Transparent think-tanks are an important part of European decision-making processes.
BY C.RUMPELNIK
Despite an ever-growing need of well-founded information on all levels of the European legislative process, think tanks that aim to provide this information, are often viewed as opaque and unreliable constructs. Steve Waters of the “Guardian”, a center-left British newspaper: “As think-tanks fight for airspace and for a chunk of the ideological spectrum, they increasingly resemble the corporations and government agencies they increasingly serve “. The Corporate Europe Observatory, an NGO critical of corporate access to institutions, reaches the same conclusion: “Many think tanks are backed by corporate sponsors, by companies which pay membership fees and/or by other partners co-organizing events or co-writing publications. Very occasionally corporate interests club together to set up a think-tank, thereby camouflaging their interests.”
BY C.RUMPELNIK
Despite an ever-growing need of well-founded information on all levels of the European legislative process, think tanks that aim to provide this information, are often viewed as opaque and unreliable constructs. Steve Waters of the “Guardian”, a center-left British newspaper: “As think-tanks fight for airspace and for a chunk of the ideological spectrum, they increasingly resemble the corporations and government agencies they increasingly serve “. The Corporate Europe Observatory, an NGO critical of corporate access to institutions, reaches the same conclusion: “Many think tanks are backed by corporate sponsors, by companies which pay membership fees and/or by other partners co-organizing events or co-writing publications. Very occasionally corporate interests club together to set up a think-tank, thereby camouflaging their interests.”
Despite an ever-growing
need of well-founded information on all levels of the European legislative
process, think tanks that aim to provide this information, are often viewed as
opaque and unreliable constructs. Steve Waters of the “Guardian”, a center-left
British newspaper: “As think-tanks fight for airspace and for a chunk of the
ideological spectrum, they increasingly resemble the corporations and
government agencies they increasingly serve “. The Corporate Europe Observatory,
an NGO critical of corporate access to institutions, reaches the same
conclusion: “Many think tanks are backed by corporate sponsors, by companies
which pay membership fees and/or by other partners co-organizing events or
co-writing publications. Very occasionally corporate interests club together to
set up a think-tank, thereby camouflaging their interests.”
To address this spreading sense of suspicion
against think tanks and research institutions, Transparify, a watchdog,
publishes a yearly report ranking think tanks according to their financial transparency
and over-all reliability. In so doing, Transparify seeks to “bolster the
credibility of the many think tanks committed to independent research, while
pinpointing the handful of rogue players whose behavior indicates that they may
have something to hide”, according to Transparify’s executive director, Dr.
Hans Gutbrod. He also stresses the importance of think tanks in shaping and
supporting the political decision-making processes and their ability to play a
major role in ensuring the quality of policy:
“We are fully aware that democracy suffers without
the data, insights, advice and debates generated by independent policy research
institutions. However, the key word here is independent. The more lobbyists try to hijack the ‘think
tank’ label in an attempt to mask their paid-for spin as research-driven
advocacy, the more important it becomes for the think tank sector as a whole to
fight back. The best weapon in that fight is transparency.”
While one might well disagree on his withering
criticism on lobbying, his views on transparency as a key factor in guaranteeing
think tanks’ credibility and, in further consequence, their influence on policymaking
are easy to sympathize with.
Particularly in the context of the European
decision-making processes, it is impossible to overstate the importance of
think tanks’ objectivity and neutrality in carrying out policy research and
evaluating its effects, since European institutions, particularly the European
commission rely heavily on data and analysis supplied by think tanks and
research institutions. This is due to the European Commission being the sole
responsible and qualified institution for drafting legislation and particularly
its limited dimensions: With 33.000 plus employees the Commission is
untypically small for an institution with its wide-ranging powers. Which on one
hand, disproves claims about the bureaucratic Moloch Brussels, but is a problem
when it comes to gather and assess large quantities of information regarding
particular policy areas without drawing on third party support.
The European Commission therefore relies on think
tanks’ input. The quality of this information and the transparency of the
institution compiling it are therefore directly related to the quality of the
European Unions’ policies.
And, as Transparify points out in its 2016 report,
over-all transparency of think-tanks has increased dramatically over the course
of the past years. Is this conclusion justified?
Well, let us take a look at Europe’s most
influential think-tanks and their efforts to ensure transparency. “Lobbyfacts.eu”,
a website, has determined Europe’s most relevant think tanks and research
institutes based on the number of meetings between high-level members of the
European commission and think tank representatives, while also taking into
account declared lobbying spending and other factors listed below:#
Data by Lobbyfacts.eu
Researching the transparency
policy of these institutions, Transparify’s statement seems to be confirmed:
Most think-tanks on the list specify their commitment to neutrality and
transparency on their websites, releasing large quantities of data detailing
what they work on, who they work with and who they are financed by.
Take for instance the
Centre for European Policy Studies, according to “Lobbyfacts.eu” Europe’s most
influential think-tank, with 28 commission encounters in 2016. According to
statistics released by the Centre, membership fees (by both corporations and
NGOs) only account for 18 percent of its budget, whith the bulk of it (45%) stemming
from Commission funding. And while it does provide a platform for business leaders
to interact with former and current members of European institutions and
renowned politicians (among others, for example, former Spanish commissioner
Joaquin Almunia) it does not represent the interest of its member, neither
directly nor indirectly. It just creates an environment for them to be voiced and,
if legitimate, taken into account by policymakers in the European Institutions.
“We organize a range of
meetings in which public officials, company representatives (across sectors and
countries) and other stakeholders meet and debate. Neither of these activities
is designed to influence policy-making by putting forward a specific interest –
which is what lobbying implies. A think tank has the role of putting out on the
table constructive, well-thought out, and well-argumented new ideas. They are
meant to stimulate effective policy-making and to “thinking ahead for Europe”
as outlined by our motto.”
Same goes basically for all
other organizations and institutions listed as the ten most influential
think-tanks by Lobbyfact.eu, namely Bruegel, Friends of Europe and the Atlantic
Council.
Yet, even if think-tanks’
approach to economic and social policy were to reflect their sponsors’ stance,
they do their share in creating effective and efficient proposals for policies,
just as trade unions, NGO’s and classical lobbying firms do. They provide
important information and analysis to European institutions and a forum for
corporations and NGO’s to voice their interest and concerns about particular
policies or even the general direction of EU policymaking. All while committing
to a level of transparency that is remarkably high. Think tanks should
therefore be embraced as a constructive and essential force in the European
political arena, and not demonized as the face of “greedy corporations” working
“against” the European people, when, in fact, they are working in their best
interest.
To address this spreading sense of suspicion
against think tanks and research institutions, Transparify, a watchdog,
publishes a yearly report ranking think tanks according to their financial transparency
and over-all reliability. In so doing, Transparify seeks to “bolster the
credibility of the many think tanks committed to independent research, while
pinpointing the handful of rogue players whose behavior indicates that they may
have something to hide”, according to Transparify’s executive director, Dr.
Hans Gutbrod. He also stresses the importance of think tanks in shaping and
supporting the political decision-making processes and their ability to play a
major role in ensuring the quality of policy:
“We are fully aware that democracy suffers without
the data, insights, advice and debates generated by independent policy research
institutions. However, the key word here is independent. The more lobbyists try to hijack the ‘think
tank’ label in an attempt to mask their paid-for spin as research-driven
advocacy, the more important it becomes for the think tank sector as a whole to
fight back. The best weapon in that fight is transparency.”
While one might well disagree on his withering
criticism on lobbying, his views on transparency as a key factor in guaranteeing
think tanks’ credibility and, in further consequence, their influence on policymaking
are easy to sympathize with.
Particularly in the context of the European
decision-making processes, it is impossible to overstate the importance of
think tanks’ objectivity and neutrality in carrying out policy research and
evaluating its effects, since European institutions, particularly the European
commission rely heavily on data and analysis supplied by think tanks and
research institutions. This is due to the European Commission being the sole
responsible and qualified institution for drafting legislation and particularly
its limited dimensions: With 33.000 plus employees the Commission is
untypically small for an institution with its wide-ranging powers. Which on one
hand, disproves claims about the bureaucratic Moloch Brussels, but is a problem
when it comes to gather and assess large quantities of information regarding
particular policy areas without drawing on third party support.
The European Commission therefore relies on think
tanks’ input. The quality of this information and the transparency of the
institution compiling it are therefore directly related to the quality of the
European Unions’ policies.
And, as Transparify points out in its 2016 report,
over-all transparency of think-tanks has increased dramatically over the course
of the past years. Is this conclusion justified?
Well, let us take a look at Europe’s most
influential think-tanks and their efforts to ensure transparency. “Lobbyfacts.eu”,
a website, has determined Europe’s most relevant think tanks and research
institutes based on the number of meetings between high-level members of the
European commission and think tank representatives, while also taking into
account declared lobbying spending and other factors listed below:
Researching the transparency
policy of these institutions, Transparify’s statement seems to be confirmed:
Most think-tanks on the list specify their commitment to neutrality and
transparency on their websites, releasing large quantities of data detailing
what they work on, who they work with and who they are financed by.
Take for instance the
Centre for European Policy Studies, according to “Lobbyfacts.eu” Europe’s most
influential think-tank, with 28 commission encounters in 2016. According to
statistics released by the Centre, membership fees (by both corporations and
NGOs) only account for 18 percent of its budget, whith the bulk of it (45%) stemming
from Commission funding. And while it does provide a platform for business leaders
to interact with former and current members of European institutions and
renowned politicians (among others, for example, former Spanish commissioner
Joaquin Almunia) it does not represent the interest of its member, neither
directly nor indirectly. It just creates an environment for them to be voiced and,
if legitimate, taken into account by policymakers in the European Institutions.
“We organize a range of
meetings in which public officials, company representatives (across sectors and
countries) and other stakeholders meet and debate. Neither of these activities
is designed to influence policy-making by putting forward a specific interest –
which is what lobbying implies. A think tank has the role of putting out on the
table constructive, well-thought out, and well-argumented new ideas. They are
meant to stimulate effective policy-making and to “thinking ahead for Europe”
as outlined by our motto.”
Same goes basically for all
other organizations and institutions listed as the ten most influential
think-tanks by Lobbyfact.eu, namely Bruegel, Friends of Europe and the Atlantic
Council.
Yet, even if think-tanks’
approach to economic and social policy were to reflect their sponsors’ stance,
they do their share in creating effective and efficient proposals for policies,
just as trade unions, NGO’s and classical lobbying firms do. They provide
important information and analysis to European institutions and a forum for
corporations and NGO’s to voice their interest and concerns about particular
policies or even the general direction of EU policymaking. All while committing
to a level of transparency that is remarkably high. Think tanks should
therefore be embraced as a constructive and essential force in the European
political arena, and not demonized as the face of “greedy corporations” working
“against” the European people, when, in fact, they are working in their best
interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment