Sisule F. Musungu – Development policies, whether designed by national, regional or international institutions, continue to fail or underachieve. A key systemic challenge remains the lack of robust information and analysis regarding on-the-ground problems and needs as well as lack of information and analysis that allows continuous lesson-learning. There are now credible new efforts to try and change this. One promising approach is embodied in The ThinkTank Initiative, an initiative of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) teaming up with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The initiative is meant to be a long-term multi-donor commitment. A commitment of USD 90 million has been made for an initial 5-year period.

This initiative, which is being implemented through IDRC, has already awarded grants to 24 organisations in eleven countries in East and West Africa. A call for Expressions of Interest is now out for organisations based in Latin America and South Asia. The deadline for responding to the call is 28^th September 2009.

Think Tank Defined

The term ‘think tank’ can have both positive and negative connotations. When one talks about a think tank initiative it is therefore important to be sure what they mean. The IDRC webpage for the initiative defines a think tank as an independent policy research organisation. Independence being determined on the basis that the organisation: undertakes rigorous and impartial research; does not financially depend on one source of funding; is non-partisan and politically neutral; is committed to publishing its research findings in the public domain; and has an ability to set an independent research agenda.

Sustaining Long-term Development Research in, and for, Developing Countries

While there are libraries and libraries of development research, most of the research generated, especially in developing countries is, as is argued by the founders of the ThinkTank Initiative, largely responsive research as opposed to forward looking research based on prioritisation by local institutions or actors. A major part of the reason for this relates to the funding practices and attitudes, which limit not only forward-looking research but also the communication and dissemination of the findings of such research.

Many development agencies as well public and private foundations are generally averse to funding robust empirical research of a medium or long-term nature. Such research can be expensive and takes time. For these agencies, this means that they cannot show immediate results. For this reason, large amounts of money goes towards high profile or sexy campaigns and programmes usually backed, if at all, by backward looking or responsive research. In such campaigns the interest is in so-called killer facts and not the full facts.

In cases where forward looking research is funded, its credibility is questionable most times because of the perverse tendency by donor agencies and international organisations to hire consultants or consultancy firms from developed countries. This approach is justified using a variety of reasons, rather excuses, such as lack of expertise and capacity to manage funds in developing countries or ridiculous requirements regarding experience. It is therefore no surprise that there is a whole development think tank and consultancy industry in Washington, Brussels and London sustained by resources meant for research in, and for, developing countries. Consequently, as the ThinkTank Initiative webpage correctly points out, while international donors may recognise the need for local ownership of policy proposals, developing country research institutes never receive predictable core funding that would allow long-term planning and priority-setting.

The efforts to provide sustained core funding and technical support through the ThinkTank Initiative therefore offers the promise that we might see some change in the funding practices and attitudes towards systemic research to inform development-policy-making. The focus will be in providing support to improve organisational performance; general support and support to access training and technical support leading to improved research quality and policy linkages; as well as support to capture and share learning about strategies. In essence, I would argue that, if properly implemented, the Initiative has the potential to provide a basis for stability, quality and impact by developing country think tanks. The learning forum proposed under the Initiative, coupled with the emphasis on lesson-learning and evaluation, should help do the trick.

But core funding for a couple of organisations in a country will not unleash the power of forward looking independent research. A key issue that the ThinkTank Initiative promoters and other stakeholder need to think about is how to provide strategic research resources and tools that would allow more organisations and players to participate in the generation of policy ideas. By investing in sharable research resources and tools, the ThinkTank Initiative could facilitate the growth of more think tanks than can be directly funded from the limited funding that the Initiative is making available.

Understanding the Challenge of Turning Local Research into Lasting Solutions in a Globalised World

The ThinkTank Initiative’s slogan is “Local Research for Lasting Solutions” or “La recherché menée a l’échelle locale en vue solutions durables” in French. Quite apt. Only information and analysis grounded in the realities on the ground can truly ensure that policies provide lasting solutions. To turn local research into lasting solutions the ThinkTank Initiative proposes to focus on organisations:

• whose research is focused on general issues of social and economic policy related to growth, equity and poverty reduction as opposed to organisations working exclusively on a particular sector such as health or agriculture; and
• That are oriented primarily to issues of national level policy-making rather than sub-national or international.

The justification is that the most pressing development problems cut across sectors and that national level policy-making remains key to the issues of growth, equity and poverty. These are both valid points but a straight-jacket implementation of these approaches may result in similar policy-making failures that we have seen before. A nuanced approach will therefore be called for.

With respect to the research focus of the organisations to be funded, the issue should be the mandate of the organisations as opposed to current activities or projects. Provided that the organisations have a sufficiently broad research mandate, a dedicated focus on a sector at a particular time may be the most useful contribution an organisation could have made in an atmosphere of uncertain funding and negative attitudes towards forward looking policy research. It should also be remembered that because of the problems that the Initiative itself points out – most of the organisations depending on project funding – sectoral focus is inevitable. More broadly, while there is no doubt that development problems are interlinked and interdisciplinary, for research to address real on-the-ground problems it must also drill deeper into sectoral questions. An insistence that sectorally focused organisations must demonstrate clear networks with other organisations that augment their sectoral research could be a more appropriate approach.

And more nuance is needed with respect to the Initiative’s conviction about national level focus. Just the way development problems cut across sectors and disciplines, in a globalised world, policy-making cuts across various levels of decision-making and power. There are cases where sub-national policy solutions, backed by local research, can have a major national and even global impact. Equally, there are cases where regional and international policies primarily determine national solutions and choices. The implication here is that while the national level remains key, policy research will only lead to lasting solutions if the research evidences sufficient recognition of the linkages between national level policy-making and sub-national policy-making as well as international policy-making. This point becomes evident when you think about how local research can have a real impact.

Creating the Impact

Enhanced forward looking research in, and by, developing country institutions will only make a difference if it can impact policy-making at all key levels, local, national and international. This will happen on a sustainable basis if we have: quality and credibility; strategic communications; and a commitment to continuous learning. The most challenging of these is probably strategic communications which means communicating research for policy influence.

The key to turning research findings into sensible policies is accessibility, accuracy, timeliness and relevance. This requires a continuum starting with the design of research questions to robust research methods and skills through to the use of appropriate formats for communicating results to different audiences. It also requires attention to stakeholders. On the latter point, many who seek to shape policies in developing countries neglect to sufficiently and appropriately communicate with key actors in the North or in international organisations, who as pointed out before, play a significant role in shaping national level policies.

But to achieve success in communicating research for development policy-making does not require organisations to retain large communication divisions. Lean communication units can still be successful provided sufficient efforts and resources are invested in supporting the researchers themselves to enhance their capacities to communicate the results of their own research in an accessible, accurate, timely and relevant way. At this level the ThinkTank Initiative could also make a big difference.