Conclusions: Intervening on Shifting Sands

Part of the Palgrave Studies in Science, Knowledge and Policy book series (SKP)


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).


  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. Ashforth, B., & Gibbs, B. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, M. (2016). No alternative to austerity: How BBC broadcast news reported the deficit debate. Media, Culture and Society, 38(6), 844–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charity Commission. (2010). Charities and the economic downturn. Accessed 18 November 2015.
  6. de Goede, M. (2009). Finance and the excess: The politics of visibility in the credit crisis. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 16(2), 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denham, A., & Garnett, M. (1998). British think tanks and the climate of opinion. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1946 [1927]). The Public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. Chicago: Gateway Books.Google Scholar
  9. Holmwood, J. (2013). Rethinking moderation in a pragmatist frame. The Sociological Review, 61(2), 180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holmwood, J., Smith, T., & Thomas, A. (2013). Sociologies of moderation. The Sociological Review, 61(2), 6–17.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Kingdon, J. (2003). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Koselleck, R. (2002). The practice of conceptual history. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Medvetz, T. (2012a). Think tanks in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Osborne, T. (2004). On mediators: Intellectuals and the ideas trade in the knowledge society. Economy & Society, 33(4), 430–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pautz, H. (2012a). Think tanks, social democracy and social policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Pautz, H. (2012b). The think tanks behind ‘cameronism’. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 15(3), 362–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Political Science, 11(1), 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Silva, P. (2009). In the name of reason: Technocrats and politics in Chile. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sinclair, T. (2010). Round up the usual suspects: Blame and the subprime crisis. New Political Economy, 15(1), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stahl, J. (2016). Right moves: The conservative think tank in American political culture since 1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stone, D. (2007). Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public Administration, 85(2), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wade, R. (2013). Conservative Party economic policy: From Heath in opposition to Cameron in coalition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations