On May 1st, the Hauser Center Nonprofits in China Domain organized a panel discussion, China’s Think Tanks: Roles and Implications for Civil Society in China. The panel started with a presentation by James C. McGann, Director of Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, Foreign Policy Research Institute Assistant Director, International Relations Program, University of Pennsylvania. Xufeng Zhu, Visiting Scholar, Harvard Yenching Institute, Associate professor from Nankai University of China followed with a response. And commentary was provided by Xijin Jia, Associate Professor at Tsinghua University of China, Visiting Scholar, Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations. Julian Chang, Executive Director, Asia Programs, Ash Institute at Harvard Kennedy School moderated the panel. Below are notes of the panel:

McGann’s presentation “Think Tanks in China’s Civil Society”

McGann began with a definition of civil society and think tanks, followed by a broad overview of the roles they play in society. Civil society refers to “entities that operate outside the state and market that are organized, non-governmental, non profit-distributing, self-governing, and voluntary”. In China these organizations “play a crucial role in providing social services and educating the public on key issues such as HIV/AIDS, education and rural development”. Think tanks are “public policy research, analysis, and engagement organizations that provide advice on domestic and foreign policy issues”.

Civil society is an “essential prerequisite for sustainable development”. “The participation of stakeholders leads to better policies and planning because potential problems are identified and stakeholder interests and concerns are incorporated into the decision making process”.

Think tanks have both civil society and policy functions. Their civil society functions include the “creation of an informed citizenry through public education about key issues”. Think tanks also serve as “a key indicator of civil society”. In addition, think tanks serve as a “bridge between the government and the public, and are often at the vanguard of democratization movements around the world”. The policy functions of think tanks include “promoting rationality and transparency in the policy making process, and assisting the government in the analysis of policy problems and formulation of public policy”.

The challenge that think tanks address is how to harvest knowledge, information, and energy that exist in public policy research organizations for public good. McCann quoted George McGovern’s idea, to “skim globally, reinvent locally” emphasizing the need to figure out how to scan effectively for the best policy ideas.

McGann then turned to think tanks in a global setting, particularly in China. Currently, there are approximately 5,465 think tanks in the world, 34% located in North America, 22% in Western Europe, and 12% in Asia. Chinese think tanks make up 12% of the total in Asia, Hong Kong 4.4%, India 18.7%, and Taiwan 5.5%.

McGann prefaced his discussion of Chinese think tanks with several caveats: he is not a China expert; his research focused on the 136 think tanks he was able to identify; lists of think tanks in China are non-existent and access to these institutions and their research is limited; while he was able to conduct interviews with various think tanks, resources did not permit him to conduct extensive field research.

China, with 73 think tanks has the bulk of think tanks in the region (53%), followed by Taiwan with 36 (26%) and Hong Kong with 29 (21%). The similarities among the think tanks include shared cultural heritage, policy priority given to economic growth and development, and a Confucian tradition of deference and respect for authority. In addition, policy analysis and decision making processes are not conducive to civil society input as these processes are concentrated in bureaucracy and political parties. Finally, McGann notes that the need for think tanks and policy advice exceeds supply. The differences between the three were in the divergent modern political and economic culture. Comparative case studies       highlight the unique set of challenges each case faces and perhaps lessons on effective catalysts for change.

McGann then narrowed his discussion to think tanks in China. In an overview from a historical perspective, he divided the history of think tanks in China into three periods: 1956-1966 Soviet-style ideological think tanks that served to justify government policy and were hierarchically structured and housed in government ministries. 1976-1989 Emergence of “semi-official think tanks” (Governmental) that focused on economic issues, had greater autonomy and influence on policy but still existed within the formal structure of governemtn. 1989-present Tentative growth of scholarly, “civilian think tanks” (quasi governmental), which is marked by the gradual reemergence of think tanks after Tiananmen, increase in civilian think tanks and university-affiliated research organizations, and are still controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and government despite being located outside of government.

There are two types of think tanks that have emerged in China. First, semi official (governmental and quasi-governmental) and civilian (businesses, NGOs, and universities). Independent think tanks are virtually non-existent, and current government policies are designed to limit the number, role, and influence of think tanks.

With regard to think tanks in China, McGann highlighted some key findings. There is an obvious trend of gradualism. The impact of the economic revolution on think tank proliferation is slow, and while there is openness there is no independence and intellectual freedom is constrained. The government is interested in policy research, but not in independent think tanks. Another key finding is that think tanks are government or university affiliated and funded almost exclusively by the government (65 out of 72 think tanks). Areas of research focus on economic and international issues, while issues like democracy and human rights as are sensitive social and political issues. The target audience is policy-makers and political elites, not the public or media.

The limitations that think tanks face in China include: government control and monitoring (what McGann refers to as NGO pushback), dependency of think tanks on government funding and authority to operate, increase in think tanks providing policy advice on a narrow set of issues, and the heavy influence of political climate and lack of independence. The implications of these limitations are self censorship, limits on critical analysis and innovative ideas, the rewarding of group think and bureaucratic babble, and leaving the government unprepared to respond to challenges and seize opportunities.

McGann outlined three sets of recommendations. First, increase the legal and operating framework for think tanks and NGOs. This would allow for independence and transparency, encourage cooperation among think tanks, and free up resources to expand analysis capabilities. Second, increase independent sources of funding. This could be accomplished by creating regulations that allow for independent sources of funding, create domestic funding mechanisms independent of the CCP, and increase government funding for public policy resources. Third, increase the quality and strategic capacity of all think tanks. This would result in increased public engagement on key public policy issues and diversification of research areas and public discussion on previously taboo policy issues.

In conclusion, think tanks help “increase the legitimacy of governments while reducing the crisis of confidence that many governments face today. Think tanks are an important indicator of a healthy civil society”, which is necessary to sustain economic growth and development. It is “in China’s national interest to build independent policy capacity that will enable it to meet the challenges and opportunities it will face as a global superpower”.

Zhu “Behavior Patterns of China’s Think Tanks: Political Brainpowers or Civil Society Organizations?”

Zhu’s main argument is that think tanks function “simultaneously as political brainpowers and civil society organizations”, exhibiting different behavioral patterns in influencing policy, using inside access (as political brainpowers) and through public opinion (civil society organizations).

In terms of structure, he divides the organizations that play a role in Chinese policy decision making into official government institutes, semi-official think tanks, and civilian think tanks. Zhu has chosen to concentrate on the latter two because official government institutes serve as the internal brains of the government, and therefore are not think tanks.

His empirical data are based on a 2004 nationwide survey of 301 think tanks from 25 provinces, 160 semi-official think tanks and 141 civilian think tanks.

Zhu to help measure the influence of Chinese think tanks highlighted three levels of influence: decision-maker influence (by political brainpowers), social elite influence (by academic activitists), and public influence (by civil society organizations). Zhu’s empirical findings were based on three different regression models that focused on political brainpower, academic activists, and civil society organizations. He found that organizational control variable have no influence on think tank behavior. Linkages to the state did contribute to the behavior of think tanks, and that semi-official think tanks have the advantage in political brain power. In terms of personal networks, the social elite contribute most to the political brainpower, while media contribute to civil society. Among civilian think tanks there was no correlation with administrative ranks.

In conclusion, Zhu argues that evaluations of think tanks should look not only at what their identities are, but what they actually do. There are two component forces that determine the kind of behavior patterns think tanks select. The first is the relationship with the government that causes think tanks to choose inside approaches to influence policies, in this case functioning as political brainpowers. Semi-official think tanks tend to relay mainly on administrative networks, while civilian think tanks depend on personal decision-maker networks of civilian experts. The second force is local knowledge development surrounding think tanks that causes think tanks to select roundabout approaches through public opinion to influence policies. In this case think tanks operate more like civil society organizations and think tank experts resemble public intellectuals.

Zhu’s research will continue by exploring the social consequences of think tanks different behavioral patterns in China.

Commentary by Jia

Professor Jia offered some commentary to round out the panel. She argued that it is important to realize that think tanks are also concerned with their legitimacy, and that semi-official think tanks, which she grouped into GONGO and grassroots, follow different rules to guard their legitimacy. The GONGO think tanks are more inside and part of the current system, therefore their legitimacy is derived directly from the current political and social system. They have more open space as they do not have to worry about being shut down by the government, but at the same time are more self-disciplined. Grassroots think tanks, on the other hand, have to carefully guard their legitimacy, which they acquire through registering officially with the government. They are in the process of trying to explore their space.

Jia also made the distinction between the goals of semi official think tanks and civil society think tanks. Semi-official think tanks try to affect more change and change attitudes. Civil society think tanks are involved more in policy itself rather than politics. The interaction between the two kinds of think tanks is very high.

In assessing the influence of think tanks in China, one must distinguish between policy and political resources and take into account the political framework in China. GONGO think tanks focus more on policy issues, and have more influence. Grassroots think tanks focus on more political issues and have limited influence.

Jia said that in the future, grassroots think tanks might have more resources that would enable them to become involved in political issues. GONGO think tanks might, in turn, think more on the political side. So in the future it might be more mixed, and a change in the political situation might come from both sides. Perhaps civil society will be shaped by the political ideas and government in the process of changing their attitudes and behaviors. So both government and civil society are changing.

Discussions:

1. Funding is mentioned as an indicator of autonomy. Are there any variations in the government funding of think tanks?

McGann answered that he is skeptical of the claim that most money for funding is not from the government, based on the information that he looked at. Zhu said that there are three types of funding from the government: administrative preparation, government research project contracts, and free rang application. Jia added that she does not use funding as a criteria to distinguish jungle or grassroots think tanks. Instead, the key criteria is who makes the essential decisions. In addition, the background of who establishes the think tanks, for example former government officials, is also important.

2. Suggestions: Focus more on the local level. Different regions have different think tanks. For example the Chinese Academy of Social Science in Shanghai is very different from that in Beijing.  Also, on the issue of funding, most money does not come from the government, but from the market, enterprise, and international aid.

3. International NGOs and organizations act more aggressively in China. Many researchers argue that grassroots organizations are supported by international NGOs and think tanks.

4. These institutions change over time. For example, a think tank that is originally research oriented can later focus more on public policy.

5. Question: How do you measure access and influence of think tanks? Comparing India and China, India has many more think tanks but nothing like the Chinese Academy of Social Science, which enjoys great influence. How do you see this dichotomy?

(Notes by Peiting Li)