What must our think tanks do?

Think tanks are deemed to play an important role in the process of addressing the multidimensional problems that confront complex societies. In the city of Islamabad alone, there are at least 30 think tanks that focus on a wide range of research disciplines and policy domains. Although they might vary in size and in scope, they all attempt to produce regular research outputs that might inform the thinking of both specific institutions as well as the general public.

Think tanks also hold regular events to invite experts and select members of the public to share their thoughts and provide inputs, and they often disseminate the takeaways of such gatherings in written form. The coronavirus pandemic has led to a migration of such events to the virtual (webinar) format, but the change of medium hasn't detracted too much from the objectives of think tanks as a whole.

Yet insofar as there is a continued churning of research outputs during this coronavirus pandemic, the lockdown also offers a moment of reflection about the general direction in which think tanks are headed, especially in Pakistan.

At the very outset, it should be noted that there are certain structural issues that impede the potential that think tanks might have to begin with. These include: a low literacy rate, low public engagement, and a high power-distance cultural trait. This suggests prima facie that the challenge facing our think tanks is substantial.

That said, it may help to frame the role of our think tanks in terms of what Daniel Drezner once termed the 'Ideas Industry.' Drezner's premise was that the 'marketplace for ideas' has fundamentally shifted over the past two decades, and now no longer favoured the 'public intellectual,' but begun to show a penchant for 'thought leaders' instead.

The three main distinctions between the public intellectual and the thought leader are (1) depth, (2) objective, and (3) critique. On the first point, public intellectuals would know much about a great many things, while thought leaders would be characterised by a single 'great idea.' On the second point, public intellectuals would also often have their fame thrust upon them, but not go about actively building a personal 'brand,' while thought leaders would market themselves and actively cultivate fame.

On the final point, traditional public intellectuals would actively engage in the exercise of critique, 'ready to explain why some new policy idea is unlikely to work,' while thought...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT