Article inspired by the 2026 Warwick Economic Summit Seminar: ” The Role of Think Tanks” with Samuel Cruickshank, Head of Education at the Institute of Economic Affairs
by Giulia Porcu
If the idea of entering politics to redirect its trajectory from within has ever occurred to you out of dissatisfaction with its present direction, in Friedrich August von Hayek’s eyes you are indeed naive. Globally renowned for his contribution to political economy, philosophy and intellectual history, the Austrian economist and philosopher was among the firsts to realize that politics is downstream from the battle of ideas. Once the upperhand in the battle of ideas is won, there won’t be the need to influence politics directly because it is highly probable that politics will follow. Vice versa, ephemeral political achievements and isolation are the price for losing the battle. Within this framework it is crucial to state what we all know but purposely forget: we do not produce our own ideas; we don’t even acquire them from original thinkers and scientists who come up with original insights. We get them from “ideas retailers”, more commonly known as intermediaries — reporters, educators, creatives, analysts, thought leaders, and specialists addressing issues beyond their primary domains. In a multifaceted society, just as we don’t acquire food straight from producers but through grocery chains, we rarely absorb concepts from their origins; we acquire them through those who present and disseminate them. These individuals determine which ideas reach the population, in what format, and with what focus. They function as gatekeepers of legitimacy. Once they embrace a specific ideology, its diffusion into public perspective becomes nearly inevitable, and the political realm follows suit. Think tanks work upstream in this mechanism: they don’t aim directly for the populace but rather target the distributors. By shaping the individuals who influence society’s intellectual path, they alter the limits of what is perceived as typical or rational — the Overton window — after which legislation simply ratifies what has already been accepted as common knowledge.
The 2013 Marriage Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, argued Samuel Cruickshank — Head of Education at The Institute of Economic Affairs and seminar speaker at the Warwick Economic Summit — is an emblematic example of how public opinion can evolve through sustained exposure to certain narratives. Homosexual marriage was first repulsed and violently disregarded. However, once it became a mainstream idea through think tanks production of policy reports, organisation of public events and engagement with journalists and policymakers, indifference became the key word to describe public reaction to the Act. Given the disclosed impact of these self-standing policy-oriented research institutions, which are at times shaped by insincere and registered lobbyists, think tanks influence peddling has been critically targeted by various academics. In 2016, over the many months that officials in Washington considered adopting new regulations for Internet providers, Jeffrey A. Eisenach — scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute — and his critiques of the propositions were not hard to notice. Intense advocacy by a think tank expert is not particularly striking per se, but Mr Eisenach, former aide at the Federal Trade Commission, has held another job: a paid consultant for Verizon and its trade association. Unsurprisingly he is not the only think tank researcher who worked as registered lobbyists while also being members of corporate boards or external consultants in litigation and regulatory disputes. “With their expertise and authority, think tank scholars offer themselves as independent arbiters, playing a vital role in Washington’s political economy” reported the New York Times. “Their imprimatur helps shape government decisions that can be lucrative to corporations. But the examination identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy”.
Ironically, when asked what think tanks were good for, Canadian economist Rohinton Medhora’s answer was “influence peddling in the best sense of the term”. To better explain his enigmatic answer, he introduced the idea of a spectrum, one that goes from basic to applied form of research and ultimately to its application, subsequently influencing people’s decision and behaviour, ultimately leading to structural policy changes. Think tanks inhabit approximately that latter 60% of that spectrum: rarely involved in basic fundamental research, they draw upon research that has either already been done or ‘package’ it differently to come up with proposals, which they then move into the public policy domain and into the market place of ideas. Think tanks are now in the business of influencing and the success of Andrew Selee’s book, “What Should Think Tanks Do?: A Strategic Guide to Policy Impact”, proves the growing interest in this matter. Sharing Medhora’s line of thought and positing that their impactfulness is a derivative of their strategy, he identified five aspects that these institutions need to master in order to be more strategic: clarity of mission, identification of unique strengths and lanes, reach of targeted audiences, financial and human resources and finally systematic ways to capture impact.
Think thanks occupy a paradoxical space. They aren’t neutral observers nor are they lobbying machines: they are structured actors in the upstream struggle over legitimacy. Ultimately, as highlighted by Samuel Cruickshank, these institutions’ greatest value is their reputation for evidence-based research that stands upon rigorous academic and ethical standards. Still, the multiplicity of roles played by think tank scholars is worrying. In a world where political influence lies on economic availability, how much do think thanks get paid to have a certain point of view?
Le Dragon Déchaîné 