Think Tank Thoughts: Academic Civil Society in China

By Gibson Haynes 

​张涵奇供稿

On December 23, 2015, Dr. Zhu Xufeng, Professor at the School of Public Policy and Management of Tsinghua University, met with members of NexGen Global Forum and delivered a lecture about think tanks and their functions within China. Dr. Zhu’s research focuses on think tanks and the function of experts in policy creation, and he has worked to create a typology of think tanks over the course of several books including China’s Think Tanks: Their Influence in the Policy Process.  Since we here at NexGen Global Forum are managing our own think tank, we found Dr. Zhu’s meta-analysis quite interesting and useful.

2015年12月23日，青思智库邀请到清华公共管理学院的朱旭峰教授与我们分享智库在中国环境下的职能。朱教授是智库研究领域的专家，著作《中国思想库：政策过程中的影响力研究》等书对于智库的分类研究具有深远的价值。青思智库作为学生自发自主建立的智库，也通过本次讲座加深了运营和管理方面的理解。
 

The first step in studying think tanks is, of course, defining what precisely a think tank is and how one differs from similar institutions like lobbying groups. The broad definition offered by Dr. Zhu frames a think tank as a public policy research, analysis, and engagement organization that is knowledge-based and policy-oriented, serving governments, intergovernmental organizations, and civil societies. This distinction separates think tanks from lobbying groups, which are not restricted purely to research to promote their agendas. Think tanks aim to influence policy, but by providing a research-based recommendation rather than one motivated by an organizational agenda or hope of monetary gain. The last part of the definition is also important; not all think tanks are concerned primarily with reaching governments. Some instead function as the “brain trusts” for civil society organizations, putting academic muscle behind activist calls.

Though the wide variety of think tanks fulfill this broad definition, they exist within an equally wide range of contexts. It is hard to say that the US-based Congressional Research Service, a formal part of the American legislative branch, and the autonomous Institute of Security Studies in South Africa operate in the same way. This is where Dr. Zhu’s typology of think tanks comes to hand; organizations are distinguished by their degree of independence in pursuing and producing research. Although a number of think tanks have both financial independence and research autonomy, many more exist on a spectrum where one or both are to varying degrees under the influence of a higher authority. From completely autonomous and independent think tanks to quasi-independent ones, free from government influence but beholden to an interest group or donor master, from think tanks incorporated into the structure of a government itself to quasi-governmental ones which function entirely on government grants and contracts but exist outside the formal structure, in universities or even corporate consortiums, the overriding interest is a pursuit of independence, Dr. Zhu argues. Only if think tanks seek constantly to push the outer limits of their independent inquiry can they produce the most valuable, worthwhile research.
This presents a challenge in particular for think tanks in China, where the number of think tanks has risen sharply since the 1980s to around 425 as of 2009. Many exist either as part of the government structure, or in strong patronage relationships; in either case, the predominant conception is of think tanks as “external brains” for the government. They do not actually draft policy, as research offices in various government organs can, but to a degree can move towards self-determination in deciding on research subjects and targets.
​
So where does this place the NexGen Global Forum? We are closely affiliated with Tsinghua University, as our membership is currently part of the Tsinghua-SAIS Master’s Program, but we are given a great deal of leeway in defining and pursuing our research. A great deal of discussion revolves around our audience – as a think tank located in Beijing, our natural audience would be the government, but as a student collective our prescriptions are perhaps not authoritative enough to be considered by that audience. Instead, we draw our inspiration from academia and civil society, and hope that through engagement with a wide swath of residents here, from academics to locals to expatriates, we can offer a young, multicultural perspective on international relations in this global city.

朱教授从智库的定义讲起：智库是从事公共政策研究和分析的组织，本质是用知识影响政策、为政府、政府间组织以及社会提供服务。这一定义划清了智库和游说团体之间的界限。后者一般不以研究为唯一手段，并为了某一组织的具体诉求和经济利益服务。这是游说团体与智库不同的地方。此外，智库不一定直接接触政府，在某些情况下，智库可以充当民间社会团体的知识后盾。
 
以上的定义精确而宽泛，因此我们需要对于不同类型的智库进行进一步的细分。因为我们很难说中国社科院与清华卡内基中心属于同一类的智库，朱教授表示，从智库的独立性角度对其进行分类便显得十分必要。独立性又分财政独立性和研究独立性，且每个不同的的智库在这两个方面的独立程度又千差万别：包括完全隶属于政府的研究机构、半政府性的研究机构、接受政府资金、以合同制开展咨询式服务的智库、院校或是公司等等。朱教授认为，不同性质的智库都应该尽量追求独立性，以确保其研究成果更具实际价值。
 
对于中国的智库来说尤其如此。上世纪80年代至2009年为止，智库从无到有，发展到429个之多。其中就包括了上述分类中的不同存在形式。总的来说，中国智库都是以政府的外部智囊的形象出现，虽然不直接决定国家政策，但是其研究问题都与国家政策紧密相关。在这过程中，如能更自主地确立研究主题和目标，将能促进研究质量的提高。
 
青思智库作为清华社科学院国际关系学系与约翰霍普金斯双硕士项目的学生自主建立运营的智库，在探索中国智库发展的事业中也可以做出自己的贡献。虽然政策影响力有限，但是我们从学术界、民间、政府多个方面汲取灵感，贵在能够发出属于学生的充满活力的、文化多元的声音。