I am overdue to comment on an excellent 2004 book by Andrew Rich, Think Tanks, Public Policy and the Politics of Expertise (Cambridge University Press). Anyone who wants to understand the evolution and role of think tanks should read this book (A sample chapter, here in PDF, whets your appetite for the whole thing. Here are some short, thought-provoking excerpts from the book:

pp. 26-27, “The greater substantive potential for policy research early on as opposed to during final deliberation and enactment is recognized by scholars. But this insight does not seem to have guided the behavior of many think tanks, at least not in the past quarter century. In the chapters that follow, I examine what account for these particular developments. I consider the paradox why, at precisely the moment when experts and those who support them are realizing their own power in policy making, those among the that are most conscious of their own potential devote effort where it can achieve the least substantive effect. This development in combination with the harm to collective reputation done by some ideological think tanks results in little evidence that, amid the proliferation of think tanks in American policy making, these think tanks and experts generally are especially – or proportionally – influential. Quite the opposite in fact: Their actual standing may be eroding just as their numbers and scholarly recognition increase.”

p. 215, “When think tanks become involved in producing commentary, they abandon the most distinctive niche for experts in the policy process, the point in the process when the contributions of researchers are least contested by other types of actors. Instead, in efforts to attract attention for work that at best serves little substantive role anyway, think tanks compete with scores of non-expert actors involved in policy debates, especially interest groups and lobbyists, that almost invariable have more resources and power than they do. In the competition between interest groups and think tanks to make views influential at latter stages of policy debates, interest groups almost always win out.”

p. 216, “At the beginning of the twenty-first century, research is frequently evaluated more in terms of its ideological content and accessibility to audiences than by the quality of its content.”

p. 218, ” the imbalance between conservative and liberal think tanks seems likely to diminish… “; p. 220, “… whether liberal think tanks become more marketing oriented or whether they increase in numbers to rival conservative organizations, I question whether it matters as much for policy making as some activists believe.”

p. 220, “The biggest worry for liberals, conservatives, and scholars alike should be the trend for think tanks – and increasingly experts of all kinds – to produce research that is little more than polemical commentary. This work diminishes the potential for its producers to have substantive influence with policy makers. Even more, this work, especially in its most ideological and most aggressively marketed forms, damages the reputation of experts generally among policy makers. The distinction between experts and advocates is tenuous. As we head into the future, the weakness of that distinction presents a fundamental challenge for think tanks, experts, and those who rely on the. The weakness threatens the quality of policy produced; for if trusted research and analysis is not available, what becomes the foundation for informed policy decisions?”

For those interested in understanding think tanks in contemporary policy and politics, get the book and read it.