Content area
Abstract
Policy institutes, commonly called "think tanks", are recent innovations in Canada. Institutes figure prominently in the popular press, but little is known about their role, structure, and how they differ from other types of organizations involved in policy debates. This study provides a profile of Canadian institutes and investigates their relevance to the policy process.
To provide an analytic foundation, the concept of policy inquiry and the three-community framework are introduced. A distinction is made between private and public inquiry: policy inquiry done within the client-analyst relationship differs from that done with a higher degree of public access. Policy institutes are one type of organization involved in the enterprise of public inquiry.
A brief profile of the structure, core activities, and early experiences of nine Canadian institutes shows they vary considerably in size, sources of financing, and emphasis on publication and convocation activities. Three different models of institute "technical cores" are derived. Despite this diversity, policy institutes represent a distinctive step in the evolution of public inquiry in Canada.
Three case studies were selected to track and assess institute activities: energy policy, pension reform, and tax policy process reform. Despite substantial contributions to each debate, interviews with government officials and others in pertinent policy networks indicate that institutes were perceived to have little or no influence. This finding provokes two questions: how can the lack of institute relevance be explained, and how, despite this finding, have the institutes managed to survive, and in many instances, prosper?
The concentration of analytic expertise in government and heavy competition from other producers of public inquiry provide two answers to the first question, but attention is also directed to the organization of institute inquiry, particularly the lack of in-house expertise and insufficient attention to the needs of policy-makers.
The literatures on organizational prestige, the economic theory of clubs, and the symbolic qualities of organizations provide answers to the second question. Institutes need not be directly relevant to the policy process in order to survive--they have other means for garnering support.
Several proposals for increasing the policy relevance of Canadian institutes are presented: to increase contract work; to encourage more interdisciplinary inquiry; to undertake policy gaming exercises; and to conduct policy reviews. Since growth is essential for the adoption of these proposals, the conditions conducive to such growth are discussed.
