2014-global-go-to-think-tank-index-22012015_1

corporations and non-profits, need to develop methods of success evaluation that provide
constructive learning experiences for their scholars. He argues that measurement is quite difficult
given the desire to succeed in high-impact circumstances. It is crucial to view success through
various lenses and look at impact on relative, not absolute, grounds. 87 Limiting the pressure to
have “high impact” in all outcomes and evaluating impact through a variety of mechanisms and
measurements will ultimately foster a more open research environment. Moreover, by mitigating
pressure from donors, think tank scholars have more breadth to research and collaborate.
One effective measurement tool is to look at impact indicators through a moderated
“intermediate” lens. Many of the “impact indicators” are more focused on intermediate
outcomes, such as the “number of citations,” rather than ultimate outcomes, such as the “number
of people helped by a new policy.” 88 This trend toward intermediate measures is one method to
effectively measure impact in smaller, short-term circumstances. The majority of the potential
readers prefer quantitative monitoring and evaluation (M&E) because it is a “practical translation
of a focus on outcomes,” while the quantitative M&E cannot capture “all the nuances of a policy
effort.” 89
VI. Phantom NGO Think Tanks: Governments are creating think tanks designed to appear to
be non-governmental organizations, but are in fact arms of the government. Likewise,
corporations and individuals have established think tanks to promote their special interests. This
trend raises concerns about a lack of transparency and private interests masquerading as public
interest. In Britain, the Guardian’s combative George Montbiot has written a number of pieces
warning “secretive think tanks are crushing our democracy” by engaging in “secret corporate
lobbying.” 90 And this is not a concern to which the United States is immune. In fact,
Washington, D.C. is becoming a hotbed for such think tanks: those that act more like lobbying
and public relations bodies than sources of independent ideas or policy critique. 91 Moreover, the
overlap between think tanks and Washington’s political realm demonstrates the pervasive
influence of partisanship into scholarship. For example, former Republican Senator Jim
DeMint’s appointment as president of the Heritage Foundation in 2013 provoked questions about
the Foundation’s overt politicization and its failure to “separate intellectual inquiry from raw
partisan politics.” 92
Many think tanks in the United States that are tax-exempt under their 501(c)(3) status now
feature affiliated, non-tax-exempt lobbying arms. 93 It ought not to come as a surprise, then, that
87 Andrew Selee, "Can Think Tanks Influence Public Opinion and Improve Policy"
88 “Helping Think Tanks Measure Impact,” Redstone Strategy Group, 15 September 2013, accessed 6
January 2014, http://www.redstonestrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2013-09-30-IDRC-Helpingthink-tanks-measure-impact.pdf.
89 Ibid.
90 Monbiot, George. 2006. Who’s Paying http://bit.ly/LcQnKC.)
91 Bartlett, Bruce. "The Alarming Corruption of the Think Tanks." TheFiscalTimes.com. The Fiscal Times,
14 Dec. 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
92 Jennifer Rubin, "Jim DeMint’s Destruction of the Heritage Foundation," The Washington Post, 21
October 201, accessed 6 January 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rightturn/wp/2013/10/21/jim-demints-destruction-of-the-heritage-foundation/.
93 Ibid
31