Restricted but resilient: What sets Sub-Saharan Africa’s think tanks apart in the global policy landscape

By  Adeline Nembot, Larissa Ntoubia, Salim Vessah, Stephane Atangana
16 September 2025
SERIES State of the Sector 2025 Partner Insights 24 items
Back to main series

Introduction

Globally, think tanks play a crucial role in shaping policy debates, providing strategic insights, evaluating public programs, and promoting democratic governance. From university-affiliated research centres to independent advocacy organisations, think tanks’ models share the same core mandate of contributing to evidence-informed policymaking. Yet, the strength and scope of civic space significantly influence their ability to fulfil these missions, especially in transitional or fragile democracies like those in the Sub-Saharan Africa region.

According to CIVICUS Monitor, over 87% of the world’s population now lives in countries with shrinking civic space. In such a climate, think tanks face censorship or political pressure, restricted funding (especially from foreign sources), limited access to media and policymakers, and threats to staff safety in repressive environments.

Download the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Report 2025

In recent years, civic space conditions in Africa South of the Sahara have experienced a noticeable decline, characterised by legal restrictions on NGOs, suppression of media freedoms, increased government surveillance, and reduced tolerance for dissent. According to the CIVICUS Monitor Report (2024), 43 of 50 countries and territories have obstructed, repressed or closed civic space.

Over half of the countries and territories (close to 70% of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa, SSA) are rated as repressed. Although civic space is open only in the island states of Cabo Verde and São Tomé e Príncipe, Mauritius, Namibia, and Seychelles have narrowed civic space. Botswana and Liberia have also joined this trend. In such environments, think tanks can face significant challenges, including censorship, surveillance, limited access to decision-makers and restrictions on funding. As a result, operational autonomy and effectiveness of think tanks are being threatened.

Despite this trend, there is limited comparative evidence on how SSA-based think tanks navigate these constraints relative to their counterparts in more open or differently structured civic environments, such as those in Europe, Asia, Latin America & Caribbean, North America, and Oceania. The intuition behind these comparative insights will provide a better understanding of whether the strategies and institutional configurations adopted by SSA think tanks are unique, resilient, or insufficient in responding to shrinking civic space.

This study aims to analyse what differentiates think tanks in SSA from those in other global regions in the context of shrinking civic space. Utilising a multidimensional framework grounded in recent global survey data, the analysis will examine four key areas: organisational structure, operational models, political engagement, financial sustainability, and Institutional independence and research freedom.

The objective is to identify region-specific vulnerabilities, adaptive strategies, and institutional features that shape the performance of think tanks under civic constraints. By comparing SSA think tanks with those in Asia, Europe, Latin America & Caribbean, North America, and Oceania, the study seeks to contribute to global conversations on policy research resilience, autonomy, and the enabling conditions required for think tanks to thrive amid political uncertainty.

Methodologically, this study employs an email survey of think tanks collected worldwide by On Think Tank (OTT) for the State of the Sector 2025. Data were gathered anonymously to capture key information on various topics, including organisational demographics, funding sources and models, policy engagement strategies and impacts, organisational capacities and constraints, leadership and staff characteristics, and the perceived operating environment. Most questions were closed-ended, utilising Likert scales or categorical response options. In total, 44, 93, 98, 72, 20, and 4 survey responses were received from Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America & Caribbean, North America, and Oceania, respectively.

1. Organisational profile and mandate 

 Across global regions, the dataset reveals a notable generational shift in the establishment of think tanks, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The vast majority of SSA think tanks (83%) were founded after 2000, indicating a rapid expansion of the think tank landscape in the region over the past two decades. In comparison, only 67% in Latin America & Caribbean, and 60% in Oceania, were founded during the same period. Furthermore, just 7% of SSA think tanks existed before 1990, showing that Africa’s think tank ecosystem is relatively young and still emerging compared to more established regions.

Despite this rapid growth, most SSA think tanks operate within constrained geographic scopes, with 84% focusing nationally, 68% regionally, and 57% locally (in cities, communities, or districts). This suggests that while their numbers have increased, their reach and influence remain largely domestic or sub-regional, potentially reflecting limited capacity, funding constraints, or strategic priorities aligned with local governance and development challenges.

Nevertheless, SSA think tanks, like their global counterparts, remain firmly committed to research and evidence-based policy engagement. In fact, 98% of SSA think tanks state that research, knowledge generation, and use of evidence-informed arguments are core to their mission, closely aligning with the 100% rate in Oceania. This underscores a shared normative commitment to informed policymaking, despite differing operating conditions and institutional maturity.

Across all regions, policy briefs and other written research documents remain the most common output, with nearly universal adoption. Latin America & Caribbean, as well as Asia, record the highest production rates of 96% and 94%, respectively, followed by SSA at 93%.

SSA and Asia are slightly behind in terms of active engagement in traditional media, respectively, with 68% and 69%, compared to Latin America & Caribbean (81%) and Oceania (76%). Yet, while Asia lags, Latin America & Caribbean, as well as SSA, lead when it comes to producing digital content. This shows a strong social media presence and modern engagement strategies.

SSA has the highest percentage of think tanks offering advisory services, at a rate of 70%, compared to other regions. This may indicate a stronger role in direct policy advising or filling governance capacity gaps.

Even though all regions prioritise public engagement through events, SSA (86%) lags compared to other areas (Asia (87%), Latin America (93%), and Oceania (90%). This portrays a weaker institutional capacity for SSA for organising high-level convenings. 

Regarding the global policy landscape, NGOs are dominant in all regions, particularly in Oceania (60%) and Latin America & the Caribbean (52%). SSA is diverse, with representation across multiple categories, including advocacy, membership-based, and university-affiliated institutions. However, university-based research centres (11%), public policy bodies (7%), advocacy organisations (7%), and membership-based associations (11%) are more common in SSA compared to other regions. This may indicate closer links between academia and policymaking. Additionally, the almost nonexistence of government-affiliated think tanks in Latin America & Caribbean, as well as Oceania, shows that independence is likely prioritised compared to SSA. 

 2. Operational environment

SSA think tanks report relatively more favourable operating environments than their peers in Asia, Latin America & the Caribbean, and Oceania. Hence, 77% of SSA think tanks report their operating environment as moderate to easy (with 45% indicating “moderate” and 32% seeing it as easy and very easy). While nearly half of Asian (48%) and Latin American and Caribbean (40%) think tanks find the operating environment to be hard or very hard, this is greater than the constraints faced by SSA (23%). Surprisingly, Oceania tops the list for difficulty, with 53% of think tanks finding the environment “hard” and “very hard”, much higher than in SSA. This result challenges assumptions and highlights the fact that shrinking civic space is not just a developing world issue; it is also becoming increasingly relevant in advanced democracies.

Overall, compared to think tanks in Asia, Latin America, and Oceania, SSA institutions appear to be more value-oriented, socially embedded, and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)-conscious. The data highlights that think tanks in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are highly mission-driven, with 98% identifying research, knowledge generation, and evidence-based policy influence as their core purpose. SSA think tanks stand out for having explicit Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, particularly in areas such as gender (86%), race/ethnicity (55%), and age (57%). These figures surpass those of Asia, Latin America, and Oceania in most categories, signalling a growing institutional awareness and commitment to inclusion. While SSA shows strength in several DEI policy areas, social class (34%) and language (34%) remain under-addressed, consistent with other regions. However, SSA’s relatively lower percentage of think tanks reporting “None” for DEI policies (11%) contrasts sharply with Oceania (40%) and Latin America (36%), showing SSA’s more consistent organisational focus on inclusive governance. 

When it comes to DEI policy implementation, SSA think tanks are leading in embedding these principles into organisational practices (82%), projects (68%), and hiring (68%). These figures are significantly higher than those for Asia (56% practices, 45% projects), Latin America (51% practices, 32% projects), and Oceania (58% practices, 42% projects). SSA also outpaces others in integrating DEI into research design (45%) and communications (48%). These results demonstrate SSA’s proactive approach to institutionalising DEI beyond policy rhetoric, potentially driven by regional sociopolitical dynamics and external donor expectations. 

Concerning the think tanks’ 2024 turnover, SSA remains the most financially constrained region, with the majority (60%) of think tanks working with a budget under USD $500,000 (with 39% operating under USD $100,000), and only 5% of these organisations report turnovers above USD $5 million, which is negligible compared to Oceania. While Asia shares similar patterns, Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as Oceania, demonstrate significantly more robust financial profiles. For instance, a substantial 29% of Oceania think tanks operate with budgets between $500,000 and $1.49 million, and a remarkable 50% report turnovers in the $1.5–$5 million range, representing the highest in any region. These disparities in turnover reflect broader systemic inequalities in funding, donor access, and institutional development.

In terms of gender equality in think tanks’ leadership, SSA is overwhelmingly dominated by males, with the lowest female representation (18%) and the highest male representation (75%) among the five regions. This reflects a broader gender disparity in leadership and decision-making in the region. In contrast, Oceania and Latin America & Caribbean show greater gender inclusivity, particularly in female and co-leadership roles. 

Academia is the dominant background of think tank leaders in all regions. In SSA, most think tank leaders are from academia (45%) and civil society/advocacy (34%) backgrounds. This suggests a strong tradition of social and civic engagement among SSA’s think tank leaders, likely tied to the prominence of NGOs in the region.

Political backgrounds are consistently low across all regions, with Oceania (6%) and SSA (5%) slightly higher. This suggests that think tanks tend to avoid overt political leadership, favouring neutrality or technocratic professionalism. SSA aligns with this global pattern.

Compared to other regions, SSA has weaker integration between the public and private sectors in leadership. SSA has the lowest proportion of the public sector (7%) and private sector (7%) leadership compared to other regions. Asia (15%) and Oceania (14%) have twice as many leaders from the public sector, suggesting closer ties to government or experience in public administration. SSA think tanks may thus be less embedded within state structures, which may influence their access to policy processes. 

Regarding compensation of think tank leaders, SSA think tank leaders are among the most under-compensated in the world, followed by those in Asia. In fact, in SSA, 64% of leadership roles earn less than USD $3,000 per month (with 32% below USD $1,500). While in Oceania, the majority (75%) of respondents reported leadership salaries between $7,000 and $10,000, while 25% fall within $3,000–$5,000. None of the leadership roles in Oceania’s think tanks pay less than USD $3,000 per month. This reveals a notable disparity in financial resources and institutional investment in leadership across regions. 

Despite financial constraints, SSA has the most “moderate” experience in operating during the last 12 months, while Asia and Latin American & Caribbean face more hardship than SSA, and unexpectedly, Oceania has a high share of “hard” responses. In fact, most SSA think tanks (66%) describe their operating environment as moderate, 10% as hard or very hard, and 25% found it easy or very easy. This reflects relative stability despite challenges to resources and civic space. While extremes are rare, Oceanian think tanks face a surprising level of perceived difficulty, similar to or worse than SSA in terms of combined hardship (25% vs. 10% in SSA).

3. Funding and financial sustainability

In terms of resources dedicated to fundraising, SSA lags behind all other regions, especially in comparison to North America and Oceania. In fact, 25% of think tanks in SSA dedicate no resources, representing the highest of all regions. Only 14% of these organisations allocate a “significant” or “extensive” number of resources. At the same time, Asia, Latin America & Caribbean, North America, and Oceania show a more proactive fundraising approach, with 22%, 31%, 40%, 50% allocating “significant” or “extensive” resources, respectively.

Regarding funding sources, SSA’s funding base is more international and grant-driven, with weaker local philanthropic or governmental support compared to other regions. The dataset reveals that 64% of SSA think tanks strongly depend on international development entities and charitable foundations (48%). Like SSA, Latin American & Caribbean countries rely on global development (65%), but are more diversified, with higher private sector involvement (38%). Think tanks in North America are more diversified, with a significant reliance on charitable foundations (55%) and individuals (45%). Additionally, Oceania appears to be the most dependent on foundations (75%) and individuals (75%), indicating a community- and philanthropy-driven model.

SSA is the least diversified in funding channels and is overly reliant on short-term, project-based grants. Hence, SSA (89%) think tanks dominantly depend on project grants. Even though Latin American & Caribbean countries are similar to SSA in their reliance on project grants, they are slightly more diversified. While Oceania appears to be highly diversified, it tops the list in membership fees (75%) and core/programmatic funding (75%), despite having no reliance on projects.

SSA think tanks strongly depend on international funding, unlike those in North America or Oceania, which are self-sufficient in terms of domestic versus international financing. While 66% of SSA’s funding is international (with 43% mostly and 23% almost entirely), Oceania’s funding is fully domestic (100%).

In terms of funding duration, SSA organisations benefit from longer funding horizons relative to Asia and the Latin American & Caribbean regions, but less so than Oceania. Thus, 38% of SSA think tanks report a funding duration of more than 2 years, while Oceania has a diverse funding length, with 50% having a duration of 2 years or more.

When it comes to the effect of USAID withdrawal, it appears that SSA is among the most impacted regions, reflecting its dependency on U.S. development aid. Hence, 37% of organisations in SSA were moderately to severely affected, compared to 16% and 32% for European, Latin American, and Caribbean organisations. Additionally, no respondents from North America or Oceania were moderately to severely affected by the USAID cut. SSA organisations remain vulnerable to external shocks (e.g., USAID withdrawal). 

4. Research, policy influence, and media engagement

In how think tanks perceive the value of research evidence in policymaking, SSA is relatively more optimistic than all other global regions (except potentially North America and Oceania). Hence, 57% of think tanks agree or strongly agree that research evidence is valued in SSA, and only 18% express scepticism (disagree or strongly disagree) in SSA. While Latin American & Caribbean think tanks appear to operate in a more challenging environment for policy influence, with 37% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing, 75% of Oceania think tanks believe that research evidence is highly valued. 

Regarding factors that could influence changes in think tanks’ research agenda, SSA think tanks tend to prioritise responsiveness to public sector needs and key stakeholders over internal agendas compared to other regions. Hence, public policy needs (84%), stakeholder demands (80%), and funding availability (73%) dominate the research agenda in SSA. Also, research in Asia is more influenced by funding availability (66%) and government (84%), think tanks in North America tend to be more autonomous or agenda-driven, less externally steered than in SSA, while in Oceania, there is a total (100%) alignment with governmental priorities, making research to be contract-based or fully policy-driven, with little funding diversity or civil society influence.

Concerning policy influence, 70% of think tanks in SSA report having contributed to public policy, showing a relatively strong policy engagement compared to other regions, especially higher than in Asia, North America, and Latin America & Caribbean. In Oceania, think tanks are deeply embedded in public engagement with a 100% contribution rate.

Analysis of data on media engagement across global regions, with a focus on budget allocation to communication and media receptivity to think tank work, reveals that SSA’s communication budgets are modest yet diversified, with some organisations allocating up to 50% of their budget to communication. Hence, most SSA think tanks allocate modest budgets, with less than 20% of their budgets going to communication. In contrast, Latin America & Caribbean, as well as North America, are more budget-conservative, with 80% and 85% of them keeping their communication budgets below 20%. Additionally, Oceania exhibits greater variability, with significant allocations in the 21–40% bracket (50% combined), suggesting a stronger emphasis on communication.

On the other hand, media receptivity to think tanks is relatively open and positive toward think tanks in SSA, better than Asia. In fact, Asia lags with a notable 4% (compared to none in SSA) of think tanks reporting being not receptive at all, and only 43% of media positively engaging with think tanks, compared to 55% in Europe, 57% in SSA, 60% in North America, 63% in Latin American & Caribbeans, and 75% in Oceania. Thus, SSA scores higher than Asia (43%) and are comparable to North America (60%) in positive receptivity (receptive + very receptive). Oceania leads with 75% total receptivity, followed by Latin America (63%) and Europe (55%). 

5. Institutional independence and research freedom

This section presents analysis across SSA, Asia, Latin America & Caribbean, North America, and Oceania regarding institutional independence and research freedom, focusing on how think tanks operate amid political constraints and polarisation across global regions. 

Regarding the impact of the political situation over the past 12 months on think tanks in different regions, data reveal that, despite being a younger sector, SSA think tanks perceive their political climate as less hostile than in North America and the Latin America & Caribbean regions, but still far from enabling. These regions have the most negative perceptions, with 55% and 58% describing conditions as unfavourable, respectively, compared to 30% in SSA. A hopeful 27% consider it “favourable” (20%) and “very favourable” (7%) in SSA.

Regarding expectations for the next 12 months, SSA has a mixed but cautiously optimistic outlook, compared to the highest pessimistic projections in Latin America & Caribbean. In fact, 57% and 55% anticipate unfavourable and very unfavourable conditions in Latin America and the Caribbean, and North America, respectively, compared to 32% in SSA. Oceania appears to be most optimistic, with 25% of think tanks foreseeing a very favourable environment.

Regarding the level of freedom of thought, SSA think tanks operate in a moderately constrained space, not fully repressed but with substantial external influence and limited autonomy. Hence, 66% of think tanks in SSA describe their independence as “mostly independent” (50%) or “completely independent” (16%). Also, while no think tanks in SSA report complete restriction, only 18% face “mostly restricted” conditions, the second highest in the world after Asia (19%). Globally, Oceania has the highest rate of complete independence (25%), followed by Europe (17%) and SSA (16%).

Regarding the political engagement of think tanks, SSA think tanks are comparatively better at navigating diverse political affiliations than those in all other regions, except Oceania. Hence, 45% say it is “easy” (36%) or “very easy” (9%) to engage politically diverse actors, compared to 26%, 31%, 18%, and 15% for Asia, Europe, Latin America & the Caribbean, and North America, respectively. Asia and Latin America report more difficulties in engaging individuals with different political affiliations, with 22% and 22% respectively, reporting engagement as “hard”.

Results from the impact of political polarisation on research and operations show that SSA is not immune to political polarisation. Still, its effects are less intense than in regions with highly fragmented political landscapes. Hence, 39% say polarisation has a “moderate” impact and 23% describe it as “significant,” while 7% say “very much.” Additionally, Europe leads with the highest moderate implications (46%), and Latin America & the Caribbean reports the highest “significant” impact (49%).

Due to polarisation, SSA faces relatively lower barriers to accessing media (11%). Still, higher barriers to collaboration and interaction with policy experts from different political backgrounds (20%), and challenges in obtaining funding from diverse sources (18%) remain.

 Due to polarisation, Latin Americans & Caribbeanans face the highest barriers in sharing research with diverse audiences (38%) (compared to 16% in SSA) and collaborating with experts of all affiliations (28%) (compared to 20% in SSA). 

 Due to polarization, Asia faces the highest barrier to access media (13%) followed by SSA (11%). Also, Oceania appears to face no specific operational challenge due to polarisation.

Conclusion and policy recommendations

Despite operating in a context of increasingly restricted civic space, think tanks in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) exhibit a high degree of resilience, adaptability, and commitment to evidence-based policy engagement. Compared to their counterparts in other regions, SSA think tanks report operating environments that are more moderate, a stronger institutional focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and higher levels of public policy engagement. However, they face persistent structural and financial vulnerabilities, including low budget levels, weak fundraising capacity, gender imbalances in leadership, and a heavy dependence on short-term international project funding.

These institutions remain mission-driven and socially embedded, with growing capacity to influence policy, navigate polarisation, and engage diverse political actors. Yet, they continue to struggle with sustainability, underrepresentation in leadership, and vulnerability to external funding shocks such as the USAID withdrawal. Moving forward, strategic investments in leadership development, fundraising, institutional diversification, and digital outreach will be critical to bolstering SSA think tanks’ independence and long-term viability in increasingly fragile democratic contexts.

However, the following measures may assist Sub-Saharan African think tanks in reinforcing their resilience, sustaining policy engagement, and preserving their autonomy as vital actors in democratic governance, especially amidst global trends of shrinking civic space:

  • Firstly, there is an urgent need for think tanks in Sub-Saharan Africa to actively seek diversified funding sources, both domestically and internationally, to reduce dependency on limited project grants and increase financial resilience. They can emulate good practices from Oceania, whose funding appears to be highly diversified, coming from top sources, including membership fees and core/programmatic funding, despite no reliance on individual projects. To achieve this, investing in fundraising capacities is crucial.  
  • Secondly, think tanks in the sub-region should focus more on enhancing leadership inclusion and capacity. Addressing gender and sector imbalance in leadership is crucial, as research indicates that female leaders tend to possess excellent leadership skills compared to their male counterparts (Zenger & Folkman, 2020; McKinsey & Company, 2021). This will require targeted, specific initiatives, mentorship programs, and incentives for women and underrepresented groups to join and lead within the sector.
  • Also, fostering regional and international collaboration should be at the core of think operations. Building networks across regions and sectors (especially with academia, the private sector, and civil society) can compensate for resource gaps, create knowledge-sharing opportunities, and help navigate external shocks.  
  • Finally, think tanks in SSA should leverage digital and modern engagement platforms, which are highly required to succeed in a restrictive civic space. Innovative outreach using digital tools and media partnerships will broaden influence and maintain relevance amid changing public and donor expectations.

 References

Subscribe to our newsletter Become a contributor
Back to main series
View all series

Related content