Think tank networks and the knowledge–interest nexus: the case of climate change

Abstract

An increasing complexity and heavy reliance on research in the formulation of public policy is the backdrop to the ongoing politicization of science. Issues and problems around the accessibility, credibility, legitimacy and accountability of expertise are greatly aggravated in supranational policy arenas. While antidemocratic dangers have traditionally been emphasized with regard to technocratic policy-making, such dangers coexist with the perils of scientific irresponsibility – or irrelevance – and an unprecedented level and scope of expertise-backed lobbying in policy-making across both the domestic and supranational arenas. A dramatic example of these perils is the battle over climate change policy agendas. The large number of think tanks and think tank networks involved in climate change policy skepticism can be considered central in this regard. Such networks are designed to promote or to disrupt political discourse. Although many individual think tanks and network relationships do not give cause for particular concern, the combination of powerful expert, consulting and lobby/advocacy capacities that rely on organized think tank infrastructures implies a growing need for closer attention to think tank models in public policy analysis. A new approach to think tank network studies will be useful to develop an agenda for a second generation of cooperative transnational think tank studies capable of engaging with the cross-border dimensions of the knowledge–interest nexus of ideas and orientations.

Keywords:

• transnational networks
• think tanks
• knowledge–interest nexus
• climate change

Notes

^1. On a more fundamental level, Lal (1998) has equated ecological thinking with Marxism. Both are Augustinean fallacies attempting to create heaven on earth. Lal, much like Friedrich August von Hayek, re-interprets Alber O. Hirschman’s reflections on unintended consequences in a way that is very distant from Hirschman’s ideas. While Hayek and Lal suggest that planning for the future is futile and counterproductive, due to unintended consequences, Hirschman suggests a dynamic evolution of goals that can be achieved despite unintended consequences, with the latter even considered as providing the opportunity for the pursuit of additional or new goals. Hirschman’s realism and optimism have thus been turned into a cynical and fatalistic perspective that is inherently status quo oriented (Hirschman 2001). I am grateful to Leonard Dobusch for pointing me toward this Hirschman interview.

^2. A research tool has been created ready to use for such global collaborative research efforts: http://thinktanknetworkresearch.net/wiki_ttni_en/index.php?title=Category:Think_Tank_Network.

^3. The funding of the Heritage Foundation includes the dues paid by 200,000 subscribers to the Heritage newsletter. The recently founded Institut für eine solidarische Moderne in Germany gained 1600 members within a few weeks.

^4. Medvetz (2012) provides a good example in his study of proto think tanks, but unfortunately refrains from a similar look at constituencies in his later discussion of contemporary think tanks. Stone (2013) includes many hints about constituencies, but refrains from a more thorough discussion of the knowledge–interest relationships in her case studies.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dieter Plehwe

Dieter Plehwe is a research fellow at the WZB Berlin Social Science Center. His recent work in the project group ‘Modes of Economic Governance’ focuses on European interest groups, think tank networks and the transnational transformation of patterns of governance. His recent publications include ‘Converging on strike revisited’ (Plehwe 2013), The ‘Pink Tide’ and Neoliberal Civil Society Formation (State of Nature 2013, with Karin Fischer), Attack and Roll Back. The Constructive and Destructive Potential of Think Tank Networks (Global Responsibility 2012) and The Road from Mont Pèlerin. The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective (Harvard University Press 2009, edited by Phil Mirowski). He co-founded the think tank ‘Network Research Initiative’ (http://thinktanknetworkresearch.net/blog_ttni_en/), which is currently calling for a global collaboration to survey and analyze climate change counter movements.