Today’s email from Crikey includes a note from Christian Kerr about last week’s 30th Anniversary dinner for Sydney-based think tank, The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS). I also attended the grand gathering, but this is how Christian reports it:
I‘ve been to many gatherings of the great and good, but I’ve never attended such a high calibre function as the Centre for Independent Studies’ 30th anniversary dinner in Sydney last week.
More than 600 guests crammed into the ballroom of the old Regent down on George Street – some of the most powerful and influential men and women in Australia.
The Prime Minister spoke, but it was the comments of the Centre’s founder and chief executive, Greg Lindsay, that were most interesting:
You’d be amazed at the range of think tanks that exist worldwide. Take just one example, the Albanian Liberal Institute. What does Albania conjure up in your minds? One image I have is the super highway from the airport as described by PJ O’Rourke. I think it was eight lanes. What a highway. Trouble was, it went for only 300 metres.
Albanians wish to be neither the butt of jokes nor the poor relation on the continent any longer. A think tank is an important part of the new world for them. The institute there has a staff of three and a budget of $50,000. The three main principles that it promotes are individual rights, the market economy and the open society. Sound familiar? It should, and it’s exciting. That story, or something like it, is being told in almost every country in the world.
Indeed, if you visit the website of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, you’ll even find a DIY guide to starting a think tank of your own.Rivalry can be fierce. John Roskam, the head of the Institute for Public Affairs, was at the CIS do, but just a few blocks away Gerard Henderson and the Sydney Institute were hosting a rival show. That was pretty spectacular, too. Their guest speaker wasn’t someone you hear from everyday – ASIO boss Paul O’Sullivan.
Think tanks are a $US500 million industry worldwide. About $US300 million of this money goes to the United States think tanks, but the leftover is still significant.
Where does the money come from? Lindsay doesn’t name the CIS’s donors. In response, however, he points out that the CIS doesn’t accept government funds or undertake specially commissioned, “tied”, research. Funding is an issue for think tanks worldwide. A wide range of donors is needed to maintain independence, and for differentiation.
It’s easy to see how think tanks can become second-class agents of business. And it’s also easy to see how potential donors want think tanks to be virgin wh*res – how they fancy their purity of thought but want them to take the money and get dirty.
Interestingly, though, the global trend amongst think-tanks of the centre-right appears to be for a majority of funding to come from private individuals, not corporates.
The CIS has 24 staff and an annual budget of $2.5 million. As Lindsay said on the night, it has provided “words which have helped define the contemporary language of public debate”. To continue its work, a fund was launched on the night with the aim of raising $10 million. The money is already coming in.
Entrepreneurship in ideas is clearly booming – but it appears that the details of donors will be one subject the think tanks are silent on.”
There is often comment at this blog about my being an employee of the much smaller think tank, The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). What amazes me is the extent to which there seems to be a general ignorance of why people like me work for the IPA and enjoy a meal with people from the CIS.
Like Greg Lindsay, I agree that there is a need to promote individual rights, the market economy and the open society. These things don’t come naturally.
What should also be abundantly obvious is that people who work for think thanks tend to be fiercely independent by nature and will question those who seek to impose top down regulatory approaches on principle.
Of course such regulation is usually pushed by organisations that claim to be working for the public good, organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Greenpeace and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but as George Orwell reminds us, “Saints should be presumed guilty until proven innocent”.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“What amazes me is the extent to which there seems to be a general ignorance of why people like me work for the IPA and enjoy a meal with people from the CIS.”
Why does it amaze you? I can’t find out who sponsors the IPA, so of course its understandable that I am ingnorant of why you would work for the IPA.
“Saints should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.”
Indeed.
So who funds the saintly IPA then? If the IPA and other think tanks were more open about this, perhaps there would be less ignorance of the motives of the indivduals who work for think tanks.
Mike Nahan the IPA director, was quoted in this article here: http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/08/11/1060588322537.html
“Accountability should be important for think tanks, says Nahan, which is why he says the IPA intends for the first time to publish a full list of sponsors and contributions in next year’s annual report.”
I couldn’t find a list of sponsors in said annual report on the IPA website. Could you provide this info?
Lastly, regarding the implications in your post that ‘fiercely independent’ = good, and regulation = bad, I would encourage readers to ponder those thoughts while reading Mike Nahan’s comments on smoking in the smh article i linked.
I agree that it would be best if there was total disclose.
But my understanding is, that experience has shown, some of the haters of liberty just relentlessly go after those who fund organisations such as the IPA and CIS.
What is evident is that we are funded primarily by individuals and corporations.
And as I have indicated in the above post, what individuals like myself may share with big business, is a belief that top down regulation, is not always a good idea.
you are kidding jennifer….
I would love to know whos paying your way at the ipa…..
ol story he who pays the piper calls the tunes.
damn right i want to know who is paying your dinner>?
i don’t dance to pipers and i don’t have a list of funders. you guys should re-read christian’s and greg’s comments above.
Who pays for your dinner con? Somebody finances you so that you may enjoy a certain standard of living which also allows you to be fed, clothed and housed and to comment here. Obviously you are either
1. living off charity or
2. exchanging goods and/or services for money
if it is the govt who finaces you then where do they get their money from con? let me answer that one for you – the taxpayer, con
And who are taxpayers con? – those that make money con, losers dont pay tax, con.
If you wanted to be fair con, you should make known your source of revenue so that we may pick over it and form opinions. You have omitted that small detail so I have assumed that your mother continues to be very kind. As always.
Jennifer doesn’t get paid for blogging. She does get paid by IPA. What Jennifer writes is there for all to see and debate. A strong debater will argue matters on their merits. A weak debater will claim that the way she is paid is a problem.
I agree with what you say Siltstone.
However, a theme of this post is Jennifer’s comparison of free-market think tanks with other NGOs, and her frustration with people not knowing what drives think tank employees. I think the coyness of think tanks in disclosing their sponsors is a key ingredient to this discussion, particularly given the George Orwell quote that Jennifer posted.
I agree it would be a weak debating point if IPA’s funding was constantly raised in other discussions e.g. on global warming.
Weak debaters also use exaggerated, emotive terms to label opponents e.g. “haters of liberty”.
I can’t remember who said ” first address the argument, then attack the motivation….”?
OTOH , some prefer to attack the perceived motivation as a way to avoid addressing the argument.
Would it be reasonable to dismiss any argument by Greenpeace for example on the basis that it was predominantly funded by lefties and was therefore not independent?
Obsessing about the funding of IPA and CIS seems to be part of a conspiratorial delusion.
Big list of assumptions there Rog.
I am closer to the average aussie than most of the people who post here.
I get up 5:20am six day a week.
Earning 42k per year and has 2 mouths to feed.
and i dont earn my dinner by arguing about theories..that think tanks exclusively do( the assumtions built into most of their literature qualify what they produce as theories ),you people think its not important where the monies coming from…
oh i get it all you right wing think tank supporters are so protective about what people pay you to print/disseminate. NOW just why is that?
Enough of this until you people that publish in the public sphere are willing to disclose who paid you to write ->insert anything<-…face it who is going to listen…..you will always be open to this form of attack…
almost like knocking on my door and when i ask who is it i get ….none of your business hmmmm
think about it
cheers con
ANF IF I FOLLOW JENNIFERS LOGIC ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS . BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Looks like Rog has made Con make clear Con’s hypocrisy.
Jen and all,
I strongly disagree with the notion that funding of the IPA should be disclosed. Disclosure only panders to people who launch ad hominem attacks. Why cooperate with the agenda of people like that?
And then, of course, opponents would target the funders themselves, just as animal rights whackos go after suppliers of Huntington Life Sciences.
In the interest of transparency, European governments disclose the locations of field trials of GM crops. The antis applaud transparency as though it’s a virtue in itself, but what they really want to do with the information is locate the field trials and destroy them.
When so-called “civil society” refuses to be civil and restrict themselves to civil discourse, the best way to get them to focus on relevant facts is to refuse to give them anything else to work with.
But the bottom line is, there exists no moral or practical justification for disclosure of funding sources of those who are not elected public officials.
Schiller.
Thats right schiller..good one.
so if anyone gives you money to selectively quote facts and use dubious assumptions to support their arguments like for example….
Pure heroin is safe ..you say that not only is it not important who disclose who financed such study, you actually say i would not have a right to know.
ummmm hellooooo!!
Con,
You are exactly right! It is, indeed, possible to spot someone’s faulty reasoning without knowing how they pay their rent!
Schiller.
“…the Federal Government has appointed the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) to audit how NGOs lobby or work with government departments. …
The IPA has published a series of papers calling for greater disclosure and accountability by NGOs receiving funding from and working with Government agencies. The IPA’s position is that NGOs represent a challenge to elected governments in democracies, because the electorate has no direct control over these organisations, their activities or finances.”
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/CIB/2003-04/04cib05.htm#review
Animal Rights Literature
Literature Searches and IARL has educated the public about animal abuse and the right of animals to be treated with respe…