Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ‘Truth About Pakistan’: Knowledge Production and Circulation in Think Tanks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Constructing 'Pakistan' through Knowledge Production in International Relations and Area Studies

  • 151 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the knowledge production processes in International Relations, within think tanks. The chapter initially focuses on the increased visibility of think tanks in policy-making processes. Think tanks, because of the nature of their organization have firmly established themselves as arbitrors of knowledge. The vicious cycle of knowledge production and reproduction enables a constant circulation of ‘truth’ on representational identities. The chapter demonstrates that think-tank-based journals are among International Relations journals which have produced the most work on Pakistan. Through them, the discursive construction and reproduction of Pakistan’s representational identity, not only continues to demonstrate similar patterns as those in academic journals but also because of their wider reach, the ‘truths’ presented as common sense are transmitted beyond universities and policy-makers to the general global audience. In that sense these journals play a vital role in naturalizing representational identities. Consequently, these journals become important cogs in the knowledge production machinery through which ‘Pakistan’ is marketed not only to local audiences, which include policy-makers, academics and policy experts but to the general International Affairs reader across the globe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Michael Gibbons et al., The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage, 1994); Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott, and Micheal Gibbons, “Introduction to Special Issue: Reflections on the New Production of Knowledge: ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge,” Minerva 41, no. 3 (2018): 179–94.

  2. 2.

    Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons, “Introduction to Special Issue: Reflections on the New Production of Knowledge: ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge”, 179.

  3. 3.

    Thomas Osborne, “On Mediators: Intellectuals and the Ideas Trade in the Knowledge Society,” Economy and Society 33, no. 4 (November 2004): 430–47, https://doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000285224; Lisa Stampnitzky, Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented ‘Terrorism’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139208161; Reiner Grundmann, “The Problem of Expertise in Knowledge Societies,” Minerva 55, no. 1 (March 27, 2017): 25–48, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9308-7.

  4. 4.

    Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons, “Introduction to Special Issue: Reflections on the New Production of Knowledge: ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge”, 179.

  5. 5.

    Jordan Soukias Tchilingirian, “Producing Knowledge, Producing Credibility: British Think-Tank Researchers and the Construction of Policy Reports,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 31, no. 2 (June 3, 2018): 162, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-018-9280-3. For a detailed discussion on this aspect of knowledge production, see Gil Eyal, “Dangerous Liaisons Between Military Intelligence and Middle Eastern Studies in Israel,” Theory and Society 31, no. 5 (2002): 653–93, https://doi.org/10.2307/3108544; Gil Eyal and Pok Grace, “What Is Security Expertise?” in Security Expertise: Practice, Power, Responsibility, ed. Trine Villumsen Berling and Christian Bueger (Routledge, 2015), 37–59.

  6. 6.

    I wish to clarify that I do not believe that the discursive production of Pakistan is entirely restricted to academic knowledge and knowledge production processes in think-tanks. Rather, any discourse, because of its expansive nature, cannot be studied in its entirety. Even though knowledge production happens at other loci such as Research Councils, multilateral organizations, epistemic communities, I have chosen to restrict the ambit of this research to unravel a singular strand of the discourse that focuses on International Relations, Area Studies and Think-Tanks.

  7. 7.

    Diane Stone, “Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins or Think Tanks? Three Myths About Policy Institutes,” Public Administration 85, no. 2 (2007): 260, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00649.x.

  8. 8.

    For a detailed understanding of the role of Think-tanks, policy experts and their influence on policy-making processes, see Inderjeet Parmar, Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy: A Comparative Study of the Role and Influence of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1939–1945 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004); Andrew Denham and Mark Garnett, British Think-Tanks and the Climate of Opinion (London: UCL Press, 1998); Andrew Rich, Think-Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

  9. 9.

    Donald E. Abelson, “Old World, New World: The Evolution and Influence of Foreign Affairs Think Tanks,” International Affairs 90, no. 1 (2014): 125–42.

  10. 10.

    James McGann, 2017 Global Go to Think Tank Index Report (The Lauder Institute University of Pennsylvania, 2018).

  11. 11.

    Mahmood Ahmad, “US Think Tanks and the Politics of Expertise: Role, Value and Impact,” Political Quarterly 79, no. 4 (2008): 530, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923x.2008.00964.x.

  12. 12.

    James G. Mcgann, “Think Tanks and the Transnationalization of Foreign Policy,” The Quarterly Journal 2, no. 1 (2003): 85.

  13. 13.

    Diane Stone, “Old Guard Versus New Partisans: Think Tanks in Transition,” Australian Journal of Political Science 26, no. 2 (1991): 197–215, https://doi.org/10.1080/00323269108402146; Mcgann, “Think Tanks and the Transnationalization of Foreign Policy”; Thomas Medvetz, “Hybrid Intellectuals: Toward a Social Praxeology of U.S. Think Tank Experts,” 2006; Kent Weaver, “The Changing World of Think Tanks,” PS: Political Science and Politics 22, no. 3 (1989): 563–79.

  14. 14.

    Diane Stone, “Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins or Think Tanks? Three Myths About Policy Institutes,” Public Administration 85, no. 2 (2007): 261, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00649.x.

  15. 15.

    Stone.

  16. 16.

    Weaver, “The Changing World of Think Tanks.”

  17. 17.

    James McGann and Robert Kent Weaver, eds., Think Tanks and Civil Societies: Catalysts for Ideas and Action (Transaction Publishers, 2002); Donald E. Abelson, “Do Think Tanks Matter? Opportunities, Constraints and Incentives for Think Tanks in Canada and the United States,” Global Society 14, no. 2 (2000): 213–36, https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820050008458.

  18. 18.

    For instance, McGann and Weaver define think tanks as “non-governmental, not-for profit research organisations with substantial organisational autonomy from government and from societal interests such as firms, interest groups, and political parties”. A critique of this definition is presented by Pautz in, “Revisiting the Think-Tank Phenomenon,” Public Policy and Administration 26, no. 4 (October 5, 2011): 419–35, https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076710378328.

  19. 19.

    Simon James, “Diane Stone, Capturing the Political Imagination: Think Tanks and the Political Process,” Public Administration 76, no. 2 (January 1, 1998): 409–10, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00108.

  20. 20.

    Thomas Matthew Medvetz, Think Tanks as an Emergent Field (New York: Social Sciences Research Council, 2008).

  21. 21.

    Pautz, “Revisiting the Think-Tank Phenomenon”; Richard Higgott and Diane Stone, “The Limits of Influence: Foreign Policy Think Tanks in Britain and the USA,” Review of International Studies 20, no. 1 (1994): 15–34, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210500117760.

  22. 22.

    Mcgann, “Think Tanks and the Transnationalization of Foreign Policy”; Núria Almiron and Universitat Pompeu Fabra, “Favoring the Elites: Think Tanks and Discourse Coalitions,” International Journal of Communication 11, July 2016 (2017): 4350–69; Ahmad, “US Think Tanks and the Politics of Expertise: Role, Value and Impact”; Abelson, “Do Think Tanks Matter? Opportunities, Constraints and Incentives for Think Tanks in Canada and the United States”; Abelson, “Old World, New World: The Evolution and Influence of Foreign Affairs Think Tanks”; Murray Weidenbaum, “Measuring the Influence of Think Tanks,” Society 47, no. 2 (2010): 134–37, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-009-9292-8; Higgott and Stone, “The Limits of Influence: Foreign Policy Think Tanks in Britain and the USA.”

  23. 23.

    Ibid., 15.

  24. 24.

    Howard Wiarda, “The New Powerhouses: Think Tanks and Foreign Policy,” American Foreign Policy Interests 30, no. 2 (2008): 100, https://doi.org/10.1080/10803920802022704.

  25. 25.

    See Michael Krepon, “The Limits of Influence,” The Nonproliferation Review 18, no. 1 (March 19, 2011): 85–101, https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2011.549175; Abelson, “Old World, New World: The Evolution and Influence of Foreign Affairs Think Tanks”; Wiarda, “The New Powerhouses: Think Tanks and Foreign Policy.”

  26. 26.

    See Stone, “Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins or Think Tanks? Three Myths about Policy Institutes”; Ahmad, “US Think Tanks and the Politics of Expertise: Role, Value and Impact”; Abelson, “Do Think Tanks Matter? Opportunities, Constraints and Incentives for Think Tanks in Canada and the United States.”

  27. 27.

    See Mcgann, “Think Tanks and the Transnationalization of Foreign Policy”; Abelson, “Old World, New World: The Evolution and Influence of Foreign Affairs Think Tanks”; Parmar, Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy: A Comparative Study of the Role and Influence of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1939–1945; Benoit F. Monange, “Social Science Expertise and Policymaking: Comparing U.S., French, and EU Think Tanks: Similar Model Different Paths,” PS: Political Science and Politics 41, no. 4 (2008): 909, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096508321271; Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen and Olivier Schmitt, “The Impact of Institutions on Foreign Policy Think Tanks in France and Denmark,” The International Spectator 52, no. 1 (2017): 100–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2017.1268443; Stone, “Old Guard Versus New Partisans: Think Tanks in Transition.”

  28. 28.

    Higgott and Stone, “The Limits of Influence: Foreign Policy Think Tanks in Britain and the USA”, 33.

  29. 29.

    A detailed understanding of the relationships that have been cultivated between a handful of think tanks and several recent US presidential administrations is evidenced in Donald E. Abelson, A Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006).

  30. 30.

    Edwin J. Feulner, “Ideas, Think-Tanks and Governments,” Quadrant 29, no. 11 (1985): 24, https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=353401175088031;res=IELLCC;subject=Sciences.

  31. 31.

    This distinction between the US and UK think tanks is chronicled in Abelson, “Old World, New World: The Evolution and Influence of Foreign Affairs Think Tanks”; Parmar, Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy: A Comparative Study of the Role and Influence of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1939–1945; Higgott and Stone, “The Limits of Influence: Foreign Policy Think Tanks in Britain and the USA.” For a comparative analysis of US and French Think Tanks, see Monange, “Social Science Expertise and Policymaking. Comparing U.S., French, and EU Think Tanks: Similar Model Different Paths.” For a comparison between US and Canadian think tanks, see Abelson, “Do Think Tanks Matter? Opportunities, Constraints and Incentives for Think Tanks in Canada and the United States.”

  32. 32.

    For instance in Pakistan most think tanks are heavily staffed by former bureaucrats and military officers which provide these think tanks ample opportunities to influence the state’s decision-making processes due to their ingress in governmental circles. For an analysis on Pakistan’s think tanks and their relation with the state, see Ahmed Waheed, “State Sovereignty and International Relations in Pakistan: Analysing the Realism Stranglehold,” South Asia Research 37, no. 3 (2017): 277–95, https://doi.org/10.1177/0262728017725624.

  33. 33.

    Wiarda, “The New Powerhouses: Think Tanks and Foreign Policy”, 97.

  34. 34.

    For instance, the French Institute of International Relations publishes Ramses; Chatham House produces The World Today; Carnegie Endowment for Peace publishes SADA online; the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars publishes the Wilson Quarterly and the Council of Foreign Relations publishes Foreign Affairs.

  35. 35.

    The Brookings Institution publishes three journals; the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economia, and Behavioral Science & Policy. Chatham House produces the journal of International Affairs and Journal of Cyber Policy and the Cato Institute and the Royal United Services Institute publishes the Cato Journal and the RUSI Journal respectively.

  36. 36.

    It is now hosted by the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.

  37. 37.

    John R. Schmidt, “The Unravelling of Pakistan,” Survival 51, no. 3 (July 2009): 44, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330903011453.

  38. 38.

    C. Fair, “Time for Sober Realism: Renegotiating U.S Relations with Pakistan,” The Washington Quarterly 32, no. 2 (2009): 149–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/01636600902775680.

  39. 39.

    Ayesha Siddiqa, “Pakistan’s Counterterrorism Strategy: Separating Friends from Enemies,” The Washington Quarterly 34, no. 1 (2010): 158, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2011.538362.

  40. 40.

    John R. Schmidt, “The Unravelling of Pakistan,” Survival 51, no. 3 (July 2009): 29, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330903011453. Emphasis added.

  41. 41.

    Seth G. Jones, “Pakistan’ s Dangerous Game” 49, no. 1 (2007): 29, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330701254495.

  42. 42.

    C. Christine Fair, “Lashkar-e-Tayiba and the Pakistani State,” Survival 53, no. 4 (September 2011): 29, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2011.603561.

  43. 43.

    C. Fair, “Time for Sober Realism: Renegotiating U.S Relations with Pakistan,” The Washington Quarterly 32, no. 2 (2009): 149, https://doi.org/10.1080/01636600902775680.

  44. 44.

    Ashley J. Tellis, “Pakistan’s Record on Terrorism: Conflicted Goals, Compromised Performance,” The Washington Quarterly 31, no. 2 (April 2008): 8, https://doi.org/10.1162/wash.2008.31.2.7.

  45. 45.

    C. Cohen and D. Chollet, “When $ 10 Billion Is Not Enough: Rethinking US Strategy Toward Pakistan,” The Washington Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2007): 9.

  46. 46.

    Cohen and Chollet, 11.

  47. 47.

    Cohen and Chollet, 16.

  48. 48.

    Fair, “Time for Sober Realism: Renegotiating U.S Relations with Pakistan”, 150.

  49. 49.

    Fair, “Lashkar-e-Tayiba and the Pakistani State”, 30.

  50. 50.

    Fair, “Time for Sober Realism: Renegotiating U.S Relations with Pakistan”, 160.

  51. 51.

    Jones, “Pakistan’ s Dangerous Game”, 11.

  52. 52.

    Cohen and Chollet, “When $ 10 Billion Is Not Enough: Rethinking US Strategy Toward Pakistan”, 18.

  53. 53.

    Jones, “Pakistan’ s Dangerous Game”, 27. Emphasis Added.

  54. 54.

    Tellis, “Pakistan’s Record on Terrorism: Conflicted Goals, Compromised Performance”, 22.

  55. 55.

    Schmidt, “The Unravelling of Pakistan”, 40.

  56. 56.

    Fair, “Lashkar-e-Tayiba and the Pakistani State”, 15.

  57. 57.

    Schmidt, “The Unravelling of Pakistan”, 39.

  58. 58.

    Fair, “Time for Sober Realism: Renegotiating U.S Relations with Pakistan”, 154.

  59. 59.

    Schmidt, “The Unravelling of Pakistan”, 44.

  60. 60.

    Fair, “Time for Sober Realism: Renegotiating U.S Relations with Pakistan”, 166.

  61. 61.

    Fair, 167.

  62. 62.

    Jones, “Pakistan’ s Dangerous Game”, 27. Emphasis Added.

  63. 63.

    Fair, “Time for Sober Realism: Renegotiating U.S Relations with Pakistan”, 156.

  64. 64.

    Schmidt, “The Unravelling of Pakistan”, 44.

  65. 65.

    Huma Yusuf, “Conspiracy Fever: The US, Pakistan and Its Media,” Survival 53, no. 4 (September 2011): 97, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2011.603564.

  66. 66.

    Shafqat Hussain Naghmi, “Pakistan’s Public Attitude toward the United States,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 26, no. 3 (1982): 507–23; Hamid H. Kazilbash, “Anti-Americanism in Pakistan,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 497, no. 58–67 (1988).

  67. 67.

    Mohammad Waseem, “Anti-Americanism in Pakistan,” in With Us or Against Us, ed. Tony Judt and Denis Lacorne (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 173–88, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403980854_10; Mohammad Waseem, “Perceptions About America in Pakistan,” Aziya Kenkyu 50, no. 2 (2004): 34–44.

  68. 68.

    Brian Glyn Williams, “The CIA’s Covert Predator Drone War in Pakistan, 2004–2010: The History of an Assassination Campaign,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 33, no. 10 (September 20, 2010): 871–92.

  69. 69.

    Waseem, “Perceptions About America in Pakistan.”

  70. 70.

    Richard Jackson, “Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse,” Government and Opposition 42, no. 3 (March 28, 2007): 403, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00229.x.

Bibliography

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for International Peace & Stability, National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Ahmed W. Waheed

Authors
  1. Ahmed W. Waheed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed W. Waheed .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Waheed, A.W. (2020). The ‘Truth About Pakistan’: Knowledge Production and Circulation in Think Tanks. In: Constructing 'Pakistan' through Knowledge Production in International Relations and Area Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0742-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation