Bridging research and policy in a supply and demand framework

role of external agencies/donors

Analytical framework Basis – GDN Bridging project (global), ODI

RAPID program (developing countries) Demand <=> factors of political context:

Routine processes (transparent or not, open or not, specific entry points)

Nature of politics and culture (degree of contestation, participatory or top-down)

“windows of opportunities”: (crisis – revolutions and public protest, new opportunities – EU or regional integration, new government/minister, parliamentary hearings)

Analytical framework - 2 Supply <=> knowledge production

Timeliness, relevance Quality and trust (are you speaking with

authority?) Packaging and delivery (working paper,

policy brief, policy memo, concept of a law, “idea”)

Analytical framework - 3 Linkages:

Intermediary organizations (filtering and amplifying research messages, organizing meetings, outsourcing analytical tasks) – “connectors” between different epistemic communities. CRS as an “ideal type”?

Media Civil society groups, advocacy coalitions,

political parties

Analytical framework - 4 External influences (IFI’s, international

donors) Agenda setting (IMF) Technical assistance (by-product – capacity

building or crowding out local suppliers?) Capacity building for researchers and

policymakers (funding research, training, networking, etc.)

Promoting “Open society” institutions

Transition countries - demand The nature of politics and general characteristics

of the policymaking processes are not “great”, but there are many windows of opportunities:

Market reforms (privatization, financial sector, etc.) Government reforms (also local level) Social sector and education reforms Regional (dis)integration processes

Partial funding is available from outside donors (DFID, USAID, etc.) and creditors (WB). Governments are increasingly able and willing to pay for consulting services (Russia, Kazakhstan).

Transition countries - demand Demand is articulated through consulting

contracts (examples from Russia): administrative reform (HSE) issuance of regional bonds – Economic Expert

Group; municipal-level strategic planning – Leontieff

Center (SPb), Urban Institute (Moscow); Reform of budgeting procedures at the

regional level – Fiscal Policy Center, Reform of public utilities – Fiscal Policy

Center, Urban Institute

Transition countries - demand Demand is articulated through

government-affiliated think-tanks (“revolving door”) Dvorkovich’s Economic Expert Group, Moscow

(MinFin) Gref’s Center for Strategic Planning

(MinEconDev&Trade) Medvedkov’s Center for Trade Policy and Law

(MinEconDev&Trade) Center for Sustainable Development (Astana

Akimat) and creation of in-house research

departments, e.g. within central banks

Transition countries - supply Government-related (semi-

independent?): new, through revolving door, or former state institutes Limited research, mostly policy consulting

Independent, western-funded. Different models: CEFIR vs. International Centre for Policy Studies, Kyiv vs. CEP-Tashkent Academic research and “policy analysis” for

western clients, limited policy consulting with western funding

Supply side problems Incentives: production of timely and

operational knowledge is not the primary function of independent think-tanks. Among other reasons, because of their “independence” from government funding and dependence on western funding => inclination to produce for western clients and audiences

Non-operational knowledge has “value”, but not local “market value”, because civil society institutions and other “transmission” mechanisms are underdeveloped.

Supply side problems - 2 Independence has a price – no steady

source of income (budget transfers, “voluntary contributions” by private sector, tuition?) Endowments – the US model – are

exception, not the rule (International Centre for Policy Studies)

Partnerships with research universities or business schools are rare (IPM, NES/CEFIR, HSE). Tuition could provide a steady source of income + faculty sharing

Supply side problems - 3 Western project funding is short-term and

phasing out. EU? Vicious circle: too many loosely connected

and small projects, lack of focus and strategy, low-quality outputs b.c. monitoring is costly

Implications: Difficult to attract and retain qualified cadre Investments in quality is delayed Reputation is damaged beyond repair

“Imagine you had a million dollars”. CEFIR?

Role of donors – long-term

Facilitate strategic re-orientation and re-structuring

Facilitate mergers and strategic alliances

Create endowments for “legacy” institutions (help bring private donors on board)

Business models for independent think-tanks Strategic alliances:

With government: CSR, CER. Ensures access to policymaking, but may be difficult to maintain independence.

With business: Public Policy Institute-Bishkek (Aki-Press, Business club). How to maintain independence?

With a business school (IPM): how to make it mutually beneficial beyond “marketing”? Sharing faculty requires extending MBA curriculum beyond business.

With an economics department (CERGE EI, NES/CEFIR): faculty can be shared (cost reduction), but income stream is not guaranteed. Ph.D. and western-style MA are costly, while tuition is low. Requires BA or MBA.

With an “outreach” operation (CEFIR/EERC) – banking on local corporate funding. Requires development of relevant products, beyond research.

SA and mergers often don’t happen until too late