This is the second in a series of blog posts on Zambia that I plan to write about this week.<\/p>\n
Think tank start-ups follow a number of different paths.\u00a0Zambia offers a couple of interesting\u00a0<\/a>examples of how to and not to do it.<\/p>\n First is the more common path of the traditionally academic and rather heavy (and expensive) think tank. This model appears to be the favourite of funders like the\u00a0African Capacity Building Foundation<\/a>\u00a0(ACBF). While ACBF can be credited with supporting several successful think tanks in Africa, its model has, in my view, a crucial flaw: it is largely dependent on big budgets.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research<\/a>\u00a0(ZIPAR) is one of these think tanks. Supported by core funding from ACBF and the Government of Zambia and project funding from DFID and the Danish Embassy, ZIPAR started life very slowly over a period of a few years. During this time, the think tank focused mostly on setting itself up: office, staff, systems, processes, partnerships, etc. but produced little or no outputs.<\/p>\n On paper ZIPAR should be a dynamic and effective think tank. Well (very well) paid staff, close to government, international connections, comfortable office space and even dedicated funds for communications should have delivered much more than the handful of papers it has. It has a huge potential.<\/p>\n The other model is the one followed by the\u00a0Policy Monitoring and Research Centre<\/a>\u00a0(PMRC);\u00a0Zambia\u2019s newest think tank.<\/a>\u00a0Set up by Zambia\u2019s Patriotic Front\u2019s political leadership and very bold DFID short-term core funding, PMRC presents a promising alternative to the traditional ACBF model.<\/p>\n While PMRC is not the cheapest centre (there are cheaper think tanks in Zambia) it has developed a model that could be taken as a good guide for future start-ups and it does offer good value for money.<\/p>\n The organisation started relatively small: an Executive Director, a senior researcher, a senior communications officer, and a junior researcher who played some admin roles.<\/p>\n This small team later grew to include a full-time administrator, a second communications officer, and a small team of interns.<\/p>\n With a small team, however, quite a lot was possible. With only short-term funding promised, PMRC knew it had to get on with the work and make an impact. Its chances of attracting new funds would greatly increase only if they could show \u2018value\u2019.\u00a0 And as a new centre it had to do so by producing new outputs and aggressively engaging with a number of key audiences.<\/p>\n This meant that long research projects, like the ones that other more academic and expensive think tank start-ups tend to go for, were out of the question. PMRC could not afford to disappear for 6 months or more while its researchers were busy \u2018doing research\u2019 and its management and communications staff put together guidelines and systems. (When I first met them most of their time was dedicated to putting together plans, developing procurement guidelines, and other important but probably not urgent processes for a brand new think tank.)<\/p>\n To address this, PMRC developed a strategy based on repetition to ensure a relatively short turnover (from idea to publication).<\/p>\n