Think Tanks - Producing how we shall think !!!

[donsaeid]

A think tank is a research institute or informal group providing advice and ideas on any aspect of future planning and strategy - for example issues of policy, commerce, and military interest - and are often associated with military laboratories, corporations, academia, or other institutions. Usually this term refers specifically to organizations that support multi-disciplinary theorists and intellectuals who endeavor to produce analysis or policy recommendations.

* A think tank is an organization that sponsors research on specific problems, encourages the discovery of solutions to those problems, and facilitates interaction among scientists and intellectuals in pursuit of these goals. A public policy think tank explicitly focuses on government policies, usually for the purpose of improving those policies or creating viable alternatives.
* By their very nature, public policy think tanks are involved with the academic and scholarly world.


History of think tanks

Since "think tank" is a term that has only found use since the 1950s, there is still some debate over what constitutes the first think tank. One candidate is the Fabian Society of Britain, founded in 1884 to promote gradual social change. The Brookings Institution, founded in the US in 1916 is another candidate for the first think tank. The term think tank itself, however, was originally used in reference to organizations that offered military advice, most notably the RAND Corporation, formed originally in 1945.

Until around 1970, there were no more than several dozen think tanks, mostly focused on offering non-partisan policy and military advice to the United States government, and generally with large staffs and research budgets. After 1970, the number of think tanks exploded, as many smaller new think tanks were formed to express various partisan, political, and ideological views.




Etymology and usage

Until the 1940s, most think-tanks were known only by the name of the institution. During the Second World War, think tanks were referred to as "brain boxes" after the slang term for the skull. The phrase "think tank" in wartime American slang referred to rooms in which strategists discussed war planning. The first recorded use of the phrase to refer to modern think tanks was in 1959, and by the 1960s the term was commonly used to describe RAND and other groups assisting the armed forces. In recent times, the phrase "think tank" has become applied to a wide range of advice-giving institutions, and there are no precise definitions of the term. Marketing or public relations organizations, especially of an international character, sometimes refer to themselves as think tanks, for example.




Types of think tanks

Some think tanks are clearly aligned with conservative or pro-market approaches to the economy, while others, especially those with an emphasis on social welfare, social equity or environmental outcomes, are viewed as more liberal or left-of-center.

A new trend, resulting from globalisation, is collaboration between think tanks across continents. For instance, the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, collaborates with Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Qatar for an initiative on West-Islam relations. Also, in the area of West-Islam relations, Strategic Foresight Group, a think tank based in India, works closely with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament. The World Economic Forum has created Council of 100 Leaders on West-Islam relations, which brings together heads of major global think tanks ranging from Oxford Islamic Centre at Oxford University to Strategic Foresight Group in India and Al-Azhar University in Egypt.




United States think tanks

Think tanks in the United States play an important role in forming both foreign and domestic policy. Typically, an issue such as national missile defense will be debated within and among think tanks and the results of these debates will influence government policy makers. Think tanks in the United States generally receive funding from private donors, and members of private organization think tanks may feel more free to propose and debate controversial ideas than people within government.

Modern neoconservatism is associated with some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The Heritage Foundation is a more traditional conservative policy think tank. On the other side of the political spectrum are think tanks such as the Institute for Policy Studies, the Progressive Policy Institute and the Center for American Progress. Economic Policy Institute is a prominent liberal think tank whose research emphasizes interests of low-income and middle-income workers. Other think tanks include Brookings Institution, a center-left organization, the Cato Institute, a libertarian or "free-market liberal" think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a non-partisan foreign policy-oriented organization, the Institute for Collaborative Engagement, a non-partisan internationally-focused organization, and the Mises Institute, focusing on economic education. The Roosevelt Institution is pushing the think tank model by attempting to organize university and college student bodies into effective think tanks.

Though there are think tanks in every part of the political spectrum, conservative think tanks tend to have substantially more influence than their centrist and liberal/progressive counterparts. For example, the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting released a report in 2006 which listed the 25 think tanks which were mentioned most often in the mainstream media news in 2005. The most-mentioned think tank was the centrist or center-left Brookings Institution. The next two most-mentioned think tanks--the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, are conservative while the fourth, the Cato Institute, is libertarian. Of the top ten think tanks, none were listed as "progressive" by FAIR, while five were listed as "conservative" or "conservative/libertarian." [1]

Government think tanks are also important in the United States, particularly in the security and defense field. These include the Institute for National Strategic Studies, Institute for Homeland Security Studies, and the Center for Technology and National Security Policy, at the National Defense University; the Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the Naval War College and the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College.

A new type of think tank is evolving which is based solely on Internet ad hoc social networks. These new types of networks allow people a chance to try out their concepts for discussion without committing to large amounts of time. For some this new think tank format works well and many beginners enjoy such stimulus. Some of these more informal think tanks are privately run. Many of these forums are for anyone to participate, some for practice and accumulation of knowledge and others for entertainment value.



Chinese think tanks

In the People's Republic of China a number of think tanks are sponsored by governmental agencies but still retain sufficient non-official status to be able to propose and debate ideas more freely. Indeed, most of the actual diplomacy between China and the United States has taken the form of academic exchanges between members of think tanks.
[edit]

Hong Kong think tanks

* Civic Exchange co-founded by Christine Loh in 2000
* Hong Kong Policy Research Institute Ltd.
* Hong Kong Transition Project
* HKU Pop Site
* One Country Two Systems Research Institute
* Social and Economic Policy Institute
* SynergyNet





European think tanks

In Britain, think tanks play a similar role to the United States, attempting to shape policy, and indeed there is some cooperation between British and American think tanks. Some of the major UK think tanks include Chatham House, Policy Exchange, the Globalisation Institute, the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the Adam Smith Institute, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Centre for European Reform.




In Germany all of the major parties are loosely associated with research foundations that play some role in shaping policy, but generally from the more disinterested role of providing research to support policymakers than explicitly proposing policy. The foundations are:

* Associated with the CDU is the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (in German, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung);
* The CSU is associated with the Hanns Seidel Foundation (Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung);
* The SPD is associated with the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung);
* The Free Democratic Party (Germany) is associated with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation (Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung);
* The Alliance '90/The Greens are associated with the Heinrich Böll Foundation (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung);
* The Left Party is associated with the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation (Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung).

For a comprehensive list of German (and European) think tanks with information on organisation, funding, research areas and job opportunities visit the 'Think Tank Directory' [2]

[donsaeid]

In Spain, think tanks are progressively raising their public profile. The most influential Spanish think tank is the Elcano Royal Institute, created in 2001 following the example of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in the UK, and linked to the Government in power. More independent and also influential are the CIDOB founded in 1973; and FRIDE (Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior) established in 1999 and main driving force behind projects such as the Club de Madrid, a group of democratic former heads of state and government (including Clinton, Gorbachev, Cardoso or Delors) who provide counsel to governments and institutions all over the world or the Foreign Policy Spanish Edition. Former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar presides over the FAES Fundacion para el Analisis y los Estudios Sociales, a think tank that is associated with the Partido Popular.

In Switzerland, Avenir Suisse (which proposes a free-market liberalism agenda) is the only think tank that is currently active.

In Denmark, The Copenhagen Institute (which is a libertarian/free-market) is the first think tank, founded in 2003. In 2004 the Liberal Think Tank CEPOS was founded by high-profile representatives of Danish academia, business, media and the arts.

In Portugal, a very important think tank, is Compromisso Portugal, based on young entrepreneurs and academists aiming to contribute to the debate of ideas how to develop Portugal.

In Greece, the Panhellenic Socialist Movement(PASOK), is affiliated with the 'Institute of Developping Policies, Andreas Papandreou', ΙΣΤΑΜΕ.

After the fall of the Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe has seen a number of new think tanks arise and some of them are already playing a role in the forming of government policy.

In Poland, there are several think tanks, mostly connected with economical reforms. The most known of them are the liberal Centrum im. Adama Smitha, Instytut Spraw Publicznych and Instytut Sobieskiego.




Russian think tanks

Russian think tanks have experienced a precipitous decline over the past five years. Think tanks under the Soviet Union, analogous to their American counterparts, grew to play a significant role in strategic policy formation. During the era of glasnost, begun by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and continuing under Russian President Boris Yeltsin, public think tanks and policy organizations underwent a brief blooming. However, as economic problems intensified under Yeltsin, and political pressure on public organizations grew under President Vladimir Putin, most of the Russian think tanks have withered away while those who stood closer to Kremlin saw a recent revival.




Turkish think tanks

Think tanks in Turkey are relatively new business. Many of them are sister organisations of a political party or a company. University think tanks are not typical think tanks.

Turkish think tanks provide research and ideas yet they play less important roles in policy making when compared with the American think tanks.

The most important think tanks in Turkey:

T.E.S.E.V. (Istanbul) U.S.A.K. (Ankara) SETA (Ankara) A.S.A.M. (Ankara) TASAM (Istanbul) TUSAM (Ankara)

T.E.S.E.V. is a liberal research centre in Istanbul. Close to the business circles, yet less effective on political circles.

International Strategic Research Organization is an Ankara-centred Turkish think tank. Established in 2004. An umbrealla organization with 9 research centres. Liberal. Close to the Turkish diplomacy, military and political circles. Sponsored by the business people and member donations.

S.E.T.A. Established in 2006. Close to Government. Conservative.

A.S.A.M. Nationalist and militarist. Sponsored by the ultra-nationalist military circles. Close to the Army.

T.A.S.A.M. is Istanbul-centred. Conservative and nationalist.

TUSAM is Ankara centred. Leftist nationalist. Close to the ultra-nationalist military circles.




Iranian think tanks

Econotrend is an Iranian thinktank headed by Seyed Muhammad Adeli.




Australian think tanks

Most Australian think tanks are based at universities - for example, the Melbourne Institute or are government funded - for example, the Productivity Commission or the CSIRO.

There are also about 20-30 "independent" Australian think tanks, which are funded by private sources. The best-known of these are:

* The Australia Institute
* The Centre for Independent Studies
* The Institute of Public Affairs
* The Lowy Institute

Think tanks play much more limited role on Australian public and business policy making than in the United States. However, in the past decade the number of think tanks has increased substantially.



New Zealand think tanks

The Centre for Strategic Studies New Zealand exists within Victoria University of Wellington. There is also the Maxim Institute in Auckland.



Criticism

Critics such as Ralph Nader have suggested that because of the private nature of the funding of think tanks their results are biased to a varying degree. Some argue members will be inclined to promote or publish only those results that ensure the continued flow of funds from private donors. This risk of distortion similarly threatens the reputation and integrity of organizations such as universities, once considered to stand wholly within the public sector.

Some critics go further to assert think tanks are little more than propaganda tools for promoting the ideological arguments of whatever group established them. They charge that most think tanks, which are usually headquartered in state or national seats of government, exist merely for large-scale lobbying to form opinion in favor of special private interests. They give examples such as organizations calling themselves think tanks having hosted lunches for politicians to present research that critics claim is merely in the political interest of major global interests such as Microsoft, but that the connections to these interests are never disclosed. They charge, as another example, that the RAND Corporation issues research reports on national missile defense that accelerate investment into the very military products being produced by the military manufacturers who control RAND. Critics assert that the status of most think-tanks as non-profit and tax exempt makes them an even more efficient tool to put special interest money to work.

In recent years, many think tanks have begun to promote causes which are contrary to established scientific opinion. For example, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was formed in the mid 1990s as part of the tobacco industry's attempt to cast doubt on EPA studies showing that secondhand smoke could cause cancer.[3] According to an internal memo from Philip Morris, "the credibility of the EPA is defeatable, but not on the basis of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) alone. It must be part of a larger mosaic that concentrates all the EPA's enemies against it at one time." [4]

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition has also worked to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming, as have a number of conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute--all of whom receive large contributions from petroleum industry companies like ExxonMobil and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

Finally, the influential Discovery Institute has been instrumental in putting the idea of Intelligent design into public debate, even though most biologists do not accept the theory as scientific.

[donsaeid]

Brain Trust



The "Brain Trust" or "Brains Trust" was the name given to a group of diverse academics, including economists and professors who served as advisors to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the early period of his tenure. The group never met together but acted as informal advisors; having an academic team was first suggested in March 1932 by Roosevelt's legal counsel Samuel Rosenman. In 1918 President Woodrow Wilson had assembled The Inquiry, a group of academic advisors he brought to the Versailles Conference. The Brain Trust in 1932 to 1933 included Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolf Berle, all professors at Columbia University. Later added were attorney Basil O'Connor and Felix Frankfurter of Harvard Law School

These men played a key role in shaping the policies of the First New Deal. Although they never met together as a group, they each had Roosevelt's ear. Other academic advisors to the New Deal were often called "brain trusters". Many newspaper editorials and editorial cartoons ridiculed them as impractical idealists. Moley broke with Roosevelt and became a sharp critic of the New Deal from the right.

The concept of Roosevelt's brains trust was an inspiration for The Roosevelt Institution, a student think tank trying to once again move ideas from academia into the policy discourse.

[donsaeid]

Think tanks
From SourceWatch


A Think Tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and/or analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors; in the words of Yellow Times.org (http://www.yellowtimes.org/) columnist John Chuckman, "phony institutes where ideologue~propagandists pose as academics ... [into which] money gushes like blood from opened arteries to support meaningless advertising's suffocation of genuine debate". [1] (http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1442&mode=thread&order=0)

Of course, some think tanks are more legitimate than that. Private funding does not necessarily make a researcher a shill, and some think-tanks produce worthwhile public policy research. In general, however, research from think tanks is ideologically driven in accordance with the interests of its funders.

"We've got think tanks the way other towns have firehouses," Washington Post columnist Joel Achenbach says. "This is a thoughtful town. A friend of mine worked at a think tank temporarily and the director told him when he entered, 'We are white men between the ages of 50 and 55, and we have no place else to go.'"

"In 1970, Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford, which date from the 1940s." --George Lakoff [2] (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml)

Think tanks are funded primarily by large businesses and major foundations. They devise and promote policies that shape the lives of everyday Americans: Social Security privatization, tax and investment laws, regulation of everything from oil to the Internet. They supply experts to testify on Capitol Hill, write articles for the op-ed pages of newspapers, and appear as TV commentators. They advise presidential aspirants and lead orientation seminars to train incoming members of Congress.

Think tanks have a decided political leaning. There are twice as many conservative think tanks as liberal ones, and the conservative ones generally have more money. This is no accident, as one of the important functions of think tanks is to provide a backdoor way for wealthy business interests to promote their ideas or to support economic and sociological research not taking place elsewhere that they feel may turn out in their favor. Conservative think tanks also offer donors an opportunity to support conservative policies outside academia, which during the 1960s and 1970s was accused of having a strong "collectivist" bias.

"Modern think tanks are nonprofit, tax-exempt, political idea factories where donations can be as big as the donor's checkbook and are seldom publicized," notes Tom Brazaitis, writing for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "Technology companies give to think tanks that promote open access to the internet. Wall Street firms donate to think tanks that espouse private investment of retirement funds." So much money now flows in, that the top 20 conservative think tanks now spend more money than all of the "soft money" contributions to the Republican party.

In the wake of the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 Democratic-inclined supporters sought to bolster funding for centre-left think tanks. "Scores of the US's richest people have pledged $1 million or more towards a new attempt to reinvigorate the American left and counter the powerful Republican political machine," writes David Teather in The GUardian (UK). "The money will be funnelled through an organisation called the Democracy Alliance which, according to a report in the Washington Post, will help fund a network of thinktanks and advocacy groups seeking to halt the shift to the cultural and political right." Democratic strategist Rob Stein, who organized the effort, thinks "there is a big imbalance in the amount of cash that goes into left and rightwing thinktanks. Over the past two years, he said, think tanks pushing the conservative agenda had received $295 million, while leftwing institutions were given just $75 million." [3] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1544680,00.html)

A think tank's resident experts carry titles such as "senior fellow" or "adjunct scholar," but this does not necessarily mean that they even possess an academic degree in their area of claimed expertise. Outside funding can corrupt the integrity of academic institutions. The same corrupting influences affect think tanks, only more so.

Think tanks are like universities minus the students and minus the systems of peer review and other mechanisms that academia uses to promote diversity of thought. Real academics are expected to conduct their research first and draw their conclusions second, but this process is often reversed at most policy-driven think tanks. As writer Jonathan Rowe has observed, the term "think" tanks is a misnomer. His comment was directed at the conservative Heritage Foundation, but it applies equally well to many other think tanks, regardless of ideology: "They don't think; they justify."

A Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) is a special category of think tank. As described by the National Science Foundation [4] (http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf02321/secta.htm), FFRDCs are "R&D-performing organizations that are exclusively or substantially financed by the Federal Government and are supported by the Federal Government either to meet a particular R&D objective or, in some instances, to provide major facilities at universities for research and associated training purposes. Each center is administered either by an industrial firm, a university, or another nonprofit institution."

The Department of Defense (DOD) sponsors ten FFRDCs, which are listed below with other North American think tanks. Many of these DOD FFRDCs, and the institutions that operate them, have used their privileged status, and tax dollars, to venture beyond their charters. Such ventures have incurred the wrath of the Professional Services Council (PSC), an association of for-profit consulting firms, which has fought the aggrandizement of FFRDCs since the early 1970s. PSC's task force on FFRDCs "is charged with the challenging task of containing [FFRDCs] and similar quasi-governmental entities that benefit from sole-source contracting or otherwise are subsidized unfairly by the federal government..." [5] (http://www.pscouncil.org/committees/ffrdctf.asp). The efforts have paid off, to some extent, in tighter controls on the funding of FFRDCs and the types of research they are allowed to undertake.

[donsaeid]

US Examples

* Accuracy in Media
* The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
* Aerospace FFRDC at The Aerospace Corp.
* Air Hygiene Foundation
* Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
* American Academy in Berlin
* American Academy in Rome
* American Academy of Diplomacy, The
* American Beverage Institute
* American Council for Capital Formation
* American Council on Germany
* American Council on Science and Health
* The American Councils on Foreign Relations
* American Defense International
* American Ditchley Foundation
* American Enterprise Institute
* American Eugenics Society
* American Family Foundation
* American Foreign Policy Council
* American Industrial Health Council
* American Jewish Council
* American Life League
* American Majority Institute
* American Petroleum Institute
* American Policy Center
* American Security Council
* ANSER Institute for Homeland Security
* Ariel Center for Policy Research
* Arroyo Center (FFRDC) at RAND Corp.
* Atlantic Council of the United States
* Atlantic Institute / Atlantic Institute of International Affairs
* Aspen Institute / Aspen Strategy Group
* Baker Institute for Public Policy
* Bilderberg
* Morton Blackwell Leadership Institute
* Brookings Institution
* The Business Council
* Business Council for Sustainable Development
* C3I FFRDC at MITRE Corp.
* Campaign Finance Institute
* Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
* Capital Research Center
* Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
* Carter Center
* Catalyst Institute
* Cato Institute
* Center for American Progress
* Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies
* Center for Consumer Freedom
* Center for Defense Information
* Center for Democracy
* Center for Digital Democracy
* Center for Environmental Education Research
* Center for Global Development
* Center for Governmental Studies
* Center for International Policy
* Center for Jewish and Christian Values
* Center for Middle East Policy at Hudson Institute
* Center for Middle East Public Policy (CMEPP); RAND Corporation
* Center for National Policy
* Center for Naval Analyses (FFRDC) at The CNA Corp.
* Center for New American Century
* Center for Peace and Security Studies
* Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
* Center for Research on Population and Security
* Center for Responsible Nanotechnology
* Center for Responsive Politics
* Center for Security Policy
* Center for State Homeland Security
* Center for Strategic and International Studies
* Center for the American Founding
* Center for the New West
* Center for the Study of Terrorism
* Center for the Study of the Presidency
* Center for The 21st Century
* Center of International Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
* Century Foundation (The); formerly The Twentieth Century Fund
* Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
* Christian Coalition of America
* Citizens for a Sound Economy
* Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy
* Climate Council
* Commonwealth Institute
* Competitive Enterprise Institute
* Concord Coalition
* Conference Board
* Congressional Institute
* Consumer Alert
* Consumers' Research
* Contributions Watch
* Core Knowledge Foundation
* Corporate Europe Observatory
* Council for Government Reform
* Council for National Policy
* Council for Responsible Nutrition
* Council for Solid Waste Solutions
* Council for Tobacco Research
* Council of American Muslims for Understanding
* The Council on American-Islamic Relations
* Council on Foreign Relations
* Council on Middle Eastern Affairs
* Council on the Americas
* Economic Club of New York
* Economic Strategy Institute
* Employment Policy Foundation
* Employment Policies Institute
* Empower America
* Environmental Issues Council
* Ethics and Public Policy Center
* Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
* Federation of American Scientists
* Feminist Majority Foundation
* Foreign Policy Association
* Foundation for Clean Air Progress
* The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
* Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
* Free Congress Education and Research Foundation
* Free Congress Foundation
* Freedom Forum
* Freedom House, Inc.
* Frontiers of Freedom
* George C. Marshall Institute
* Global Action Plan
* Global Climate Coalition
* Global Climate Information Project
* Global Compact Partners
* Goldwater Institute
* Gorbachev Foundation of North America
* Greening Earth Society
* Healthcare Leadership Council
* Heartland Institute
* Heritage Foundation
* Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace
* Hudson Institute
* Independent Institute
* Independent Women's Forum
* Information Council for the Environment
* Institue Économique de Montéal
* Institute for Advanced Studies / Princeton
* Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies
* Institute for American Strategy
* Institute for Contemporary Studies
* Institute for Defense Analyses - Communications and Computing FFRDC
* Institute for Defense Analyses - Studies and Analysis FFRDC
* Institute for International Economics
* Institute for Middle East Peace and Development
* Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy
* Institute for Regulatory Policy
* Institute of Economic Affairs
* Institute of World Politics
* Inter-American Dialogue
* International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
* International Food Information Council
* International Institute for Strategic Studies
* International Intellectual Property Institute
* Iran Policy Committee
* Israel Policy Forum
* Japan Policy Research Institute
* The Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development
* Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
* John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies
* Lexington Institute
* Lincoln Laboratory (FFRDC) at M.I.T.
* Logistics Management Institute
* Ludwig von Mises Institute
* Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
* George C. Marshall Institute
* McKinsey Global Institute
* MEMRI: Middle East Media Research Institute
* Middle East Forum
* The Middle East Institute, School of International and Public Affairs/Columbia University
* Middle East Policy Council
* Mountain States Legal Foundation
* National Anxiety Center
* National Bureau of Economic Research
* National Center for Policy Analysis
* National Center for Privitization
* National Center for Public Policy Research
* National Council Against Health Fraud
* National Council on Sustainable Development
* National Defense Research Institute (FFRDC) at RAND Corp.
* National Democratic Institute
* National Democratic Institute for International Affairs
* National Environmental Policy Institute
* National Institute for Public Policy
* National Journalism Center
* National Resources Defense Council
* National Strategy Information Center
* National Urban League
* National Wilderness Institute
* New America Foundation
* New Atlantic Initiative
* New Citizenship Project
* New World Foundation
* Nixon Center
* Nuclear Threat Initiative
* Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
* Pacific Institute
* Pacific Research Institute
* Panetta Institute for Public Policy
* Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University
* Peacekeeping Institute
* PeaceNow.org
* People for the American Way
* Pew Global Attitudes Project
* Philanthropy Roundtable
* Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research
* Political Economy Research Center
* Potomac Institute on Public Policy
* Power and Interest News Report
* Private Sector Council
* Progress & Freedom Foundation
* Progressive Government Institute
* Progressive Policy Institute
* Project Air Force (FFRDC) at RAND Corp.
* Project on Defense Alternatives
* Project for the New American Century
* Property and Environment Research Center
* Pulse of Europe
* RAND Corporation
* Reason, Inc.
* The Reason Foundation
* Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.
* Rockridge Institute
* Rocky Mountain Institute
* Ronald Reagan Legacy Project

[donsaeid]

* The Roosevelt Institution
* Saudi Institute/Saudi Information Agency
* Science and Environmental Policy Institute
* Small Business Survival Committee
* Software Engineering Institute (FFRDC) at Carnegie Mellon University
* Southern Poverty Law Center
* Southern Research Institute
* Stanley Foundation
* StateofHumanity.org
* Statistical Assessment Service
* Synergos Institute
* United States Institute of Peace/U.S. Institute of Peace
* Urban Institute
* US-India Institute for Strategic Policy
* The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
* The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy
* Washington Legal Foundation
* Weatherhead Center for International Affairs (WCFIA), Harvard University
* Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
* World Affairs Council, Washington, DC
* World Economic Forum
* World Water Council
* Workplace Health & Safety Council
* Zionist Organization of America






Global examples

* Global Business Dialogue on e-Commerce/GBDe
* World Business Council on Sustainable Development/WBCSD




Canadian Examples

* Atlantic Institute for Market Studies
* Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies
* The Fraser Institute
* Frontier Centre for Public Policy




UK Examples

* Adam Smith Institute
* Asia-Pacific Foundation
* The Bow Group
* Catalyst
* Centre for European Reform
* Centre for Policy Studies
* Centre for Reform
* Civitas
* Crime and Society Foundation
* Demos
* Fabian Society
* Forum for the Future
* Foreign Policy Centre
* Globalisation Institute
* Institute of Economic Affairs
* Institute for Fiscal Studies
* Institute of Ideas
* International Institute for Strategic Studies [
* Institute for Public Policy Research
* Localis
* mi2g
* New Economics Foundation
* New Local Government Network
* New Frontiers Foundation
* New Health Network
* New Politics Network
* Politeia
* Reform
* Relationships Foundation
* Royal Institute for International Affairs
* Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies
* The Scientific Alliance
* Social Affairs Unit
* Social Issues Research Centre
* Social Market Foundation
* Tavistock Institute for Human Behavior
* The Work Foundation
* Young Fabians
* Young Foundation



Scottish Examples

* The Centre for the Study of Public Policy
* The Centre for Scottish Public Policy
* Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence
* David Hume Institute
* The International Futures Forum
* The John Wheatley Centre
* The Policy Institute
* The Scottish Council Foundation



European Examples

* Afidora
* Brussels European and Global Economic Laboratory
* Centre for the New Europe
* Civita
* Copenhagen Institute
* European Science and Environment Forum
* Edmund Burke Foundation
* Studienzentrum Weikersheim
* Federation of European Employers
* Instytut Sobieskiego
* Istituto Bruno Leoni
* Libres
* Open Republic Institute
* Real Instituto Elcano
* CASE - the Center for Social and Economic Research
* Timbro
* US Matters Club (Poland)



Australian Examples

* Australia Institute
* Australian APEC Study Centre
* Australian Business Foundation
* Australian Fabian Society
* Asia Institute
* Brisbane Institute
* Committee for Economic Development of Australia
* Centre for Independent Studies
* Chifley Research Centre
* Evatt Foundation
* Institute for Private Enterprise
* Institute of Public Affairs
* Lowy Institute
* Menzies Research Centre
* Network Insight Institute
* OzProspect
* Page Research Centre
* Sydney Institute

[donsaeid]

استراتژي و توليد فكر



چرا توليد فكر، «استراتژي» مي*خواهد؟ چون كه توليد فكر، يك حركت است و هر حركتي،* به يك «معرفت پيش بيني*گر» نياز دارد چنان كه امير حكمت (ع)مي*فرمايند: (ما من حركة الا و انت فيه محتاج الي المعرفة).از آن جا كه نهادينه سازي فرهنگ لازم براي توليد فكر، حركتي نوين و آرماني است، تحقق آن، نياز به ايجاد معرفتي ترسيم گر، اجرايي و عملياتي دارد كه اين همان طراحي استراتژي است.


چرا توليد فكر، «استراتژي» مي*خواهد؟ چون كه توليد فكر، يك حركت است و هر حركتي،* به يك «معرفت پيش بيني*گر» نياز دارد چنان كه امير حكمت عليه السلام مي*فرمايند: (ما من حركة الا و انت فيه محتاج الي المعرفة). (2) از آن جا كه نهادينه سازي فرهنگ لازم براي توليد فكر، حركتي نوين و آرماني است، تحقق آن، نياز به ايجاد معرفتي ترسيم گر، اجرايي و عملياتي دارد كه اين همان طراحي استراتژي است.

يكم - استراتژي

«استراتژي» به عنوان مقوله*اي كهن در علوم و فنون نظامي، مفهومي كم و بيش شناخته شده است. اين مفهوم قرن*ها در خدمت ماشين نظامي و جنگي در واحدهاي سياسي بوده و همچون ستاره*اي، ارتش*هاي دنيا را هدايت كرده است اما از اوايل قرن بيستم، اين «علم و هنر جنگ»،كاربرد ويعي تري يافت و حيطه هاي جديدي را در نورديد. تركيب هايي همچون «استراتژي اقتصادي» و «استراتژي فرهنگ*ها» پديدار شدند. (3) واژه استراتژي از ريشه يوناني Strategema (هر مانوري به منظور غافلگيري دشمن) گرفته شده كه خود از واژه* Strategos (ژنرال ارتش) مشتق شده كسي كه «هدايت ارتش» را در دست دارد. (Stratos) به معناي ارتش و ago به معناي هدايت است). (4) آن چه به نظر مي*رسد آن كه به مرور و در طول زمان، ميل عامه به اين تمايل نمود كه گسترده مدلولي «استراتژي» گسترش يابد. مثلا آن گونه كه آندره بوفر گزارش مي*دهد، «خط مشي*هاي كلي نظام» در هر مجموعه كوچك و بزرگي، «سياست بنيادين» نام دارد آن گاه «استراتژي جامع» (5) يا «سياست در اجرا» (6) مكانيزم و نحوه تغيير اذهان و اعمال در راستاي تطبيق با سياست بنيادين است. (7) در مكتب*هاي رئاليستي در علوم سياسي به طور مثال، در آثار افرادي چون هانس جي مورگنتا، قدرت به عنوان جوهره سياست معرفي مي*شود، در اين راستا، قدرت، «رابطه*اي» است كه در آن، يك نفر، افكار و اعمال سايرين را كنترل مي*كند و قدرت سياسي، «روابط متقابل كنترل ميان صاحبان اقتدار عمومي و نيز ميان آنها و كل مردم» مي*باشد. (8) به اين ترتيب مي*بينيم كه هم در استراتژي و هم در سياست قدرت، آن چه مورد نظر است، تغيير رفتار طرف مقابل براساس خواست ما مي*باشد.

به عبارت ديگر، *سياست آرماني، اگر بخواهيم در عرصه واقعيت، اولا به كسب و بسط قدرت كنترلي بپردازد و ثانيا در ضمن آن، آرمان*هاي خود را گام به گام جلو ببرد، بايد: 1- هدف را تشخص بخشد؛ 2- راه*هاي لازم را تدارك ببيند؛ 3- در آن راه*ها، ابزارهاي لازم را پيش*بيني و به كار بندد. و اين همان تحقق «عناصر استراتژي» است. نكته*اي كه در اين جا قابل توجه است آن كه حتي در فضاي رئاليستي، اين آرمان*ها (چه آسماني و چه زميني) خواهند بود كه براي آنها و متاخر بر آنها استراتژي*ها تدوين و طراحي مي*شوند و نه بالعكس.

هر آن چه كه به عنوان سياست آرماني تعين مي*يابد بايد براي وصول به آن، انواع استراتژي*هاي پيشنهاد را اخذ نمود و سپس با توجه به پنج مؤلفه (فرصت*ها، تهديدها، امكانات، تنگناها، *و سطح بازده)، بهترين آنها را برگزيد. آن گاه براي عملياتي كردن استراتژي برتر،* در طي يك پروسه مديريتي، از سه مرحله برنامه ريزي استراتژيك، اجراي استراتژيك و كنترل استراتژيك گذر نمود.

دوم - توليد فكر
سؤال - «من» كيستم؟

پاسخ - اي برادر تو همه انديشه*اي

ما بقي خود استخوان و ريشه*اي (10)

بنابراين پويايي و سرزندگي «من»،* چيزي جز پويايي و سرزندگي «انديشه*ام» نخواهد بود و جز اين هر چه هست، پويايي اندام،* تحول در لباس، خانه، اسباب زندگي و القاب اعتباري است كه اين*ها همه نه «من» كه «منيت» هستند.

اما اين همه «هستي من» يعني «انديشه*ام»، چگونه پويا و بالنده خواهد شد؟ به نظر مي*رسد كه توليد فكر و بالندگي انديشه، در گروي رفت و آمد دائمي بين سه ساحت زير است:

ساحت يكم:
از كجا آمده*ام؟ آمدنم بهر چه بود؟

به كجا مي*روم آخر؟ ننمايي وطنم؟

اين سؤالات و نظاير آن را دائما بايد در «ساحت هستي**شناسي» مورد كنكاش قرار داد. در اين وادي به شيوه «اجتهاد» يا به «تقليد» [كه البته تقليد در اين جا غلط رايج است]؛ به منش «نفي» يا به «ايجاب»؛ با مسلك «برهان» يا به «مكاشفه» بايد كه زير ساخت*هايي اطمينان بخش بيابيم تا عمارت معرفت را بر آن استوار سازيم. اين زير ساخت*ها اولا انتخاب مي*شوند يعني آن كه جبري نمي*باشند؛ ثانيا متصلب نمي*باشند فلذا دائما بايد مورد بازخواني و آزمون و تصحيح قرار گيرند چرا كه:

خشت اول گر نهد معمار كج

تا ثريا مي*رود ديوار كج

از همين جا داستان "ظلمت وهم" و "نورفهم" آغاز مي*گردند به همين دليل موحدان عالم از همين سرآغاز، *در ساحت هستي*شناسي و يا اصلا بيش از هر ساحت ديگري در اين جا است كه دادار دانا طلب مي*نمايند كه «اللهم اخرجنا من ظلمات الوهم و اكرمنا بنور الفهم اللهم افتح علينا ابواب رحمتك و انشر علينا خزائن علومك، برحمتك يا ارحم الراحمين)(11)

ساحت دوم:
هنگامي كه به استقرار در قريه گزاره*ها، گردش نمائيم، مي*بينيم كه آدميان در ساحت يكم، يا «به مبدا و معاد قابل وصفي براي زمين و زمان قائل مي*شوند» و يا آن كه يكي از گزارش*هاي زير را در حيطه نظام دانايي خويش اعلام مي*كنند: «به تشخيص خاصي در حوزه مبدا و معاد نرسيدم»،* «امكان چنين شناختي وجود ندارد»، «اصلا چنين چيزي موجود نمي*باشد تا شناخته شود» و غيره، البته كساني كه در حيطه نظام دانايي خويش،*گزارش*هاي فوق* را اعلام و اعلان عمومي مي*كنند شايد كه در حيطه تنهايي و شخصي خود براي رمز و راز آلودگي باور شخصي،*به مبدا و معادي هم قائل باشند.

اما گروه نخست كه به مبدا و مبعاد قابل وصفي مي*رسند آن گاه در ساحت دوم كه «ساحت معرفت شناسي» است «آن دغدغه*هاي خاصي كه براي آنها جدي مي*گردد و نيز آن معياري كه براي آنها، صدق و كذب قضايا را ترسيم مي*كند» در راستاي آن دادار و خدايي خواهد بود كه براي خود توصيف مي*كنند.

معرفت شناسي براي گروه دوم ني*ز، به همين گونه تدوين مي*گردد منتهاي امر،* دادار و عله العلل آنها زميني است مانند اين علة العلل: «آزادي به انجام هر تجربه»، «سود»، «لذت و شادي»، «نژاد»،* «اراده معطوف به قدرت»، «غريزه»،* «نيروهاي كدر و نامعلوم»،* «ذهن»،*«شيوه توليد»،* «صنعت فرهنگ»، «قواعد زير ساختي گفتماني» و غيره،*هر يك از اين الهه*ها و علةالعل*ها، صرفا به جدي ساختن قضايايي خاص، به عنوان قضاياي علمي و حقيقي قادر خواهند بود و نيز صرفا ملاكي خاص را براي صادق و كاذب خواني ارائه مي*دهند. ساير مباحث معرفت شناس نيز به همين شيوه در سايه*سار هستي شناسي رقم مي*خورند.

[donsaeid]

ساحت سوم:
در پي دو ساحت پيشين، «ساحت روش شناسي» مي*آيد. هر «معيار صدق و كذبي» كه در معرفت شناسي فراهم آمده باشد و هر نوع دغدغه*هاي خاصي كه جدي گشته باشد، «روش» حل خاصي، مي*طلبد. نكته*اي كه بايد تذكر داد آن چه در مبادي عالم و آدم، قائل به آسمان باشيم و چه قائل به زمين باشيم، حل دغدغه*ها، قطعا مصنوع و به دست بشر خواهد بود و اين آدمي است كه بايد روش*هاي متناسب با حل مسائل را با تامل، كشف نموده و به كاربندد و در آزمون* علمي، بر دقت و كارآيي آن بيافزايد.


جمع بندي سه ساحت:
اين سعي و صفا بين «هستي شناسي»، «معرفت شناسي»،* «روش شناسي» و سپس «دغدغه*هاي عيني»، همان «انديشه» است كه در نزد اولياء دين، يك ساعت از آن، برتر از سال*هاي متمادي عبادت است. چرا كه در اين جا، «من ماندگار» بسان درختي مستمر در بوستان باقيات صالحات، حتي پس از مرگ باغبان نيز باقي مي*ماند.

سوم- استراتژي و توليد فكر
الف - استراتژي توليد فكر:

«توليد فكر» و نهادينه كردن فرهنگ ورزي، از يك سود خود، يك استراتژي است يعني آن كه، *صاحبان قدرت در راستاي آمال با آرمان*هاي خود، يا آن كه به تشويق اين امر كمك نموده*اند يا به جلوگيري از آن اقدام نموده*اند.

به طور مثال هر كس با تاريخ قاجار آشنا باشد اين پند سر سلسله قاجار يعني آغامحمد خان به جانشينانش را شنيده است كه: اگر مي*خواهي بر اين مملكت حكومت كني، مردم آن بايد گرسنه و بي*سواد بمانند. در اين جا فرهنگ توليد فكر، «نفيا»، يك استراتژي براي قدرت فاسد پادشاهي مي*باشد كه مترتب بر آن، شاهد تعميق جهل و خرافات و بالتبع قبضه استثماري ايران به دست استعمارگران بوديم. اما اكنون پس از دهه تثبيت انقلاب اسلامي، و در زمانه استعلا خواهي به سوي ايران توسعه يافته، فرهنگ توليد فكر، «اثبات»،*يك استراتژي براي اصحاب قدرت قرار گرفته است (12)

بحث در اين است كه «توليد فكر» نفيا يا اثباتا هنگامي كه يك استراتژي براي ديگر آمال و آرمان*هاي سياست گذاران مي*شود، خود در مرحله اجرايي و عملياتي*تر، *در جايگاه يك آرمان* قرار مي*گيرد و مي*بايد براي آن به تدوين استراتژي لازم پرداخت.

ب- استراتژي براي توليد فكر:
در اين نوشتار سخن از آن است كه «نهضت توليد فكر»،*نه يك امر شخصي مربوط به يك متفكر، و بلكه مقوله*اي مرتبط با «فرهنگ عمومي» است. از جمله مكانيزم*هايي كه به عنوان استراتژي* براي تحقق «فرهنگ توليد فكر» پيشنهاد مي*شود، آن است كه مجموعه ابزارهاي جامعه پذيري (13) در جهت ايفاي دو رسالت سوق داده شوند: 1- حساسيت به دغدغه*هاي موجود و به عبارت ديگر نهادينه شدن فرهنگ دغدغه*داري (14)؛ 2- نهادينه شدن فرهنگ حل دغدغه*ها در سير و سفر بين چهار ساحت «هستي شناسي»، «معرفت شناسي»، «روشن شناسي» و «توليد داده*ها».

اگر اين دو نهادينه سازي در سطحي ملي صورت پذيرد و ضرب*الاجل، آن كه اگر «سير نمودن در مسير بين چهار ساحت فوق» توسط مسئولين سياست گذار در مراكز آموزشي و پژوهشي به صورت يك دغدغه* توام با سؤال مندي در خوي و عادت دانشجويان و دانش پژوهان نهادينه گردد آن گاه «فرهنگ عمومي بي*خيال» به «فرهنگ عمومي انديشه ورزي» يعني «فرهنگ ماندگاري» تبديل خواهد شد.

آب كم جو تشنگي آور به دست

تا بجوشد آبت از بالا و پست

سير دغدغه*مند فيمابين «هستي شناسي»، «معرفت شناسي»، «روشن شناسي» و «مشكلات عيني»، رويه*اي ساري بين نخبگان فكري مي*باشد اما عدم جريان اين رويه و منش به سطوح مياني و پاييني جامعه، يكي از آسيب*هاي موجود در «فرهنگ عمومي كشور» است كه بايد تدبيري مجدانه بيابد و الا بايد بدانيم كه «شوره* زاري كوير»،* در حال پيشرفت به سوي دشت*هاي پر محصول است و اين با يك نگاه گذرا به سطح كيفي دانشگاهيان و حوزويان خصوصا در مقاطع پركميت آنها قابل حس و لمس نمودن است. حضرت امام خميني (ره) معتقد بودند كه به صرف ورود يك فرد به يك مركز آموزشي هيچ الزامي وجود ندارد كه فرهنگ لازم را پذيرفته است بلكه در صورت عدم تدبير بهينه، ماجرا برعكس خواهد بود و آن، جريان يافتن شوره*زاري از اين مجرا خواهد بود. «كساني كه از ميان مردم، وارد حوزه*هاي روحانيت مي*شوند، طبعا آثار سوء فكري و اخلاقي را با خود مي*آورند؛ حوزه*هاي روحانيت، جزئي از جامعه و مردم است؛ بنابر اين ما بايد در اصلاح فكري و اخلاقي افرادي حوزه كوشش كنيم.» (15) بنابر اين با «استراتژي توليد فكر» نه تنها كه بايد جلوي «تهديدهاي كوير زايي» را بگيريم بلكه علاوه بر آن بايد «فرصت*هاي كوير زدايي» و گسترش بوستان انديشه را فراهم آوريم. يعني در اين مسير، تك تك ايرانيان پاك نهاد را در حركت به سوي قله*هاي فرزانگي، سميرغ وش همراه خود سازيم.

سال*ها در بحر و بر، مي*گشته*ام

پاي اندر ره به سر، مي*گشته*ام

با سليمان در سفرها بوده*ام

عرصه عالم، بسي پيموده*ام

پادشاه خويش را دانسته*ام

چون روم تنها؟ كه نتوانسته*ام

پس شما با من اگر همو شويد

محرم آن شاه و آن درگه شويد

هست ما را پادشاهي بي*خلاف

در پس كوهي كه هست آن كوه قاف

نام او سيمرغ و سلطان طيور

او به ما نزديك و ما زو و دور دور

هر كه اكنون از شما مرد رهيد

سر به راه آريد و پاي اندر نهيد(16)

آرمان «انقلاب فكري» چيزي است كه زمينه آن در «اجتماع بشري» مي*باشد و صرفا بايد با تدبير استراتژي صحيح و ترسيم افق زيبايي كه فراسوي اين مجاهدت جمعي مي*باشد،* طراحي نو در عرصه فرهنگ عمومي زده شود.

جمله خلقان سخره انديشه*اند

زان سبب، خسته دل و غم پيشه*اند.

فكر غم، گر راه شادي مي*زند

كار سازي*هاي شادي مي*كند(17)

[donsaeid]

Etymology and usage

Until the 1940s, most think-tanks were known only by the name of the institution. During the Second World War, think tanks were referred to as "brain boxes" after the slang term for the skull. The phrase "think tank" in wartime American slang referred to rooms in which strategists discussed war planning. The first recorded use of the phrase to refer to modern think tanks was in 1959, and by the 1960s the term was commonly used to describe RAND and other groups assisting the armed forces. In recent times, the phrase "think tank" has become applied to a wide range of advice-giving institutions, and there are no precise definitions of the term. Marketing or public relations organizations, especially of an international character, sometimes refer to themselves as think tanks, for example.