Anshu Bharadwaj: In support of Indian think tanks

In an ongoing debate on the funding of Indian think tanks by foreign agencies (‘Indian minds, foreign funds’, Business Standard, August 9, 2010), commentators noted that both the government and Indian industry are reluctant to engage with think tanks; as a result, such institutions have no option but to resort to foreign funding sources. Seeking government support is hard for most think tanks, for several reasons. First, there is a lack of confidence in the abilities of think tanks to make high-quality and relevant contributions. Second, there is often mistrust about their ideology and agenda. Finally, even if the government is convinced to engage with a think tank, complicated rules and procedures come in the way of providing the desired level of financial support.

Nevertheless, there are compelling reasons for the government to engage with and promote quality think tanks in the country. Most policy problems are inherently inter-disciplinary in nature; they require domain knowledge in the respective disciplines, and strong inter-disciplinary skills integrating science and social science research methodologies. Science and technology are key enablers for human and economic development, and think tanks can keep abreast of cutting edge research in these subjects. With the growth in computing power, a rich repertoire of computational modelling tools is available for analysing a range of socio-economic problems facing the country. The use of such tools is a well-developed practice in the US and some other countries. We are yet to systematically adopt these practices.

So, how does the government engage with think tanks? To answer this, we must ask another question: “What kind of support do think tanks want from the government?” The success of think tanks critically depends on the quality of its intellectual human resources. They would like to strengthen their research capacity with high-caliber researchers. Attracting such researchers is a challenge, since think tanks cannot compete with the lucrative salaries paid by industry. They also cannot provide the job security and other benefits of government-owned research institutions. Project-based funding is short-term in nature and doesn’t provide the required security. Therefore, some level of core support is essential and allows institutions to recruit and retain a research group beyond the project duration. Second, senior researchers of think tanks often participate in government committees. An endowment allows think tanks to undertake such projects on a routine basis.

This is not to imply that think tanks become dependent on the government for their survival; far from it. Successful think tanks strive to prove their relevance to society and one sure way to enable them to accomplish this is by continuously raising research project grants. Large-scale core support from one source (such as government) might encourage a sense of complacency and stagnancy. Therefore, there is a balancing act between providing some core support to ensure stability while maintaining the vibrancy of the institution. Moreover, most think tanks, while welcoming governmental financial support, would also like to maintain their independence.

Recently, International Development and Research Corporation (IDRC) Canada applied their innovative global ‘Think Tank Initiative’ to South Asia. They provided a core support of up to 30 per cent of the budget for at least five years to strengthen the research capacity, administrative infrastructure and communications and outreach to selected think tanks after a highly competitive process. This model provides interesting insights for structuring governmental financial support to think tanks and I outline a few possibilities:

• Earmark a certain annual funding to support promising think tanks. This could be further augmented by inviting contributions from industry;
• Constitute a non-partisan group to ensure a transparent and rigorous selection process for grantee organisations;
• The government’s support should not exceed a certain fraction of the think tank budget. This will help provide stability without making the institution completely dependent on the government;
• Institutions should have the flexibility to utilise it in a manner which suits them best. It is also important that the government not interfere in the day-to-day administration of institutions and in setting their research agenda;
• The government must involve such institutions in policy making by assigning them key problems to work on, giving them access to data and providing regular feedback on their research output. These institutions could be regularly invited to brief legislative and parliamentary committees on their research findings. This will ensure outreach and relevance of the research output;
• Encourage knowledge-sharing and capacity-building between grantee institutions;
• Ensure a mechanism to track improvements in research quality with tangible indicators.

Such a structured mechanism will lead to progressive improvements in the research quality of think tanks. There are several think tanks willing to contribute high-quality studies in subjects of relevance to our socio-economic and human development, and the government and society will benefit by their work. Such a step will enable Indian think tanks to become both nationally relevant and internationally competitive.

The author is director of Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, Bangalore. anshu@cstep.in