Balkan-Peer-Exchange/273435566058913

More questions, tweet them here: https://twitter.com/#!/BalkanPeerXc or simply comment below

Tomorrow, more about the other debates to follow at the event

Happy New Year to you all!

I use this opportunity to announce an event that Think Tank Fund  will co-organize in belgrade February

Think Tank Fund together with the Human Rights Governance Grants Program and Foundation for Open Society Serbia from the Open Society Foundations, European Fund for the Balkans, Balkan Trust for Democracy of the German Marshall Fund and the National Endowment for Democracy is organizing:

Balkan Peer Exchange

Enhancing Analysis and Research-Based Advocacy in an Era of Open Data

February 21-23, 2012

Belgrade, Serbia

This event aspires to bring a representative group of think tanks and advocacy organizations as well as donors to address these issues and open new avenues for future cooperation. Its organizers do not have any pre-conceived ideas to float and impose at the event. It is not our goal to spearhead establishment of any networks, regional platforms or anything similar. Likewise, while we expect participants to suggest new ideas and forge new partnerships throughout the event, the organizers do not consider the event as a direct laboratory for designing new projects that they would later underwrite.

The overall objective of the Peer Exchange is to provide a space for representatives of 50 think tanks and advocacy organizations (with established track records in policy relevant research) and a dozen of donors active in the region and offer them a space for peer-to-peer exchange of practices, positive and negative lessons learned and brainstorming on new innovative ideas.

Specific objectives:

-            Sharing opinions / analysis on relevant topics such as EU integration, governmental transparency and accountability, economic policy, social and integration policies

-            Exchanging relevant experiences and good practices on topics specifically linked to these types of organizations (access to information, fiscal transparency and abuse of state resources, political system and transparency of government decisions, quality standards for policy-relevant research)

-            Presenting and promoting good practices of policy research designs / monitoring and advocacy

-            Providing participants with general awareness, knowledge of basic tools and language to formulate and communicate their ideas on how to use data / analysis for effective communication and impactful advocacy to be able to search and identify tools and partners for their implementation.

We hope you will find this event interesting and useful to your organization and apply to participate. Also, feel free to further post this information on your web-site or share it with all of your contacts you would find interested in participating at this event.

Detailed information on the event and on-line application form is  available here www.balkanfund.org/balkanpeerexchange.

The deadline for applications is 12 pm on January 16, 2012. The event will take place in Belgrade, Serbia in February 21-23, 2012.

…In 2000, Poland introduced a law that penalized the possession of any quantity of illicit substances. Ten years later, the Institute of Public Affairs, a leading Polish think tank and an OSF grantee, published ‘ Drug Policy in Poland – time for a change’ a report evaluating the financial costs of this law.

The report found that the implementation of the law cost over EUR 20 million per year, with  possession offences rocketing from 2,815 in 2001 to 30,548 in 2008. Yet the majority of prosecutors, probation officers, police officers and judges interviewed for the study felt that enforcing the bill did not help reduce drug use or counter-act trafficking. Among the report’s key recommendations is to decriminalize the possession of illicit drugs, and redirect the huge resources spent on law enforcement to treatment and harm reduction programs.

Ahead of a parliamentary debate in 2011, the report served as a powerful reference point for groups calling for the liberalization of Poland’s tough drug laws, and was frequently referred to in the national media. The debate ended with an amendment to Poland’s drug policy in May 2011, which aims to draw a greater distinction between drug user and drug dealer. At that time the situation was as follows:
Ahead of a visit from Barack Obama, Polish president Bronislaw Komorowski has signed an amendment to his country’s drug law. The newly amended law, approved on Wednesday, May 25, is a small step forward in liberalizing Poland’s drug policy. It aims to draw a greater distinction between drug user and drug dealer. For example, public prosecutors will now have the option of not bringing people to court on possession charges under three circumstances: if the quantity is small, if it is a first-time drug offense, or if the person has a drug dependency.

This change is largely thanks to ongoing advocacy by Polish and international civil society groups. The next steps will be to ensure that prosecutors are aware of these exceptions and that they are used, as experience from other countries shows that amendments often go unnoticed. Also, on the basis of the Czech Republic’s experience, threshold quantities of illicit drugs should be drawn up with the aim of focusing a public debate on decriminalization.

Read more on the changes to Poland’s drug law and the civil society organizations behind it. (Taken from  blog entry Poland steps toward more liberal drug policyby Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, director of OSF Global Drugs Program

This example from Poland shows the crucial role that a think tank can play in social change by providing clear economic and sociological data. However, for such a study to have greater impact, it is important to place the data within a regional context that will have more meaning to policymakers and the public worldwide. This could, for example, involve producing a set of cost-benefits analyses of national drug polices similar to that conducted by the Institute for Public Affairs.

I encourage all interested think tanks that face similar challenges in their own countries in to get in touch with my colleagues at the Global Drug Policy Program.

Tomorrow, I am invited to speak at a luncheon with some twenty policy fellows of the Open Society Foundations-Armenia and Counterpart International in Yerevan.

Many of these individual researchers – some academic and others eyeing more pragmatic policy research – are toying with the idea to create a think tank. Below, you will find a selection of the questions I prepared for our discussion. The first batch refers to the dilemmas individual researchers might have (and their potential collaborative engagement in think tanks), that a very snap overview of challenges think tanks face in central and Eastern Europe and specific section for newcomers.  All suggestions for additional questions / aspects are welcome. Please use the comment section here.

Sample of questions to be tackled during the luncheon

Questions on the minds of individual researchers

-          How to balance academic research with policy analysis?  – Individual juncture on choosing a career path or ill-made decision based on few facts and plenty of assumptions

-          The pros and cons of going ‘solo’ or joining a specialized research organization ( think tank)

-          Third alternative: Could other types of organizations add value to research and be ‘unusual allies’ to individual researchers?

Current challenges of existing think tanks

-          Quality of current policy research usually fails to match the demand for solutions. The reasons for this situation range from inappropriate research design and methodology to poor writing skills, from choosing effective formats for their policy analysis to neglecting proper communication strategies. Why it is easier for think tanks to be ‘recycle bins’ than ‘idea generators’?

-          Human capital is the biggest asset of each and every think tank. In securing reliable and high-quality researchers, think tanks compete with much more powerful competitors i.e. governments, state agencies, private companies, banks and consulting companies. As a small part of civil society, despite being present in the public life, think tanks are not the first choice to fresh graduates who are interested in embarking on research/policy careers. Likewise, for people working in the think tanks, notwithstanding that monetary remuneration is important, it is crucial to have opportunities to grow professionally and further develop their skills, to learn new things and meet other colleagues across the continent and beyond. Why think tankers do not starve, but few of them are there to earn ‘big money’?

-          Policy research is only a fraction of the work within a think tank. If not paired with effective communication and advocacy strategy, even the best policy research would lead to naught. Likewise, a think tank not paying attention to its organizational development and governance structures cannot maintain its relevance and production for long time.

Challenges for think tanks – new comers

-          While the field for policy research is open for new entries, embarking on such a journey is an uphill struggle. Donors and policy makers are most often skeptical, risk-averse bunch. Having a successful analysis / product in hand (even done for free) is an asset like no other.

-          Good education, even at the most prestigious universities in the world is a great investment. But it is only that: an investment. For every person who wants capitalize on that investment by utilizing one’s competence within a new think tank, all of those have to be translated in a work product.

-          Undertaking policy research and conducting the accompanying communication and advocacy is usually a team effort. Loners are welcome, but usually could make a breakthrough only if supported by a competent support team.

-          For starters, research the topic that you know best!

Below you can find his post and my addition.

Many think tanks face the need to undertake organisational assessments -much better than an evaluation. This site offers very useful advice into how to go about it: Reflect & Learn | Learning together about Organizational Assessment.

The purpose of Reflect & Learn (R&L) is to help organizations improve their performance by using Organizational Assessment (OA).  Organizational assessment (OA) is a tool that supports an organization in its quest to learn more about itself. The process of reflection in OA is based on providing an organizational diagnosis that allows organizational stakeholders to learn from experiences and results, in order to facilitate decision-making and foster more strategic vision, more effective programs, stronger governance, etc.  Organizational assessment can be part of a process of change and capacity building.

It offers a series of self-assessment tools as well as detail on key frameworks:

• Universalia Institutional and Organizational Assesment Model (IOA Model)
• A Causal Model of Organizational Performance & Change (Burke & Litwin Model)
• The Seven-S Model
• The Marvin Weisbord Six-Box Model (Weisbord’s Model)
• Open Systems Model

There are also some useful case studies, although they do not include think tanks.

At the Think Tank Fund, we have spent a lot of thought on the aspects of organizational development. While we have consulted the general tools ( many referenced in the depository Reflext&Learn), we thought there is a need for specialized, more tailored approach. Given the breadth of our support, both thematically and geographically, measuring the impact of our grants on the overall development of our grantees is far from being easy. Moreover, a comprehensive evaluation might run the risk of becoming too costly to both: the donor and the grantee.

Trying to arrive to a slim-down version, TTF performance indicators are clustered to cover three different aspects of the work of our grantees (this is an adaptation of a general evaluation framework developed by Raymond Stryuk (We consulted his publication Think Tank Mentoring and other articles on this subject).

-          Quality of analytical products

-          Communication strategy  (overall organizational and specific product strategy)

-          Mission, Strategic planning, governance and management structures (and this is pretty much in line of the tools shared by Reflect&Learn)

I am aware that most of the think tanks in Central and Eastern Europe operate as hybrids between analytical outlets, NGOs and consultancies. The areas we just underscored are insufficient to cover all different activities think tanks undertake. For example, almost all think tanks convene various seminars and conferences that serve as forum for discussion and/or policy agenda setting. Many think tanks design and conduct training courses on policy analysis and writing policy papers for governmental official and NGOs alike. Likewise, some act as depositories of information resulting from their own ongoing continuous monitoring activities. Others undertake consultancy projects in order to sustain their operation or engage in development projects directly. By limiting the areas of our monitoring and evaluation we hope to pay attention to the three core functions that are essential to each and every think tank regardless of the other activities they undertake.

1. Quality of analytical products

Regardless what else they do, analytical products are bread and butter of all think tanks. Think tanks produce many different analytical products ranging from in-depth studies, to full-fledge policy reports, shorter policy briefs, opinion pieces and articles in printed and electronic media. Some centers also publish regular periodical journals. Many produce regular information bulletins, newsletters and similar publications aimed at spreading policy-relevant information, informing, raising awareness and educating broader audiences.

The larger the production, the bigger the need for introducing a system for quality control of written production. For us as donors, this is one of the indicators of how serious is the organization about their products and their overall organizational development. The quality control is a part of research & development inside the organization. So, the first key issue is to initiate this process regardless of the choice of quality control: outside or inside the organization, peer-reviews or expert view, team work/debates and review, focus groups discussing draft reports or combination of all of these.  Less developed and small think tanks could benefit from outsider’s review (since the pool inside the organizations) and we as donors encourage them to build in the outsider’s quality control in the price of their policy products.

2. Communication strategy

All think tanks communicate its policy products to policy makers, specific expert audience, stakeholders and the public at large. The communication patters and strategies depend on the political culture, the nature of the think tanks and the type of policy product / work being promoted. While I am aware that there is no on-size-fit-all communication strategy, we are interested to learn about the approaches our grantees employ in communicating their research. Similarly, aware that advocacy very often builds on effective communication but is a different undertaking, often there is a need to distinguish both.

The key markers for the level of organizational development are. Do think tanks

a) have an overall communication strategy or specific strategies for each analytical product;

b) identify specific target audiences for their product and incorporate communication plans into their study design;

c) use conventional media, new media or both;

d) have specialized personnel to take care of  communication and advocacy efforts.

3. Mission, Strategic planning, governance and management structures

Think tankers are often great visionaries when it comes to looking at the future development of their countries. The practice of the Think Tank Fund reveals that very few of those are equally visionary when their own institutional development is in question. In this part, TTF performance indicators follow some of the more generic models outlined by Enrique:

a) If the think tank in question resorts to the same visionary ideas when it comes to the development of their own organizations? Do they have specific strategic plans? How have they arrived to those plans? Is there a regular planning cycle within the organization and to what end?

b) Think tanks along government watchdog organizations are first critics of the poor governance structure, (lack of) accountability and transparency in their countries to which they readily offer alternatives. Do they employ the same rigor when it comes to their own governance structures and transparency? Do they have an Executive or Programmatic Board, or both? What are their functions and how the think tank secures proper oversight?

c) Is the think tank’s dedication to producing relevant policy analysis matched with an effective organizational structure and adequate management practices? Does the center submit itself to a Is there an external audit part of the regular practice? Does the think tank consider itself sustainable? By what means have they achieved sustainability and what is at the core of its fundraising strategy?

While literature is full on advices and models under Point 3 the advices and Handbooks on point 1 and 2are few and apart. Feel free to use these pages to share some of your favorites

In the sea of coverage of the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 a special multimedia coverage by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace caught my attention.

The topic, as we know it is huge. There are so many tenets to cover: the attacks themselves, their aftermath including the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ‘change of world order’,  war against terror and many more.

CEIP offered an excellent appetizer to all those interested in their analysis by providing a string of 11 short videos ( 1 to 3 minutes each). The design is also impressive because the embedded videos are coupled with CEIP report written for the occasion of the first anniversary.  In one page we really get the gist of their opinion now and their opinion 9 years ago. And as any good appetizer, this one offers the visitor / reader a choice:

- to stay at the level of basic opinion of CEIP experts (for those readers who prefer tapas are or on diet

- or make another click and ‘indulge in the main course’  by reading the full report and CEIP previous analysis on the respective subjects.

On July 11, Enrique Mendizabal posted the following post on his blog:

Speed Dating for think tanks: How to meet your future partner?

I re-post it now since we received a lot of interest from Latin American think tanks, but not from think tanks in central and Eastern Europe. The post is worth re-reading and acting upon.

The project reduces the financial barriers to partnership building and peer learning between organisations from different regions. The funds will make it possible for two think tanks to work together, visit each other, and maybe even plan future projects. However, before this can happen, other barriers need to be addressed.

Getting to know about other think tanks in the first place is not that easy. How could this happen? Maybe researchers from think tanks meet in global fora or conferences, or in some occasions thy work as part of broader consortia in which other researchers may also be involved. But these are accidental meetings. And they may or may not lead to the right match.

Think tanks seeking to benefit from this grant should not underestimate the importance of finding the right fit. The right fit is not just a common interest to benefit from the funds or to learn from others. The right fit implies that the think tanks getting together are the right ones for each other. Since think tanks come is all shapes and forms it is therefore possible that two very different centres may end up trying to learn from each other and find out that their different structures limit learning between them: for example a think tank with mostly associate researchers may not find the right match in a think tank with mostly full time researchers.

Similarly, short -term project driven think tanks may find it difficult to learn from long-term programme driven ones; advocacy think tanks may find it frustrating to collaborate with academic research think tanks; etc.

Of course, these differences could be a reasons to work together, but this cannot be assumed nor should it be left to chance.

This means that both think tanks ought to be clear, right from the start, of what is it that they want to get out of the relationship, agree on the approaches to achieve this, and know why they think that they are the right match for each other. Vagueness at this stage will result in failure.

With busy domestic political processes to monitor and lots of fires to fight it is not surprising that think tanks from different regions do not know many others elsewhere. Their usual out-of-region links tend to be with think tanks in U.S. and Europe where their researchers studied or from where their funding comes. Finding partners in other regions is much harder.

As individuals we deal with these issues in different ways: upon moving to a new city we search for opportunities to meet others by joining clubs or neighbourhood activities, maybe go speed dating or online dating; others resort to the more traditional matchmaking skills of organised religion (“oh, you should meet my daughter/son, she/he is such a good girl/boy”); while other prefer to go solo and chance it at nightclubs or bars. For each its own.

For organisations, the places and spaces for finding the right fit to try to develop a partnership, may not be that obvious. Just like people they ought to expect lots of trials and errors -and it would be naive to assume that they’ll get it right the first time.

So how can we help?

Here are a few ways that I would like to recommend -and would be keen to support:

• Sign up to Twitter and find each other -some of you are already following @onthinktanks so it should not be hard to let onthinktanks act as a matchmaker. Twit this: Re: @onthinktanks I am looking for #thinktanks in [insert region] to partner with. If you are following @onthinktanks or #thinktanks you’ll be able to find each other and you can take it from there. Because only 140 characters are allowed you won’t be bombarded with lots of text to read and may find it easy to dismiss unsuitable matches.
• Alternatively, start following @ThinkTankFund and do the exact same thing.
• The Think Tank Fund also has a Facebook page that you could use to meet each other. ‘Like’ it and post comments.

• You could also write a few lines below (in the comment box) introducing yourselves. Think of it as Speed Dating: you have 10 lines at most to let others know 1) what your think tank is about and 2) what you are looking for in this potential partnership. You can then reply below or directly to those who posted an interest (do let me know if you do so that I know if this had any effect). I can act as a filter to make sure that the responses you get are clearly articulated and not just random spam.

• Or you could join the ebpdn and post an interest there. There are think tanks from all over the world signed up -as well as sub-communities for each region that may help you get your messages to the right audiences. This might be a bit riskier and you may end up getting lots of responses from people rather than organisations -but it is worth a try.

Yet, there are more reasons for both existing think tanks and young talented graduates to be courageous and reach to each other. In the countries outside the European Union, the lack of universities, governmental policy institutes and competent public administration makes think tanks one of the few possible outlets attractive to anyone looking at a career in policy research. Also, many young people educated in the best universities abroad or at home do not want to become part of often corrupted bureaucracy. Likewise, the prospect of a small, albeit guaranteed salary, at the few old-fashioned state institutions often does not sate the appetite of motivated returnees from foreign universities. Neither does the prospect of being a junior researcher not allowed to lead a project before they are 40. Finally, the talented managers / leaders of some think tanks in the region have developed oasis for personal development, exchange of know how and team work with like-minded individuals and opportunity for rapid growth.

Before you start thinking that Goran ‘is indulging into an ad for the region’s think tanks’, let me note that I am aware of the many shortcomings, too. Still, even if in small scale, it is worth supporting think tanks to become vibrant places for an increasing number of young educated people to ‘cut their policy teeth’. At the Think Tank Fund we have noticed that often the first step, the first push to circumvent the fear of unsecured funding, of perhaps the fear of mismatch between the individual and the organization is missing. Therefore we have recently re-launched a call to solicit interest from TTs to think of such posts. I encourage all interested think tanks to read more here.

We are also looking at other ways to support think tanks in becoming an attractive and accessible place for young educated MA and PhD graduates. I welcome all of your ideas .

The post addresses the persistent issue of how to ensure or review think tank’s independence.

We have all heard so many times that policy research is not value free. Some critics go one step further by claiming that impartial analysis is rather a far-fetched ideal than an attainable goal in the everyday work of a researcher. In the other camp, more ‘scientific’ oriented researchers claim that it is only about the scrutiny and the quality of the process. Once complied with certain standards, the research would certainly result into an objective account of the problem and the alternative solutions. Given that think tanks (and NGOs) have taken on roles that historically have been part of the state, it will be necessary for a code of conduct to be aligned to the one we expect from the state. The more the think tankers boost of their own impact, the need for their accountability is greater. The accountability of policy research is thus an aspect that has raised many debates hitherto. Not surprisingly, many of these debates have focused on the way that the research has been carried out. The aspect of who has been carried out the research (who – not only with regard to competencies, but also in terms of values and personal / organizational history) has not been neglected, but somehow treated artificially (including one of my texts cited below).

Read the full text at Enrique’s blog.

or below

In the spring 2009 I published an article in the International Journal of Not-For-profit Law in which I advocated for think tanks in Central and Eastern Europe to devise and adopt codes of conduct:

Think tanks do not act alone in the policy environment. Neither are they obliged to be neutral or free of ideology. Many in the region are staunch advocates of certain doctrines and concepts about the development of their own societies. The only position a think tank should avoid is becoming the advocate of a certain client, because that loss of independence undermines the impact of a think tank’s research. It is essential for think tanks to be explicit and transparent about the ethical values underlying their research work and advocacy. At present, think tanks enjoy a reputation as neutral transmitters of scientific ideas and policy analysis. This independence is their key feature well positioning think tanks to promote good communication between state and society. Likewise, the media is also keen on using think tank experts who they expect are serving the public interest.

The lack of a “framework of values” and rules for conduct for think tanks—among the most resolute proponents of government transparency and accountability in CEE—could soon have negative consequences. In spheres of policy where governments are hostile to such organizations, think tanks have to guard against attacks on independent policy research. Defining a proper code of ethics and code of conduct is a way to do that. Think tanks in CEE can only benefit from proposals in this article by being resolute in formulating these essential and overdue codes.

In that text, my framework of analysis included three different pillars: the ethics of policy analysts, the codes of ethics for public service in the transitional democracies of CEE, and the NGO codes of ethics in CEE. If one looks at the full text, it is clear that I have covered more the objectivity (impartiality) of policy research complemented by some organizational safeguards. No surprise then that the text is ridden with values that we should all strive for and calls for more to developed within the think tanks.

This time around, while I stand behind my writing and still would argue for introducing such codes as part of the institutional framework of each and every think tank, I would like to call into attention the second aspect – transparency (which could, but not necessarily needs to, deal with values. The Economist’s Special Report on the News published on July 7th, although focusing on media and not on think tanks, helped me consolidate my thoughts on this issue. In this report, Nick Newman, former future media controller for journalism at the BBC, claims that transparency is the new objectivity in journalism. This catchy line resonated directly with my recent reflections inspired by three real-life situations that involved think tanks (in CEE, but also globally).

Story 1: Over a period of time, a think tank shifts its ideological stance from a proponent of liberal (social and economic) ideas to a zealot for patriot-cum-constructive nationalist agenda.

How transparency kicks in here: I see a need for the think tank in question to put a timeline of its products and a short history/story of its development online. It should mark the change, even if it does not offer a full-fledged rationale behind it. Since analysis is not free from ideology, it is best to let the readers utilize the analysis and recommendations and decide for themselves if the think tank’s ideological change matters to them at all.

Story 2: Few years ago, a gifted and up-and-coming scholar received a slew of scholarships to attain a number of educational degrees from a donor. In the meantime that person became a director of a prominent think tank. Both the individual and partially the think tank in question are harsh critics of the donor – former patron in its current political commentaries.

How this relates to transparency: Not everyone knows that the director has received scholarships in the past. Without entering into any need for justification, the think tank director should simply put his/her CV online and make this transparent. Such move may even result in a higher sence of value for the criticism (since the person does not shy away to criticize the former patron). More importantly, it would allow the stakeholders of the think tank and the public to have a broader picture of the history and context. Nobody needs to make value judgments, only be transparent. (I treat this as if this was a case of conflict of interests.)

Story 3. Many think tanks in Central and Eastern Europe are operating through two parallel legal entities: a not-for-profit organization and for-profit consultancy. I see nothing wrong in this arrangement, especially in the light of complicated and divergent donor practices that includes one of the other legal forms.

[Note: Often the crucial difference is that the consulting arm will work for a particular client producing (at least to some extent) private analytical products (not available to the public, or only available through the client which uses them for its own advocacy, lobbying or other purposes).]

The public (not-for-profit) think tank produces analysis that is publicly available (public good) usually paid for by a donor or from membership fees and other sources of income.

Why transparency is crucial in this case:  There is a web of intertwined aspects here. First, the public has to be aware of the duality of the brand; and who the clients and donors that are funding the organization are. Second, the donors need to know that there is no double dipping (often the two entities are staffed by the same people sharing the overall work and costs). Third, the clients have the right ensure that what they pay for on their ‘private good’ has not been turned out ‘public’ on the other end of the organization. Finally, if the think tank engages into political consulting, there should be clear bottom-line about who could appear as a client and who could not (simply jeopardizing the entire concept of analysis for public good). In my understanding, this bottom-line is context dependent and changes from one place to the other depending on different factors (level of political culture, the maturity of the consulting market and other…)

In conclusion, think tanks should do their best in insuring that the data and facts they use are from trusted sources and their analysis is as objective as possible. However, they should not forget to be transparent about who they are and where do they come. Even if at a first look, this information might seem ‘damaging’ it is always better for think tanks (as probably for everyone else in the policy/political arena). After all, it is better for think tanks to put out public the facts about themselves instead of someone else, usually with ill intentions, spreading rumor and gossiping about the same matter.

In a conclusion of our trilogy of pre and post election texts on Macedonia Neda Korunovska from Reactor and I wrote a short commentary for E!Sharp. Read it here.