Think tank influence pt. I
First off, you might have noticed that I didn't cite many sources in the last post. In the interests of keeping good records and allow readers to fact check on their own I will now cite my sources starting with this post.
A little more on the ideological effect on the media and policy, according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) in the years between 1995 and 2003 roughly 50% of media citations of think tanks were from conservative groups, 36% from centrist groups and 14% from liberal groups [1]. Hmm...
Okay, another interesting bit about think tanks. Generally they are able to propel ideas that politicians won't embrace initially. A good example is the current debate over social security. The idea that social security needed severe overhaul originated from several conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute [2]. Until Bush took up the issue few politicians would touch it, but it has been bounced around in the think tank world for years.
Two other issues that think tanks have been deeply involved in recently are security issues (i.e. terrorism and the Iraq War) and the open source software movement. First, I'll mention what might seem to be a conflict of interest in a particular think tank: The RAND Corporation. RAND claims to be an impartial and objective producer of research on security issues. Looking at their website [3] leads me to believe that an attempt is made to do this, or at least appear to do so- I would encourage you to look their website and those of other think tanks, a few new links are posted on the sidebar. I would probably agree with much the analysis that RAND produces (depending of course on what world-view assumptions I am operating under, but more on that later). Nevertheless, RAND does have what could be considered a conflict of interest. How much of one, I'll let you decide.
RAND is one of the most influential think tanks on security issues in the world. Besides getting money from various big corporations and big oil RAND also has a connection with one of the biggest "defense contractors" (in quotes because they technically just buy and sell defense companies) in the world: the Carlyle group. Needless to say when war is on defense contractors make lots of money. So to the connection, Frank Carlucci (a former Secretary of Defense under Reagan) is on the board of trustees of RAND, and is also a chair on RANDs Middle East Public Policy Advisory Board [4]. Frank Carlucci is also a chairman for the Carlyle group [4, 5]. Hmm...
It's a little off subject, but I should note that the Carlyle group is a whole subject in itself (George Herbert Walker Bush is a member), but I'll save that for another time. If you are interested check out the video provided on indybay.org [5]. The video is narrated and subtitled in German, but since most of the interviews are in English it is completely understandable.
Since this post seems to be getting a bit long already I will save the other subject: think tanks and the open-source movement for another post.
Stay tuned for Think tank influence pt. II
1. http://media.eriposte.com/4-4.htm
2. http://www.socialsecurity.org/
3. http://www.rand.org/
4. http://www.hereinreality.com/news/rand.html
5. http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/04/1678405.php
A source for some of the last post:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tank
A little more on the ideological effect on the media and policy, according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) in the years between 1995 and 2003 roughly 50% of media citations of think tanks were from conservative groups, 36% from centrist groups and 14% from liberal groups [1]. Hmm...
Okay, another interesting bit about think tanks. Generally they are able to propel ideas that politicians won't embrace initially. A good example is the current debate over social security. The idea that social security needed severe overhaul originated from several conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute [2]. Until Bush took up the issue few politicians would touch it, but it has been bounced around in the think tank world for years.
Two other issues that think tanks have been deeply involved in recently are security issues (i.e. terrorism and the Iraq War) and the open source software movement. First, I'll mention what might seem to be a conflict of interest in a particular think tank: The RAND Corporation. RAND claims to be an impartial and objective producer of research on security issues. Looking at their website [3] leads me to believe that an attempt is made to do this, or at least appear to do so- I would encourage you to look their website and those of other think tanks, a few new links are posted on the sidebar. I would probably agree with much the analysis that RAND produces (depending of course on what world-view assumptions I am operating under, but more on that later). Nevertheless, RAND does have what could be considered a conflict of interest. How much of one, I'll let you decide.
RAND is one of the most influential think tanks on security issues in the world. Besides getting money from various big corporations and big oil RAND also has a connection with one of the biggest "defense contractors" (in quotes because they technically just buy and sell defense companies) in the world: the Carlyle group. Needless to say when war is on defense contractors make lots of money. So to the connection, Frank Carlucci (a former Secretary of Defense under Reagan) is on the board of trustees of RAND, and is also a chair on RANDs Middle East Public Policy Advisory Board [4]. Frank Carlucci is also a chairman for the Carlyle group [4, 5]. Hmm...
It's a little off subject, but I should note that the Carlyle group is a whole subject in itself (George Herbert Walker Bush is a member), but I'll save that for another time. If you are interested check out the video provided on indybay.org [5]. The video is narrated and subtitled in German, but since most of the interviews are in English it is completely understandable.
Since this post seems to be getting a bit long already I will save the other subject: think tanks and the open-source movement for another post.
Stay tuned for Think tank influence pt. II
1. http://media.eriposte.com/4-4.htm
2. http://www.socialsecurity.org/
3. http://www.rand.org/
4. http://www.hereinreality.com/news/rand.html
5. http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/04/1678405.php
A source for some of the last post:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tank
posted by Metatree at 10:38 PM
2 Comments:
The interesting part of this is some arising questions. Can real knowledge and practical information be discovered when the supporting force behind the thinkers is a funder with set intensions? What type of knowledge never goes beyond the lips of the thinkers due to it not helping the desired outcome for the funder? Are ideas being raised as helpful truths, or are they clever manipulations to affect society in a way that benifts the funder?
It is certainly the case that funders pay for very specific results. For small think tanks the temptation to produce specific results for a big donor must be huge, no matter the moral and ethical implications. For think tanks with a lots of money that comes from many donors there is a far more subtle line. What most large think tanks do is simply proclaim in their missions their ideological foundations. If a big donor doesn't like what they produce then tough, they can fund some other think tank. This type of shopping game might work well if money was equally spread among people with all sorts of ideologies. But it is not. Rather, institutions that have ideologies parallel to those of big donors (mostly corporations) will benifit and more research production will eminate from those institutions.
As to whether think tanks produce helpful truths or clever manipulations. My view, both. I would say that there are think tanks out there who really do strive to produce research that sheds light on important issues facing society. This type of research is getting rarer according to the founder of the New America Foundation (a think tank). It seems that the majority of think tanks produce clever and subtle "research" that backs pre-determined ideas. They also push ideas that are not at all important to the public (at least not until the ideas become law). Meaning that they are often idea pushers rather than objective lenses onto current issues. Both "liberal" and "conservative" think tanks practice this "grand kabuki." It's just that there is a lot more funding for "conservative" views.
Post a Comment
<< Home