{"id":2852993,"date":"2025-09-25T04:00:45","date_gmt":"2025-09-25T09:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=2852993"},"modified":"2025-09-30T06:48:21","modified_gmt":"2025-09-30T11:48:21","slug":"the-never-ending-impact-discussion-do-think-tanks-and-funders-speak-the-same-language","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/the-never-ending-impact-discussion-do-think-tanks-and-funders-speak-the-same-language\/","title":{"rendered":"The never-ending impact discussion: Do think tanks and funders speak the same language?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The eternal debate about \u2018impact\u2019 is a familiar one for any think tank leader. Think tanks invest significant time, energy, and resources into monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) efforts, striving to document and communicate their value. But, when it comes to impact, are think tanks always speaking a language their funders understand, or even want to hear?<\/span><\/p>\n

As part of OTT\u2019s <\/span>Advisory Programme for Think Tank Leaders<\/span><\/a>, we conducted a series of interviews with funders supporting the same organisation. We complemented those interviews with discussions with other think tank leaders and funders. This article draws lessons from this research effort. For confidentiality, the insights shared in this article have been anonymised. But the contrasts are nonetheless striking and relevant.<\/span><\/p>\n

What became clear is that “funder” is not a monolithic category. Their philosophies, their pressures, and what they truly value can differ dramatically. Therefore, what they want to hear about from think tanks differs.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Based on these conversations, two broad archetypes emerge:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Ideologically identifiable political philanthropists<\/strong> include free-market and conservative funders (not always the same), some progressive funders (although these tend to cover too many issues and often champion technocratic approaches to funding), as well as individuals and some corporate sponsors.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Technocratic funders<\/strong> primarily include institutional funders such as multilateral and bilateral funders, as well as many technocratic philanthropic funders (typically proponents of \u201cevidence-informed policy\u201d) – often aligned with progressive agendas or international development.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Understanding their distinct perspectives on impact might be the key to moving beyond the eternal debate and toward more meaningful conversations.<\/span><\/p>\n

    As with every typology, we accept there will be generalisations that do not apply everywhere.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Archetype 1: The political philanthropist \u2013 Betting on principles, people and organisations<\/b><\/h3>\n

    This type of funder is often driven by a core philosophy and a desire to see specific ideas gain practical application in the world. For them, the impact journey begins long before a project kicks off.<\/span><\/p>\n