Organizer: Thomas Kern, University of Heidelberg, Germany Over the past two decades, think tanks have established themselves as a central link between the scientific community and the political and economic establishment in East Asia. According to U.S. studies, more than 50 percent of existing think tanks were established after 1980. About two thirds are located in Western Europe and North America whereas almost 12 percent operate in East Asia. For the purpose of this panel, we use the term "think tank" in a very broad manner that includes political, economic, and civic organizations. In relevant literature, basically two types of thinks tanks are distinguished, with the first type being committed to the principles of impartial and independent scientific analysis ("universities without students"). The second type is concerned with the promotion and circulation of specific political and ideological ideas ("advocacy think tanks"). Although it is impossible to differentiate clearly between "indifferent interest" (Bourdieu 1998) and academic lobbying for specific purposes, both dimensions delimit the intellectual field in which think tanks operate as intermediary agents between the scientific community, political decision-makers, and economic elites. While a considerable number of publications have explored the activities of think tanks in the United States and Western Europe, research has to yet examine the cultural, political, and economic influence of think tanks in East Asia. Against this backdrop, our panel attempts to shed light on the role of think tanks in North and South East Asia: What are their political and economic goals? How are they organized? How do they link the political, economic, and scientific communities? How do they mobilize their resources? With whom are they cooperating and in what fashion? Do they maintain any links across national borders? This panel addresses these and other questions related to think tanks in North and South East Asia.
In recent years, the political discourse in East Asia increasingly refers to the emergence of an economically, politically, and socially more integrated region. Assuming that (1) Think Tanks are "privileged" participants in the public discourse and that (2) they operate as "switchboards" between scientific community and political establishment, their political diagnoses and recommendation exert a great influence on this process. Against the background of increasing numbers and the rising influence of Think Tanks, this presentation addresses their role in the process of regionalization related to the policy field of environmental protection. This policy fields deals with specific problems that exceed the boundaries of a single nation, and it has become increasingly important over the past 20 years. Accordingly, this it provides many incentives for promoting regional (political) cooperation.
Against this backdrop, this presentation is divided into four steps: In the first step, I will provide an overview of leading South Korean and Japanese Think Tanks in the field of environmental policy (structures, activities, history etc.). In the second step, I will focus on their cross-national networks, particularly their collaborators, the strength of their ties, and their joint activities. This part makes use of the method of social network analysis. In the third step, I will investigate the different images of East Asia as a region (that is affected by environmental problems): How do these Think Tanks describe East Asia? Which problems are most relevant? Which solutions do they propose? Etc. The empirical analysis is based on Interviews and a content analysis of Internet websites and published materials.
The role of Think Tanks in promoting ideas, providing expertise to political decision makers and participating in public discourses has become an increasingly important topic of academic research. In the wake of growing numbers and the global spread of Think Tanks since the early 1980s, the questions concerning regional differences and cultural conditions of their political and public influence are becoming increasingly important. In order to get a better understanding of these circumstances, this presentation provides a typology of Think Tanks in Anglo-Saxon (United States and United Kingdom) and East Asian (Japan and South Korea) countries that takes into account their different organizational and cultural environments.
So far, the research on Think Tank has tried to explain why the political systems of Anglo-Saxon countries are so responsive to their advocacy. Studies about Think Tanks in East Asia draw a completely different picture of their influence due to distinctive political and cultural traditions. In a first step, the organization of Think Thanks (legal form, funding, recruitment, etc.) has to be examined: The research literature distinguishes two (ideal) types of thinks tanks, with one type being committed to the principles of impartial and independent scientific analysis. The other type is concerned with the promotion and circulation of specific political and ideological ideas. In the second step, the interplay of cultural and political factors in the process of public opinion making has to be analyzed in order to determine how Think Tanks respond to the specific conditions of their cultural and political environment. In the third step, a typology of Think Tanks will be presented. The empirical analysis draws on Interviews and a secondary analysis of available studies on Think Tanks.
Foreign policy challenges abound in Northeast Asia. This is the only world region characterised by the intersection of four major powers – Japan, China, Russia and the US. Moreover, the region is confronted with a number of unresolved territorial claims involving some of these powers but also the two Koreas. Finally, high-profile security challenges – the North Korean nuclear issue and the sensitive Cross-Straits relations – continue to bedevil the region. Against this background, the paper will examine the situation of foreign-policy think tanks in two liberal-democratic countries in the region: Japan, a regional power in its own right, and South Korea, a secondary power sandwiched between Japan and a rising China.
Foreign policy challenges abound in Northeast Asia. This is the only world region characterised by the intersection of four major powers – Japan, China, Russia and the US. Moreover, the region is confronted with a number of unresolved territorial claims involving some of these powers but also the two Koreas. Finally, high-profile security challenges – the North Korean nuclear issue and the sensitive Cross-Straits relations – continue to bedevil the region. Against this background, the paper will examine the situation of foreign-policy think tanks in two liberal-democratic countries in the region: Japan, a regional power in its own right, and South Korea, a secondary power sandwiched between Japan and a rising China.
The paper will first chart the landscape of existing foreign-policy think tanks in Japan and Korea in terms of their number, general orientation (advocacy, academic, or hybrid), resources and funding. The paper will then examine how such think thanks interact with their major stakeholders, including the executive and political parties. In what ways do foreign-policy think tanks in the two countries provide inputs into foreign-policy-related discussion and decision-making processes and to what extent are they successful in furthering their organizational and material goals? The paper is interested in exploring the similarities and contrasts between the institutional setting and policy-related role of foreign-policy think tanks in Japan and South Korea. Ultimately, the paper attempts to assess the extent to which such think tanks are indeed on the rise in Japan and South Korea in terms of resources and influence.
This paper focuses on the non-profit Socio-Economic and Environmental Research Institute, or SERI, a think tank in Penang, a small city located in the northern periphery of the Southeast Asian nation of Malaysia. Despite its location, SERI is far from being a peripheral think tank. It has close links with the state government, local councils, non-governmental organisations and international organisations, and is able to influence state policy because it acts as a consultant to the state government in coming up with Penang’s development blueprints and plans. SERI falls more under the category of “advocacy think tanks” as its express aim is to serve as a tool that would “produce a fair, more inclusive and environmentally sustainable Penang”. This paper will look at SERI in detail – its beginnings in 1997, source of funding, staff as well as its charter, the events and the research it has carried out over the last 13 years in support of its aim to help maintain sustainable development in Penang. For this paper, interviews will be held with the stakeholders of SERI regarding the think tank’s goals, organisation and links with others as well as their perceptions of its influence in the state, Malaysia and the region. Interviews will also be held with SERI’s partners as well to provide greater depth to an analysis of the think tank’s influence in the state, the nation and internationally.
This study aims to explore the transformation of think tanks that exert a great influence on industrial or business policies in South Korea. According to current surveys, the landscape of South Korean think tanks has been changing from state-run to corporate and civic think tanks since the 1980s. In order to explain these trends, I will empirically compare the most influential economic think tanks: the state-run Korea Development Institute (since 1971), the conglomerate-run Samsung Economic Research Institute (since 1986), and the NGO-based Hope Institute (since 2006).
In the first step of my presentation, I will provide an overview about the development of three types of think tanks in South Korea. Their emergence, benchmarking and composition will be explored historically. Secondly, biographical data of the board of directors and 50 researchers of each think tank will be collected on the basis of online data or postal inquiry. I will use these data in order to examine the so-called "revolving door syndrome" between economy and politic sphere, and the reproduction of social and cultural capital. I will also investigate whether there are significant differences between state-run, corporate, and civic think tanks. Thirdly, on the basis of a content analysis of think tank reports, I will examine their political and economic positions with respect to landmark topics such as the causes and consequences of the Asian financial crisis, the implementation of economic global standards in Korea, and the perspectives of family ownership and family management.
|
