ABSTRACT
This chapter addresses the extent to which interviews with think tank practitioners and quantitative data support and challenge the Continental tradition in accounting for the development of think tanks in Germany, Denmark, the UK and at the EU-level. It departs from the cases of Germany and Denmark and compares the development of publicly funded research institutes with the UK and the EU-level. The chapter explains the Continental traditions influence on think tank development in recent decades. According to Joseph Braml, a policy analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Germany's two-chamber system and tradition for majoritarian governments provide a dilemma that is interesting in terms of understanding interest representation and think tanks. In the political think tank realm, however, the formal character of German policy-making and the tradition of neutral civil servants, even in positions close to decision-makers, give few incentives for government administration to exchange staff with publicly funded research institutes.
