The Think Tank Battle

The news that George Osborne has launched a think tank, the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, came with a media and commentary fanfare that few others enjoy. The think tank ‘market’ is increasingly crowded but the appetite for public affairs firms and their clients to work with them remains undiminished. But how do you choose who to work with?

Whether Osborne can really make a go of his Partnership remains to be seen. Certainly, Iain Duncan Smith trod a similar path when he established the Centre for Social Justice to help tackle social breakdown and poverty. Both men appear motivated by a similar genuine concern for the issues their think tanks are based around.

In Duncan Smith’s case, the work helped to rehabilitate him politically so much so that he ended up as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. In Osborne’s case, the think tank has a clear political element as well. He wants to use it to directly influence Mrs May’s government. Osborne wants the Northern Powerhouse project to continue apace.

In effect, Osborne’s think tank will have several roles. It needs to maintain the profile of the Northern Powerhouse, grow the depth of the project beyond politicians, ensure a fresh flow of policy ideas and, importantly, address the failings that the Osborne version of the Northern Powerhouse had. The latter may be slightly tricky for him personally but will demonstrate whether the think tank is a serious player or not.

So what are some of the questions that organisations should ask when deciding to work with a particular think tank?

1. Does the work offer the prospect of involvement but maintain its independence? There has to be recognition that an organisation will want to help shape the project and be hands-on in its design but kept away from the final outputs. The findings of any report have to be robust especially when they come under scrutiny from opponents of the plans. The think tank should see these challenges and explain how they will deal with them.
2. Can the research deliver on the type of information you need to plug into your public affairs campaign? In other words, the outputs have to be of use in briefings and meetings and respond in a positive way to any previous weaknesses in your own arguments. If the answer is ‘no’ then the research is either unnecessary or badly thought through. It is not up to the think tank to work this out for you. Plus, if it can give your opponents something to think about with the outputs then even better.
3. Does the think tank have a consistency of policy area and approach? You do not just want to work with ‘guns for hire’ but instead choose your think tank on the basis of them having form for commenting on the policy area or the approach being proposed. If not, the results could seem forced or controversial for the sake of them and that will diminish their weight.
4. Does the think tank have a respected team? This question has two key elements. The team needs to have strength in terms of the research personnel put on the project but also amongst its senior leaders who need to be respected by the identified audience you are trying to persuade of your case.
5. How will the campaign work over time? Too many reports come out with a big bang with a launch event and then the think tank moves onto its next piece of work. That is completely understandable but does not really help the campaign. You are really looking for something that can, at least, be updated over time or periodically publicised with comments from the think tank.

There is a significant financial commitment involved in working with a think tank and there are, of course, other options available from economic consultancies through to NGOs and campaigning groups.

The decision rests on a well-prepared strategy for your work and campaign. There is plenty of initial homework to be done from considering the programme as a whole, to the intended audiences, and the strengths and weaknesses of the case.

But it is also about what your organisation wants from its long-term positioning as well. To engage and work with a particular think tank is a decision that can have implications for a reputation as well so cannot be viewed in isolation.

In an era of evidence-based policy making, especially amongst officials, having the evidence available to prove one’s case is often considered a starting point. But there will, of course, always be a large amount of politics involved. Evidence is important but it is not sufficient on its own.

Your programme is key to the success of any relationship with a think tank.