Conclusions: Intervening on Shifting Sands
- 122 Downloads
The conclusion of this book has two aims. First, it seeks to examine and compare how the public interventions of these four think tanks occurred in practice, whether they convey any type of intellectual or institutional change, and what these changes could reveal of their broader environment. Second, this chapter proposes understanding the intellectual changes think tanks underwent—as well as their import in politics and policy—through their function as ‘moderators’ of rapidly shifting fields. This privileged location allows some of these think tanks to ‘select’ ideas that might be marginal in one relatively dominated domain (e.g., a minority position in academic economics) and advocate for it successfully in another (e.g., economic policymaking).
- 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
- Alcock, P., Parry, J., & Taylor, R. (2012). From crisis to mixed picture to phoney war: Tracing third sector discourse in the 2008/9 recession (Third Sector Research Centre Research Report (78)). Accessed 27 May 2015. http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1780/1/RR78_From_crisis_to_mixed_picture_to_phoney_war_%2D_Taylor%2C_Parry_and_Alcock%2C_April_2012.pdf.
- Charity Commission. (2010). Charities and the economic downturn. Accessed 18 November 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charities-and-the-economic-downturn-parliamentary-briefing.
- Denham, A., & Garnett, M. (1998). British think tanks and the climate of opinion. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
- Dewey, J. (1946 ). The Public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. Chicago: Gateway Books.Google Scholar
- Holmwood, J., Smith, T., & Thomas, A. (2013). Sociologies of moderation. The Sociological Review, 61(2), 6–17.Google Scholar
- 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
- Kingdon, J. (2003). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
- Koselleck, R. (2002). The practice of conceptual history. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Ladi, S. (2011). Think tanks, discursive institutionalism and policy change. In G. Papanagnou (Ed.), Social science and policy challenges: Democracy, values and capacities. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
- Medvetz, T. (2012a). Think tanks in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Pautz, H. (2012a). Think tanks, social democracy and social policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Silva, P. (2009). In the name of reason: Technocrats and politics in Chile. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
- Washington Post. (2017). Trump could cause ‘the death of think tanks as we know them’. Accessed 12 May 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-could-cause-the-death-of-think-tanks-as-we-know-them/2017/01/15/8ec3734e-d9c5–11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.48b548c7a5f9.