Elisa Chelle (Institute of Political Studies of Grenoble)

 "Data-driven" Social Policy: The Legitimating Role of Private Research Institutes and Committees in France and the Unites States"

Policy evaluation has become a common place in the U.S., and somehow France is on the same track. The widespread use of evaluation data as a way of legitimating social policy is what we call "data-driven" social policy. This paper would focus on the production and uses of evaluation data: how is it produced by private policy research institutes? What are the characteristics of the producers (Ph.D. holders for instance)? What are their relationships with political instances?

The case of social policy has been chosen to illustrate this process. The U.S. part consists in a New York City pilot program called "Opportunity NYC" that offers poorest new-yorkers cash incentives to "help them get out of poverty". This 3-year experimentation has been designed and is evaluated by a set of non-profits partners, including a private research institute named MDRC (Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation). The French part is focused on the evaluation committee for the Revenu de Solidarité Active, a law recently passed to incentivize poor people to get back to work rather than relying on public assistance. The interest of the comparison relies on the fact that in New York City we observe a mainly private process, but still managed by a few public officials (local scale), and in France committees are appointed within a legal frame and a bureaucratic system (national scale). This study is based on qualitative field research: near 30 semi-directive interviews has been performed both in New York City and in France.

Both of these instances have produced reports intended to state whether a policy is good or not, whether it is correctly implemented or not, what challenges are faced and what corrections should be made. We'll see that the most important part of this process is not so much the mere content of these reports, but rather how it is used - or not - by politicians to legitimate their political action. The fact that they are at the same time the silent partners and the consumers of this expertise poses an interesting debate about how those two entities interact. That is not to say that one is entirely manipulated by the other. In the U.S. case, the research institute is paid to provide a service; in France, committees provide social visibility and usefulness to social scientists and experts. In both cases, "the results" always weigh one way or another in the public debate. The role of political science here would be to deconstruct the myth that the data speaks by itself and shed light on the political uses of science.

Momoko Sone (University of Toulouse)

BACKGROUND: Throughout its history, Japanese policy-making cannot be characterized as fluid - ryodo-teki - or pluralistic - tayo-teki - even after Japan was democratized during the United States Occupation. Therefore, Japan has been described as having "a gridlocked political system."If one wants to simply paint a picture of the current Japanese policy-making system, it can be said that the policy decisions are between the short, hardy bridge between the bureaucrats and the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) politicians or since recently, the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) politicians. The combination of the Japanese bureaucracy and the conservative politicians, historically, has been a continual, dominant force in the political arena. The bureaucracy especially remains solid in Japanese politics with its "strong instinct for self-preservation" as they emerged virtually unscathed from the radical political changes enforced during the United States Occupation; the LDP was the unquestionable powerhouse in the Diet, the Japanese parliament, from its establishment in 1955 until its brief breakup in 1993 (and again in 2009). Even after the 1993 breakup, the LDP coalition steadily held a majority in both house in the Diet. This picture is obviously too simplified in many policy cases in Japan, but it is not a leap from reality to state that that the bureaucrats and the conservative politicians dominate the policy-making arena in Japan.

Not too long ago, only a few inside and outside Japan would have criticized this rigid way of policy-making; the bureaucracy with its strong ties to the LDP politicians is credited for Japan's economic recovery after World War II and the thriving economy during the "bubble Era" in the 1970's and the 1980's. However, beginning in the 1990's, "Japan's powerful bureaucracy was blamed for the country's inability to adapt to changes and new international realities." For example, there have been eleven economic packages - demonstrating the rigid, immutable ways of the Japanese policy-making system. Furthermore, the Diet is many times solely dependent on the bureaucracy for policy ideas and recommendations.

Anu Ketunen ( University of Jyväskylä)

 Shaping the future of Finland - the role of think tanks in producing foresight discourses

There are only few think tanks in Finland. They claim to be independent but have some clear goals where they aim at. They are not, however, connected to any political party.

This paper studies the role and significance of two different think tanks in the field of Finnish foresight work. One of them, the Finnish Innovation Fund, Sitra, is a significant and active player in the field. In recent years, it has launched several projects where the future of Finland has been outlined. Mainly the political, administrative and business elites have been invited to participate in the projects. Sitra is a public fund supervised by the Finnish Parliament and founded in 1967. It claims to be independent but has, however, strongly stressed economical aspects in its future visions. Improving the skills and knowledge base of the decision-makers on future challenges is an important aim for Sitra.

This paper contrasts Sitra with another think tank, Demos Helsinki. It was established in 2005. Demos Helsinki claims to be the only independent think tank in Finland. In addition, it claims to be creating a world where, instead of only choosing the decision makers, the common people are shaping the society (www.demos.fi/demos_hki). All in all, Sitra and Demos Helsinki seem to represent different approaches to foresight work; while the former trusts on current decision-makers and closed workshops, the latter promotes open discussion and wants to challenge traditional ways of thinking. This paper studies the role of these think tanks in shaping the future of Finland and examines the possible differences in their discourses. It asks whose future is outlined and what kind of expertise is used in its production.

The paper studies foresight discourses in Finland and focuses on the role and significance of think tanks in producing it. The production of expertise and legitimacy in foresight work and the vocabulary and the knowledge that the expertise is based on are discussed. Who can participate in foresight work according to the think tanks?

Sebastian Caré (University of Rennes 1)

The role of libertarian think tanks in American political life

This paper proposes to investigate the role of libertarian think tanks in American political life system through the example of environment. Following a split with conservatives in the late 1960s, the libertarian movement emerged from an anti-war coalition that brought together the Old Right and the New Left. In the early 1970s, this movement proceeded to found institutions (e.g. think tanks) and even its own political party. The latter is doomed to marginality by the two-party system, and think tanks such as the Cato Institute has proved to be the best tool  for disseminating libertarian ideas and influencing American politics. From this point of view, libertarian think tanks has been particularly efficient concerning environmental issues.

Observers of the G. W. Bush administration's environmental policy (2001-2005) usually invoke two types of motivation: a scepticism about climate science and a compliancy towards industrial lobbies. Without denying the patent importance of these motivations, this study aims at revealing that the latter policy has also been shaped by an ideology called Free Market Environmentalism (FME) and disseminated by libertarian think tanks. FME is a doctrine that recommends the use of market institutions - particularly property rights, voluntary exchange, and common law liability rules - to protect environmental resources. In 1991, when Terry Anderson and Donald Leal published their Free Market Environmentalism, it was still a fringe idea in America. During the intervening years, it is safe to say that FME has come of age, and gained a foothold in the US, far more so than in any other country. If FME was more theoretical than applied 15 years ago, it is now possible to provide numerous examples of FME principles put to practice in the real world.

The aim of this presentation is to survey the various forms FME has assumed in America, and to sketch how its ideas have entered political life. Based on a survey conducted in the United-States in 2005, this work would explore the role of libertarian think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Property and Environment Research Center and the Foundation for Research on Economics and Environment, whose experts has gained credence among the Bush Administration officials looking for ways to shift regulatory responsibilities back to the states.

Xavier Carpentier -Tanguy (University of Coimbra)

European Think Tanks : new forms of diplomacy?

Defining what "think tank" really are still remains a difficult exercise [see Stone, Denham & Garnett (1998); McGann & Weaver(2000)]. Yet, the fact that think tanks have proliferated in great numbers tells much about the culture, society, and politics of the European Union. Think tanks depend on the more established institutions of academic, political, economic, and journalistic production for financial support, patronage, personnel, and formal partnership. The institutional anchors of the think tank world thus match with the symbolic bases of the policy expert's mixed professional role.

Our contribution seeks first to highlight a new form of power by considering both the set of historical and institutional forces in which think tanks are embedded and the distribution and functioning of policy experts.

 In such perspectives, my paper intends to present one possible way to observe and study influence of European think tanks. Brussels Based Think tanks call regularly themselves "diplomates intellectuels" which means they are some kind of facilitators. I propose to observe how some of these think tanks negotiate and formulate norms, commons ideas or tools on some specifics issues.

I selected three main topics as I already had to develop studies for other research programs.

The  network TGAE, initiated by the French Presidency of the European Council, was elaborated with 13 European think tanks worked together in order to present precise recommendations regarding tomorrow's major strategic issues to the future trio of the French, Czech and Swedish Presidencies. The report "Think Global - Act European" received an official support from the French, Czech and Swedish governments, designing a new kind of European elite. A second report, TGAE2, is already scheduled for the next three Presidencies of the European Councils. Some evolutions could be traced and reveal methods of think tanks to be or to remain influent.

Some think tanks (WPS, Chatham House, IFRI...) are involved in specific programs such as "Leadership programs", "Young Leaders" etc...their goals are to select and invite young scholars from East, Africa and so on, in order to build a network of possible leaders and to disseminate ideas, methods and norms around the world. This is a clear contribution to the circulation of ideas and a new form of corporate "Brain Drain" (i.e without any direct help of the States)

The long-term negotiation of Turkey in the European Union deals with several strategic issues (energy, European borders, religion..). The EU symbolically opened membership talks with Turkey in October 2005, but a number of stumbling blocks remain on Ankara's road to EU accession. The Copenhagen political criteria for EU membership include an active civil society which also supposes partnership with European networks, associations , for instance, think tanks. Consequently, we could observe the work done by several think tanks to support the candidacy of Ankara Turkey helps to build some of this supporting networks, as the opposite networks trying to explain why Ankara should not be European member..

 Through this presentation my paper intends to analyze the role of the interplay between all the well-known EU-actors in order to take into question the raise of new political elite

Guillaume Durin (University of Lyon)

 The Just War discourse renewal in the US intellectual field as a Discourse Coalition Process

The goal of the analysis is to enlighten the renewal of the American intellectual just war discourse from 1971 to 2008 by questioning an intellectual discourse aiming to face the dilemmas referred to « the moral reality of war » by its advocates.

Since the early sixties, various social actors (such as scholars, experts, editorialists, activists, retired military personals and clergymen) and groups they were able to create, gather their social positions and resources (academicals boards and societies, un-formal networks, foundations and think tanks) in a discourse coalition process. Michael Walzer, James Turner Johnson, Jean Elshtain, George Weigel but also Bill Galston, Robert Royal, John Kelsay Martin L. Cook and Michael Novak are actually its most prominent promoters. Think Tanks like the former World Without War Council, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Institute for American Values and its Malta Forum used to play a significant part in the process they initiated. Those organizations are mainly catalysing public intellectual's commitment, linking political and academic world and offering an access to material resources such as communicative tools: some highly attractive resources in both a public use of reason and a position-battle in the deliberative sphere of the American superpower.

Indeed from the Vietnam War to the Enduring Freedom operation through the Kosovo intervention, the just war thinkers and promoters arguments telescope others powerful ethical discourses such as pacifism - Christian or leftist -, cosmopolitan internationalism, and realism. The just war thinkers (and their opponents) evaluate, justify or try to denounce political choices on a moralistic ground against those other moral options, trying to aggregate public support. This political commitment and those permanent controversies both strongly shape their initiatives. Finally, the American just war tradition is not fully understandable outside of an interpretive sociology of knowledge.

Délia Lacan (University of Montpellier)

 The role of policy institutes and think tanks in abolishing affirmative action

 Affirmative action is a controversial policy adopted in 1965 and intended to provide remedy to minorities that have been discriminated against. Since 1995, this policy is under attack and has been abolished in several States (California, Michigan, Washington, Nebraska, Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana). Abolition has taken different forms: it is the result of ballot initiatives (as in the case of California, Michigan, Washington and Nebraska), of political action (Florida) and court decisions. Anti-preference actions undertaken by political activists such as Ward Connerly largely benefitted from support, documentation and funding from different conservative institutes and think tanks. Among these, it is worth mentioning the Pacific Legal Foundation and Pacific Research Institute, the Center for Equal Opportunity and Equal Opportunity Foundation, the Center for Individual Rights, the Institute for Justice.  Other major players in this institutional network are the Bradley Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation.  

This paper will concentrate on efforts undertaken by these policy institutes and think tanks in order to help advance the anti-preference movement and a color blind agenda in the 1990s. Efforts have been organized over a long period of time and include a large span of actions which will be detailed in my paper (media outreach, research grants, litigation, etc.). I intend to organize my research around the following topics:

• 1. Analyze the way in which the supposedly "neutral" scientific discourse advanced by these institutions becomes compatible with the advancement of a political conservative agenda. A large body of literature hostile to affirmative action has been sponsored, published and mediated by think tanks and policy institutes. Authors are well-known scholars. The case of black neoconservatives militating against affirmative action will be given special attention.
• 2. Think tanks and policy institute help "shape" American politics by reformulating the rules of the political game. They establish links with other groups and institutions which provide help and finance Ward Connerly's campaigns against preferential treatment at national and federal level. Policy institutes and think tanks are important elements in a larger "network" of institutions that are able to advance a political agenda independently from major political parties.

Atle Nyhagen & Tor Halvorsen (Bergen University)

 The spread of neo-liberal networks in Scandinavia - Neo-liberal think tanks in Norway?

Case study of the liberal think tank, Civita, in Norway established in 2003. Think tanks in Norway are a recent phenomenon and at the time there is not more than a handful in operation, although they are covering the whole political spectrum from left to right. In terms of resources Civita comes on top of the list. The budget of this tank tank was about one million euros (8 million kroners) in 2008, largely donated by The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO), the Norwegian Shipowners Association as well as some of the wealthiest businessmen in Norway.

 The aim of the work of Civita is to "contribute to an increased understanding for and commitment to the core values of a free economy, civil society and strengthened personal responsibility." (http://www.civita.no/en/about/civita) Through its main activities, such as research, publications, seminars and conferences, Civita engages in efforts to influence political debate and policy reform proposals in Norway. In terms of actual influence on day to day politics Civita can not be considered very influential and their standing as an independent expert organisation is probably limited due to their competition with public funded research institutes. In terms of networking activities however, Civita probably already plays and important role, particular in terms of spreading ideas and research from other think tanks and transnational think tank networks. 

This paper will document the spread of neo liberal think tanks in Scandinavia with Norway as a point of departure. Although a very recent phenomenon in Norway, the newspaper editor Trygve J. B. Hoff of Farmand, who also held a doctorate in economics, were among the founding members of the Mont Pèlerin Society. From this one would be tempted to think that Norway could be seen stronghold for neo-liberal ideas and think tanks for decades. It is however not before the last decade that think tanks of a liberal kind has developed in Norway and therefore the situation is different from Sweden, were Timbro - with inspiration from the UK and the rise of think tanks during Thatchers role as a leader of the conservative party - was established in the end of the 1970s. The paper raises the issue of how neo-liberal think tanks learn form each other in terms of organisation, agendas and profile. This however is also related to the different contexts the think tanks are related to and to what degree their main objective is influencing national debate. In addition recent initiatives to raise the profile of European think tanks are discussed in relation to the Stockholm Network of which Civita also is an affiliated member.

Kim Bizzarri (University of Strathclyde)

Neoliberal think tanks, "geo-historical blocks" and the "normalisation" of environmental discourses. A critical approach to the multi-leveled governance of environmental policy in Europe.

The unprecedented rise of think tanks since the mid 1980s invites us to pay greater attention to the cultural and legislative influence of epistemic communities within growing technocratic systems of governance. Particularly in relation to environmental policy, where scientific uncertainty is often high, expertise is increasingly regarded as more legitimate than democracy in shaping policy-decisions. By drawing from a transnational historical materialist perspective rooted in (soft) constructivism and informed by the teachings of Antonio Gramsci, the paper explores the role, both in terms of its diversity and extent, played by epistemic communities in shaping both political debates and policy choices in Europe.

In line with the constructivist tradition, the paper accepts the dialectical nature of structure and agency and takes epistemic communities as being both constituted by, and constitutive of, social reality. As such, the historical materialist slant of the analysis suggests paying particular attention to the material basis upon which epistemic communities rest, construct and reproduce their discourses. Whilst taking environmental policy as its area of investigation, the paper also explores the agency of think tanks across multiple and interconnected levels of governance (EU, UK, Scotland) in an attempt to produce a more nuanced understanding of the role and practices of "policy discourse coalitions" operating at local, national and transnational level - what could be defined as "historical-geographical blocks" in a Gramscian sense.

By identifying neoliberalism as the dominant ideology guiding the current phase of European integration, the research investigates, on the one hand, the cultural role think tanks play in "normalising" environmental discourses in accordance with neoliberal precepts whilst, on the other hand, it also investigates the legislative role think tanks play as legitimate experts within technocratic process of policy governance ("governing science"). The paper points towards the rise of a new professional class "in the making" and addresses its implications in relation to the notions of legitimacy, representation and accountability within a multi-leveled system of governance.

David Miller (University of Strathclyde)

This paper examines the origins of the Stockholm Network, a working group of European market-oriented think-tanks. It has two primary objectives: to build a wide network of pro-market policy specialists within Europe and to use that network to influence the future direction of European policy-making on issues of pan-European importance. It was founded in 1997 in London and Stockholm. The paper examines the organisational basis of the Stockholm network in its relationship with Market House International, a PR consultancy which 'hosts' the Network and the background of the network and its founder Helen Disney. Originating in one of the key first wave neoliberal think tanks the Institute for Economic affairs, the network is devoted to spreading neoliberal ideas in Europe. 

The paper then examines the UK think tanks involved in the network which include

The similarities between these organisations on market economics and the variations between them in terms of international security will be examined.  This will be followed by three mini cases studies on the role of Stockholm Network think tanks in climate denial, healthcare reform and in anti-Islamist activity in order to highlight the various approaches taken by network members.The paper concludes with some remarks about the significant of the network and the activities of the think tanks.

Karin Fischer (University of Linz)

Organized neoliberals back in office - the Piñera think tank government in Chile

Think tanks are often described as a part of civil society. In this view, they serve as a source of ideas and perform an independent role in the policy making and discussion process. A democratic environment is seen as a precondition that think tanks - along with NGOs and political parties - are able to perform their task: to raise an independent voice to promote the analysis, discussion, design and implementation of sound public policies. Consequently the concept of a think tank is unimaginable during dictatorships or periods of political unrest.

This assumption is not true in the case of Chile. At an early stage, neoliberal think tanks were founded to attack the inward oriented development and mixed-economy perspectives of the 1960s. During the dictatorship of Pinochet think tanks functioned as a civil support base for the regime. During and after the transition to democracy, organized neoliberals, now excluded from their posts at the centre of power, developed effective strategies to protect the neoliberal model and to secure its cultural hegemony. Especially important was the establishment of private universities and think tanks. The activities of the newly founded think tanks range from surveys and opinion-polls, publications and commentaries in the media to public seminars. Their back offices serve as meeting-points between big business and members of the government. The Chilean think tanks host international conferences, train young economists from all over Latin America and Eastern Europe and cultivate institutional and personal ties to Atlas Foundation and other like-minded transnational networks, e.g. the Mont Pelerin Society.

Of special relevance is the fact that the newly elected president of Chile, Sebastian Piñera, builds his cabinet on neoliberal protagonists stemming overwhelmingly from these think tanks and the private universities. From the presidential and state secretary to the ministers of economics, planning and education - they had been working during and after the transition to democracy on the forefront in the battle of ideas. Organized neoliberals have now, after 20 years of work from within civil society, conquered again significant positions in the state.

William Dinan (University of Strathclyde)

Shifting European: the Stockholm Network, market liberal think tanks and EU policy discourse

 This paper examines the role and impact of a number of neoconservative and market liberal think tanks operating at the EU level. The analysis considers in particular the activities and strategy of think tanks in the Stockholm Network in relation to EU policy debate and deliberation. The paper considers the shared goals, strategies and areas of policy interest of Stockholm network affiliates based in Brussels (ECIPE, European Ideas Network (EIN), Health Consumer Powerhouse (HCP), Institut Economique Molinari (IEM), Institute Thomas More and Ludwig von Mises Institute Europe), and how they relate to the wider Stockholm Network, and to other right wing think tanks operating on the Brussels scene (such as the Lisbon Council for Economic Competitiveness and Social Renewal, Bertelsmann Foundation, Open Europe).  It is argued that the increased 'competition' for funding and policy ideas in Brussels occasioned by the arrival and activism of new right think tanks is having some impacts on the terms of policy debate in Brussels, and on the activities and strategies of more established centre right think tanks.