You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
One of the distinctive features of the United States as a polity is the outsize role that think tanks, foundations, philanthropists, nonprofits and advocacy groups play in shaping political discourse and public policy. These entities exist across the political spectrum, from the Roosevelt Institute and the Brookings Institution on the left to the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation on the right. Also influential are nonpartisan research institutions like the Pew Research Center and the Arnold Foundation.
These organizations not only generate the ideas, catchphrases and policy proposals embraced by politicians, but they also shape the Overton window—the range of acceptable policy possibilities and terms of debate.
Large foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, fund research and initiatives aligned with their missions, directing attention and resources toward specific issues. Often, think tanks serve as “idea factories” for political parties and government officials, with their research forming the basis for legislation or executive action. These organizations frequently collaborate in networks or coalitions to amplify their influence.
While these entities bring expertise, resources and attention to important issues, driving innovation and informed debate, the concentration of influence among a few large organizations can narrow the policy agenda, limit the diversity of ideas and potentially skew public discourse in favor of specific interests.
In other words, these entities exert an invisible hand. They’re the unseen forces driving American politics, as the policy blogger Matthew Yglesias has put it.
To say that private interests play an outsize role in shaping public discourse isn’t just to claim that private wealth shapes policy, sidelining democracy—though that often happens.
Rather, the political agenda and discourse are largely crafted by unseen architects who operate outside normal political accountability, sidelining broader public voices. The reliance on think tanks and philanthropic foundations to set policy agendas underscores the privatization of political influence, raising concerns about the accountability and transparency of democratic decision-making and challenging democratic governance, as private groups increasingly drive public decisions.
While they are often seen as neutral contributors, the power of think tanks and philanthropists over political discourse underscores the growing sway of private interests in national governance.
As Senator Elizabeth Warren has noted, “personnel is policy.” Similarly, nonprofits largely drive the discourse. Although the public sometimes pushes back on ignored issues—like the response to the “China shock”—the parameters of political thought in the U.S. are largely set by think tanks, foundations, philanthropists and their grantees, complicating the pursuit of a truly democratic process.
Outsourcing the shaping of the political landscape to these entities has both benefits and drawbacks. Certainly, think tanks and foundations bring together experts with deep knowledge, leading to policy proposals that might be overlooked by government bodies.
Unlike elected officials, who tend to focus on short-term gains, these entities can concentrate on long-term challenges like climate change, crucial for addressing systemic issues. With financial resources to fund research, pilot projects and advocacy, philanthropists and foundations can develop innovative solutions that cash-strapped government agencies cannot produce.
However, unlike elected officials, philanthropists and think tanks are not directly accountable to the public. Their agendas are often shaped by donors or political interests, leading to policy recommendations that align with those interests rather than impartial analysis, skewing priorities and marginalizing less financially backed or politically aligned voices.
Outsourcing policymaking can reduce state capacity by eroding internal expertise, weakening the state’s ability to analyze issues, formulate policies and respond effectively to challenges. The state may become constrained by external agendas, limiting its autonomy.
This practice also fragments policymaking, with various think tanks and foundations influencing different aspects of policy, leading to reduced direct democratic accountability and weakened policy legitimacy.
Outsourcing policymaking is yet another form of privatization, where public policy is increasingly shaped by private interests instead of public servants accountable to the electorate. As a result, government research departments and policy analysis units have been downsized, losing their ability to act as effective watchdogs.
What concerns me most is this: When a few large foundations or influential think tanks dominate the policy landscape, it can severely limit political discourse and diversity of ideas. This concentration of power often leads to rigid partisan divisions, reducing the chances for consensus and downplaying heterodox approaches to policy solutions.
When policymaking is primarily influenced by a small number of powerful foundations and think tanks, the range of perspectives in public discourse is often constrained by their agendas and priorities. These organizations may promote a narrow set of policy options aligned with their specific ideological orientations, making it difficult for alternative approaches, especially those challenging the prevailing orthodoxy, to gain traction.
The dominance of a few large players also exacerbates partisan divisions. When these organizations align closely with specific political parties or movements, they entrench rigid ideological positions, making compromise and consensus-building more difficult. The result is a more polarized political landscape focused on defeating opposition rather than collaborating on broadly acceptable solutions.
This concentration of power can stifle the emergence of heterodox ideas—those that deviate from mainstream thinking or offer unconventional solutions. Organizations may be reluctant to support or fund ideas that challenge the status quo or alienate their established networks, leading to an intellectual environment where innovation is discouraged and policy debates become stagnant.
The concentration of influence among a few think tanks and foundations can create a policy monoculture, where a limited number of ideas, methodologies and frameworks dominate the discourse. This monoculture can crowd out diverse approaches to problem-solving, diminish the richness of the policy debate and create a self-reinforcing cycle where certain ideas become entrenched simply because they are repeatedly promoted by influential actors, regardless of their actual effectiveness or relevance.
Today, much of the higher education policy debate focuses on a narrow set of issues: affordability, student debt, student mental health, Title IX and affirmative action in admissions to elite universities. Meanwhile, other significant issues remain largely overlooked:
- Graduation rates: With 30-40 percent of students at four-year institutions not graduating within six years, shouldn’t there be greater accountability for improving completion rates?
- Educational quality: How can we ensure that all students receive a high-quality education with substantive interaction with subject matter experts and active engagement? Shouldn’t all faculty receive instruction in pedagogy, and shouldn’t online courses adhere to best practices and be closely monitored for quality?
- The role of community colleges: Community colleges are vital for access to higher education but face challenges in enrollment, funding, retention and transfer rates. With a fifth of community college students still in high school, what should be their mission?
- College transfer: How can we improve transfer rates from two-year to four-year institutions and ensure equal treatment for transfer students?
- Equity in access to high-impact practices: Opportunities like internships, undergraduate research and study abroad are linked to better outcomes, yet access is highly unequal. Ensuring fair access for all students, regardless of socioeconomic background, is essential.
- Treatment of adjunct faculty: Once a priority, the treatment of adjunct faculty has recently faded from policy discussions.
- International student policies: International students contribute significantly to campus finances. How can we ensure they receive the same support as American students, rather than being seen merely as a revenue source?
- Graduate student overproduction: The production of Ph.D. graduates far exceeds the availability of academic positions, leading to a saturated job market. Many master’s programs don’t provide a clear path to well-paying jobs, creating a situation where students take on debt for degrees that may not improve their career prospects.
In response, accreditors might require institutions to provide greater transparency about job placement rates, average time to degree and career training beyond academia. Programs could be restructured to better align with the job market, emphasizing interdisciplinary approaches and skills in high demand across various industries.
One of the battle cries of the 1960s was “participatory democracy”—a concept rooted in the belief that true democracy can only be realized when ordinary people actively engage in decision-making processes that affect their lives, whether in politics, workplaces, schools or communities. With its emphasis on citizen empowerment, political awareness, inclusivity and direct accountability, this was an inspiring ideal that challenged entrenched power structures.
However, as I grew older, the concept’s weaknesses grew more apparent. The complexity of policy issues often lies beyond the capacity of the public to make informed decisions. Reaching consensus and accommodating diverse viewpoints is difficult, and decisions driven by short-term popular sentiments can overlook long-term considerations or expert advice.
Outsourcing political agendas to think tanks, foundations, philanthropists, nonprofits and advocacy groups has its advantages, such as bringing expertise, passion and funding to crucial issues like climate change. It’s a kind of free market solution to discourse construction and policy formulation. But beyond elections, are there other ways to create a more inclusive, diverse and less partisan form of expertise to better shape policymaking? Here are some possibilities:
- Invest in the public sector: Build in-house expertise to reduce reliance on external think tanks and foundations, ensuring policy proposals are evaluated by a diverse set of experts within the public sector, with accountability and a broader mandate than privately funded interests.
- Promote greater transparency: Mandate clear disclosures of funding sources and potential conflicts of interest for think tanks, foundations and advocacy groups. This allows the public and policymakers to better understand the motivations behind certain policy proposals and evaluate them more critically.
- Conduct independent auditing: Rely more heavily on independent bodies to review the research and policy proposals put forth by privately funded entities, providing a more objective evaluation of their merits.
- Support public research institutions: Strengthening public research institutions and universities can create a robust counterbalance to private think tanks and foundations, offering independent, nonpartisan research to inform policymaking.
- Foster bipartisan and nonpartisan initiatives: Encourage the development of organizations specifically designed to foster bipartisan collaboration to reduce the partisan divide in policy discussions, focusing on finding common ground and generating proposals with broad support across the political spectrum.
- Establish neutral forums for debate: Create forums where experts from various political backgrounds can debate and discuss policy proposals openly, ensuring different perspectives are considered and the best ideas, regardless of origin, are brought to the forefront.
- Promote evidence-based policymaking: Develop standardized metrics and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness and impact of policy proposals, ensuring that all are held to rigorous standards.
- Encourage long-term impact studies: Support longitudinal studies that assess the long-term outcomes of implemented policies, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the real-world impact of different proposals and helping refine future policymaking.
To create a more inclusive, diverse and less partisan form of expertise, it’s essential to foster collaboration, transparency and accountability while strengthening governmental expertise and promoting civic engagement. Adopting these strategies can ensure that policy formulation is guided by a broad spectrum of ideas, grounded in evidence, free from undue political influence and reflective of the public’s best interests.
In an era where the lines between expertise and partisanship often blur, the challenge lies in fostering a new kind of knowledge creation—one that transcends ideological divides, embraces the richness of diverse perspectives and is truly pragmatic, stressing efficacy and empirical results.
To achieve this, we must cultivate a culture of inclusivity where expertise is not monopolized by a select few. By encouraging collaboration across ideological and demographic lines and prioritizing transparency and accountability in the production of knowledge, we can build a foundation of trust that empowers citizens and policymakers alike. Ultimately, the strength of our democracy depends not just on the quality of our experts, but on our collective ability to act with the common good in mind.
It’s time to reclaim expertise as a unifying force, one that guides us toward solutions that are more encompassing, effective and evidence-based.
The current political discourse often narrows its focus to a limited set of issues that dominate the headlines and public imagination, leaving many equally important topics underexplored. This creates an imbalance in policy shaping and discussion. While hot-button issues receive extensive attention, other critical areas are overlooked or given only superficial consideration.
This narrowing of focus is often driven by partisan agendas. As a result, public discourse becomes polarized, with each side of the political spectrum entrenched on a select few issues, leaving little room for nuanced discussion or bipartisan cooperation on a broader range of topics.
To counter this, we need a more inclusive approach to analysis and policy development—one that brings a wider array of issues into the conversation and encourages their examination from multiple perspectives. This also involves creating spaces where experts from various fields can collaborate across ideological divides, contributing to policy recommendations that are informed by a rich diversity of thought and less susceptible to partisan manipulation.
By broadening the scope of our political discourse and ensuring it includes a wider range of issues and perspectives, we can develop more holistic and effective policy solutions. This approach would not only enhance the quality of governance but also build a more informed and engaged citizenry capable of making decisions that reflect the full complexity of our society’s needs. Ultimately, a political discourse that is inclusive and less partisan is essential for addressing the myriad challenges we face and fostering a healthier, more resilient democracy.
