{"id":2851724,"date":"2025-07-02T04:27:49","date_gmt":"2025-07-02T09:27:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=2851724"},"modified":"2025-07-02T08:14:23","modified_gmt":"2025-07-02T13:14:23","slug":"think-tanks-and-impact-from-uptake-to-ecosystem-influence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/think-tanks-and-impact-from-uptake-to-ecosystem-influence\/","title":{"rendered":"Think tanks and impact: From uptake to ecosystem influence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Similar to the previous year, the 2025 State of the Sector Survey\u2019s results found that 70% of think tanks globally, who participated, claim direct policy influence. Yet, beneath the surface of these headline stats, there\u2019s growing unease about the narrow definitions and measurements of impact. The 2025 OTT Conference Think Tanks and Impact addressed the increasing concern of evaluating think tanks\u2019 success through the lens of uptake: was our policy brief cited? Did a minister endorse our recommendation? Was our research adopted into legislation? Yet, in a fast-evolving global context\u2014marked by conflict, inequality, democratic backsliding, donor fatigue, and misinformation\u2014these traditional measures feel increasingly inadequate.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the 2025 OTT Conference, four keynote speakers\u2014Damien King<\/a>, Sara Pantuliano<\/a>, Luciana Mendes Santos Servo<\/a>, and Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi<\/a>\u2014offered rich insights that help reframe the impact debate. Together, they made a compelling case for evolving not just how impact is defined, but how think tanks position themselves, collaborate, communicate, and lead. Their experiences, drawn from Jamaica, the UK, Brazil, and across Africa, reveal both shared lessons and divergent approaches. Together, they illuminate a broader theory of change for think tanks: one that moves beyond direct influence and embraces a more nuanced, ecosystemic understanding of impact.<\/span><\/p>\n

It recognises that policy change is rarely a direct outcome of a single paper or a neatly executed advocacy campaign. It acknowledges that ideas circulate, evolve, and often resurface years after their initial publication. Also\u2014that governments may adopt ideas for reasons other than think tank advocacy\u2014political expediency or pressures, shifting economic tides, international trends aligning broader agendas, or even sheer timing.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, this broader, more nuanced and shared approach of impact states not only that if a think tank\u2019s recommendation is <\/span>not<\/span><\/i> adopted, it doesn\u2019t necessarily indicate failure, but also that think tanks contribute meaningfully, even when individual outputs don\u2019t translate into government decisions. It sees think tanks as builders of a living, breathing policy ecosystem\u2014shaping narratives, facilitating dialogue, translating knowledge, building capacity, and upholding institutional memory. The question under this lens is not simply \u201cDid our recommendation become policy?\u201d but \u201cHow are we helping to create the conditions in which better, more just, and more effective policies emerge?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Moving beyond uptake: A shared departure<\/b><\/h3>\n

Each speaker rejected the notion that policy uptake is the highest or most meaningful form of impact.<\/span><\/p>\n

Damien King<\/a>, Executive Director of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CAPRI), began with a cautionary tale: a minister enthusiastically endorsed his think tank\u2019s report\u2014then failed to implement a single recommendation in the seven years that followed. This disconnection between public endorsement and actual change forced King to reconsider where real influence lies.\u00a0 Similarly, Luciana Mendes Santos Servo<\/a>, President of Brazil\u2019s Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA), brought the perspective of a government-funded think tank that operates with autonomy and deep institutional credibility described how her team used to equate thick reports with impact, only to realise that influence comes less from documents than from sustained proximity and trust with decision-makers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sara Pantuliano<\/a>, Chief Executive of ODI Global, shared the story of a transformation rooted in crisis. Faced with financial instability, she took the bold step of reducing ODI\u2019s size, budget, and project portfolio in order to focus more deeply on influence, values, and relevance. This decision was not merely operational\u2014it was deeply philosophical. She called out the \u201cgrowth for growth\u2019s sake\u201d model that equated impact with activity\u2014more staff, more projects, more outputs. For her, effectiveness meant doing fewer things better.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi<\/a>, President and CEO of the African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET), issued a rallying cry for a new kind of think tank collaboration. She framed this shift through the idea of \u201cco-competition\u201d: the practice of competing not for institutional dominance, but for collective influence. Mavis challenged the outdated model of African think tanks working in silos or subcontracted roles. Instead, she shared examples of think tanks deferring to each other\u2019s strengths, co-bidding for projects, and even sharing management functions such as conference delivery and fundraising. This is more than solidarity; it is a smart, strategic rethinking of how to amplify impact.<\/span><\/p>\n

The message was clear: reports and recommendations may be necessary, but they are not sufficient. Think tanks must look beyond moments of high-level recognition and ask deeper questions: how are we shaping systems, narratives, and relationships?<\/span><\/p>\n

Shared Themes: The New Architecture of Influence<\/b><\/h3>\n

Despite working in vastly different contexts, the four speakers converged around several key dimensions of impact that are often undervalued but deeply consequential.<\/span><\/p>\n

First, all emphasised the importance of engagement across the policy ecosystem.<\/b> Damien King described a \u201cPyramid of Influence\u201d where real change requires attention not just at the top\u2014with ministers\u2014but at every layer, from bureaucrats to the general public. While ministers come and go, bureaucrats remain\u2014and they are often the ones who determine whether a policy sees the light of day. King argued that effective think tanks must engage deeply with these bureaucratic actors. He called for \u201cbureaucratic ethnography\u201d: a systematic effort to understand the internal dynamics, hierarchies, and incentives of government institutions. Influence, he suggested, is about more than evidence. It is about knowing how to embed ideas into structures that resist change by design.<\/span><\/p>\n

Luciana Servo similarly emphasised that influence stems from IPEA\u2019s embedded role within Brazil\u2019s ministries, where trust and collaboration shape long-term policy outcomes. IPEA is embedded in Brazil\u2019s policy machinery, with 25% of its staff seconded to ministries. It evaluates dozens of policies each year and serves as a trusted partner in shaping and executing government agendas. IPEA\u2019s role, she explained, is not to push from the outside but to support from within\u2014facilitating debates, advising policymakers, and preserving institutional knowledge across administrations.<\/span><\/p>\n

For both, civil servants\u2014not just politicians\u2014are the true gatekeepers of implementation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, communications and knowledge translation were recognised as critical to impact.<\/b> Research does not speak for itself. Sara Pantuliano reduced ODI\u2019s annual publications and expanded its use of podcasts, infographics, and videos\u2014formats that meet audiences where they are.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Luciana Servo spoke of her role as a \u201cknowledge translator,\u201d ensuring IPEA\u2019s expertise could be understood and used. Her metaphor of the \u201cQueen of England\u201d captures this role elegantly: not omniscient, but a symbolic and practical translator of complex ideas.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Damien King insisted that communication deserves its own strategic focus\u2014regardless of organizational size. For him, communication is not an afterthought but central to impact. It is not enough to produce rigorous research. Think tanks must time their releases strategically, tailor their messaging to diverse audiences, and model public engagement that extends beyond elites.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, too, urged African think tanks to package and present their work more professionally, noting that failure to do so often allows consulting firms to repackage local research at a higher price.<\/span><\/p>\n

Third, all speakers placed trust and relationship-building at the heart of their approach.<\/b> Whether navigating donor relationships (Pantuliano), embedding researchers in ministries (Servo), working tactfully with bureaucrats (King), or building coalitions across African institutions (Owusu-Gyamfi), the message was consistent: influence flows through relationships, not just ideas. Think tanks must invest in trust, proximity, and reputation\u2014long-term currencies that outlast any single project.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fourth, the speakers shared a commitment to institutional integrity and mission alignment.<\/b> Pantuliano emphasized the importance of saying no\u2014to misaligned funding, to oversized projects, and to mission drift. She described ODI\u2019s departure from a donor-driven model that rewarded output volume over substance. She emphasised that change must begin from within. This meant turning down large contracts that did not align with ODI\u2019s mission, closing entire programmes, and reducing annual publications by more than half. The goal was not growth for its own sake, but influence grounded in equity, justice, and global solidarity. ODI, for instance, takes public positions (e.g., on Gaza), even under donor pressure, highlighting impact as moral leadership, not just policy reform.<\/span><\/p>\n

Owusu-Gyamfi offered a similar lens, encouraging African think tanks to resist the temptation to become everything to everyone. Mendes\u2019s account of IPEA\u2019s refusal to support anti-science agendas under Brazil\u2019s former government reinforced this commitment to ethical boundaries.<\/span><\/p>\n

These shared themes form a new architecture of influence: ecosystem engagement, communication, trust, and integrity.<\/span><\/p>\n

Contrasts in context: Local realities, different tactics<\/b><\/h3>\n

While the keynotes converged on many principles, they also highlighted important differences\u2014shaped by context, mandate, and organizational model.<\/span><\/p>\n

Luciana Servo\u2019s IPEA operates from within the Brazilian government, giving it unique access but also requiring political independence and institutional discipline. Its influence is embedded and bureaucratic, based on decades of earned trust and cross-government relationships.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sara Pantuliano\u2019s ODI Global, by contrast, is an independent organisation navigating the pressures of a competitive donor environment. Her strategy emphasised internal reform\u2014downsizing, focusing, and re-centring on equity and justice. The impact, in ODI\u2019s case, was as much about changing organisational DNA as about influencing policy externally.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi introduced a powerful regional vision. The real challenge, she argued, is not intellectual capacity, but packaging, visibility, and trust. Her idea of \u201cco-competition\u201d captures a rising confidence among African think tanks, who are increasingly working together to amplify influence, including on operational collaboration. She called for greater investment in back-office capabilities and resource-sharing across the continent\u2019s policy community.<\/span><\/p>\n

Damien King, while also advocating for ecosystemic influence, focused more on the challenges posed by bureaucratic inertia. His concept of \u201cbureaucratic ethnography\u201d emphasised the need to decode institutional cultures\u2014to understand where power resides, how decisions are made, and what incentives drive resistance. In his analysis, think tanks succeed when they speak the language of the bureaucracy, not just the minister.<\/span><\/p>\n

Each of these perspectives adds texture to the broader theory of change. There is no one-size-fits-all model. Impact is shaped by history, geography, governance models, and funding environments. Yet, even in their differences, these voices align around a more strategic, systemic view of influence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Impact as a coalition: The power of shared voice<\/b><\/h3>\n

Perhaps the most forward-looking idea came from Owusu-Gyamfi\u2019s emphasis on coalitions\u2014not just as tactical alliances, but as vehicles for legitimacy, efficiency, and scale. She urged African think tanks to see themselves not as competitors for limited resources, but as co-creators of a new policy landscape. This shift demands trust, coordination, and humility. It also means sharing infrastructure\u2014back-office systems, media capacity, and fundraising tools\u2014and recognising that institutional visibility must sometimes give way to a collective voice.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi\u2019s vision resonates with Pantuliano\u2019s proposal that think tanks must be honest about what they\u2019re good at\u2014and be willing to let go of what they\u2019re not. She challenged the outdated model of African think tanks working in silos or subcontracted roles. Instead, she shared examples of think tanks deferring to each other\u2019s strengths, co-bidding for projects, and even sharing management functions such as conference delivery and fundraising. This is more than solidarity; it is a thoughtful, strategic reevaluation of how to maximise impact. Mavis shared a powerful illustration with the Amplifying African Voices Initiative, which grew from 11 to 25 think tanks and successfully influenced key global policy forums, including the UK\u2019s global liquidity proposal and the IMF\u2019s Sovereign Debt Roundtable. By aligning messaging and coordinating engagements, the initiative provided African ministers with a unified platform and increased their visibility.<\/span><\/p>\n

In both cases, strategic specialisation allows organisations to focus on their core strengths, rather than stretch themselves thin trying to do it all.<\/p>\n

Coalitions are not easy. Misalignment, poor performance, and egos can strain relationships. However, with effective leadership, clear incentives, a shared purpose, and a willingness to communicate openly and work through conflicts, the rewards of collaboration far outweigh the costs. They can dramatically amplify impact, turning isolated efforts into coordinated influence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Measuring what matters<\/b><\/h3>\n

If think tanks are evolving how they understand impact, then metrics must evolve too. Uptake can no longer be the sole measure of success. The speakers suggested new indicators which respond to the other impacts think tanks have along the process: trust among stakeholders, narrative shifts in public debate and agenda setting beyond the \u201chot\u201d and funded issues, embeddedness in institutions and in messages, public trust, credibility and ethical stance, policy windows opened, or coalitions built, incubating and amplifying others, knowledge accessibility and translation (institutional memory), inclusive leadership, internal reform and operational resilience. Impact might mean resisting harmful agendas, reframing the terms of debate, or creating platforms that elevate new voices.<\/span><\/p>\n

For all these other impacts, qualitative assessments matter. Influence becomes visible in relationships, in proximity to power, in the courage to take principled stances, and in the resilience to stay relevant across political cycles. Stories, not just statistics, help capture the depth of this work.<\/span><\/p>\n

Toward a broader theory of change<\/b><\/h3>\n

Taken together, these keynote insights point to a broader, more up-to-date theory of impact. Think tanks are not just purveyors of evidence, but ecosystem actors. They shape policy not only through content, but through connection. They model values, build infrastructure, foster trust, and create the conditions in which good ideas can thrive.<\/span><\/p>\n

Impact, then, is less about the solitary heroism of a well-timed report and more about the slow, deliberate cultivation of influence. It is about investing in people, institutions, and coalitions. It is about translating complexity, holding space for debate, and standing firm in moments of political compromise.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a world where misinformation spreads faster than facts, and the policy environment becomes increasingly fragmented, this expanded view of impact is not just more accurate\u2014it is more urgent. Think tanks must be nimble, principled, collaborative, and strategic. The next era of influence belongs to those who can hold complexity and clarity in equal measure, focusing on what they are good at and working collaboratively to amplify their impact.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Think tanks do not just shape policies. They shape the space in which policymaking becomes possible to bring changes that improve people\u2019s lives.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Similar to the previous year, the 2025 State of the Sector Survey\u2019s results found that 70% of think tanks globally, who participated, claim direct policy influence. Yet, beneath the surface of these headline stats, there\u2019s growing unease about the narrow definitions and measurements of impact. The 2025 OTT Conference Think Tanks and Impact addressed the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":30,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"tags":[233,294,1228,335,181],"class_list":["post-2851724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-impact","tag-influence","tag-ott-conference","tag-policy-influence","tag-politics-and-context","article-types-opinion","people-estefania-teran-valdez","series-ott-conference-2025-think-tanks-and-impact","theme-communications"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2851724","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/30"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2851724"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2851724\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2851729,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2851724\/revisions\/2851729"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2851724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2851724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}