Thinking Under Pressure: Think Tanks and Policy Advice After 2008

  • Marcos González HernandoEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Science, Knowledge and Policy book series (SKP)


The introduction to this book sets forth and justifies the focus of this book on British think tanks, highlighting some of the issues they faced as they sought to position themselves as experts in the context of a perceived failure of expertise, the 2008 global financial crisis. This is followed by an overview of the institutional characteristics of British think tanks, their history, and the relevant literature on the subject. This chapter also clarifies how the book understands think tanks as a research object, and their relevance for detecting broader changes in the way that the public policy debate has evolved since 2008. It ends by presenting the four case studies this book comprises and outlining why they were selected.


  1. Abelson, D. (2002). Do think tanks matter? Opportunities, constraints and incentives for think tanks in Canada and the United States. Global Society, 14(2), 213–236.Google Scholar
  2. Abelson, D. (2012). Theoretical models and approaches to understanding the role of lobbies and think tanks in US foreign policy. In S. Brooks, D. Stasiak, & T. Zyro (Eds.), Policy expertise in contemporary democracies. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  3. Abolafia, M. (2010). Narrative construction as sensemaking: How a central bank thinks. Organization Studies, 31(3), 349–367.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. (2016). The Rashomon effect and communication. Canadian Journal of Communication, 41(2), 250–265.Google Scholar
  5. Aupers, S. (2012). Trust no one: Modernization, paranoia and conspiracy culture. European Journal of Communication, 27(22), 22–34.Google Scholar
  6. Baert, P., & Booth, J. (2012). Tensions within the public intellectual: Political interventions from Dreyfus to the new social media. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 25(4), 111–126.Google Scholar
  7. Baert, P., & Shipman, A. (2012). Transforming the intellectual. In P. Baert & F. Domínguez Rubio (Eds.), The politics of knowledge (pp. 179–204). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Ball, S., & Exley, S. (2010). Making policy with ‘good ideas’: Policy networks and the ‘intellectuals’ of New Labour. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 151–169.Google Scholar
  9. Banet-Weiser, S. (2012). Branding the crisis. In J. Caraça, G. Cardoso, & M. Castells (Eds.), Aftermath: The cultures of economic crisis (pp. 107–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bauman, Z. (1989). Legislators and interpreters: On modernity, postmodernity and intellectuals. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. BBC. (2017). Crash was economists’ ‘Michael Fish’ moment, says Andy Haldane. Accessed 15 September 2018.
  12. Beck, U., & Wehling, P. (2012). The politics of non-knowing: An emergent area of social and political conflict in reflexive modernity. In P. Baert & F. Domínguez Rubio (Eds.), The politics of knowledge (pp. 33–57). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Bentham, J. (2006). The IPPR and Demos: Think tanks of the new social democracy. Political Quarterly, 77(2), 166–174.Google Scholar
  14. Berry, M. (2016). No alternative to austerity: How BBC broadcast news reported the deficit debate. Media, Culture and Society, 38(6), 844–863.Google Scholar
  15. Boin, A., t’Hart, P., & McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: Political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81–106.Google Scholar
  16. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Vive la crise!: For heterodoxy in social science. Theory & Society, 17(5), 773–787.Google Scholar
  18. Brändström, A., & Kuipers, S. (2003). From ‘normal incidents’ to political crises: Understanding the selective politicization of policy failures. Government and Opposition, 38(3), 279–305.Google Scholar
  19. Brooks, S. (2012). Speaking truth to power: The paradox of the intellectual in the visual information age. In S. Brooks, D. Stasiak, & T. Zyro (Eds.), Policy expertise in contemporary democracies (pp. 69–85). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Bryan, D., Martin, R., Montgomerie, J., & Williams, K. (2012). An important failure: Knowledge limits and the financial crisis. Economy & Society, 41(3), 299–315.Google Scholar
  21. Campbell, J. (2002). Ideas, politics and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 21–38.Google Scholar
  22. Charity Commission. (2013, September 1). What makes a charity (CC4). Accessed 10 January 2016.
  23. Cockett, R. (1995). Thinking the unthinkable: Think tanks and the economic counter-revolution 1931–1983. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  24. Collini, S. (2006). Absent minds: Intellectuals in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cooren, F. (2016). Organizational discourse: Communication and constitution. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Crehan, K. (2011). Gramsci’s concept of common sense: A useful concept for anthropologists? Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 16(2), 273–287.Google Scholar
  27. Crehan, K. (2016). Gramsci’s common sense: Inequality and its narratives. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Crouch, C. (2011). The strange non-death of neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  29. Davenport, C. (2010). Media bias, perspective, and state repression: The Black Panther Party. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Davies, W., & McGoey, L. (2012). Rationalities of ignorance: On financial crisis and the ambivalence of neoliberal epistemology. Economy & Society, 41(1), 64–83.Google Scholar
  31. de Goede, M. (2009). Finance and the excess: The politics of visibility in the credit crisis. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 16(2), 295–306.Google Scholar
  32. Denham, A., & Garnett, M. (1998). British think tanks and the climate of opinion. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  33. Denham, A., & Stone, D. (Eds.). (2004). Think tank traditions. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Desai, R. (1994). Second hand dealers in ideas: Think tanks and Thatcherite hegemony. New Left Review, 203(1), 27–64.Google Scholar
  35. Dewey, J. (1946 [1927]). The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. Chicago: Gateway Books.Google Scholar
  36. Domhoff, G. W. (1967). Who rules America? New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  37. Engelen, E., Erturk, I., Froud, J., Johal, S., Leaver, A., Moran, M., et al. (2011). Misrule of experts? The financial crisis as elite debacle (CRESC Working Paper Series, 94).Google Scholar
  38. Eyal, G., & Pok, G. (2011). From a sociology of professions to a sociology of expertise. Accessed 20 February 2015.
  39. Eyerman, R. (2011). Intellectuals and cultural trauma. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(4), 453–467.Google Scholar
  40. Fischer, K., & Plehwe, D. (2013). Redes de think tanks e intelectuales de derecha en América Latina. Nueva Sociedad, 245, 70–86.Google Scholar
  41. Fourcade, M. (2009). Economists and societies: Discipline and profession in the United States, Britain and France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gamble, A. (2009). The spectre at the feast: Capitalist crisis and the politics of recession. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Gills, B. (2010). The return of crisis in the era of globalization: One crisis, or many? Globalizations, 7(1–2), 3–8.Google Scholar
  44. Gramsci. A. (1999 [1971]). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Elecbooks.Google Scholar
  45. González Hernando, M., Pautz, H., & Stone, D. (2018). Think tanks in ‘hard times’: The global financial crisis and economic advice. Policy & Society, 37(2), 125–139.Google Scholar
  46. González Hernando, M., & Baert, P. (forthcoming). Collectives of intellectuals: Their cohesiveness, accountability, and who can speak on their behalf. The Sociological Review.Google Scholar
  47. Herbst, S. (2003). Political authority in a mediated age. Theory & Society, 32(4), 481–503.Google Scholar
  48. Holmwood, J. (2014). Sociology’s past and futures: The impact of external structure, policy and financing. In J. Holmwood & J. Scott (Eds.), A handbook of British sociology. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  49. Jacoby, R. (2000). The last intellectuals: American culture in the age of academe. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Jacques, P., Dunlap, R., & Freeman, M. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17(3), 349–385.Google Scholar
  51. James, S. (1993). The idea brokers: The impact of think tanks on British government. Public Administration, 71, 491–506.Google Scholar
  52. Kay, L., Smith, K., & Torres, J. (2013). Think tanks as research mediators? Case studies from public health. Evidence and Policy, 59(3), 371–390.Google Scholar
  53. Krastev, I. (2001). Think tanks: Making and faking influence. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 1(2), 17–38.Google Scholar
  54. Lawson, T. (2009). The current economic crisis: Its nature and the course of academic economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(4), 759–777.Google Scholar
  55. Lischinsky, A. (2011). In times of crisis: A corpus approach to the construction of the global financial crisis in annual reports. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(3), 153–168.Google Scholar
  56. Lo, A. (2011). Reading about the financial crisis: A 21-book review. Social Science Research Network. Accessed 15 March 2013.
  57. Lucas, R. (2003). Macroeconomic Priorities. American Economic Review, 93(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  58. Mazur, A. (1998). A hazardous inquiry: The Rashomon effect at Love Canal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. McGann, J. (2009). 2008 global go to think tanks and policy advice ranking. Think Tanks and Civil Society Program. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  60. McGann, J. (2010). Democratization and market reform in developing and transitional countries: Think tanks as catalysts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. McGann, J. (2017). 2016 global go to think tanks and policy advice ranking. Think Tanks and Civil Society Program. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  62. McGann, J. (2018). 2017 global go to think tanks and policy advice ranking.. Think Tanks and Civil Society Program. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  63. McGann, J., Viden, A., & Rafferty, J. (Eds.). (2014). How think tanks shape social development policies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  64. McGoey, L. (2012). Strategic unknowns: Towards a sociology of ignorance. Economy & Society, 41(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  65. McLennan, G. (2004). Dynamics of transformative ideas in contemporary public discourse, 2002–2003. Accessed 15 October 2013.
  66. McNutt, K., & Marchildon, G. (2009). Think tanks and the web: Measuring visibility and influence. Canadian Public Policy, 35(2), 219–236.Google Scholar
  67. Medvetz, T. (2012a). Think tanks in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. Medvetz, T. (2012b). Murky power: ‘Think tanks’ as boundary organizations. In D. Golsorkhi, D. Courpasson, & J. Sallaz (Eds.), Rethinking power in organizations, institutions, and markets: Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 113–133). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  69. Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Misztal, B. (2012). Public intellectuals and think tanks: A free market in ideas? International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 25(4), 127–141.Google Scholar
  71. Morin, E. (1976). Pour une crisologie. Communications, 25, 149–163.Google Scholar
  72. Muller, C. (1996). The institute of economic affairs: Undermining the post-war consensus. Contemporary British History, 10(1), 88–110.Google Scholar
  73. (2013). For-profit think tanks and implications for funders. Accessed 25 March 2015.
  74. Pautz, H. (2012a). Think tanks, social democracy and social policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  75. Pautz, H. (2012b). The think tanks behind ‘cameronism’. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 15(3), 362–377.Google Scholar
  76. Pautz, H. (2016). Managing the crisis? Think tanks and the British response to global financial crisis and great recession. Critical Policy Studies, 11(2), 191–210 [Online early access].Google Scholar
  77. Pierson, R. (1994). The epistemic authority of expertise. PSA: Proceeding of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 398–405.Google Scholar
  78. Plehwe, D. (2010). Think tanks und Entwicklung. Bessere Integration von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft? Journal für Entwicklungspolitik, 26(2), 9–37.Google Scholar
  79. Posner, R. (2003). Public intellectuals: A study of decline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Rantanen, T. (2012). In nationalism we trust? In J. Caraça, G. Cardoso, & M. Castells (Eds.), Aftermath: The cultures of economic crisis (pp. 132–153). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Rohloff, A., & Wright, S. (2010). Moral panic and social theory: Beyond the heuristic. Current Sociology, 58(3), 403–419.Google Scholar
  82. Roitman, J. (2013). Anti-crisis. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Rosanvallon, P. (2008). La légitimité démocratique: Impartialité, réflexivité, proximité. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  84. Roth, W., & Mehta, J. (2002). The Rashomon effect: Combining positivist and interpretivist approaches in the analysis of contested events. Sociological Methods and Research, 31(2), 131–173.Google Scholar
  85. Sandvoss, C. (2010). Conceptualizing the global economic crisis in popular communication research. Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture, 8(3), 154–161.Google Scholar
  86. Schlesinger, P. (2009). Creativity and the experts: New Labour, think tanks, and the policy process. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  87. Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Political Science, 11(1), 303–322.Google Scholar
  88. Schmidt, V., & Thatcher, M. (2013). Resilient liberalism in Europe’s political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Scott Solomon, M. (2010). Critical ideas in times of crisis: Reconsidering Smith, Marx, Keynes, and Hayek. Globalizations, 7(1–2), 127–135.Google Scholar
  90. Sinclair, T. (2010). Round up the usual suspects: Blame and the subprime crisis. New Political Economy, 15(1), 91–107.Google Scholar
  91. Stone, D. (1991). Old guard versus new partisans: Think tanks in transition. Australian Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 197–215.Google Scholar
  92. Stone, D. (1996). From the margins of politics: The influence of think-tanks in Britain. West European Politics, 19(4), 675–692.Google Scholar
  93. Stone, D. (2007). Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public Administration, 85(2), 259–278.Google Scholar
  94. t’Hart, P., & Tindall, K. (Eds.). (2009). Framing the global economic downturn: Crisis rhetoric and the politics of recessions. Sydney: ANU Press.Google Scholar
  95. Tesseyman, A. J. (1999). The new right think tanks and policy change in the UK. (PhD thesis). Department of Politics, University of York.Google Scholar
  96. Thompson, J. (2012). The metamorphosis of a crisis. In J. Caraça, G. Cardoso, & M. Castells (Eds.), Aftermath: The cultures of economic crisis (pp. 59–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Tooze, A. (2019). Crashed: How a decade of financial crises changed the world. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  98. Walby, S. (2016). Crisis. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  99. Westermeier, C. (2018). The Bank of International Settlements as a think tank for financial policy-making. Policy & Society, 37(2), 170–187.Google Scholar
  100. Wren-Lewis, S. (2018). The lies we were told: Politics, economics, austerity and Brexit. Bristol: Bristol University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations