EDUCATION WORKING PAPER No. 2 | September 2024 Strengthening African Regional Economic Policy Making through Evidence: Opportunities and Challenges for Think Tanks and Their Supporters Peter Taylor and Maria Alejandra Ormeño Oviedo © 2024 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, links/footnotes and other information shown in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The citation of works authored by others does not mean the World Bank endorses the views expressed by those authors or the content of their works. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover design: Marianne Siblini Strengthening African Regional Economic Policy Making through Evidence: Opportunities and Challenges for Think Tanks and Their Supporters Peter Taylor and Maria Alejandra Ormeño Oviedo 1 Abstract Against the backdrop of a new World Bank initiative to support African think tanks, the “Africa Think Tank Platform”, this paper outlines critical opportunities and constraints that think tanks may face in shaping and informing policy. It describes examples and models of support that have been offered to African think tanks and considers how these have enabled their performance in different ways. It argues that although navigating complex processes of African regional economic policy-making is not easy, funders who aim to support economic development and value the contributions of research in low- and middle-income countries have a significant opportunity to support the critical role of evidence in national and regional policy-making. Ensuring that facts and analysis are used to inform policy decisions, funders can help protect the integrity of important regional and national knowledge actors like think tanks, who add value by conducting rigorous and impartial research and facilitating engagement with a wide range of stakeholders around policy issues. African think tanks, in turn, can help improve the effectiveness and legitimacy of national and regional policy processes and counter ill-informed forces that seek to curtail or derail democratic public policy- making, adoption and implementation. JEL classification: D85, F53, F63, L31 Keywords: Evidence into use, Regional economic policy-making, Think tanks, Africa This paper is a product of the World Bank Group’s Education Global Department. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. The authors may be contacted at p.taylor@ids.ac.uk. 1 Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Brighton, United Kingdom. Acknowledgements: this paper was a product of preparatory work for the World Bank’s Africa Think Tank Platform Project (P179804). The authors are extremely grateful to Jim Cust (Senior Economist) and Deryck Brown (Senior Public Sector Specialist) who reviewed and provided comments on an earlier draft, and to Samer Al-Samarrai and Raymond Muhula of the World Bank for all their guidance and support. 1 1. Introduction Local researchers … provide the best prospects for deriving policies that both engender broad-based support and are effective. That is why locally based research institutions are so important. (Stiglitz, 1999 2) The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and launch of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offered significant international momentum around the need for inclusive, transparent, and rigorous action on development challenges. An agenda for progressive change has also been laid out through Africa 2063 (AU 2015), which offers ‘a shared strategic framework for inclusive growth and sustainable development and a global strategy to optimise the use of Africa’s resources for the benefit of all Africans’. These agendas, generated through highly consultative processes, are hugely important for catalysing both regional and national progress on a wide array of economic, social and environmental challenges. Change on the scale needed to significantly improve the wellbeing, lives and livelihoods of all Africans is of course hugely challenging. The impacts of climate change, the Covid-19 pandemic, conflicts, and displacement of peoples, have not only created barriers to progress, but in many national contexts have led to significant setbacks. These national challenges are reflected at the regional level. In recent World Bank consultations with key African stakeholders 3 , the most pressing regional economic policy issues have been identified as: economic transformation and governance, including issues around debt and illicit financial flows; climate change, including energy transition, adaptation capacity and carbon markets; regional trade with a focus on the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and promotion of regional value chains; food security; human capital; and digitalisation. Finding the entry points, investments and actions needed to move the needle on these multiple, inter-related, economic development challenges is difficult. There is no doubt that progress in regional economic development will require policies that can tackle complexities arising from multiple realities in different contexts, as well as engaging at the intersections between these different issues and agendas. Successful policymaking does not happen in a vacuum. To support effective policymaking and its impact, it is essential to generate, capture, synthesise, analyse, and make credible data and evidence available. This data will help measure and assess progress, engage a diverse range of stakeholders, connect evidence needs to gaps in regional policy, and implement practical actions to enhance and strengthen the adoption and execution of regional policies at the national level. In other words, a functional, effective and inclusive knowledge economy is required. The journey towards a knowledge economy is complex, and worldwide experiences show that governments can only succeed when policies are grounded in evidence, with assistance from evidence generators, including think tanks. Africa's complex challenges demand the best of intellectual capacities. Think tanks are uniquely 2 Joseph Stiglitz, Keynote in First Global Development Network Conference, December 1999; Bonn, Germany 3 Consultations in preparation for Think Africa Partnership (World Bank, 2023, internal documents) 2 positioned to develop innovative and advanced solutions to the challenges faced by Africa. They already play a crucial role in shaping the continent's future by providing knowledge and expertise to inform policy formulation. The intellectual services, expertise and innovative capacities of think tanks will be much needed to shape African futures. These institutions can bridge academic and policymaking communities, acting in the public interest as an independent voice and translating applied research into actionable policy recommendations (Mbadlanyana et al., 2011). While African governments are grappling with various challenges, think tanks can significantly leverage current realities to shape African development. This paper considers the rationale for regional economic policymakers and implementers engaging with evidence and knowledge and describes the role of African think tanks 4 within the evidence to policy ecosystem. It also explores key opportunities and constraints they may face in shaping and informing policy. Drawing on experiences from the Think Tank Initiative 5 as well as other literature and examples, it outlines examples and models of support that have been offered to African think tanks and considers how these have enabled their performance. It also highlights forms of support for think tanks from funders that could be beneficial in the future for strengthening regional economic policymaking in Africa. 2. The African regional economic outlook and the need for evidence Internationally, the role of research-based evidence in contributing to policy change is well documented. While many theories exist on how policy change happens (Stachowiak 2013), the need for some type of research-based evidence at certain stages in the process is relatively uncontested’ (Young et al. 2013) Africa’s economic outlook is challenging (IMF April 2023) 6. There is currently a funding problem in sub-Saharan Africa caused by persistent global inflation and tighter monetary policies, leading to higher borrowing costs for countries and putting pressure on exchange rates. As a result, many African countries are struggling with macroeconomic imbalances, rising public debt, and inflation. Inflation is in double digits in half of all African countries, eroding household purchasing power and affecting the most vulnerable members of society. This is adding to social pressures. In 2022, an estimated 132 million Africans were acutely food insecure. 4 Organisations that undertake policy-oriented research are often labelled in different ways, e.g., ‘think tanks’ or ‘policy research institutions’. This paper will use the term ‘think tanks’, whilst stressing that this term encompasses a wide array of organisational types. 5 The Think Tank Initiative was a large-scale, ten-year, multi-donor-funded programme of institutional research capacity strengthening for thinktanks in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It offered flexible, long-term funding combined with technical support to help over 40 organisations move along a pathway to sustainability, generating a consistent flow of high-quality evidence, data, and analysis to inform and influence national and regional policy debates (Taylor 2022). 6 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/REO/SSA/Issues/2023/04/14/regional-economic-outlook-for-sub-saharan- africa-april-2023 3 The funding squeeze will also have an impact on the region’s longer-term outlook, forcing countries to reduce resources for critical development sectors like health, education, and infrastructure, and further weakening the region’s growth potential and reducing the potential to meet the SDGs. Although growth is expected to rebound in 2024, potential adverse effects such as high inflation, exchange rate pressures, debt vulnerabilities, and regional economic divergences make this uncertain 7 (International Monetary Fund, 2023). These challenges mean that difficult choices need to be made, whilst also aiming to seize perceived opportunities arising from demographic transition, digital revolution, and climate adaptation (Selassie, 2021). This paper does not intend to analyse in depth Africa’s regional economic context, but to explore ways in which evidence can inform policy choices. To make policy decisions that will determine the future for millions, solid evidence is essential. This paper takes the position that policy making processes not informed by evidence and data inevitably lead to poor design and implementation. However, it is also important to acknowledge the complexity of processes in the evidence-policy ecosystem. Within all knowledge and evidence ecosystems - nationally, regionally, or globally - there are a diverse array of actors, roles, and contributions. At times, these actors may be competitive and uncooperative, but when they work together in ways that are relatively harmonious and synergistic, the outcomes can be impressive. In many low- and middle-income countries worldwide, there is an upward trend around the demand for evidence, knowledge and data to inform policy decisions (Think Tank Initiative 2018). Engagement with key stakeholders in public policy, including citizens, and knowledge intermediaries, is also becoming more common globally in policy design, implementation and monitoring, contributing to the long-term sustainability of any policy effort. There are multiple examples of policy actors, researchers and citizens working closely together to help drive positive, lasting change. This trend is uneven however, and varies from country to country, including within the African continent. The uptick in the value and attention given to rigorous, credible evidence and knowledge is also accompanied by a tidal wave of perceptions and misinformation on an array of societal issues that appeal to emotions and personal beliefs. This trend is not accidental. The hugely expanding reach of social media, accessible to anyone who has a mobile phone - including the vast majority of African citizens - provides opportunities for influence by a few groups and individuals over many millions. Policy actors, and indeed all citizens, are targets for mischief and malign aims, and experience frequently the use and misuse of information. Citizens are now also able to generate and share information themselves quite easily and rapidly. Whilst this offers opportunities for democratisation of the knowledge generation process, it also opens doors for manipulation of views, opinions and even behaviours. Evidence suggests that the ‘noise’ of multiple information channels, and the successful efforts of those who deal in conspiracies and misinformation in order to polarise views and politics, coupled with the use of information technologies by authoritarian regimes for surveillance and control of populations, is undermining trust in the views of experts 7 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/REO/SSA/Issues/2023/10/16/regional-economic-outlook-for-sub-saharan- africa-october-2023 4 (African Digital Rights Network 2020). Public investments in many countries in generating and using data are under threat. There are clearly many arguments for the value of information, evidence and knowledge as key ingredients of policymaking, and at the same time there are multiple warnings of the dire consequences of squeezing the evidence ecosystem so that the flow of needed knowledge is constrained. There is, however, an underlying and quite dangerous assumption that because knowledge is perceived by many as an important global good, the ecosystem within which it emerges is naturally resilient and self- sustaining. Unfortunately, without care, attention and support to sustain it, the evidence ecosystem in Africa will struggle to thrive. This would be disastrous. 3. Sustaining the African evidence ecosystem There is a need for sound policy analysis and research-based evidence to inform social and economic policy and action to achieve social change; and conversely in its absence, government and civil society institutions lack a basis on which to evaluate existing policies and to propose better ones. (Young et al. 2013). The challenges faced by Africa necessitate a shift towards endogenous knowledge creation and customized policy solutions. The African evidence ecosystem is complex and diverse, and African governments must invest in strengthening innovation systems, knowledge production infrastructure, and research and development (Mbadlanyana et al., 2011). An understanding of the nature of this multi-actor landscape is important because policies are not designed along technical, linear, rational mechanisms. Policy processes take place in highly contested, volatile, uncertain, and complex contexts in which power and politics are crucial elements. Just as policy making is itself a political process, so is the generation and use of evidence. It involves systemic issues that relate to institutional cultures and political dynamics, all influenced by an array of power relations which mean certain types of knowledge, and groups of knowers, are often valued more than others. There is no magic button that ensures knowledge and evidence from the ‘right’ sources will directly inform policy making. Kingdon (2003) describes the ‘multi-stream’ nature of policy making, within which key actors (politicians) can consistently change with election cycles, and where there are multiple, often competing, preferences. Problems arise from current events and can gain or lose focus based on media coverage. Policies may be proposed by think tanks, lobby groups, or other actors, but these policies may not gain attention until the right situation arises that promotes their relevance. These multiple streams can sometimes converge in a ‘policy window’ leading to direct influence, although generally the extent to which they can bring influence is affected by factors such as ambiguity, competition, an imperfect selection process, actors having limited time, and decision-making processes being neither ‘comprehensively rational’ nor linear. Successful outcomes seem more likely through a holistic, systems approach to strengthening evidence use for policy making and implementation, accounting for a mix of technical infrastructure, human relationships, 5 and political and cultural factors, locating knowledge generation and translation within an understanding of the broader policy context (Georgalakis and Siregar 2023). In the African context, just as elsewhere, there are many actors involved in the evidence to policy ecosystem: policy makers, politicians, researchers, civil society and social movements, the media, the private sector, and the wider citizenry. At the regional level, the dynamics associated with national policy processes are magnified and ever more complex, implicating also regional bodies and members of the international community, including traditional and emerging donors, whose relationships with African organisations regionally and nationally are many and varied. These complexities are compounded by capacity issues as indicated in a World Bank Report (2017): ‘Regional Economic Communities…lack the internal capacity to function effectively, carry out their mandates, and implement the directives given by their member states to improve on their development outcomes’ (v). Participants in an African Evidence-informed Policy Forum (IDRC 2018) highlighted several challenges for evidence informed policy making on the continent including gaps in production of evidence, in uptake of evidence, and in capacities in conducting rigorous research. The Forum found that these gaps are shaped by: a complex context that is attributed to a range of structural issues including poor education due to the colonial legacy; the appropriation of resources by a political elite; weak institutions; limited resources; donor dominance in which donor priorities, systems and methods undermine country’s systems; a bureaucratic state that is not responsive to its citizens; and a dominant political economy that has led to inequality. Researchers should consider the Problem identification, and likely use of political context when conducting their evidence, is enhanced through work. It is essential to distinguish engagement with a diverse array of between political interests and shared societal stakeholders. interests. The diagnosis stage is crucial in the Various factors can encourage the use evaluation process but is often of research findings, such as the overlooked in policy implementation availability and accessibility of and programming. Programs are evidence, collaboration, clarity, frequently not evaluated annually, and relevance, timing, reliability of research there is a lack of diagnosis of the root findings, and the relationships between causes of problems and challenges policymakers and researchers. inherent in programming. Figure 1: African Evidence-informed Policy Forum – key challenges for evidence informed policy making Source: Evidence-informed Policy Forum (IDRC 2018). Given the complexity and diversity of the African knowledge ecosystem, entry points are clearly needed for practical engagement and capacity strengthening which can help the whole become more than the sum of its parts (World Bank 2017). A range of efforts have been made in Africa to identify, and work with, different actors regarding evidence and policy uptake. Some interventions have targeted policy makers 6 themselves, with capacity strengthening support around the value of evidence and practical approaches to strengthening policy-making processes (the ‘demand side’). For example, the UK-funded BCURE program (Vogel and Punton 2018), and CLEAR- AA (n.d.) and Twende Mbele (n.d.) have run a range of initiatives to strengthen the use of evidence by African parliaments (Engel and Waller 2020). Others, including the Think Tank Initiative and the African Capacity Building Foundation, have focused more on think tanks (the ‘supply side’) or universities. Some efforts in Africa, although perhaps fewer and on a smaller scale, have focused more on ‘intermediaries’, including efforts to support the generation and use of evidence by civil society and the media. The VakaYiko initiative (n.d.) in South Africa, Ghana, and Zimbabwe undertook capacity strengthening support grounded in the principle that for research evidence to be routinely and effectively used in policy- making, at least three factors need to be in place: individuals with the skills to access, evaluate and use research evidence; processes for handling research evidence in policy-making departments; and a facilitating environment that identifies and responds to research uptake needs. In some international initiatives, for example the Knowledge Sector Initiative in Indonesia (n.d.), the capacity strengthening approach involves four dimensions of engagement: demand, supply, intermediaries, and the wider system. 4. The role of African Think Tanks Think tanks have played a vital role in shaping policies that promote sustainable development across the continent. (The African Capacity Building Foundation, 2022) Given the difficult economic choices African policy makers are currently grappling with, the political context in each country has a crucial impact on policy directions. This in turn affects the kinds of evidence that will be needed, and most likely to be used by policy makers; and in turn influences the kinds of institutions where policy makers turn to, in order to gather evidence. This paper considers think tanks specifically, as key actors in the African evidence ecosystem, the numbers and influence of which are growing rapidly. Although Africa has fewer think tanks per population than other regions, in recent years there has been a significant increase in the number and quality of think tanks. This growth is due to increased engagement on various public policy issues that have arisen with the country’s newly found democratic dispensation. According to the University of Pennsylvania, in 2019, there were four African think tanks (5.33%) among the top 75 think tanks worldwide and 15 African think tanks (10%) among the top 150 Think Tanks – Worldwide (Non-US). 7 Figure 2. Think Tanks in Africa compared to the global context Why are think tanks becoming more of a "go-to" source for policy actors and, in so doing, increasing in number while also extending their reach? Despite fluctuating demand and varying levels of respect for research, think tanks consistently report an overall increase in demand, a trend that is in line with the 2018 TTI African Policy Community Survey findings. The literature supports this; a study revealed that collaborative relationships among think tanks, university departments, and individuals in these institutions are generally increasing. Furthermore, personal relationships between individuals in these institutions are the primary catalysts for long- lasting research and policy engagement collaboration (Chikozho & Saruchera, 2015). Still, as evidence to policy processes are far from neat or linear, and the likelihood of influence by think tanks is always challenging to predict, think tanks have to forge their own pathways to success. History, reputation, credibility, positioning and presence are all powerful factors in being noticed. In a world where evidence comes increasingly from multiple sources, African think tanks remain locked in an ongoing struggle to be heard, seen, and engaged with by African policy actors. There are many demonstrated examples of ways in which think tanks within specific contexts have informed, and influenced, public policy processes (Cristoplos 2019; Ordonez et al. 2012). The types of evidence they generate may take different forms: theoretical insights grounded in historical analyses; critical perspectives on different challenges related to existing policies experienced by African nations and their citizens informed by a range of voices and experiences; and practical policy options for future policies which are grounded in a rigorous and credible evidence base. Many think tanks have also been effective in incorporating the perspectives of local stakeholders for social and policy influence. Research conducted by external entities may lack credibility, underscoring the necessity of locally based think tanks. Local researchers possess a deeper understanding of local conditions and amalgamate this with global experience to formulate effective policies with broad-based support. However, the long-term success of policies necessitates not just the adoption of the right policies but also their implementation, which may require adjustments along the way. This 8 underscores the need for a policy research infrastructure that can engage in data collection and analysis over time (Young et al, 2013, p.4). African think tanks are increasingly developing a more strategic understanding of what they can and cannot control. For example, think tanks can control a number of factors, including topic selection; the framing, scope and scale of research; how they engage with policymakers during the design, conduct and dissemination of the research; and how they communicate findings. For instance, many African think tanks play a unique and cohesive role in policymaking and change processes. Figure 3: Think tank roles in policymaking and change processes However, there are things that think tanks cannot control with respect to policy engagement: who the decision makers are; who influences them; the timing of policy moments; whether decision makers read research findings or not; and what sorts of communication they respond to. It is particularly important to tailor messages for different types of audiences. Government officials tend to appreciate digestible recommendations, rather than reading dense reports on methodology or how a research question fills a gap. Think tanks need policy focused staff to identify what the hot button issues are; an understanding of alternative approaches to engagement and communications; networks with expertise; and proactive, constructive relationships with the policy community. What do policy actors in Africa think about the role of think tanks? A TTI (2018) African Policy Community Survey conducted on three occasions over a 10-year period sought to understand better both the opportunities and constraints for African think tanks in engaging effectively with African policy actors. Its key findings indicated many positive directions for think tanks in the region regarding interest and openness in their work by policy actors: • Information needs of African policy makers are fairly consistent over time, with economic and fiscal issues and information related to education and agriculture/food security remaining at the forefront; 9 • Information to support policy development relating to the SDGs broadly in Africa is becoming more accessible, and especially relating to gender issues and poverty alleviation; • Websites, email, and print remain the most useful formats for stakeholders to receive information for national policy development, with rapidly growing interest in social media as a format. Policy actors rely on a fairly balanced mix of sources when seeking information to increase their understanding of policy development; • Publications/reports, conferences/events, and discussion with colleagues/peers are the most commonly reported sources of information for policy actors, but there has been a notable decrease in the usage of databases /statistical data banks. This raises questions over support needed to different parts of the African evidence ecosystem including for example capacity strengthening of government statistical functions as well as knowledge producers such as think tanks; • African government ministries and government-owned research institutes tend to dominate as a top source of information on social and economic policies, probably due to the close alignment with their research needs. However, the quality of research conducted by these institutions is perceived by some policy actors as relatively lower than that conducted by national think tanks. International university-based research institutes enjoy the highest ratings of quality of research, but the lowest ratings of relevance of research to needs and thus are among the least-used organizations. • Relevance, rather than quality, appears to be the main driver of usage, although it is also important to consider positioning of think tanks in relation to key policy actors, as discussed further below; Overall, the TTI African Policy Community Survey reveals that quality of research provided by national think tanks is seen by many policy actors as fairly strong and consistent over time, but elected government officials who are most directly involved in policy development rate the quality of national think tanks relatively lower than most other stakeholder groups. For the minority of stakeholders who say they do not turn to think tanks, the main reason given is limited familiarity which indicates the importance of raising awareness of their work. Across Africa, on the whole, perceptions by key stakeholders of national think tanks in Africa are generally positive, although there is room for improvement. They are generally seen as performing well with regards to having knowledge of the policymaking process, having quality research and researchers, as well as solid regional knowledge. Areas suggested by policy actors for think tanks strengthening are fairly consistent across the region, with strong emphasis on the need for think tanks to engage in gender empowerment/equality research, having adequate infrastructure to function effectively, and partnering with non-government policy actors. What do African think tanks think about their own role and opportunities? Although it might be expected that think tanks would have a more favourable view of their role and what they can offer in comparison with other actors, perceptions do not differ greatly within specific national contexts. For example, a recent study (Baertl et al., 2023) showed that, compared to their counterparts in other regions of the world, African think tankers expressed the most optimistic impressions about changes in their political context over the last year (33% reported an improvement) and projected the same optimism for the coming year. Respondents, particularly in Kenya, Nigeria and Somalia, 10 mentioned several factors that have had – or are expected to have – a positive effect on the political context, including the impact of new government leadership, engagement with research institutions, and proactive public participation. Others mentioned positive contextual changes due to political transitions, elections, and reforms initiated by new governments. While acknowledging the challenges, respondents reported that these changes, and related decision-making, are not just happening spontaneously but are being actively informed and influenced by evidence. The study indicated that the overall perspective amongst think tanks on the political context within Africa was balanced, with precisely the same share of responses (33%) falling into the ‘worsened’ and ‘no change’ categories, respectively. A sombre outlook prevails for 2024 and beyond, with almost half (47%) of respondents to this survey foreseeing a political context worsening (Baertl et al., 2023). Factors cited as having a negative influence on the political context (primarily by “thinktankers” in South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe) were economic challenges (inflation, unemployment, resource scarcity), social unrest, governance issues, concerns about elections and their aftermath, including tensions, contestations, and the potential for instability and constraints on civil society and freedom of expression. African think tanks also recognise that research quality, and policy engagement are crucial to their reputation and their ability to perform successfully, although these actions are affected by the levels of freedom of expression and other contextual factors. 5. Think tank research quality and relevance While there is no dispute that research quality is vitally important to policy research, there are many different views on what it means, and how to nurture or measure it. Recent debates have highlighted the strengths and limitations of traditional quality measures such as peer review and publication metrics. A growing body of evidence suggests that research cannot be judged on its published outputs alone. We need to look more closely at the complex interactions among researchers, research users, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders. As policy-focused organizations, think tanks differ from academic institutions, which have been the driving force behind conventional understandings and measures of research quality. Think tanks need quality assurance measures that address not just their outputs, but their research process, organizational strengths and strategies, engagement with stakeholders, and the accessibility and relevance of their findings to end users. (Think Tank Initiative, 2018a) The ability to engage in policy influence by think tanks in Africa depends on several attributes they possess, or need to develop, but the quality and the relevance of their research are equally important. Research quality is often assumed to be the most important attribute for policy influence and a central feature for taking advantage of these opportunities. It is important to stress that whilst conventional understandings of research quality grounded in scientific rigor are critical, it is also necessary for think tanks to go beyond these. Equity, transparency, and mutual respect of research partnerships grounded in clear sets of principles, all provide key criteria for research quality that contributes to 11 healthy civic debate and enhances the accessibility and credibility of research conducted and shared in local languages. IDRC’s ‘RQ+ approach’ (Ofir et al 2016), designed originally as an evaluative tool by a research funder, has opened up narrower understandings of research quality to incorporate important dimensions such as stakeholder engagement, outcomes and impacts. The framework has acquired considerable traction with a number of development research funders and provided TTI with a useful framework for think tanks via its four core dimensions of research quality: i) integrity, ii) legitimacy, iii) importance, and iv) positioning for use. The TTI Policy Community Survey noted earlier indicated that quality of research by African think tanks is viewed as important but is not necessarily the main driver of interest for their engagement. Strategic practices of policy engagement and influence range from direct dialogue with senior politicians ‘under the radar’ of the public debate, to public data activism and partnerships with advocacy organizations, to ‘proper’ evidence-informed debate. Each form of engagement has its specific set of demands for different ‘qualities’ of research, as well as implications for the coalitions of actors (beyond the think tank itself) that will generate these qualities. The quality criteria across these dimensions that think tanks may use for research nationally may of course differ when considering opportunities for research on regional issues, particularly when assessing importance and positioning for use. Whilst research quality is crucial as a general principle that underpins credibility and rigor, there are two other key elements that appear to generate the best opportunities for policy influence: relevance, and positioning. Relevance is another core attribute of think tank success. The TTI Phase 1 evaluation observed that as much attention is given to researchers ‘doing the right thing’ (relevant research) as to researchers ‘doing things right’ (in terms of rigorous research). Successful think tanks need to pay significant attention to how they reposition themselves in their regional or national policy debates for greater relevance and potential influence on existing and emerging issues. Relevance is a moving target, and so they also need to be flexible and adaptive by applying their own foresight and tactical awareness of constant shifts in the landscape of policy debates. Within TTI, think tanks worked extensively with national governments and other key stakeholders on several pressing and delicate policy issues, including climate change adaptation, relations with China, or civilian-military considerations. Policy researchers also worked with national governments to help shape and implement national strategies, such as a five-year development plan, or a new rural development strategy. There were examples of how policy research organizations can function as “engines of policy ideas”, since they know how to navigate the political environment and they understand how change happens within their respective context. They also brought high value when framing and asking the questions which are needed to get to grips with the reality of challenges and opportunities facing policy actors, rather than simply offering ‘ready-made’ solutions. By taking a problem-solving approach, their margin for manoeuvre may increase. See Box 1 8 in annex for more information about Mozambique's IESE and CIP think tanks, which produced high-quality research on corruption and government policies. 8 Throughout the text, we have incorporated boxes to provide specific examples of successful think tanks, offering valuable additional information. 12 Despite low public literacy rates, these think tanks provide diverse information to society and have a significant influence on political discourse. 6. Think Tank Positioning and the Policy Cycle The positioning of a policy research institution determines its more sustainable, strategic and profound role in the ‘policy ecosystem’. The outcomes of this positioning are impossible to measure in the short-term, and given political volatility are uncertain in the long-term, but positioning is part of both short-term tactical and a long-term strategic approach to policy engagement. (Cristoplos et al. 2019) Positioning is crucial for think tanks, depending on building relationships and trust, as well as abilities to function in networks. Think tanks need effective positioning in relation to policy issues and actors. There is rarely a guarantee that bringing evidence into policy processes will lead to actual influence on policy making or implementation, but many examples (Boxes 2 and 3 in annex) reveal that greater and more strategic engagement in relevant aspects of the policy discourse is the most likely indicator of plausible influence on policy. It is of course worth noting that think tanks may be positioned differently according to how, where and by whom they were established. There is often a fluid relationship between think tanks and the government. At times think tanks receive significant funding from government and work together closely. The classic "revolving door" relationship where think tank staff periodically spend time actually working within government on specific policy issues is also quite common. Think tanks in some African countries may effectively be a research “arm” of government, offering direct lines of data and evidence to specific Ministries, particularly Ministries of Finance. Others may be constituted as autonomous organisations but retain strong relationships with a government of the day, perhaps around ideological positions, or a shared belief in the role and function of the state. Still other think tanks may be viewed as a “thorn in the side” of government, sometime provoking hostility towards the evidence they provide, as well as their policy recommendations. These positions are rarely static however, and think tanks move in and out of favour with different political groupings, requiring considerable agility to manoeuvre and survive when conditions are less favourable. In some cases, relative closeness to the government of the day can open policy windows, enhance opportunities for influence, and engage in potentially controversial research into the major questions facing national development. However, the same think tank may then become an outcast once a government changes and a new political dispensation is in place. Think tanks also must be incredibly careful about dependency on funding from specific donors or from the private sector, which can be difficult to avoid without a solid financial base to rely upon. Integrity seems to be the secret sauce for think tanks managing these constraints, whereby they are able to define their research questions independently from politicians and funders and in doing so to take a broad, historically informed and critical stance on policy issues. Combined with rigorous data collection and well-respected researchers, integrity is central to credibility. 13 From the government's perspective, collaborating with think tanks is not just a supplement to the state's limited capacity but a shared responsibility. Think tanks act as intermediaries between state and non-state actors, providing alternative routes for policy implementation and offering training and guidance to practitioners and state institutions. For example, their expertise can be used to develop social policies and enhance the skills of government officials to ensure that these policies benefit marginalized communities. This collaborative approach is essential for shaping African development and is a shared responsibility (Nkrumah, 2022). In times of rapid change in national policies, demand for policy advice can increase as politicians look for evidence upon which to anchor decisions on policy realignment. For think tanks located within national contexts, their networks are overwhelmingly (though not entirely) in the domestic sphere. Think tanks have perhaps been more influential at national level because they have a built-in legitimacy due to assumed relevance. But within the national sphere, there are innumerable complexities over what different actors view as relevant. The boundaries between the state and non- state spheres are highly permeable; and within these, long-term relationships and partnerships are key to successful influence. ‘Who you are’ and ‘Where you stand’ in the policy debate can therefore override ‘What you say’ – regardless of the quality of the research products. These factors also impinge on independence in various forms. Positioning at a regional level therefore requires think tanks to develop relationships with a new set of actors. Their national legitimacy may ‘carry over’ into regional domains alongside their national policy counterparts, but to really get traction on regional issues, think tanks will need to position themselves very proactively. A key opportunity for policy research institution influence on the wider evidence to policy ecosystem is also via engagement with civil society organisations, who may play a different, advocacy-oriented role. This is not without risks. The government may see engaging with civil society as positioning policy researchers in opposition to current political power, which could undermine their perceived independence, credibility, and their desired role in the policy ecosystem. There are views that “independence” of think tanks is actually something of a myth (Jezierska and Sörbom, 2021), given their inevitable need to navigate and negotiate the political dynamics of public policy making. It may instead be better to emphasise the importance of integrity, underpinned by core values and principles that shape their behaviour. For example, many think tanks start (and in some cases convene) a public conversation on a policy issue and raise awareness about its implications but are less comfortable with driving that discussion to a specific conclusion. During policy formulation, think tanks can help policy stakeholders set agendas, by asking, framing, and interrogating the core questions and the nature of the problem. At national level, clarity over the issue that needs to be addressed is inevitably enhanced by bringing together multiple experiences, perspectives, and evidence which creates a shared understanding of how a problem is experienced by different stakeholders. This also helps prioritization and can help turn an identified priority into a policy response (Hewlett Foundation 2018). At regional level, it is likely that the issues will be framed differently from those involved in national policy formulation, but national perspectives will be required, to help shape the understanding of what the regional issue is that needs to be addressed. Engagement by national actors in regional policy formulation is also crucial because of the need for shared ownership. 14 Aside from ensuring that policies consider national interests and views so that these are adequately reflected, successful policy adoption and implementation is very dependent on buy-in, and stakeholders at all levels having ‘skin in the game’. Think tanks are important knowledge brokers and translators that can help gather, synthesise, and communicate evidence to policy makers, but very importantly can also convene policy makers and other interested stakeholders from wider society in evidence-informed debates and dialogues around policy issues. This helps increase buy-in and interest, and also has the potential to help diffuse political polarization around hot-button topics which may be fuelled by specific political interests and irresponsible platforms that distribute ‘fake news’ to a wider public. These debates and dialogues can be very useful for national policy actors who then can take this evidence and knowledge base into regional negotiations and participate in policy discussions with the appropriate information to hand, and reasonable clarity about the level of support they bring from their national constituents – crucial armoury in the battlefield of regional negotiations. Policy implementation at national level generally takes place through legal and regulatory frameworks which are put in place by the government of the day. This does not always guarantee successful policy roll-out, which is affected by many factors (feasibility, resources, system capacity, etc.); but the capacities to assure policies are being implemented are at least managed within a recognisable system. Resistance to the requirements of a new policy can be overcome by a combination of engagement, persuasion, incentivisation and enforcement. Think tanks continue to play a significant role since they are well positioned to ask further questions on how implementation with a specific policy may intersect with other societal issues, identifying areas of positive reinforcement, or possible trade-offs between implementation of a new policy and another existing policy area. They can also bring together evidence of what policy implementation roll-out may look like in practice, thus helping move the view of a wider public from the abstract to the concrete. At regional level, ‘implementation’ may be understood as ‘adoption’ by national policy actors who then need to implement a regional policy within their own national context. This is often more challenging since a regional body may lack the ‘teeth’ to ensure that policies are actually adopted and rolled-out in different contexts. However, think tanks can make an important contribution by asking the ‘what if?’ questions about the implications of a regionally adopted policy in a national context, including potentials for localisation of the policy, and also again gathering evidence, and views, on the potential mechanisms for implementation. Policy monitoring, and participation in the design and delivery of feedback mechanisms, is another dimension of policy-making processes that think tanks can contribute to actively. Policy makers may sometimes hold the view that once a policy has been approved and the green light has been given for implementation, that they can move onto other issues. Most national political systems take short-term views about priorities, dictated by the length of time between electoral periods, and political attention is often oriented towards where ‘noise’ is coming from in society. Regional policy making may benefit from consideration of policy options and goals over longer time frames (such as Africa 2063, a visionary timeframe that is difficult to imagine at a national policy level) but clearly there is a need for feedback to come from national monitoring mechanisms on the perceived usefulness and value of regional policies for nations who have signed up to them. There is also the need to understand the value 15 of a policy, via its implementation, at the regional level and to know the extent to which regional agendas and goals are being served. At national level, public officials are usually tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that policies are implemented, whether originating regionally or nationally, and are key stakeholders for think tank engagement around the realities of outcomes and impacts of policy decisions. At regional level, it may be more difficult for think tanks working typically on national policy issues to engage around the questions relating to regional value and efficacy. Initiatives such as Afrobarometer (n.d.) are able to carry out surveys and data gathering and synthesis, but examples such as this are still few; and capacity in this area appears to be a significant gap that needs to be addressed. Citizens, who experience the impact of policies directly in their lives, also bring hugely important experience and knowledge to the table, and although their voices may not typically be heard except on performance of government beyond local or national elections, there are growing example of how their perspectives and knowledge can contribute to evidence, which in turn informs feedback mechanisms. Policy adaptation offers another key area for which evidence is important. Adaptation of existing policies may at times be driven by public demand due to dissatisfaction with the concept or ideology behind a policy, or with the way in which a policy is being implemented. Policies are sometimes replaced because a new government wishes to place its own stamp on its governance framework. Adaptation may also occur because monitoring and feedback loops are effective enough to provide an evidence base for why a change is required. For regional policies, the design and function of feedback loops that connect regional and national policy interests are clearly essential, again offering openings for think tanks to engage in asking questions about what is working in what context and why. This engagement may take the form of structured, periodic evaluations of policies, or ongoing, iterative public policy dialogues involving multiple stakeholders, and underpinned by long-term data collection and analysis. The Think Tank Initiative collected examples of policy influence by its member think tanks, for example relating to African policymaking at the national level (Boxes 4 and 5 in annex) (O’Neil, Sanogo and Hurst 2019). Although fewer in number compared to national influence, TTI also collected powerful examples of regional policy influence in Africa (Box 6 in annex). Figure 4. Opportunities for policy influence 16 7. Constraints and challenges for African think tanks Think Tanks are a central part of Africa’s knowledge system. They generate objective and cutting-edge research and connect Africa to best international research practices and partnerships for SDGs. However, in the last decade, Africa has witnessed erosion of some of the hitherto key knowledge producing think tanks due to several factors including organisational failures, inadequate funding and general changing knowledge landscape. (Africa Research and Impact Network, 2022) 9 Despite an array of opportunities, several persistent challenges remain for African think tanks. These include attracting and retaining qualified personnel, balancing the need for funding with an independent mission, and responding quickly to context changes. Think tanks must engage with stakeholders, stay relevant and neutral, and navigate politics while remaining non-partisan, ensuring their work's integrity, quality, and transparency. At the core of these challenges are finances, which have a knock- on effect on almost every aspect of think tank performance. In facing this array of challenges and constraints, building and maintaining quality research on African regional issues and moving beyond a current focus on national policy questions will require significant attention from think tanks in Africa. The importance of regional policymaking cannot be overstated, as it shapes the future of the continent. National think tanks may lack proximity to these processes, constraining their access to critical regional actors, debates, and subsequent engagement. The topics they have built expertise around at the national level may not be framed similarly when considering these as regional questions. The knowledge base for their evidence at the national level may not be immediately relevant to the issues that regional policy actors are interested in. An essential set of quality challenges relates to how regional issues and problems are understood from a national perspective and the extent to which national think tank researchers are connected into regional and global communities of researchers. The TTI used peer review to gather perceptions of national think tank research outputs by researchers active at international levels. This generated several recurring observations, such as research questions being framed in ways that were not situated in wider bodies of existing research and literature, conclusions derived that were not emerging from the data and its analysis, and, importantly, policy recommendations that were not firmly grounded in the research itself. These observations are important, as regional policy actors are likely to be engaging with internationally sourced evidence and will be familiar with quality standards that national think tanks will need to attend to carefully if they are to be taken seriously and to grow their credibility as they bring research-based evidence to regional policy issues. 9 https://www.arin-africa.org/event/think-tank-challenges-in-africa/ 17 On financial challenges, a survey conducted in 2023 revealed that a higher percentage of African think tanks mentioned that they face significant financial constraints compared to their global counterparts (Baertl et al., 2023)10. According to the study, other challenges faced by African think tanks include governance and management challenges, as well as deeper concerns about the government's use of evidence and decision-making processes. Figure 5. Think Tank challenges A final constraint to note here relates to the perennial question of impact of the work of think tanks, and how this may be evaluated and appreciated. The complexity of measuring think tank impact is a challenge that demands further research and understanding. During the ten years of TTI support, the question of how to measure impact arose repeatedly, because funders are in general concerned that their investments are paying dividends. When supporting think tanks, there are expectations that the work of think tanks has some demonstrable impact on policy, and even on outcomes that emerge through the implementation of these policies. Measurement of the impact of this kind is difficult. Some approaches have sought ways to quantitatively assess think tank impact (Redstone, 2013), while others have considered outcome and impact pathways. There is no single recipe for impact assessment when it comes to the work of think tanks, and this issue will continue to be important as think tank influence moves increasingly into the realm of regional policymaking in Africa. 10 In the next sections we address the challenges of funding in more detail. 18 Figure 6. Constraints faced by African think tanks Source: McGann et al. (2017), Think Tank Initiative (2018) In summary, African think tanks face funding shortages, donor and government pressure, relevance and quality questions, and expectations around impact that they may not be well placed to respond to. Yet, they play a crucial role in shaping policy and addressing societal issues. Some persist with strategic adjustments for their survival and effectiveness. Addressing these challenges and constraints is of course difficult, but the next section offers some insights on how funders may respond to the needs of this important African community of knowledge actors. 8. Funding Models, Sustainability and Role for Different Funders One of the biggest challenges faced by African think tanks is funding availability and sustainability. Funding is often uncertain, irregular, insufficient, and unequally distributed in the think tank space exacerbated by the fact that African think tanks are overly dependent on international funding. (McGann, Signé and Muyangwa, 2017) Global challenges such as economic instability, climate change, social unrest, and political conflicts make it difficult for policymakers to create effective solutions, and budget constraints and increasing demands from different groups compound this. Consequently, think tanks are encountering financial and bureaucratic obstacles and face increased competition for resources as the number of think tanks is rising worldwide, all of which threaten their sustainability in the longer term. The trend for worse-than-expected funding conditions over the past year is particularly salient among African think tankers compared to think tanks in other world regions. In 2022, 29% of respondents predicted there would be an improvement in the funding 19 context, whereas in the 2023 survey only 14% reported that an improvement had taken place (Baertl et al., 2023). The anticipated increase in funding for the year ahead was driven by expectations of economic and demographic growth, improved civic space, post-election funding shifts, and heightened awareness of the importance of evidence- based research. Those who both reported and forecasted an improvement attributed it to shifting perceptions of think tanks and a growth in the demand for evidence-based decision-making leading to increased support from government and private-sector organisations. The reasons cited by respondents who reported a worsened and worsening context included a perception of diminished funding streams, with funds diverted to pressing global issues; ongoing conflicts in Africa; competition with international think tanks; changes in funding architecture; and political situations that affect fund allocation. Interestingly, 49% of think tanks report that they plan to grow. Just 2% expect to downsize and 48% plan to stay the same. Planned growth is consistent with the previous year, suggesting an overall positive trend. Older think tanks (founded before 2000) are much more likely to report planned growth (53% vs 13%) (Baertl et al., 2023). Clearly the financial resources of African think tanks could be more efficient and sufficient, which leads them to rely heavily on international sources. So, what kinds of financial models are in place, and which may be more amenable to supporting the work of African think tanks? 1. Project-oriented funding Most current funding regimes focus on individual, relatively short-term projects, frequently led by the global North. Project-oriented funding, although an important source of income for think tanks, and a way of prioritising particular themes or issues for funders, rarely provides think tanks with the necessary resources to actively engage in critical policy, academic networks, and debates on crucial issues. The short- term nature of project grants often fails to lead to tangible impacts, which cannot accommodate policy uptake and roll-out. Project grants tend not to include sufficient funding to effectively communicate research results and engage with key stakeholders and decision-makers. Due to funders' grant-making policies and regulations, the full range of costs associated with conducting research and disseminating the findings may not always be captured in the approved project budget. Organisations must also consider overhead costs such as facilities, electricity use, technology use, salaries and benefits for non-research staff, and transportation. Funders often have limitations concerning the amount and types of overhead costs they are willing to cover. As a result, it is not uncommon for think tanks to barely cover their actual costs or even run projects at a loss. 2. Hybrid/diversification funding strategies Core and project support can be complementary in certain circumstances and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Although it is clear that providing entirely flexible financial support is challenging for many funders, there is a spectrum of funding modalities, some of which may be more accessible options for donor organisations. Several funders have noted their gradual shift towards longer-term funding arrangements ("patient capital") to build deeper relationships with trusted research partners over time and help reduce transaction costs of repeated, short-term contracts. 20 Other funding models bring African researchers together with policymakers from their countries and regional and international actors, helping catalyse and nurture the relationships leading to more meaningful policy engagement. Funding streams that explicitly aim to strengthen the African partner's institutional resources, including infrastructure and research management, are valuable, particularly when they support the creation of long-term, sustained programmes of Africa-led research on priorities identified in the continent. A number of funders are adopting approaches in line with these principles, such as the emerging efforts related to the "localisation" of development funding and renewed attention to the importance of "equitable partnerships". Think Tanks themselves can play their part in reassessing their business models and exploring ways to improve their funding flows, including diversifying funding sources and developing sustainable revenue streams. This can be done by building strong strategic partnerships, seeking long-term contracts, and clearly articulating their value propositions to attract support from the private sector (Nkruma, 2022). Commercialization of research may become, in time, a viable solution to reduce reliance on donors. This strategic shift could potentially open up new revenue streams and foster financial independence, although this is always going to be more challenging in social science research compared with research which can generate income from patents and property rights. In general, the inadequate resourcing and infrastructure of most African higher education and research institutions (in comparison to their global counterparts) hinders their ability to mount robust, sustained, independent collaborative research efforts (McGann et al., 2017). 3. Core/Flexible Funding In recent years, various research funders have made significant contributions towards bringing about social and economic change in African nations. They have achieved this by investing in initiatives that support the following: o The generation of local policy-related knowledge systems and the strengthening of research capacities. o The uptake of evidence in policy and practice that responds to local agendas, while also contributing to global debates. o The strengthening of enabling environments for evidence to policy processes and actions at the national and regional levels. Modalities of support used are wide-ranging and have included institutional support to project grants, from supporting emerging networks to centres of excellence, from providing funding directly from regional or country offices (rather than through headquarters) to commissioning a single study, and from providing seed funding to supporting endowed chairs. When asked, think tanks unsurprisingly emphasise that core/flexible and longer-term support mechanisms are of significant value. Allowing researchers more control over setting research priorities creates space for them to take on greater responsibility. This includes testing new ideas, maintaining independence, building solid and long-lasting relationships, and developing organisational capacities. These kinds of support also 21 help them to recruit and retain staff more effectively and to address the needs of particular groups, such as women researchers, to achieve greater gender equality and other forms of desired diversity within their organisation. African Think Tanks have benefited specifically from support aimed at helping them strengthen their policy influence capabilities. The TTI final evaluation noted that flexible support provided by TTI to think tanks enabled them to respond quickly to windows of opportunity for policy influence. Instead of reacting constantly to demands, they were able to build in the time and space for analysis and reflection that could lead to redefining the research questions and becoming ready to engage effectively in future policy issues. As noted above, the demand for research and evidence from national policy actors tends to wax and wane, fuelled partly by political polarisation. Longer-term, flexible funding enables think tanks to establish a higher degree of continuity and strategic vision that helps them to navigate and weather these storms. There is no apparent panacea for manoeuvring amid conflict and polarisation. Still, valuable approaches include broadening communication efforts across the political spectrum and engaging with different actors in designing and implementing research. Flexible support allows think tanks to cover the additional staff time and travel needed for researchers to engage in relevant fora, nationally, regionally, and globally and coordinate more internal institutional discussions and peer review advice on policy relevance. It can give staff the flexibility and seed money to pursue topics they see as relevant in their countries and regions, even if potential funders are unaware of these emergent priorities. Flexible funding also allows think tanks to take steps to show relevance and position themselves clearly as independent by working with integrity. Think tanks consider their independence necessary for defining relevance, ensuring credibility, and driving policy influence. Recipients of flexible support from TTI were clear that this helped them to become more intentional in leveraging quality research for influencing policy and to have played a key role in helping them to focus greater attention on how to produce diverse types of quality research to achieve policy influence within the complex and dynamic arenas in which they operate. Funding which aims to support and strengthen think tanks beyond the immediate research project funding also helps to create an enabling institutional environment for project funding. Funders and collaborating organisations, nationally and regionally, can better work with organisations whose capacities have been strengthened thanks to contributions by other funders who have provided core funding or other forms of flexible support. On the other hand, those organisations that do not have the opportunity to strengthen their capacity through flexible funding mechanisms, such as core funding, maybe less well positioned to receive project support, given the risk assessment criteria typically used by funders. As such, more substantial organisations are often favoured, which may distort or weaken institutional diversity and ultimately reduce the resilience of the institutional ecosystem. Funders’ emphasis on results also highlights a concern that the selection of the "usual suspects" able to demonstrate prior success might crowd out institutions that are innovating and working creatively, potentially breaking new ground but without a track record to prove their previous impact on policy. In summary, core/flexible funding is highly valuable for think tanks as it allows for adaptability independence, and ownership and contributes to institutional strengthening. It enables Think Tanks to align their research agenda with national 22 priorities and political contexts rather than donor interests. Core funding allows institutions to invest in essential aspects such as strong leadership, qualified scholars, strategic partnerships, and communication capacity over a longer period, enhancing their credibility and influence. By contrast, project-based funding may undermine these strengths and increase transaction costs, making core funding more efficient and effective. Experience and lessons suggest that investing in long-term organizational strengthening and capacity building for policy research can help achieve development outcomes, such as those articulated in the SDGs. Longer-term, flexible funding allows think tanks to influence and shape policy priorities and facilitates their engagement in implementation and adoption efforts. Opportunities for funders to support African think tanks Funders of think tanks in Africa can provide help in several ways. One key consideration is to fund a broader set of activities aligned with the desired impact rather than just funding specific projects. This could include research, outreach, partnerships, and communications, which allows think tanks to adapt to changing circumstances. Additionally, it is important to provide enough funding to cover the actual expenses of the organisation's work, which helps prevent the depletion of institutional strength and supports effective problem-solving. Encouraging creativity and exploring innovative budgeting approaches can also be helpful, such as creating budget lines for "policy response capacity" or "emerging opportunities." Finally, it is worth considering collaborating with other donors supporting the same institution to align goals and maximise impact by contributing to flexible funding baskets or multi- year grants to provide stability for staffing (Krishnamurthy, 2017). It is encouraging that, after a period when core funding approaches seemed less popular, some donors are returning to the idea of more flexible approaches and new initiatives being taken to support African think tanks. Such approaches align well with the call for action made by the recently launched Africa Charter for Transformative Research Collaborations 11 , and the gathering momentum around achieving more equitable research partnerships 12. The World Bank and GIZ, for example, have both stepped forward recently to provide support which combines flexibility with attention to strengthening research quality and policy engagement. The Think Africa Partnership (TAP)13 is the World Bank Africa Region’s flagship multi- partner trust fund focusing on translating knowledge to economic policy action in sub- Saharan Africa. TAP’s premise is that better-informed policies and more effective government can lead to better development outcomes. TAP “bridges the knowledge ‘supply side’ to the government ‘demand side’ by supporting and connecting African scholars to African think tanks and senior government advisors, to ensure policy is informed by home-grown and home-owned ideas and evidence. TAP builds peer networks across these three stakeholder groups: early-career African economists (Economists for Transformation), African early-career development professionals (Africa Fellows), WB-AERC Visiting Scholars, economic policy think tanks….and a 11https://parc.bristol.ac.uk/africa-charter/ 12https://southernvoice.org/envisioning-an-equitable-future-for-research-across-the-north-south-divide/ 13https://www.thinkafrica.dev/about/#:~:text=The%20Think%20Africa%20Partnership%20(TAP,action%20in%20sub %2DSaharan%20Africa. 23 network of chief economic advisors to presidents and prime ministers in more than 40 African countries – the Chief Economists of Government (CEoG) initiative.” An important new initiative has also recently been launched by the World Bank, the Africa Think Tank Platform 14. Its development objective is to establish a sustainable platform to strengthen the capacity for effective policy research and policy making on cross-boundary priorities in Africa. The initiative comprises three components: i) to establish capacity to operate a sustainable policy making platform via collaboration with the African Union Commission (AUC); ii) to strengthen the quality, relevance, and uptake of policy research on priority issues via activities to improve the quality and relevance of policy research on continental priority issues and facilitate its dissemination and utilization to inform policy making by countries across the continent and beyond; and iii) to develop the capacity of the AUC to mobilize resources and establish facilities to crowd-in funds from a variety of stakeholders to support the sustainability of the platform and policy research over the long term. This project offers an exciting opportunity for funders such as the World Bank to support African think tanks in ways that respond to a number of the opportunities and challenges described earlier in this paper, as well as providing valuable lessons for other funders of think tanks engaged in regional economic policy research in Africa. Thirdly, the GIZ-funded Country Economic Transformation Outlook (CETO), including a collaboration with the African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET), has the objective to foster peer learning and cross-pollinate experiences in economic transformation. CETO is a program that enhances ACET's policy engagement model (APEM) by providing tailored policy advice to countries needing transformation. CETOs perform in-depth assessments of a country's transformation progress and challenges and offer customised policy advice to public and non-public actors. They work closely with governments and think tanks to ensure continuity in policy dialogue and effective implementation of national development plans. The main objectives of CETOs are to evaluate the implementation of the DEPTH framework in country-level policies, identify potential sectors for economic transformation, and integrate gender analysis into studies. 14 https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P179804 24 Capacity strengthening efforts that build partnerships across the continent and on regional and national evidence to policy ecosystems, support cooperation among government department, and help ensure policy systems are fit for purpose Strengthening and supporting mechanisms, processes and systems already in place regionally and nationally in Africa rather than seeking to impose new ways of working; this is likely to increase local and regional ownership and commitment, as well as contributing to successful policy outcomes. Encouraging researchers to maintain their focus on engaging policy makers, building partnerships among institutions, countries, different stakeholders and interest groups and creating buy-in from their government and from regional bodies. Donors and practitioners working with national think tanks can help create the conditions for think tanks to make high- calibre research contributions to regional public policy. These include (i) stable, predictable funding that enables organisations to recruit research talent, including women researchers, and gives them the independence needed for credibility; (ii) training and mentoring in the use of tools and measures for ensuring research methods are appropriate and applied with rigour; acceptance of a broader range of research quality tools and measures in think tanks’ reporting to donors; and (iii) strong networks that link think tanks and stakeholders at regional level, and can strengthen the relevance and quality of their research. With well-crafted, targeted funding, think tanks are better able to seize opportunities and mitigate the constraints which can help them achieve significant success at both national and regional levels, by: (i) paying attention to integrity (alignment or not with current politics or ideology); (ii) avoiding unfounded assumptions about how policy processes work (or don’t work); (iii) being political (i.e. recognizing the inherent political nature of policy processes) but not partisan (avoiding alignment with specific political parties or views) or adversarial; (iv) investing in clear, intentional communication and engagement strategies; (v) being effective at problem identification in relation to prevailing agendas; (vi) maintaining, and raising, visibility; (vii) achieving organizational sustainability which is grounded in equity, diversity and inclusion. Figure 7. Key ingredients for support to think tank sustainability 9. Conclusion Although navigating the complex and messy backdrop of African regional economic policy making is not easy, funders whose mission and mandate is to support economic development, and who value the contributions of research in low- and middle-income countries, have an unparalleled, timely, and important opportunity. By conveying, nourishing and growing the critical role of evidence in national and regional policymaking and ensuring that facts and analysis are used to inform policy decisions, they can play a critical role in supporting the work of regional policy actors. These actors can in turn help elevate shared interests that complement and reinforce national agendas. Enlightened funders can help protect the integrity of important regional and national knowledge actors like think tanks, who are typically independent, add value by conducting rigorous and impartial research, and facilitate engagement with a wide range of stakeholders around policy issues. By working collaboratively with such organizations, as well as with other donors, funders can help think tanks improve the effectiveness and legitimacy of national and regional policy processes and help to counter forces that are ill-informed or that seek to curtail or derail democratic public policy making, adoption and implementation. 25 References African Digital Rights Network (2020) (accessed 01 June 2023) African Union Commission (2015) Africa 2063. The Africa we want, Addis Ababa: AUC Afrobarometer (n.d.) (accessed 01 June 2023) Alcázar, L.; Balarín, M.; Weerakoon, D. and Eboh, E. (2012) ‘Learning to Monitor Think Tanks Impact: Three Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America’, Final Report, Lima: Grupo de Analisis para el Desarrollo (accessed 28 July 2022) Baertl, A., Gilbreath, D., & Nicolle, S. (2023). Think tank state of the sector 2023. OTT. https://onthinktanks.org/publication/think-tank-state-of-the-sector-2023/ Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results (n.d.) (accessed 01 June 2023) Chikozho, C., & Saruchera, D. (2015). Universities and think-tanks as partners in the African knowledge economy: Insights from South Africa. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 7(4), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2015.1082368 Cohen, M.D.; March, J.G.; Olsen, J.P. (1972) ‘A garbage can model of organizational choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 1–25 (accessed 01 June 2023) Cristoplos, I.; Pain, A.; Kluyskens, J. and Fruhling, P. (2019) ‘External Evaluation of the Think Tank Initiative (TTI) Phase Two, 2014-2019’ Stockholm: NIRAS (accessed 28 July 2022) Engel, H. and C. Waller (2014) ‘Strengthening evidence use in African Parliaments: peer learning and collaboration authors’ Johannesburg: CLEAR and Twende Mbele (accessed 01 June 2023) Georgalakis, J and F. Siregar (2023) Knowledge translation in the global south: Bridging different ways of knowing for equitable development, Ottawa: IDRC Harvard Library 2024. (n.d.). Research Guides: Think Tank Search: U.S. Think Tanks. Retrieved May 1, 2024, from https://guides.library.harvard.edu/hks/think_tank_search/US Hewlett Foundation (2018) Evidence-informed policymaking strategy, San Francisco: William and Flora Hewlett Foundation International Monetary Fund. (2023). Regional Economic Outlook for Sub-Saharan Africa, April 2023. Retrieved May 1, 2024, from https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/REO/SSA/Issues/2023/04/14/regional- economic-outlook-for-sub-saharan-africa-april-2023 26 International Monetary Fund. (2023). Regional Economic Outlook, Sub-Saharan Africa, October 2023: Light on the Horizon? International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400253508.086 Jezierska, K. and A. Sörbom (2021) Proximity and distance: Think tanks handling the independence paradox. Governance Volume34, Issue2, pp. 395-41, https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12503 Accessed 24 June, 2024 Kingdon, J. W. (2003) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, London, UK: Longman Knowledge Sector Initiative (n.d.) (accessed 01 June 2023) Krishnamurthy, V. (2017, October 20). How to fund think tanks flexibly even when you can’t. Hewlett Foundation. https://hewlett.org/fund-think-tanks-flexibly-even- cant/ Mbadlanyana, T., Sibalukhulu, N., & Cilliers, J. (2011). Shaping African futures: Think tanks and the need for endogenous knowledge production in Sub‐Saharan Africa. Foresight, 13(3), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636681111138776 McGann, J., Signé, L., & Muyangwa, M. (2017, December 13). The crisis of African think tanks: Challenges and solutions. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-crisis-of-african-think-tanks- challenges-and-solutions/ Nkrumah, B. (2022). Think Tanks and Democratisation in South Africa. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v14.i1.7722 O’Neil, M.; Sanogo, D. and Hurst, A. (2019) Positioning think tanks for policy influence, TTI Insights (accessed 01 June 2023) Ofir, Z.; Schwandt, T.; Duggan, C. and McLean, R. (2016) Research Quality Plus (RQ+) – A Holistic Approach to Evaluating Research, Ottawa: IDRC Ordóñez, A., P. Taylor, G. Khanduja, E. Nelson and T. Mamoun (2024). Envisioning an equitable future for research across the North-South Divide. Southern Voice https://southernvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/240619-SV_Sintaxis-3- V1.1.pdf Accessed 24 June, 2024 Ordóñez, A.; Bellettini, O.; Mendizabal, E.; Broadbent, E. and Muller, J. (2012) Influencing as a Learning Process: Think Tanks and the Challenge of Improving Policies and Promoting Social Change, Working Paper, Quito: Grupo FARO (accessed 01 June 2023) Redstone Strategy Group (2013) Helping Think Tanks measure impact, Think Tank Initiative Working Paper Series, Ottawa: IDRC (accessed 01 June 2023) Selassie, A. A. (2021, December). The African Century [International Monetary Fund]. Finance and Development. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2021/12/African-Century- Abebe-Selassie 27 Stachowiak, S. (2013) Pathways for Change: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts, Seattle: Organisational Research Services Taylor, P and E Hayter (2018) Whose knowledge counts? Why citizen evidence can lead to better policymaking, Think Tank Initiative opinion, 14 December 2018 (accessed 01 June 2023) Taylor, P. (2022) Evaluating Capacity-Strengthening Impact: A Funder Perspective, CDI Practice Paper 23, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (accessed 01 June 2023) The African Capacity Building Foundation. (2022). Digital Transformation in post- COVID-19 Africa: Opportunities, Challenges and Options for Building Back Better. Report of the 2021 Africa Think Tank Summit. https://elibrary.acbfpact.org/acbf/collect/acbf/index/assoc/HASH3623/a739d6f0/ f2c79ba2/db.dir/AFRICA%20THINK%20TANK%20REPORT%20english.pdf Think Tank Initiative (2018) Think Tank Initiative 2018 Policy Community Survey Final Report on Africa May 3rd, 2018. Ottawa: Think Tank Initiative Think Tank Initiative (2018a) Research quality for policy engagement, Ottawa: Think Tank Initiative Think Tank Initiative (n.d.) CRES: Curbing tobacco use through research and advocacy (accessed 01 June 2023) Twende Mbele (n.d.) (accessed 01 June 2023) VakaYiko Initiative (n.d.) (accessed 01 June 2023) Vogel, I.; Punton, M. (2018), Final Evaluation of the Building Capacity to Use Research Evidence [BCURE] Programme, ITAD Comparative Report (accessed 01 June 2023) World Bank (2017) Discussion note: What’s next for capacity building in Africa? Washington DC: World Bank Young, J.; Hauck, V. and Engel, P. (2013) Final Report of the External Evaluation of the Think Tank Initiative, London and Maastricht: ODI and European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) 28 Annexes15 Box 1: In Mozambique, the Instituto de Estudos Sociais e Económicos (IESE) and the Centro de Integridade Pública (CIP) are well-known for producing high-quality, critical research independent of the ruling regime. Their research aims to expose corruption and provide alternative perspectives on government policies. Despite facing challenges such as low literacy rates and political disengagement, both think tanks play a crucial role in providing diverse sources of information to Mozambican society. Data analysis reveals that there is a growing demand for their research among social science undergraduates, with IESE's research being more widely recognized than CIP's, particularly among political science and public administration students. Additionally, both organizations witness significant usage on their websites and social media platforms, suggesting increasing awareness and engagement with their research. IESE's academic publications also receive citations from specialists worldwide, indicating a slow but steady evolution in demand for their research. This suggests that independent think tanks like IESE and CIP effectively disseminate critical information and influence political discourse, both domestically and internationally. However, further research is needed to understand their impact's long-term implications fully. 15 All boxes draw on cases included in the final Evaluation of the Think Tank Initiative, citation: Cristoplos, I.; Pain, A.; Kluyskens, J. and Fruhling, P. (2019) ‘External Evaluation of the Think Tank Initiative (TTI) Phase Two, 2014-2019’ Stockholm: NIRAS 29 Box 2: Think tanks in Africa are involved increasingly in a range of social accountability approaches which can speak to both national and regional agendas (Taylor and Hayter 2018), for example: • The use of citizen report cards by Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) to assess the level of performance for delivery of local government services in Uganda • Facilitation of citizen dialogues around a diverse range of national public policy issues by The Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) Tanzania • Restless Development's action research work with 'youth think tank' project in Uganda • Africa's Voices innovative work using radio for social research in Kenya and Somalia • Work of Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (JPAL) on participation in elections in Sierra Leone, evaluating the effect of publicly screened debates in the run-up to parliamentary election Box 3: Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI) researchers had observed that the quality of the national bureaucracy was deteriorating due to shrinking salaries and performance incentives. As a result, there was a growing disconnect between the intentions of high-level policy, which in Ethiopia has been oriented towards following a development path similar to that in East Asia, and the reality of impoverished and disillusioned frontline bureaucrats. There was a recognized need to fill the knowledge gap around the nature of this disconnect. One researcher stated that “We saw a need to delve into this deeply to understand the state industrial apparatus. As a developmental state we realized that the narrative has to trickle down to the frontline; analyse whether the altruism that unpins the developmental state narrative is really there." When the research was presented, authorities recognized its relevance, even if they were sceptical of the likelihood that underlying structures could be changed. 30 Box 4: In Uganda, May 2016 marked the adoption of a National Fertilizer Policy, culminating years of research and collaboration by the Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC), whose foundational study highlighted the declining fertility of Uganda's soils and the need for a national policy to improve agricultural yields. With support from the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, EPRC supported the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) in a five-year process of developing and seeking buy-in on a new policy framework to guide the manufacture, distribution, sale, and use of fertilizers. This entailed multiple rounds of consultation to ensure policy development was informed by farmers' and industry groups, and other key stakeholders. EPRC's partnership with MAAIF was also instrumental in conducting a regulatory impact assessment of the policy, and developing the National Fertilizer Strategy and Investment Plan, which guides its implementation. (O'Neil et al. 2019) Box 5: In Nigeria, the Centre for Population and Environmental Development (CPED) galvanized citizen participation in building lasting peace in the oil-rich Niger Delta region. With support from IDRC, CPED helped to develop a process that would give communities affected by violence a voice in amending the government's 2009 Amnesty program, which largely benefitted ex-militants. Led by multi- stakeholder implementation committees established in five local government areas, community representatives were trained in data collection methods. Through surveys, interviews, and discussion groups, they tapped the views of women, youth, elders, former militants, and others affected. Through successive rounds of consultation, a comprehensive new Amnesty program is emerging. In addition to securing key demands - such as for infrastructure and social welfare investments to benefit the wider population — citizen groups are now actively holding their elected representatives to account. (O'Neil et al. 2019) 31 Box 6: Research by Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR) into the history of land restitution in Burundi was designed to reflect a long-term historical perspective, relating issues to the precolonial and colonial periods as well as the different phases of the development of the Burundi Land Commission. The research was designed to take the reader through the history of how land issues have been addressed and help to understand the limitations of continuing on similar paths. In research such as this, MISR situates its analysis as 'theory making'. Although this approach is somewhat removed from the immediate concerns of most policy actors, it highlights that think tanks can apply different approaches in their efforts to reframe policy discourses - from stimulating academic debate on underlying theoretical perspectives to discussing the concrete dysfunctions of incentives inherent in public sector salary scales that are out of sync with grand developmental ambitions. Box 7: In Senegal, work over many years by Consortium pour lar Recherche Economique et Sociale (CRES) led to the introduction of a Bill to curb tobacco use (Project de loi relatif a la fabrication, au conditionement, a l'etiquetage, a la vente, et a l'usage du tabac) being adopted by the Government of Senegal in July 2013. Whereas previous studies were limited to the national level, CRES then successfully engaged in the topic across West Africa, providing reliable and current data. CRES presented these findings at a conference in November 2021 that brought together representatives of the 15 countries, the two West African regional economic organisations (WAEMU and ECOWAS) and organizations active in the field of health. Subsequent ECOWAS regional reforms on the taxation of tobacco products are likely to have a major impact on the well-being of the countries' populations, conceivably reducing the prevalence of morbidity, mortality and public health costs due to tobacco use and related diseases. (Think Tank Initiative n.d.) 32 ABSTRACT