Diplomatic Courier* has released its new list (link is a pdf) of the world’s leading think tanks, which always makes for interesting reading. In top spot this year in their global list is Washington-based Brookings Institution, which also came in second overall in the United States on the specific area of international affairs, behind the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
The list is drawn up largely by the University of Pennsylvania, and this year included nominations for 5,329 think tanks around the world.
“Our rankings process, as in the past, relies on a shared definition of public policy research, analysis, and engagement organizations, a detailed set of selection criteria, and an increasingly open and transparent nomination and selection process,” said James McGann, director of the university’s think tank and civil societies program, in announcing the results.
It’s no surprise on the overall list to see organizations like Brookings, Chatham House in the U.K., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Council on Foreign Relations and CSIS making up the top five. But what is in some ways surprising is the failure of India to place a single think tank in the global top 30.
That American think tanks dominate the top 30, taking 12 spots, isn’t a surprise – they are extremely well-funded here, and there’s a long-established culture of ideas generation based around this format in Washington and elsewhere that’s boosted by the ease with which former politicians and government officials move in and out of the “circuit.” U.S. think tanks undoubtedly benefit from the U.S.-style of government, which often involves officials being appointed, serving a relatively short period in government, making contacts and then returning to the research sector. You only have to look at the staff line-up of any of the top organizations to see a host of former (often very senior) government officials making up the ranks.
This is in stark contrast to parliamentary systems such as the U.K., where cabinet positions are typically filled by members of parliament – a British Foreign Office minister whose term in government has ended returns to the back benches rather than becoming a fellow at, say, Chatham House.
But none of this explains the absence of India on the list – an absence that should trouble Indian policymakers. At their best, think tanks can be a hotbed of ideas for government to draw upon, and if India has aspirations toward looking past its neighborhood and stepping up on the global stage it will need to draw upon the vigorous exchange and debate of ideas and policy proposals that such research centers can offer. And yet clearly, in the eyes of their peers, Indian think tanks lack the rigor and influence of a Germany, Canada or indeed Kenya, at least according to the latest list.
I’m going to quote here at some length from one of our writers on this issue from a couple of years back:
“Apart from (the) persistence of endemic poverty and poor infrastructure, India faces other critical challenges in its search for great power status: its acute shortage of critical human capital. At one level, the country can justifiably claim that it has some institutions of higher education which can compete with their peers on a global basis. But these institutions are mostly confined to the realms of science, engineering and management and despite the existence of these centers of excellence, mediocrity is the hallmark of many of India’s other educational institutions.
“For example, with the possible exception of the discipline of economics, India lags woefully behind in the other social sciences such as sociology, anthropology and political science. Few, if any, significant contributions to these fields of intellectual endeavor have emerged from India in recent decades. Most scholarship in these areas is either derivative, or worse, still mostly descriptive and hortatory.”
It’s the kind of damning indictment I’ve come to expect from those engaged in the China vs India debate that rages on our site and elsewhere. And yet these words were written by one of our Indian Decade bloggers, Sumit Ganguly.
And he’s right. When we’re sourcing material for the site, too often we find Indian think tank analyses littered with basic errors, unsubstantiated claims or rehashings of long debunked theories (Flashpoints contributor James Holmes is just one of many to have expressed frustration at how a likely non-event involving the Chinese and Indian navies last summer is still treated as fact in Indian media and policy circles).
It goes without saying that India has an enormous amount to offer the international community. But there’s no excuse for its absence on a list like this.
*I mistakenly referred to this year's list as being published by Foreign Policy as it was in previous years. This year, it's being being published by Diplomatic Courier, although the report is also being hosted on Foreign Policy. My apologies for any confusion.







Subbiah Arunachalam
“… the country can justifiably claim that it has some institutions of higher education which can compete with their peers on a global basis. But these institutions are mostly confined to the realms of science, engineering and management …”, says Sumit Ganguly. No institution in India is in the same league as even the second level universities in North America, UK and Europe. That Indians have fared well in science is a myth. Of course, there are individuals who are outstanding, but their numbers are so small for a nation of India’s size. Ganguly’s statement “Few, if any, significant contributions to these fields of intellectual endeavor have emerged from India in recent decades” applies equally well to science and engineering. In fact, many so called ’scientists’ in many government laboratories are mere passengers doing no worthwhile research.
We should accept facts and work honestly and seriously to do well in the future.
Thoughtful
Failed to understand what you wanted to prove. None of Indian premier institutes are not even at par with B grade schools of US and Europe !!! Man I bet you could not qualify for the IIT’s, IISc’s, IIM’s, ISI.
G Shah
“mediocrity is the hallmark of many of India’s other educational institutions.”
A damning reality for a young nation which constitutes one fifth of humanity. We Indians should be ashamed of ourselves and so something about this state of affairs.
Girish
There is nothing to feel ashamed as of now as everything cannot be a priority item for a poor country. We only have to gradually cover more and more areas according to our requirement and economic capacity.
It was anyhow a priority for poor India to work on science and economic aspect to improve the life of its people rather then develop thinktanks who can work of foreign affairs in the world where India had no impact due to its less involvement in globalization (although there are thinktanks and that is why India had been able to defend its interests in last 68 years).
Its is now that India is an emerging power in all domain, its time for India to pay sincere efforts to build a think-tank culture as its exposure to the world affair is increasing very fast and world has started looking to India to participate into global issues.
yang zi
Indian already have a think tank culture, but mainly thinking in hot air. it need science culture, i.e. the validation culture. thinking with grounded facts, not wishful thinking built on wishful facts.
This is not an Indian only symptom though, A lot of my countrymen do the same, but the difference is, those in think tanks are more realist than people on the internet.
Girish
@yang zi
Do you mean to say Indian commenter in forums are the actual think-tanks of India?
And you really believe a huge country like India and which is “GROWING and PROGRESSING” in every domain is actually fake? and if not fake then its happening because of some magic rather then some valuable thinking and planning?
Stop living in denial Yang Zi.
We all know India is not perfect and have a lot to do more but then why to try pulling its legs?
its preety immature to say that Indian are mainly thinking in hot air.
Well thinking mainly in hot air works for India and letting it achieve in results then its OK to do so, no?
John Chan
“as of now as everything cannot be a priority item for a poor country.” indeed, feeding the 800 million poor definitely cannot be the priority item, meanwhile spending tens of billions to line the pocket of the wealthy westerner’s killing machine manufacturers and satisfy the high caste’s ego must be priority one.
Juneja
What are you saying, Girish? that because our focus has been poverty (the reduction of which is a flawed dream anyways without concrete action and real life thinking), we are okay not focus on other areas like political science, sociology etc. And, if all our priority was only on poverty reduction, why have we failed there as well?
EAM
Think tanks are a mixed blessing. Yes, there are some good ones that genuinely add to the debate (like Brookings) but there are plenty that are very partisan and in pushing their various barrows can do harm than good. If India (or China) are “deficient” in lacking these, there are worse things that can happen. I do not think that there is any real substitute for publicly funded universities for bringing the best out in public debate. Think tanks will always be beholden to their funders and this can become a real constraint to real debate. Publicly funded universities (or universities with large endowments like some of the best US universities) are less likely to have this problem. Expanding universities (as India is doing – and China) IMHO are likely in the longer term to produce better outcomes than think tanks.
Passerby
@EAM
When it comes to policy analysis, I don’t think think tanks produce less value than university research for many reasons: (a) think tanks’s research is more accessible and therefore is subject to closer scrutiny by a wider audience, (b) any think tanks’ partisan position if applicable is known so the transparency is there, in fact, the existence of think tanks allows the public to evaluate the quality of different political arguments (c) social science is not the same as natural science; it can never (I emphasize never) devoid of political and partisan considerations (whether the researcher is conscious or unconscious about it), (d) think tanks are preferrable to journalism because think tanks’ work is subject to a more rigorous internal vetting process than most journalistic junks, and (e) there is no scientific research that I am aware of that says think tank research is of less quality or more partisan than publicly funded social research at universities, and (f) as far as this article is concerned and especially if you have read the original report that did the rankings, several of China’s think tanks made it to the top ranks overall and number one in Asia.
Here’s the interesting point, if the mentioned Chinese think tank is number one in Asia and also occupies a ranking closer to the top of the tops in the overall rankings, then either you accept the findings or you reject the credibility of the American university that did the rankings.
Last but not least, Chinese in mainland have access to media in Hong Kong which has a free press and if you have ever watched a TV station in Hong Kong (name withheld because I don’t want to provide free promotion for the station) that is known to be pro-China and some would even say Chinese money is behind it, but their open political debates are nothing but free and fair IMO. one episode of an exciting TV program dedicated to debates on current affairs I watched in that a Japanese scholar cum celebrity, an Indian scholar, an (Anglo) American TV host, a Chinese general, a Chinese university researcher and a former 2nd artillery unit officer, all engaged in spirited but civil debates about the current state of politics and military buildups in the area. I was particularly impressed by the questions asked by the people in the audience. I challenge anyone anywhere can point me to one, even just one, open political debates in America that provides equal opportunity to both pro-China and anti-China voices in one setting.
More to the point, can the Diplomat ever provide and produce equal number of pro as well as anti-China articles? Currently, articles on the Diplomat are overwhelmingly and unabashedly anti-China.
America has a free press, but Americans’ political minds are closed. You tell me what’s the use of freedom if your minds are closed.
EAM
I am not dismissing all think tanks as ideological driven vehicles for some agenda or the other. Nor am I suggesting that universities operate devoid of political biases. Still, there can be no substitute for quality university output – and I do not think that the survey of think tanks says that think tanks are a substitute for peer reviewed research produced by the university system. I also recommend that article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by George Packer on the breaking of America’s social contract in which he highlights the dark side of think tanks who push their agenda which he in part blames for the crisis that hit the US from 2008 onwards. A do however agree that what think tanks produce is generally more accessible and this is an area universities can do better at. I also agree that think tanks are better in their output than what journalists produce. I also agree that the Diplomat could do better in publishing more that tells that Chinese point of view.
Passerby
@EAM
“…there can be no substitute for quality university output…”
This is a claim and not a proof. Where’s the proof? I am not aware of any university research that provides any proof that peer reviewed journals have a better quality than think tank publications. Instead, check with MIT, they did produce a research that demonstrates that most university research is junk.
“…I do however agree that what think tanks produce is generally more accessible and this is an area universities can do better at…”
Universities can never ever produce research that is accessible. If a research report is written in an accessible format and style, it will never be called a university research and will never get published by an academic journal. University research and accessibility are mutually exclusive by definition.
In fact, most universities are moving toward a parallel think tank organization and they can only do it outside of the faculty – by establishing ‘institues’ or “centres” where they can be free of the constraint of having to appoint faculty and have the freedom to appoint fellows without corresponding academic tenure and without academic ranks and they don’t have to publish in academic journals. Instead, think tank style of research is most popular and accepted.
Asking the Diplomat to be fair to the Chinese point of view – it’s hopeless, utterly hopeless. The Diplomat is trying to brand itself as an anti-China hot house; can’t blame them, it’s a business.
EAM
“most university research is junk”.. that is a big call! and patently not true in my own area of specialisation. And just to set the record straight, I am not employed by a University but work in the private sector. And when I need expert material, my best bet is generally to look to peer reviewed university output, not think tanks. And our best experience with knowledge collaboration comes from teaming up with Universities, not think tanks. I have no academic research to back up what I say – only experience from the coal face.
I am also not saying that all think tanks are substandard or suspect. Some are very good – one which I support (including financially) which happily gets honourable mention in the survey in question.
“Universities can never ever produce research that is accessible”. Some truth in this but this is not relevant to quality and depth. If that is what you are looking for, you need to do the hard yards and read “inaccessible” writings from universities. No pain, no gain.
“In fact, most universities are moving toward a parallel think tank organization and they can only do it outside of the faculty” This is good direction. A think tank that has the backing and access to the output of a reputable university will probably do better than one that does not.
“Asking the Diplomat to be fair to the Chinese point of view – it’s hopeless, utterly hopeless. The Diplomat is trying to brand itself as an anti-China hot house; can’t blame them, it’s a business”.
I found the diplomat website blocked in China. Is it a good business decision to take a direction that cuts you off from a market of that size…:)
Passerby
@EAM
“…I found the diplomat website blocked in China. Is it a good business decision to take a direction that cuts you off from a market of that size…:)…”
The publication’s strategy makes perfect sense to me. Because you position yourself strategically in the mind of the customer base that will actually pay you. Look at their business model carefully and you will see that it actually is an advantage for being blocked in China in this case.
danddee
I agree, and if you consider the sorry state the U.S is in, you would come to the conclusion that their think tanks aren’t worth much, or are a waste of personnel who should be out there having a political effect on things.
Perhaps that may be why the U.S is a leader in think tanks. Unable to actually do smart things, they instead write and think about doing smart things. Actions speak louder than words.
Tony
Most of the institutions in India are either decade old empty and hollow in their thinking like the Gandhian dynasty..or just mushroomed out of nowhere because it was watered by the recent economic boom.. So to reach a level of quality and to compared India is far behind all the top 30 institutions..
Gurmeet Kanwal
I would like to invite the author to visit the website of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi: http://www.claws.in.
Devinder Sharma
If the US/EU think-tanks, Business Schools, Management Institutes, Harvard/Stanford/Cambridge universities etc, were so good I see no reason why the world should be faced with a terrible economic crisis, and also its worst food crisis? Why should the land, water and air be severely contaminated and in most cases virtually destroyed? Why is the world staring ahead to a tripping point given the unchecked rise in global temperatures?
The tragedy is that wise voices/analysis is in reality missing from our thinking. We only follow the mainline economic agenda, and all efforts of the think-tanks, barring a few exceptions, is to refrain from challenging the mainline economic thinking. This is NOT the way it should be.
The world has pumped in US $ 20 trillion after the economic meltdown of 2008-09. Given that another economic meltdown stares ahead this year, I shudder to think what will be the stimulus package this year? If we had good think-tanks giving the right prescription, things wouldn’t have deteriorated to this extent. You can go on listing and ranking the best think-tanks globally, the fact remains they all are mediocre. They don’t inspire anymore.
Dr Sheo Nandan Pandey
Think Tanks Row
I wonder why one should get excercised over X country figuring in the list and Y not. India has been a bastion of Think Tanks for millenia. How many people around the world have access to their works and name? People talk of Sunzi in China and Clausewitze in France as strategists of the yesterepoch. People do not know there have been works in the field in prior to them in those very country. When it comes to India, the most knowledgeable ones stop with Kautilya. How many know that the work of Kautilya had its predecessors dating back to millenia and millenia? The same is true even for the time of our epoch.Let us not waste time on trivials.One of my European publisher informed me that the readership of their journal was 2.6 million and 30 percent of them rated some of my papers among first 5 read articles. I wondered how did it matter. Let us do our job and leave the world to wonder. This is by way of appeal and kindly understand me.
Sincerely yours,
Dr Sheo Nandan Pandey
Saikrishna
I would beg to disagree with the article. The space available for the think tanks is very low in the policy arena. Given this major constraint, they are still doing good work. I can cite two which i particularly like !
1) http://idsa.in
2) http://www.icrier.org/
E Mariner
The cause as always is the tendency of the Indian bureaucracy to take over all functioning institutions and ensure their demise by planting the bureaucrats with no previous experience in the field at the apex level. These bureaucrats (Indian bureaucrats have been ranked the worst by various surveys) have similarly taken over think tanks and ruined them. One of the most indecisive bureaucrat headed the largest think tank for over six years, without any prior experience in academia. His feudal mindset ensured steady decline of this fine institution. Indian politicians need to take more interest on these think tanks and people must be appointed based on merit rather that their positions in the bureaucracy. Hopefully as the powers of the bureaucrats are clipped, things will improve.
bisweswor
it is not surprise of not getting position in the list. These days we are opening colleges without vision, it is just number compromising the quality of inputs requires. Most of the colleges are out of required students and even in many cases students are passed out of campus without basic knowledge on the course. Opening of institutions is not to teach rather making profit! and we can find number of top gears seating and leading institutions without any academia experience. Either they were leading some corporate making profit for the company or if it is a govt. institute, some bureaucrat will come, of whom most have experience in fields other than academia…