a TNO initiative

Bridging the Theory-Policy Gap in Foreign and Security PolicyAn idiosyncratic view

Stephan De SpiegeleireSenior Scientist

The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies

DIIS seminar "Academia and Foreign Policy Making: Bridging the Gap“Copenhagen, April 26

2www.hcss.nlStephan De Spiegeleire, DIIS, Copenhagen, April 26, 2010

The gap

Kn

owle

dge

m

an

age

me

nt

3www.hcss.nlStephan De Spiegeleire, DIIS, Copenhagen, April 26, 2010

Policy v Theory – The Market Today: Demand• Government –foresight (what might/will happen), analysis (what’s happening),

policy analysis (what can we do) and evaluation (how did we do)• Defence

• Quite established in some countries (‘Anglosaxon’ model (> (parts of) Scandinavia + NL) / ‘FR’ model)

• Fairly ‘liquid‘ market (but now under pressure)• Mostly at the operational and tactical level; small ‘strategic’ market emerging• Many feedback loops (across all levels)• Bias towards hard sciences – strengthened since end of Cold War, but recent

(albeit timid) correction• Homeland security

• Emerging rapidly• Taking after Defence

• Intel• Difficult customer (though depends how interaction with theory is structured –

e.g. NIC in US)• Money increasing, but not making up for decreases in defence

• Foreign affairs• Little money• Very different culture (or tradition) – with Development Assistance being

(somewhat) different, but also segmented• Increasingly the ‘odd-man out’

• Non-executive branch – in most countries little (solvent) demand (exc. Finland)• Non-government

• Private sector – explosive demand recently• Philanthropy – these days relatively small player in IR• Press – typically unpaid

4www.hcss.nlStephan De Spiegeleire, DIIS, Copenhagen, April 26, 2010

Policy v Theory – The Market Today: Supply

• Academia• Culture very different from demand side (mindset, questions

asked, perception of time, etc.)• Incentives dysfunctional from policy point of view (Nye , Jervis)

• Think-tanks [see next slides for some key differences]• Culture closest to government (but depending on funding

mechanisms)• driven by policy, money important but not only driver• trend towards (healthier) business models

• Incentives (but depending on funding mechanisms)• More closely aligned than academia, but still ‘multiple

advocacy’ (where allowed) • Still mostly national

• Consultancies• Culture

• Driven (mostly) by profit, getting policy ‘right’ less important)• Incentives – most closely aligned

• Networks (mostly informal)• Individuals (‘grosses têtes’ – problem: no building of cumulative,

transferable knowledge)

7www.hcss.nlStephan De Spiegeleire, DIIS, Copenhagen, April 26, 2010

Policy v Theory – Transmission mechanisms

• Through money• Direct

• Institutional• Project-based (becoming the norm)

• Indirect• Through some ‘accountants’• Through ‘science and technology’/’innovation’• Through ‘education’

• Through people• Structural – very little (certainly in IS, better on IPE)• Temporary

• ‘Political’ level• ‘Revolving door’ (politics) – mostly US-specific, some scattered

examples throughout Europe• Civil service level – mostly disincentives on both sides

• Through ideas• At seminars/conferences• Through media (directly through OpEd pages, tv/radio work; indirectly e.g.

Economist)• Through political parties (research bureaus)• Informally, through (‘old boys’) networks

• Through international organizations • Probably most elegant AND impressive (IMF, WB, OECD)• But NOT on foreign policy or security

8www.hcss.nlStephan De Spiegeleire, DIIS, Copenhagen, April 26, 2010

Summary slide

• Demand side• Significant demand – both manifest and latent• Quite fragmented / stovepiped• Highly unbalanced (e.g. more demand for ‘hard’ than ‘soft’)• Greater ‘value for money’ pressures• ‘Interface’ weak

• Supply side• Great potential • Equally fragmented / stovepiped• Big incentive problem• ‘Interface’ weak

• Transmission belts• Overall fairly weak (self-reinforcing weakness)

Overall trend – gap big, currently still widening on both sides of the Atlantic

9www.hcss.nlStephan De Spiegeleire, DIIS, Copenhagen, April 26, 2010

Recent changes

• ‘the end of the line’ – breaking through stovepipes• On demand-side

• Uncertainty more acknowledged ‘analysis and anticipation’ function more central now (FR Livre Blanc, UK Green paper, NL Verkenningen)

• Increased need (also thus perceived) for ‘comprehensive’ solutions • ‘Comprehensive approach’ in failed/failing states for 3D• ‘Human terrain mapping’ in defence• Terrorism • Focus on resilience in homeland security• Increased demand for new ‘soft’ metrics in private sector (banks,

(re-)insurance) for things like political risk• Trend towards (new and also more integrated) forms of) capability-based

planning (e.g. JO2030)• Changes in financing (e.g. new ‘consolidated’ budgets)• [BUT also the fiscal tsunami!!!]

• On supply-side• (largest) defence research organizations hiring more broadly – also social

scientists (starting to rectify the bias)• Policy relevance becoming more accepted again in academia (?)• Some new emerging paradigms (complexity, network theory) cutting

across academic stovepipes• Foundations might be getting back in the game (del Rosso, 2009)• New more ‘market driven’ think tanks that are jumping in the gap

10www.hcss.nlStephan De Spiegeleire, DIIS, Copenhagen, April 26, 2010

We need a (European?) lubricant...

EU ISS?K

now

led

ge

ma

na

gem

en

t

11www.hcss.nlStephan De Spiegeleire, DIIS, Copenhagen, April 26, 2010

Policy v Theory

• Small(ish) literature on this (see biblio at the end)• Strong US (/UK) -bias• Heavy on pathos and prescription• Light on (systematic) empirics

• My personal (obviously entirely anecdotal and idiosyncratic) takeaways from ISA 2010: the gap between IR and the policy world is still widening

• Little time for research (publishing more important than adding substantive value in knowledge) - incentives lie elsewhere

• Very fragmented (sub-critical) efforts (mostly single-authored papers; few research teams with critical mass; and even those teams produce single or 2-author papers)

• Quite disconnected – • From other disciplines • From actual empirical record (often just scratch the surface)• From policymaking (still disincentivized within academia)

• Quite conservative in method (where are the new methods - graph data, data/text mining (useable for creating large new datasets!), viz, etc.)

• Whole areas just missing – e.g. Little on actual day-to-day ‘management’ of international relations (// business management literature) – both at national and international levels