improving the quality of the policy making process in tunisia: the role of think tanks
DESCRIPTION
Improving the quality of the policy making process in Tunisia: The role of think tanksTRANSCRIPT
1
Improving the quality of the policy making process in Tunisia: The role of think tanks
Khalil Amiri, Arab Governance Institute
Intissar Kherigi, Jasmine Foundation
A short version of this paper appeared in the MENA Conference on Public Administration Research
(MENAPAR), Manama, Bahrain, 23rd and 24th April, 2014.
After decades of post-colonial independent government, many developing countries in the MENA
region are yet to achieve the inclusive development goals they have set themselves. Despite the
apparent implementation of “recommended” policy prescriptions such as deregulation, privatisation,
and an increasing integration into the global economy, recent reports acknowledge major
shortcomings in terms of youth employment, poverty reduction, access to and quality of basic
services, and more generally sustainable development [1, 2]. The recent social and political upheavals
in several countries in the MENA region came as a resounding confirmation of this fact. The picture
is not entirely bleak, as real progress has been realised in many sectors and to varying degrees across
countries. However, the undisputed reality is that economic growth has been limited, and even when
such growth has been achieved, its fruits have not been sustainable, able to keep up with
demographic changes, or distributed in a balanced way across social categories and geographic
regions.
The fact that the results have been disappointing across several countries, and sometimes regardless
of the resource richness, suggests there are underlying causes relating to the way policies are
designed and implemented. Indeed, studies suggest that corruption, lack of proper planning,
inefficient resource allocation, low-quality public services, and the lack of accountability,
responsiveness, and transparency of public institutions are closely associated with lack of inclusive
and sustainable development [2, 3, 14]. Such symptoms have now been associated with the concept
of bad governance. The concept of “good governance” has been increasingly formalised since it was
first introduced, although its contours remain fuzzy. Governance is defined as “the exercise of
economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels” [4]. “It
comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate
their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences” [4, 5].
So while democracy relates to the legitimacy of government, good governance is about the
“efficiency” of government and its ability to achieve high value for the public [6]. Good governance
promotes the rule of law and is, among other things, “accountable, transparent, and participatory” [6].
The process of policy making and assessment lies at the heart of the governance challenge. We argue
that the quality of this process rather than specific key policies is a determining factor in achieving
higher quality policy outcomes and eventually better governance. Policy making in Tunisia has been
traditionally a closed process under the tight control of central government with input mainly from
senior civil servants, and in some cases international donor institutions, or special interest groups
[14]. After the democratic elections of 2011, the policy making process, at least in some policy areas,
has seen wider participation and engagement from civil society and the wider public.
2
In this paper, we argue that participation by think tanks is key to improving the quality of the policy
making process. While there have been efforts to open up the policy process in the past few years in
Tunisia through public consultations, we argue that wider participation does not necessarily
significantly improve process outcomes. We argue instead that the quality of participation is important
and that it cannot be achieved with participating institutions lacking the technical capacities and
resources to meaningfully contributing to the policy analysis and assessment exercise. This makes a
case for the need for independent organisations specialised in public policy research, analysis, and
engagement (think tanks) as a key component in improving the quality of the policy making and
assessment process. Think tanks play an important role in the policy process by being an
independent voice in policy debates, articulating issues clearly and simplifying complex trade-offs to
the public, enlarging the policy selection space by advancing viable policy alternatives, bridging the
gap between academic research and policy practice, conducting independent policy evaluations, and
training personnel for the executive and legislative branches of government.
In this paper, we survey several important think tanks in Tunisia as well as the actors they interact
with in the policy making process from within government and the public administration. We
identify the key challenges facing think tanks, and present recommendations to address them. We
depart from the traditional definition of think tanks as non-profit, non-governmental policy research
and advocacy organisations, and include in the survey quasi-state and state organisations that
produce policy research or seek to influence policy impact. This is because in Tunisia, and until the
onset of the democratic transition, truly independent policy research and analysis organisations are
very few. Since then, and over the past few years, there was a boom in think tanks [15], with some
organisations producing notable policy research and influencing policy dialogues in some sectors,
despite their lack of experience and track record. For the purposes of this paper, we use a liberal
definition of think tanks that includes state and quasi-state research institutes, as our aim is to
understand the challenges facing evidence-producing policy research organisations in contributing to
the policy making process, and indicators suggested that several challenges such as technical capacity
limitations, access to quality public sector information, and inclusion in policy making processes are
shared by state and independent organisations. This impression has been confirmed by the findings
of our survey.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. We review the tradition of the public administration
and of policy making in Tunisia in Section One. We discuss the role of think tanks in influencing
policy and the interactions they have with their environment in Section Two. We discuss the
structure and findings of the think tank survey in Section Three. We present survey-inspired
recommendations in Section Four and conclude the paper in Section Five.
1. Policy making in Tunisia
In Tunisia, and more generally throughout North Africa, the influence of the Napoleonic models of
the organic state and the legal approach to the organisation of the administration still impacts policy
making practices [7]. A sphere of legal texts determines rigorously the tasks of the administration to
the smallest detail. This comes at the expense of a performance-oriented and more democratic and
inclusive approach to the governance of the public sector. This nurtured a top-down approach to
policy making, reducing initiative and leadership within the civil service, and de-emphasising the
participatory aspect of public policy making, marginalising potential contributors within the public
sector and outside.
3
In research and practice literature, the public policy process is often depicted as a cycle that starts
from problem identification, followed by the identification of policy alternatives and the analysis of
their impact, through to policy formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Figure 1. A conceptual sketch of the various steps in the policy cycle.
Policy-making in Tunisia has traditionally been a closed and top-down process. It is largely a by-
product of an internal process involving the government, a narrow group of senior civil servants and
in some cases international partners and donor institutions. The process is not broadly participatory
and often does not explore a broad range of policy alternatives. It rarely performs sufficient ex-ante
analysis of policy options, although it sometimes seeks to engage the key stakeholders, such as labour
and business organisations. The approach in practice results in reactive and often improvised policies
which provoke hostility from those stakeholders who were not consulted and introduces changes
without consideration of the longer-term consequences. The lack of transparency in the process
opens up the state to the phenomenon of “state capture”, where the influence of special interest groups and their allies within the institutions, can derail the state to serve the interests of special
interests [2, 14].
The new political context and an increased thrust towards inclusive institutions, participative
democracy, and decentralisation after the democratic elections of 2011 in Tunisia started to challenge
the prevailing mind-set. The transition has established more rigorous mechanisms for the
accountability of the executive through parliamentary oversight and democratic elections and opened
up policy making to advocacy, participation, and influence by civil society organisations and the
wider public. Indeed, since 2012, the policy making process in Tunisia has become more
participatory, with frequent consultations with civil society and frequent debates in various public
and private media. Civil society organisations and the wider public have become in particular
engaged in the early stages of the policy making process, mainly at the stage of issue identification
through issue advocacy, raising concerns about a specific problem and building up support for state
action through mobilisation, social networks and media. However, in the later steps of the cycle, civil
society and advocacy groups often lacked the resources and expertise to meaningfully contribute to
policy analysis, formulation, or evaluation. The results, judging by the influence civil society and non-
state actors exercised on policy proposals, have been very limited.
Civil society organisations in Tunisia for the most part do not have experience or resources for
policy analysis, formulation, or evaluation. Most associations do not currently have the resources to
participate effectively in this process. First, they suffer from the information asymmetry problem;
they do not possess the information required to conduct their own independent analysis and
1. Issue identification
2. Policy analysis and selection
3. Policy formulation
4. Policy implementation
and monitoring
5. Policy evaluation
4
evaluation. As a result, their critiques and proposals tend to be disconnected from reality and easily
dismissed by government and public service officials. Secondly, they often do not have the necessary
capacity and resources to engage in in-depth policy analyses. Many policy areas require expertise and
specialisation, in addition to access to statistics, international best practices, and an accurate
diagnosis of past and existing situations. In a number of major policy making exercises in the last
three years, such as the public consultation on the “privileged status” negotiations to update the
framework for political, security, and socio-economic partnership with the European Union, the
public consultation on the review of the investment code, and the public consultation on fiscal
reform, it is unclear how much tangible influence independent think tanks and civil society
organisations have had on policy outcomes. Government officials have expressed the view that
when public consultations have been held with representatives of civil society, the input from civil
society tended to be general and did not significantly influence the proposed drafts of the agreement
or legal texts [19, 20].
2. An overview of Think Tanks
There are over 6540 Public Policy Research, Analysis and Engagement Organizations (also known as
Think Tanks) throughout the world [8]. Only 5% are in the MENA region and approximately twenty
in Tunisia [5]. Think tanks play an important role in public policy research, analysis and assessment
throughout the world [10] and increasingly in the MENA region [9]. They help raise awareness about
issues and build up support for policy changes. They simplify and educate the public about complex
policy trade-offs, and enhance the quality of policy debates in the media by interpreting issues,
events and policies for the wider public. They also provide a forum for the exchange of opinions and
ideas between various actors in the political and policy formulation process. They often represent an
independent voice in public policy debates and play an important role in training policy makers for
the executive and legislative branches of government
Tunisia has a somewhat oversized public sector, a new parliament with significant powers, and
various “independent commissions” created by the recently adopted constitution. This raises an
important question: What value can the additional thinking done in think tanks add to what is
already happening within the branches of government?
The perception is that think tanks can often do what government bureaucracies cannot. Specifically,
think tanks are more effectively equipped to produce innovative research through financial
resources, links with academia, human resources, and their participation in fora and conferences.
They are also better placed to build “issue networks” around a common purpose because they have fewer constraints in any one policy or domain. In addition, think tanks are better placed to think up
“coherent policies across organisations and domains” as they are not limited to bureaucratic barriers
and are not restricted by the “organisational minds” of civil servants often trapped by the constraint
of “vertical accountability”. They are also better able to “telescope the policy function” [10] (i.e.,
from data collection to policy analysis to formulation) than government bureaucracies, which are
often hampered by organisational boundaries standing in the way of coordinating this process.
5
External influences
Socio-economic & cultural influences,
donor policies
Figure 2. The operational environment of think tanks. (Source: ODI, Tools for policy impact [13])
Various actors intervene in the policy making and assessment practices: the executive, legislature,
think tanks, academia, civil society and the wider public. To enhance this process and ensure the
best possible policy outcomes, the roles need to be collaborative and open. If the process is
dominated by any one actor, this brings in the risks of biased and unstable policies. The executive
branch can be too closed, subject to inertia, not sufficiently innovative, and suffer from the
phenomenon of “state capture”. The legislative branch can be too detached from local realities
across the country, election-oriented, party-political and ideologically polarised. Academic
institutions and think tanks can be too isolated from policy practice, lacking up-to-date information
about the “real world”, developing trends, the cost of actual policies and their effectiveness. The effective participation of these various actors – executive, legislature, media, and think tanks –
diversify the risks and balances the influence of “special interests” whether political, economic, or regional and social groups.
3. Think Tank Survey
In order to collect information about the practice of how think tanks influence policy making in
Tunisia and to identify the challenges they face, we carried out a limited survey of such organisations.
The survey polled decision makers within these institutions on the various important aspects of their
work and relations with other stakeholders.
3.1. Survey methodology
Think tank selection. To identify survey targets, we referred to studies on this topic, including the
strategic mapping of think tanks in the Mediterranean region by the World Bank [11]. We
interviewed 3 of the 8 key think tanks listed in this mapping study. Specifically, the Centre for
Research and Social Studies (under the purview of the Ministry of Social Affairs), the Institute of
Competitiveness and Quantitative Studies (the Ministry of Economy and Finance), the Tunisian
Institute of Strategic Studies (affiliated to the Presidency of the Republic) as well as three of the
emerging independent think tanks after the revolutions, namely IDEES research network, the Arab
Political context:
political parties,
parliament,
policy makers
Evidence:
Research,
Learning,
Thinking
Links:
Media,
Lobbying,
Networking
6
Governance Institute and the Jasmine Foundation. In each case, leading researchers or directors of
the think tank were interviewed using a semi-structured interview plan.
Structure of the interview. Following the ODI model for the think tank environment [13], we
structured our interviews to assess the four aspects of political context, production of evidence, links
to other actors, and external influences. We summarise the themes addressed by the interview
questions below:
Political context:
– What is the policy making process?
– How does the think tank perceive its mission and role in this process?
– Are you consulted by policy makers? Is there demand from policy makers for
your input?
– How do you assess your role and input?
Evidence:
– Where do you get your sources of information?
– What are your main activities? What kind of evidence do you produce?
– How do you assess your impact and interactions with government and with the
parliament?
Links:
– Who are the key stakeholders in the sectors you focus on?
– Do you have any links with them?
– How are your relations with the media, CSOs and the wider public?
External influences:
– What are the main international actors in the policy process?
– What are your main sources of funding?
– What are, if any, the constraints placed by funding agencies?
3.2. Findings of the survey
While the findings of the survey apply directly only to Tunisia, they identify issues and challenges
which are relevant throughout the MENA region. Indeed, some findings confirm prior research on
the subject that examined these issues on a global level [13].
The principal findings of the survey can be grouped around eight key themes:
Clarity of mission and research programmes:
We discovered a lack of clarity regarding the role think tanks perceive themselves to play in
the policy process, and a similar lack of vision in terms of mission and programmes. There is
a wide range of opinion as to what policy making is, and the role of think tanks in the policy
making process, and a hesitancy to be involved in all the steps of the policy making cycle.
Some organisations expressed a view of policy making that is purely technical, involving the
analysis of data and the synthesis of findings. They considered their role as ending at
presenting “objective” findings, leaving policy recommendations and the weighing of costs
and benefits to policy makers and their advisors. State think tanks especially perceive their
role to be mainly data analysis, as their research is often mandated by ministries. This also
extends to some emerging non-state think tanks, struggling to define their mission in a
nascent democracy where politics are perceived sometimes in a negative light due to
excessive bickering and competition. Few organisations, mostly emerging independent think
7
tanks, expressed an ambitious role of playing a part in setting policy agendas and making
policy proposals.
Technical capacities and level of institutionalisation:
Think tanks often lack trained personnel, financial resources, and adequate information
systems. Some have recently engaged in capacity building efforts, such as the creation of
databases and data warehouses to host data in their areas of interest and enable more
rigorous analyses. State think tanks often complained of high administrative overheads, with
the number of researchers to total staff often as low as fifteen percent. Given that they were
not deeply involved in policy development prior to the revolution, when they were at times
consulted only for the purpose of justifying policy choices, i.e. “policy-based evidence-
making”, government did not invest much in their research capacities. Instead, they suffered,
like the rest of the public sector, from a recruitment policy that was more a social mechanism
to help battle unemployment and reduce social tension than to strengthen capacities by
recruiting and retaining the best talent to ensure an effective public sector. Most think tanks
complained of a lack of qualified researchers in important policy areas, such as socio-
economic and governance issues, often blaming weak research units within local universities,
where training in the area of policy research and analysis is lacking. Some also complained of
a lack of interdisciplinary approach in university education, which meant that they were
unable to find researchers with the necessary expertise. The most cited issue regarding
capacity, however, is the lack of adequate financial resources. Some think tanks pointed to
the loss of talented researchers to international organisations, who offer far higher salaries,
thus rendering state think tanks unable to attract or retain the best minds. Most of the non-
state think tanks pointed to a lack of domestic sources for funding, and linked this to the lack
of value associated with policy research and the lack of familiarity with think tanks as a
research model in Tunisia. State think tanks also identified a lack of funding as placing a
constraint on their research output and often use collaboration with personal contacts in
academia to facilitate their work.
Credibility, image and perception of intellectual integrity:
There were very few independent think tanks prior to 2011, and the country has known a
“boom” in this area since the revolution [15]. Given their lack of history and the hotly
contested political environment in Tunisia, which compels prominent experts and researchers
to align themselves according to the political contests, think tanks have suffered in terms of
public perception of their political independence. In the context of an emerging democracy,
think tanks face difficulties in establishing their intellectual integrity and credibility, especially
given the wider public’s wariness of the potential role of special interests and lobbying groups
in funding media and research organisations. The public are sceptical of the independence
and integrity of any analyst or expert, given the highly polarised nature of political and media
discourse on policy issues. Given the lack of domestic funding opportunities for think tanks
and lack of established tradition of independent research institutes, there is scepticism as to
who can have a voice through the existing network of think tanks. A priority for such
organisations would be to address this “credibility gap” through rigorous research,
transparency about data and methodology used, use of peer review mechanisms, outreach to
experts and actors from all political and ideological backgrounds, and openness about their
funding sources, in order to establish a good track record and strong public communication
and outreach.
8
Accessibility and quality of public sector data:
Most think tanks cited difficulties in accessing public sector data in a timely fashion. Others
complained that data shared by government is sometimes incomplete or of insufficient
quality to enable a meaningful analysis. For example, geographic data was not supplied in one
data set, making it impossible for researchers to analyse the correlation of some emerging
diseases to regional factors such as pollution or the quality of water.
The difficulty encountered in access to public sector data is due to a variety of factors. First,
data is often unavailable because it is not collected in the first place. Second, when it is
collected, it is often not centralised or maintained in a standard electronic form, making it
difficult to share in a timely fashion. Data is often communicated in paper form from
regional offices to their headquarters. Third, the lack of clear and detailed data privacy and
confidentiality policies increases the risk associated with data sharing for public
administration officials. The lack of quality information systems complicates matters further.
Moreover, many interviewees pointed to a culture of refusing to share data unless there is a
clear and written order to do so from higher authorities, a practice of “when in doubt, refuse”.
In summary, think tanks described having to resort to various strategies for gaining access to
data such as relying more on personal relationships with the “data owners”, the public
servants in charge of the data sources, than on institutional relationships, or publishing
inaccurate data in order to goad authorities into releasing the correct information.
Furthermore, most data currently available are socio-economic in nature. Information on
governance, such as internal budgets, measures of corruption and public sector performance
indicators, is often unavailable.
Inclusion in policy making processes:
Traditionally, policy making has been conducted within a tight circle of senior administration
and government officials. Sometimes, it was driven by the special interests associated with the
senior political actors in the regime [14]. When it was based on evidence, it largely relied on
internal studies by state agencies and ministries, or for major reforms, on studies conducted
by international institutions, either those providing financial and technical assistance, or
international consulting firms commissioned by the state. Many policy-related research
initiatives related to sectors such as rural development, poverty reduction, SMEs, or energy,
are coordinated and commissioned by international institutions that have the resources to
sponsor such research. Our research found that many think tanks and local experts are
engaged in policy analysis only by way of international institutions sponsoring those studies,
and not directly by government or the administration, and this was particularly the case
before the revolution. This indirect route to accessing local expertise and research is
explained by the culture of wariness of involving domestic expertise in policy analysis, which
is a legacy of the authoritarian era. A recently published study [14] reports that the investment
code and investment authorisations were engineered to ensure significant advantages to the
ruling family of Ben Ali, with many modifications to the regulatory framework introduced to
block and stifle competition. Naturally, policy consultations could not be inclusive in such a
context, as opening up the policy making process would make it harder to engineer the
desired policy outcomes and conceal their potential negative socio-economic impacts.
9
Such practices of marginalising domestic think tanks continue to a certain extent, in part due
to their lack of capacity caused by the legacy of policy making practices. The stifling political
environment under dictatorship and historical practice of relying on international agencies
and marginalising domestic think tanks means that the former have developed greater
expertise, ease of access to data, an established track record and credibility in the field of
policy research, ensuring they continue to be given greater access and called upon by
government actors; thus creating a cycle that is difficult to break. Existing research supports
these findings - for instance a study by the UN Development Programme states that “most evidence on governance is currently being produced predominantly by international actors
who have the option of influencing country-based policy by scoring and ranking countries.
In-country producers of governance evidence (esp. national think tanks and research
institutes) may, in contrast, suffer from questioned rigor and / or independence and may be
burdened not only with technical capacity deficits but also with the burden of managing
relationships with government and other civil society.” [12]
Relationships with similar institutions:
The survey identified weak institutional relationships among think tanks and between them
and other stakeholders in the policy process. Furthermore, it identified a certain degree of
overlap in the areas of interest of state think tanks and very little communication and
coordination between them. There is a plethora of state observatories and research institutes,
some overlapping in areas of interest, especially in multi-disciplinary areas such as
employment, competition analysis, and social and economic studies. This leads to a
fragmentation of the limited resources allocated by the state for such organisations and each
organisation suffers from a serious lack of resources. The reason for this overlap is that
observatories and institutes are often created and managed by a given Ministry. Many policy
issues are inter-disciplinary, meaning observatories under two different ministries work on
the same problem. This is exacerbated by a serious lack of coordination and communication,
with the studies and reports generated not widely disseminated and web sites chronically out
of date. This means state think tanks are often unaware of the work by other state institutes.
Clearly, independent think tanks often overlap in terms of their areas of interest, with each
other and with state organisations. For non-state think tanks, this is desirable, as the political
affinities, ideological platforms, and the funding sources of these organisations tend to differ.
Both state and non-state think tanks reported very little institutional ties with similar
institutions and little collaboration.
Links to the Legislature:
While parliament is involved in policy making, it lacks professional research services capable
of supporting its members and committees in the evaluation of policy alternatives and
critically assessing policy proposals. Lacking these capacities, its role is often reduced to
approving budgets, laws, and regulations without having sufficient resources or background
knowledge to allow a deep debate of the issues. In order for members of parliament to
engage with think tanks, they require support staff to survey and summarise evidence
produced by various think tanks. Such capacities are currently lacking, making parliament rely
on only a limited number of experts, those who are invited for hearings or who have regular
appearances in the media. Think tanks interviewed indicated that they had seldom been
10
consulted by the parliament, and that when they were, it was at very short notice before the
parliament’s discussion of a bill, thus not allowing enough time for meaningful input.
Relationships with media and civil society:
Tunisian think tanks seldom engage with domestic media and rarely contribute to framing the
debate on key issues. Some of those interviewed admit not actively seeking to provide the
public with policy analysis or to raise awareness about emerging policy matters. The survey
identified a lack of proactivity in reaching out to the media and the wider public. Often, the
reasons cited by think tank directors and researchers were the lack of specialised journalists
who can appreciate scientific expertise and relay it properly and the polarised nature of
domestic media debate, which did not allow for a measured, rigorous debate of complex
policy issues. They also cited a need to build up capacities and to produce more evidence and
higher quality research before engaging with the public and developing their outreach. Others
cited press conferences as their traditional process of disseminating recently produced
reports.
4. Recommendations
The effectiveness of think tanks in contributing to the quality of the policy formulation and
assessment processes could be improved through a series of initiatives:
Review of State think tanks and their mandates:
A review of state think tanks, of their areas of interest, mandates, and research programmes is
required. They should be reorganised to avoid overlap and ensure a more efficient utilisation
of resources. They should be placed under a single government office, preferably one which
has the capability to coordinate their work, such as the office of the prime minister or the
ministries of higher education or planning. This would help facilitate coordination,
communication and information-sharing, avoid duplication of work, and clarify research
programmes and mandates. Coordination with independent think tanks should be
institutionalised, and sharing of information and engagement encouraged, perhaps through
regular think tank fora.
Institutionalisation of the policy consultation process:
The offices of the Prime Minister and the President of the Parliament should establish a
database of civil society and think tank organisations to invite in policy consultations. The
policy consultation process should be formalised, with clear guidelines about timeline and
procedures to be followed in order to allow for meaningful input. Specifically, sufficient
information on policy proposals should be shared ahead of time on the web or directly with
policy research and advocacy organisations.
Capacity development for think tanks:
Think tanks should create data warehouses, develop analytical models, set clear systems for
recruitment and retention of qualified staff, and think more creatively about how to secure
necessary financing to perform quality studies. International development agencies should
launch programmes to build the capacity of policy research and advocacy organisations as an
important actor in the policy process. The state should provide a tax-friendly regime for such
organisations.
11
Formalising public sector data access policies:
There is wealth of data that the public sector possesses or can potentially collect, organise
and share with think tanks and the wider public. This would improve governance, policy
making, and even inspire private sector ventures. One of the obstacles facing effective data
sharing is the lack of clear and detailed policies regulating what data to collect and what data
to divulge. Civil servants, when policies are unclear or leave a wide discretion, err on the side
of caution by keeping data confidential. All aggregate non-sensitive public data, not only
socio-economic data but also governance data, such as performance of the public sector’s institutions, need to be collected and shared in a timely and transparently manner with the
wider public, ideally through the internet, according to clear documented policies.
Fostering local and regional relationships and creating fora for think tanks:
Fora for think tanks should be created nationally and regionally to help different
organisations network, build relationships, disseminate and review the evidence they produce,
and eventually improve the quality of their output. Building institutional partnerships
between think tanks within the same region is beneficial as these organisations share a
common context for policy making. Partnerships should also be encouraged between think
tanks in developing and developed countries, especially when they share common “issue and policy platforms” as they can be complementary in moving policy making towards shared
objectives, especially in transnational issues such as international trade and migration. Public
financing, probably controlled by parliament, should be available to help build independent
think tanks, based on objective criteria of quality and quantity of evidence. Performance
indicators such as policy impact, and peer-reviewed publications, conferences and periodicals,
should be used to help direct financing to those actors that produce research and evidence
that contribute to improving the quality of policy making processes. Partnerships between
local think tanks and local bureaus of international institutions are beneficial and should be
developed further, with an emphasis on building the capacity of the former.
Creation of parliamentary policy research services:
Parliamentary committees and groupings should have formal policy research units. This
would improve the quality of parliament’s input in the policy process, and enable it to be
exposed to rigorous research and the opinions of many parties and experts. These research
units would survey the evidence of several think tanks and perform the required synthesis
and critical assessment, and distil this evidence into policy analysis for members of parliament
and parliamentary committees.
Investing in the training of researchers and specialised journalists:
Government should invest in the training of policy researchers and specialised journalists in
key policy areas. This can enacted through the financing of training programs benefiting civil
society organisations, public and private media, and policy research and advocacy
organisations. This can also occur through the investment in university research units of
public administration programs in public and private universities, as they are the first place
future policy analysts and researches are trained. Universities should be encouraged to open
up to state and private think tanks and build partnerships through internships and invitations
to seminars and courses.
12
5. Summary
Research indicates that inclusive and participatory policy making processes tend to produce superior
policy outcomes: more stable, coherent, and effective policies aligned with serving the public good.
Meaningful participation should include state policy research and analysis institutes as well as
independent think tanks. Our research shows that for such organisations to have a meaningful role,
they need to overcome several challenges relating to technical capacities, data access, funding
sources, public perception, institutional relationships, engagement in the policy making processes
and outreach to the media and the wider public. Our recommendations thus seek to enhance the
role of think tanks in improving the policy making process at every stage by enriching the policy
space with new ideas and analyses, and contributing to developing forms of monitoring and
assessing government performance and policies to effectively assist the state to exercise its ‘pastoral’ responsibilities of delivering services and managing public resources, and to assist civil society to
exercise its role as auditor of state performance.
6. References:
[1] Dhillon, N. and T. Yousef, eds., “Generation in waiting: The unfulfilled promise of young people
in the Middle East”. The Brookings Institution Press, 2009.
[2] “Making Services Work for Poor People”, World Bank world development report, Co-
publication of the World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2004.
[3] “Global Corruption Barometer 2013”, Transparency International, 2013.
[4] Committee of Experts on Public Administration, “Definition of basic concepts and terminologies
in governance and public administration” (E/C.16/2006/4), United Nations, New York, 2006. [5] United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2011, New York, 2011.
[6] C. Santiso, “Good Governance and Aid Effectiveness: The World Bank and Aid Conditionality”, The Georgetown Public Policy Review, Volume 7 Number 1 Fall 2001, pp.1-22.
[7] M. Painter and B. G. Peters, ‘The Analysis of Administrative Traditions’, in M. Painter and B.
Guy Peters (eds.), Tradition and Public Administration, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills,
Basingstoke, UK, 2010, pp. 3–16.
[8] J. G. McGann, “The 2011 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report”, http://www.gotothinktank.com/, 12/2011.
[9] UNDP, “Arab think tanks claim role in influencing policy-making”, Press Release, http://www.undp.org/content/undp/-en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2013/07/08/arab-
think-tanks-claim-role-in-influencing-policy-making-/
[10] J. G. McGann, “Think tanks and policy advice in the United States,” Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2006.
[11] N. Tarbush, “Strategic Mapping of Think Tanks: Mediterranean Countries and Beyond”, Centre for Mediterranean Integration, World Bank.
[12] N. Jones et al. “The role of think tanks and research institutes for more national ownership and alignment of evidence to policy: Cases from Conflict countries, Emerging democracies, and growth
over-achievers”, Report commissioned by the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, Overseas
Development Institute, September 2009.
[13] D. Start and I. Hovland, “Tools for policy impact: A handbook for researchers”, Overseas Development Institute, October 2004.
[14] B. Rijkers, C. Freund, and A. Nucifora, “All in the family: State capture in Tunisia”, Policy Research Working Paper 6810, World Bank Middle East and North Africa, March 2014.
13
[15] M. Mahroug, “Le boom des think tanks en Tunisie”, in Web manager center,
http://www.webmanagercenter.com/magazine/societe/2014/02/13/146221/societe-le-boom-des-
think-tanks-en-tunisie
[16] Z. Elkadhi, “Private communication regarding the Tunisian Institute of Strategic Studies and the
Tunisian Institute of Competitivity and Quantitative Studies”.
[18] M. Ben Braham, “Private communication regarding the Centre for Research and Social Studies
and IDEES Tunisie”.
[19] K. Laabidi, “Private communication”, Director, Ministry of Economics and Finance.
[20] A. Hammami, “Private communication”, Ministry of Social Affairs.