The Knowledge
Transmission Mechanism (KTM) is how knowledge produced by academics
and other researchers is translated into public policy. Evidence
based policy is the result of this mechanism working. The media is,
in theory, an important conduit for the KTM: media publicises
research, policy maker sees/hears/reads media and gets their civil
servants to investigate research. Or media communicates policy
consensus on issue, and politician is questioned by the media on why
they are not following this consensus.
The rigid
application of political balance in the broadcast media is in danger
of negating the KTM, and therefore evidence based policy. The moment an issue (call it issue X) is deemed
‘political’ by the media, balance dictates that any view
expressed on issue X is an opinion rather than knowledge. As a
result, when the media want to talk to non-politicians (‘experts’)
about issue X, the imperative of balance remains.
Now suppose that in
the knowledge world there is in fact a consensus on issue X. That
would be a problem for balance broadcasting, because it would be
difficult to get an expert to argue against the consensus. The BBC
overcame this problem valiantly during Brexit, using Patrick Minford (who is not known as a trade economist) time and again to balance the IMF, the OECD, more than 90% of
academic opinion etc. But another way of solving this problem is to
use certain think tanks.
There are two types
of think tank. The good kind can be a vital part of the KTM. There is
often a genuine need for think tanks to help translate academic
research into policy. Sometimes these think tanks will be very like
universities (like the IFS for example). Other times they will be
think tanks that have a broad left or right orientation. These think
tanks are an important part of the KTM, because they can establish
what the academic consensus is, translate academic ideas into
practical policy, and match policy problems to evidence based
solutions. The IPPR is an obvious example of this type of think tank.
They are part of evidence based policy making.
The bad kind are
rather different. These produce ‘research’ that conforms to a
particular line or ideology, rather than conforming to evidence or
existing academic knowledge. Sometimes these think tanks can even
become policy entrepreneurs, selling policies to politicians. This is
often called policy based evidence making. It would be nice to be
able to distinguish between good and bad think tanks in an easy way.
The good type seeks to foster the KTM, and ensure policy is evidence
based, and the bad type seek to negate the KTM by producing evidence
or policies that fit preconceived ideas or the policymaker’s
ideology.
I would argue that
transparency
about funding sources provides a strong indicator of which type a
think tank is. Why is this? One obvious reason why you would not
want, say, company Y listed as a funder is if you subsequently
produced a report that was directly in the interests of Y. A clear
example
is the IEA’s arguments against plain packaging of cigarettes, and
its funding from tobacco companies. To be clear I am not suggesting
that the IEA (who have been in the news
recently) is insincere about the arguments it makes, but if funding
was transparent it would be very easy to suggest their arguments on
plain packaging were contrived by just pointing out its funding
sources. So that is an obvious reason to keep funding secret. In
contrast, an IFS type think tank has no reason to hide its funders,
because it is not in the business of producing policies that meet the
specific wishes of these funders. [1]
It has been
suggested to me that IEA type think tanks need to keep their funding
secret because some personal donations would get individuals into
trouble with their employers if they became public. It would be
interesting to know from some IFS type think tanks how much funding
they lose for this reason. Perhaps the answer is not much, and that
in any case the principle of transparency is more important than a
few extra donations.
Another good
indicator of a bad think tank is their relationship to academia. I
have told the story
about how the IEA under Philip Booth tried to cultivate the idea that
the 364 academics who famously objected to the Thatcher government's 1981 budget were embarrassingly wrong, when in fact they were proved
right. The IEA’s media and political connections are sufficiently
strong that even good BBC economics journalists were taken in by
their line. To the extent that it emboldened Osborne to ignore the
majority of academic economists over austerity it was a dangerous
myth to cultivate.
In the case of
global warming the BBC has been forced (I don’t think that is an
inappropriate word, as it often breaches
the guidance) to treat man made climate change as a fact rather than
an opinion that always has to be balanced. That is not going to
happen for some time over any economic issue, however strong the
academic consensus (like Brexit). This is partly because the pressure
from academia is much less, and partly there is still a prejudice
against social science (as if evidence based policy making cannot
occur for economic or social policy!). But the BBC does need to
explain their attitude to the use of think tanks. Why do they use
think tanks that do not declare their funding sources, and when they
do why is this information not passed on to its audience?
[1] To understand
why arguments like the IFS gets money from the government or the EU
and therefore it is biased do not work, see here.
