The Role and Influence of Think Tanks in the Israeli Experience

On January 22, 2014, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) held a panel discussion led by the heads of several research institutes on the role of the think tank in the decision making process in Israel. The work of think tanks is an important part – albeit not as well known  of the decision making process. In Israel, think tanks are neither as numerous nor as influential as in North America and Western Europe. However, the number of think tanks in Israel is increasing steadily, and it is estimated that today there are dozens of such institutions in Israel seeking to influence how decisions concerning society and the state are made.

The discussion sought to clarify the main roles of think tanks in Israeli life; the think tank’s target audience or audiences; how think tanks maintain their independent status; whether and how they should maintain a connection to the world of academia; whether to focus on the long term or the here and now; and finally, how they wield influence and how their influence can be measured, if at all.

The discussion was led by INSS Director Maj. Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin. INSS Deputy Director Brig. Gen. (ret.) Udi Dekel and many of the Institute’s senior research fellows took part in the discussion. The following summary was written by INSS research fellow Yoel Guzansky, who prepared the discussion and is the coordinator of the issue at the Institute. For the list of participants from outside the Institute, see below.

At the start of the discussion, several of the experts sought to examine the distinctions among various types of think tanks/research institutes. Many institutions bear this label, but think tanks are not monolithic. For example, in some academic institutes the entire staff consists of academics and historians from the ranks of the university. Often, it is the university that demands that these institutes employ academics, which affects the type of writing done by the researchers, who are committed first and foremost to academic writing, and not to providing policy recommendations.

Who is the target audience of university-affiliated institutes? First, the academic world in general. These institutes are not designed to serve decision making in government, although in the past in a number of cases they produced senior government officials. These institutes primarily serve the academic world, which sustains the public discourse indirectly. As such, their secondary role is to spark and enrich the public discussion on the issues within their purview. A further question arose as to whether think tanks should be organized around a specific field or a large challenge/issue that exceeds the boundaries of individual disciplines. Regarding the issue of disciplines, the argument was made hat expertise and knowledge on a particular subject is “available” in academic institutions and “traditional” think tanks, and what remains is to extract the knowledge.

A key point in the discussion was the possibility of evaluating think tank influence. An assessment of the influence and performance of think tanks is not at all simple. These institutions compete with the opinions and objectives of other players in the arena, and therefore, it is doubtful whether one think tank can take credit for changes in policy. One question is whether the think tank should concentrate on general influence over the public and the public discourse in an attempt to influence policymakers.

Sometimes, when we say “influence,” we actually mean “exposure.” The number of publications (articles, opinion pieces, and commentaries) and the proliferation of conferences are one way to measure the think tank’s influence. However, there is not always a direct connection between the degree of exposure and the degree of influence. While media exposure does create the impression that one think tank or another plays a central role in shaping policy, this does not necessarily ensure that its positions will in fact be influential.

In addition, there is tension between the desire to influence public opinion and the public discussion  and hence to write concise, fluent, and relevant articles and reviews that will arouse public interest  and at the same time, to maintain the respect of the academic community. The principles guiding academic writing differ from those that are supposed to guide policy-oriented writing, due primarily to the different needs of government bodies and their ability to benefit from the research. If the text is too long, people in government will not read it. Therefore, weighty tomes frequently cause the think tank to lose an important part of its influence potential. In addition, there is inherent tension between dealing with long term issues that will presumably affect the future of the state and society, and the attempt to match the products to the demands and needs of policymakers and the think tanks’ desire to be involved in the laws of the “actual” world and to produce “user friendly” materials.

There is likewise tension arising from the desire to influence several target audiences at the same time. People on decision making levels prefer that their connection with the think tank remain discreet, particularly with regard to the issue on the agenda and the ensuing recommendations. The think tank will find it difficult to publicize the fact that it is advising various people, not to mention the nature of the recommendations it provided to them, lest it lose their trust.

Part of the reason for the proliferation of think tanks is connected to the fact that the government, by its nature, is not capable of handling many issues, and sometimes does not wish to do so. Some of the experts who participated in the INSS discussion see the role of the academy, and within it, of think tanks, as preparation for positions in the public service. Conversely, at times think tanks do not have the in-house expertise to probe challenges and issues on the government agenda.

What distinguishes many think tanks in Israel and abroad is the mixture of practitioners and academics. At the same time, this is also their weak point, and it makes cooperation and the creation of a common language between researchers difficult.

The discussion focused on think tanks that specialize in national security and examined several ways in which these institutions can influence the decision making process:

1. Influence from within: People who bring with them the knowledge they acquired in the past (especially academic knowledge) and who are now working for or with the government.

2. Consulting: temporary research appointments or participation in ad hoc task forces that can influence decision-making processes.

3. Outside influence through the dissemination of knowledge in the form of conferences and publications (in a way in which the experts will not be involved in the day-to-day work of government officials but will attempt to enrich their “greater” world of knowledge).

According to the participants, the academy and think tanks can contribute quite a bit to the work of the government, for example, on the issue of analyzing and forecasting scenarios. It would be appropriate to introduce methodologies from political science, such as analyzing scenarios, forecasting the enemy’s moves, and the like. Think tanks have much to offer in the use of methodologies, computers, and more.

Another issue that arose in the discussion was connected to the main barriers to influencing decision makers:

1. Academic research has the advantage of time, but in many cases, it is found not to be relevant to decision makers, who generally deal with the here and now.

2. The length of the study: policymakers do not read wide ranging documents and do not have the time to read in-depth articles.

3. The objective is to influence a limited number of decision makers, who in many cases are not accessible.

4. The attempt to adhere to “scientific truth” may lead to a divergence between those who hold key positions and sometimes have a different political/moral view.

As a result of these barriers, there is a lack of desire among academics to enter the ranks of government, and similarly, the government does not strive to engage people from the ranks of academia. These two communities speak in different codes and in a different language, which makes it difficult for them to cooperate. In order to attempt to overcome these barriers, participants in the discussion recommended allowing academics to become better acquainted with the actual security and political world (in many cases, academics were disconnected from the practicing world, which makes it difficult to include them in government work). Think tanks should strengthen the interface between the two worlds — to meet with the world of practice but to maintain a distance and separation from it, in order to preserve independence. Finally, the proliferation of publications in and of itself will encourage a public discussion (and indirectly, could influence decision makers) on relevant issues.

Prepared by: Yoel Guzansky

Research Fellow, the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University

Formerly of the National Security Council, Office of the Prime Minister

Gabi Ben Dor is a professor of political science and the founder of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa. He is the founder and director of the School of Political Science at the University of Haifa. He served as rector of the university, as a member of the Council for Higher Education, and as president of the Israeli Political Science Association. Prof. Ben Dor served as a strategic planning advisor in the defense establishment. He headed two government committees dealing with the Druze in Israel and a governmental committee on research in the social sciences. He has published seven books and more than 120 articles on Middle Eastern politics, civil-military relations, conflict resolution, and ethnic politics.

Gidi Grinstein is the founder of the Reut Institute. From 1999 to 2001, he served as secretary of the negotiating team with the Palestinians. He holds an MA in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, where he was a Wexner Israel Fellow (2002), and a BA in law and economics from Tel Aviv University.

Alex Mintz is a professor of political psychology, dean of the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy, and Strategy, and director of the program in political marketing at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. Prof. Mintz established the MA program in government. He heads the program in political marketing and manages the research program in political psychology and the government decision making project at the Interdisciplinary Center. He is the editor of a series of books on leadership and decision making in the international arena at the University of Chicago. He is also the editor-in-chief of Political Psychology and serves as the editor, associate editor, or editorial board member of seven major international journals, including the leading political science journal American Political Science Review.

Asher Susser is a senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies. Professor Susser was head of the center for twelve years and has taught for thirty years in the Department of Middle Eastern History at Tel Aviv University. He was a Fulbright Fellow and a visiting professor at Cornell University, the University of Chicago, Brandeis University, and the University of Arizona, as well as a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.