Conclusion

As global think tanks and other transnational organizations continue to influence and affect the entire policymaking process, one must look to the future of global public policy. Subsequently, two questions emerge in regards to this future context. First, how can global think tanks and policy networks continue to improve their impact and overall reach? Second, how can policymakers increase the utility of global think tanks and policy networks and address their key obstacles? As was discussed previously, measuring and controlling impact are incredibly difficult to do; there are no established standards or measurements by which to do so. Nevertheless, certain recommendations can be offered and there remain particular means of improving think tanks’ impact, which can act as a foundation. Independence, policy orientation, and strategic agendas for research create capacity for think tank impact. The stability of research-focused think tank budgets also signifies increased impact. Financial resources are the most commonly selected factor affecting performanceworldwide. Lastly, it appears that think tanks see policy-oriented products, rather than long term scholarly work, as a better tool for creating impact. There are a number of options and opportunities available to pol-

icymakers that can increase the utility of global think tanks and policy networks for global public policy and address key obstacles to their effectiveness. These potential solutions vary but generally include addressing the global lack of funding and the relative lack of policy research institutions in developing countries. Policymakers can also be quite important in encouraging the formation of networks that incorporate or include actors from developing countries as well as multi-sectoral integration and flexibility in global think tank networks. The first option that is available to policymakers is to address the global

lack of funding or, at the very least, the massive funding discrepancies in various areas of the world compared to others. International

organizations and government development agencies are particularly effective in creating think tank development funding programs. Consistent support from policymakers to do so should, at least partially, somewhat alleviate the many of the issues faced by think tanks that are considering going global. In particular, widely dispersed think tank development funding programs may allow for increased diversity overall, thereby lessening the problem of all think tanks being forced to become dependent on solely Western institutions or organizations for funds. Furthermore, policymakers can also encourage the philanthropic transfer from private foundations and multilateral organizations to the think tanks and networks with the most global impact. By identifying the influential and effective global think tanks and using their political clout and public position to promote these institutions within the greater public sphere, donations and contributions that may have previously been reserved only for certain organizations might start trickling down to think tanks and policy networks. A second option for policymakers is to address the relative lack of

policy research institutions in developing countries. In this sense, policymakers can use existing institutions to immediately address the lack of resources and expertise, which is essentially the encouragement of expansion to under-represented regions. They can also encourage the expansion of disinterested policy advisory support for developing countries’ governments, primarily in the form of contract research and technical training through research networks. Encouraging global think tanks and policy networks’ public education activities and community relations activities in developing countries is certainly another possible opportunity. Doing so provides much-needed policy information to these populations; this can often be accomplished through partner networks or physical expansion. Additionally, policymakers can also encourage the expansion and establishment of networks and physical centers in key fragile countries. Doing so may serve as a strong boost to the establishment and growth of a functioning civil society within that state, which might possibly assist in the overall transition from a potentially failed or fragile country to a more stable and secure one. Moreover, policymakers can provide a framework for knowledge

transfer to and from developing countries, which is essentially interaction with under-represented regions. They can encourage the formation of international dialogue (add dialogue to expansion function) platforms, particularly among developing country actors. Doing so brings advice from the practitioners who have experienced similar policy challenges. Politicians are often essential in cultivating the necessary cultural framework for organic future think tank growth (expansion

from under-represented regions). They also play pivotal roles in encouraging the ideology of the importance of civil society and liberal democracy for increasedwelfare, poverty alleviation, and growth. Furthermore, they can encourage programs that incentivize a reversal of “brain drain” to developed countries. Finally, policymakers can assist in stimulating the formation of non-Western institutions and assist developing countries in developing their own models, thereby assuaging the fear that think tanks are “importing agendas” or “echoes of colonialism.” Shifting away from a specific focus on the contributions that policy-

makers can have on improving think tank impact and influence, it is important to further encourage the formation of networks that incorporate actors from developing countries. This is a particularly crucial point because as fragile civil societies develop, these networks can help foment and solidify the strength of institutions in these societies by transferring knowledge and technical expertise. Creating and preserving multi-sectoral integration and flexibility in global think tank networks and structurally independent policy network structures not only ensures continued relevance on a global scale but also allows such networks to avoid the lag times that often complicate reaction and adaptation times in response to emerging issues. Witte and Reinicke argue that the private sector’s integration with a “tri-sectoral network” of states, international organizations, and civil society actors increases public policy’s responsiveness to a changing environment.1 Streck includes the private sector in her definition of tri-sectoral, asserting that global public policy networks are “ideally tri-sectoral networks characterized by collaboration between governments, representatives of civil society and of the for-profit private sector.”2 In this sense, “multi-sectoral” is perhaps a more appropriate term to describe the global public policy networks that invite collaboration among governments, civil society organizations, think tanks, academic institutions, and corporations. Multi-sectoral networks that include the private sector are a recent innovation that is necessary to raise awareness of private sector innovations among policymakers and translate concerns from the private sector to government. The subprime and credit crisis that began in 2007 is a prime example of the detrimental effect of a lack of communication and aligned incentives between the private sector and policymakers, which led to a lack of appropriate financial regulatory policy. Encouraging effective network management is especially relevant

given the global scale of these organizations and networks. By encouraging effective network management, think tanks can reduce resources drained by ineffective networks. Network management is the challenge at the forefront of the issues facing network development; network

management is a crucial means of improving impact. International organizations can play a role in establishing forums and training courses for network management and encouraging interdisciplinary research. Maintaining an effective and efficient network management not only reduces the already considerable strain on financial resources but also increases the reaction and response time in relation to new developments or emerging issues. As with almost anything else, solid network management greatly improves think tank efficiency; the more resources at its disposal that do not need to be siphoned off to deal with problems such as network inefficiency, the more funds and other assets can be directed at fulfilling the organization’s agenda. An additional component of increasing think tank and policy network

impact and influence is the importance of international organizations. Specifically, international organizations should develop comprehensive strategies for partnerships with global think tanks and policy networks. As global public policy, which has traditionally been the domain of international organizations, begins to involve and incorporate more actors on a worldwide scale, international organizations need to incorporate and embrace these actors rather than create a competition or tension for policy influence. This is a particularly important observation; the rapid proliferation and expansion of globalization in its various forms has created a considerable amount of misinformation, miscommunication and distrust among and between organizations. As such, cooperation will prove to be mutually beneficial for both parties by establishing and encouraging stable working relationships built upon trust and confidence. Whereas competition will only exacerbate the existing issues and further fragment the global landscape, a fusion of IOs and think tanks will greatly expand and strengthen the overall policy environment. International organizations and other civil society organizations can play a much-needed role in tracking and evaluating the proliferation of think tanks and policy networks in order to create trust among actors. The encouragement of ownership of impact analysis should also be

promoted; established methods or standards of evaluating impact on the part of the institutions is not only beneficial but also necessary for improving global policy impact. The task of think tank and network evaluation must be done independently, but improvements in overall effectiveness can be accomplished by also encouraging systematic impact analysis on the part of institutions themselves. Therefore, institutions must be encouraged to create a standardized internal procedure for measuring and evaluating effectiveness, perhaps incorporating some of the aforementioned metrics into a systemic internal analysis procedure.

Metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of global policy networks will also have to be developed. Regulatory risks and issues abound in almost every aspect and facet

of global society, although perhaps nowhere more so than regarding the flow of information through the internet. Minimizing this regulatory risk, then, becomes critical in order to ensure continued information dissemination and policy advice that is both timely and accurate. The unregulated nature of cyberspace presents serious problems regarding information quality. For very little cost, any group (a racist militia group, for example) can set up what appears to be a website for a legitimate think tank. In the 2008 election, respected US media sources including the New York Times printed false information about candidates from the convincing website of what turned out to be a sham think tank. After 9/11, the specter of terrorists using NGOs as a front for their operations and some highly publicized cases of abuse have made accountability and funding critical issues for the NGO and think tank community. In addition, the increasing power of NGOs has prompted scholars, governments, and the media to raise questions about the roles and responsibilities of these new global, non-state actors. Fundamental questions include: How many NGOs actually exist, and what are their agendas? Who runs these groups? Who funds them? Moreover, perhaps most significantly, to whom are NGOs accountable, and how and what influence do they actually have on world politics? These questions are further evidence that some form of regulation is in order to boost and cement trust and confidence; however, care should be taken in order to avoid the slippery slope of too much regulation that stifles the growth of the civil society sector, with think tanks and policy networks along with it. This dilemma is obviously an extremely difficult one to balance properly, and as such will continue to be a major issue in the future. In the cyber-age, the caveat emptor principle is more appropriate than

ever before for those seeking information. Attempts to reduce uncertainty can be successful by taking the following steps. First, there must be established monitoring of government registration restrictions on civil society organizations or attempts to infiltrate networks through “phantom” think tanks. Phantom think tanks are entities set up by governments with the sole purpose of keeping tabs on the civil society sector and perhaps even undermining it while masquerading under the false pretense of being independent and autonomous. In reality, these organizations are entirely government funded and run. Nevertheless, these phantom think tanks, when recognized as such, can still contribute positively to global public policy by evaluating other think tanks and analyzing their impact.