GLOBALIZATION, THINK-TANKS AND POLICY TRANSFER

STELLA LADI ([email protected]) Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy ELIAMEP/GREECE

Paper presented in the World Bank Conference of the Global Development Network Bonn, Germany 5-9 December 1999

1

INTRODUCTION

Consider two definitions of globalization given by potential agents of policy transfer:

Globalization for me is now the most important word. We can speak about turning the total world into a small village. There are no more boundaries, there is more dialogue, more collaboration, less barriers, less racism, less cultural clash. (Mohammed Rhamini, Moroccan Social Work Camps, Interview, 15th of March 1998) Immigrants are not interested in globalization. They have so many problems and they aren´t interested in what is happening outside. People don´t have clothes and food. Globalization is the magic word, and globalization is the last thing as poverty increases. Globalization can only be in Western Europe and in USA. (Ekrem Karadeniz, Studenten Unie Nederland, Interview, 30th of June 1998) There is a growing academic interest in processes of policy transfer (eg Bennett and Howlett, 1992; Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996) and in the phenomenon of globalization (eg Cerny, 1996; Waters, 1995) but little work has been done to link the two literatures. The investigation of this intellectual gap constitutes the theoretical subject of this paper and the basis for an empirical research project which explores the relationship between these phenomena. The paper further focuses on the role of think tanks as agents of policy transfer and thereby explores a further limitation in the existing literature; the absence of a systematic discussion of think tanks as a key agent of policy change. Furthermore, the focus of the empirical study upon the role of a European think tank, the International Dialogues Foundation (IDF), also constitutes a new dimension in this field of research, as much of the existing literature is concerned with American think tanks (Stone, 1996a).

The argument is organised into two parts. In part one the term ’globalization’ and its relationship with the concepts of policy convergence and/or divergence is discussed and an attempt is made to integrate them with the policy transfer literature. Think tanks are then defined and their role in a policy transfer

2

network assessed. The second part of the paper engages in empirical analysis and is divided into two sections. The first section provides a contextual introduction to the IDF and its political environment. The Bonn Conference, which was organised by the IDF, and the first steps towards the implementation of its outcomes are then outlined. The analysis section then attempts to empirically test the validity of the hypotheses identified in part one, in light of the findings drawn from the case study.

GLOBALIZATION AND POLICY TRANSFER

GLOBALIZATION: A PROCESS OF CONVERGENCE AND/OR DIVERGENCE

Globalization is a term that is widely used within the social science literature. Each discipline emphasises different aspects of the phenomenon, but there is common agreement across these literatures that further analysis of the phenomenon is required. In international relations, political science and economics the focus of analysis centres on the role of the state. Some see it as withering away and being replaced by a new form in the organisation of human society (e.g. Held, 1991, 1996). Others claim that there is nothing new in the process and that the state is not withering away (e.g. Hirst and Thompson, 1996; Harman, 1996). Among them one can find writers (e.g. Anderson, 1995: 65-106) arguing that we are facing a phenomenon of regionalisation and not of globalization. Somewhere in the middle stand writers such as Cerny (1996,1997, 1998) who claim that the state isn’t withering away, but its functions and structures are changing in a more globalized world. Others take a more uni-dimensional approach and emphasise factors such as gender (Kofman and Youngs, 1996). The terms globalization, internationalisation and transnationalisation are often used interchangeably within the literature. Internationalisation can be used in the same way as globalization, but it can also

3

refer to a previous ’stage’ of globalization. Hirst and Thompson (Hirst and Thompson, 1996; Hirst, 1997) argue that the economy is highly internationalised, but not globalized. Transnationalisation is also an elusive concept. McGrew (1992), for example, asserts that “transnational relations describe those networks, associations or interactions, which cut across national societies, creating linkages between individuals, groups, organizations and communities within different nation-states” and he differentiates them from transgovernmental relations. For the purpose of this paper the term globalization is used in the way Cerny (1997: 2) defines it:

Globalization is quite simply the sum total of the wide range of political, economic and social processes of transnationalisation and internationalisation taking place in the world today. Or, in other words, according to Axford (1995: 26):

Globalization is just a convenient term for the multi-dimensional processes by which the global system is being made. But how can we conceptualise and study the processes of globalization? It is argued that a plausible and useful way to disaggregate the phenomenon of globalization is to analyse it in terms of convergence and/or divergence. The question of whether different societies are converging or diverging is not a new one. Contemporary discussion, which began in the 1960s, was normatively driven and was not directed towards an interpretation of reality (e.g. Tinbergen, 1959). The concepts of convergence and divergence were associated with processes of industrialisation (Kerr et al., 1973) and later on with processes of modernisation (Inkeles, 1981). The question of convergence and divergence has recently reappeared, but this time the framework has shifted from industrialisation and modernisation to internationalisation and globalization (e.g. Cerny, 1996, Berger and Dore, 1996 and Unger and Van Waarden, 1995).

4

Although the issue of convergence and divergence is an old one, little has been done to investigate these phenomena empirically. This paper focuses on policy convergence and divergence as part of a broader discussion about convergence/divergence. Policy convergence, and consequently policy divergence, are understood in Bennett’s (1991: 215-233) terms, which means that they include a vast spectrum of outcomes, such as convergence of policy goals, content, instruments, outcomes and styles. These possible categories of policy convergence or divergence are seen as guidelines and not as an exhaustive list. More should be done in the field in relation to the analysis of actual mechanisms of policy convergence/divergence and one pathway to achieve this is to study the relationship between policy transfer and globalization. The next section provides a sketch of that conceptual relationship.

GLOBALIZATION AND POLICY TRANSFER

Policy transfer as a general framework has been developed by Dolowitz and Marsh (1996) to include concepts such as policy diffusion, emulation, policy learning and lesson drawing. One of the weaknesses in the existing literature on policy transfer is the lack of an examination of linkages with the globalization discourse. Dolowitz (1998) made the first attempt to establish and explore this link. He argues that it is necessary to consider policy transfer processes in relation to the globalization literature in order to demonstrate the importance of the role of the state within that framework. His central claim is that the globalization literature doesn’t discuss the role of the state. Unfortunately the claim lacks precision. Cerny (1996, 1997, 1998), for example, discusses the economic, political and cultural effects of globalization on the changing structures and functions of the state. Further research concerning the political dimension of globalization and its linkage with the policy transfer discussion wouldn’t necessarily lead political scientists to draw more conclusions about the importance of the role of the state in that framework. The actors involved in policy transfer processes are various and can be independent of the

5

state, as is the case, for example, with think tanks. The importance of the different actors involved in policy transfer is an empirical question and a linkage with the globalization debate could offer a broader perspective on the problem.

A shorter but more profound discussion of the link between globalization and policy transfer is provided by Evans and Davies (1998). They argue that the policy transfer approach operates at the meso-level of analysis, but in order to develop valid conclusions, it is necessary to link the level of analysis with questions at the macro and micro-levels. For them the question of policy transfer is a question of structure and agency. Policy transfer should therefore be discussed within the broader framework of globalization. Processes of globalization act as a facilitator of policy transfer because they increase the opportunities for policy transfer. At the same time, however, policy transfer facilitates processes of globalization through the creation of structures such as the EU. If globalization is understood as both convergence and divergence, processes of globalization can be empirically investigated through the study of convergence and divergence.

Cerny (1997: 263-274) describes globalization as a complex “process, practice and discourse”, which is responsible for both convergence and divergence. Convergence can be seen, for example, through the manner in which the state is organised in order to gain advantages in the global economy in areas such as economic policy. At the same time, divergence can be observed because not all states react in the same way to the pressures of globalization. The way a state competes depends, for example, on its history and its level of economic development. If Unger and Van Waarden’s (1995) argument that policy learning is one of the mechanisms through which convergence occurs is expanded, then policy transfer can be seen as one of many mechanisms through which globalization occurs. For example, it can be seen in terms of developing information and communication networks (Cantwell, 1992) or in terms of global

6

economic integration which has led governments to seek common solutions to common problems - such as the ’new public management’ (Dunleavy, 1994). Thus, policy transfer may be viewed as a consequence of processes of globalization. However, it may also be viewed as a process of globalization itself in that the dissemination of ideas and programmes between countries and between supra-national institutions may be leading to a convergence of the political landscape. It might be argued that such convergent landscapes then provide opportunities for further policy transfers, resulting in a virtuous, or a vicious circle of cause and effect. On the other hand, if negative lessons are drawn (Rose, 1991; 1993; Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996) then non-transfers may conceivably result in policy divergence of the kind identified by Cerny (1997).

In summary, the main hypothesis which is derived from this section is that: Policy transfer represents a mechanism of globalization, leading to convergence/divergence of institutions, policies and paradigms which provide further opportunities for policy transfer to occur. In order to specify and to empirically test the above hypothesis this paper places a special emphasis on the way think-tanks act as agents of policy transfer in a globalized environment. Their role can be better understood through the lens of the globalization literature, where transnational relations and the spread of ideas are more broadly discussed.

DEFINING WHAT THINK-TANKS ARE AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITIES

THE DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THINK-TANKS

7

In policy transfer literature the dissemination of ideas and the diffusion of knowledge are important issues, and agents such as think tanks are expected to play a central role. As is common with many of the terms used in social science there are many definitions of what constitutes a think tank (Stone, 1996: 10-13).

One way to define a think tank, is to identify what a think tank is not. A think tank is different from interdisciplinary university units and from philanthropic foundations which have as one of their activities, the funding of research. They are also different from advocacy groups, interest groups, pressure groups and lobby groups as they have a much more limited membership, they don't take part in lobbying and they are primarily interested in research (Grant, 1995: 9-10). And finally, they are different from government advisory organisations, because they claim to be independent (Stone, 1996: 12-14). In this paper the term 'think-tank' is used to describe: Organisations which are distinct from government, which have an objective to provide advice on a diverse range of policy issues through the use of knowledge and networking.

Stone (1996:14-16) sets up some criteria in order to identify think tanks. These criteria are as follows: i) Organisational independence and permanence, which means that they usually have a charity or nonprofit status and they are independent from governmental or corporate interests. At the same time they have a permanent presence. Independence cannot easily be defined and for this and other reasons is difficult to observe. Furthermore it is necessary to establish whether by independence we mean administrative independence (McGann, 1995: 3), intellectual independence (James, 1993: 493-494) or finally financial independence (Stone and Garnett, 1998: 4). We usually observe partial independence, and it is very difficult to find organisations which can claim total independence. It is possible, for

8

example, that an organisation which cannot claim administrative independence because it is funded by the government, is intellectually more independent than an organisation which is financially dependent on a political party. In any case, the issue of independence should not be included within a general definition of think-tanks. ii) The self determination of the research agenda. It is interesting to note that even if organisations state that they are independent, it is likely that funding criteria influences their agenda and sometimes even their findings (Gray, 1978: 181-182). iii) Policy focus. This refers to the objective of bringing knowledge and policy-making together, where possible, by informing and influencing the policy process. iv) Public purpose. Think tanks claim that their goal is to conduct research in order to inform the public and the government on how to improve public policy. v) The expertise and professionalism of research staff. This is the intellectual resource of institutes, but also a way of legitimising their findings. vi) The organisational yield of the institutes. This is research, analysis and advice, which comes in the form of various publications or of activities like conferences, seminars, workshops etc.

If we look at the above characteristics of think-tanks carefuly, they bring to mind some of the characteristis of non-profit organisations such as charitable organisations which I will refer to from now on as the third sector. The third sector has traditionally been seen as a positive aid to the society. Salamon (1994, 1995), however, identifies three main misapprehensions about the third sector. Firstly, there is the 'myth of pure virtue' which expects nongovernmental organisations to be very flexible and not to face organisational problems such as bureaucratisation. Secondly, there is the 'myth of voluntarism' which sees the third sector relying mainly on volunteers and views its relationship with the state as creating a conflict of interests. Then there is the 'myth of immaculate conception' which

9

conceptualizes the third sector as something completely new without any historical or ideological roots. To the above we have to add that third sector organisations are very often expected to be the most efficient and to have more know-how and experience than others (Aquina, 1992: 57-74). Finally, when we focus upon the advocacy organisations of the third sector, they are often seen as representing the public interest rather than narrow economic interests (Jenkins, 1987: 296). As Smith (1977: 254) argues scholars consider independence the most important factor in analysis because government is too busy, academia is too narrow and industry wants to sell. In this paper it is argued that think-tanks choose to resemble third sector organisations in order to gain the good reputation that these organisations have. But as Salamon (1994, 1995) has shown, most of these vitrues are nothing more than myths, and this is a factor that we should remember when we discuss the characteristics of think-tanks and all the more so when we expect them to act as independent agents within our political systems.

The role of think tanks in society has been described in different ways. Smith (1994) sees them as the answer to the decline of political parties and to the general change in the political environment. Cornford’s (1990) understanding of think tanks as brokers and mediators, however, seems more plausible. Think tanks don’t set out to replace political parties. Their main function is to accommodate the system by acting as mediators and by offering their knowledge resources in order to improve policies. In the next section, the relationship between think tanks and knowledge communities is discussed: knowledge has been identified as one of their main resources. KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITIES, THINK-TANKS AND PROCESSES OF LEARNING

Knowledge is one of the key concepts confronted by political scientists when discussing think-tanks and it is also seen as the main tool that think tanks use in order to influence public policy. The discussion of the relationship between knowledge, power and public policy is old and diverse. Gagnon (1990: 1-18)

10

distinguishes three different pathways within the literature. The first discusses the relationship between knowledge and power as part of a rationalistic paradigm, where the state, seeking help, turns to ’scientists’. The second locates an indirect relationship between knowledge and power, where knowledge is diffused and influences power as part of a ’common wisdom’. The third understands knowledge and power as organically related and tries to explain the emergence of other power centres such as think tanks.

In this paper think tanks are seen as possessors of knowledge and this places them at the centre of that part of the policy process which can be conceptualised as a knowledge community (Stone, 1996: 86-104). The notion of epistemic communities, which are networks of experts trying to influence policy change (Haas, 1989: 16), comes under this title. The problem with the notion of epistemic communities as a framework to understand the role of think-tanks is that it concentrates on knowledge elites which possess scientific expertise. It is, however, possible to have other kind of agents, for example groups without any kind of special knowledge representing oppressed people, interacting within the same framework. Another concept which can be linked to this discussion is the advocacy coalition framework (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1997). Epistemic communities and advocacy coalitions are closely related concepts. The similarity between the advocacy coalitions and the epistemic communities approach lies in the emphasis which is placed on the role of ideas and learning as central factors in policy change. The problem with this approach is that it is very detailed, and it appears to attempt to describe the process of policy change rather than explain it. Another concept which can be linked to, and which can be seen as particularly useful in understanding the role of think tanks in a policy transfer process, is the policy transfer network approach (Evans and Davies, 1998: 11-24).

The policy transfer network is a concept introduced in order to link the policy network approach,

11

especially Marsh and Rhodes' (1992) idea of a policy community to the notion of epistemic communities, and to the policy transfer phenomenon. The main difference between a policy transfer network and a policy community is that the first gives emphasis to the knowledge resources of the agents, while the latter focuses on their economic and political interests. The membership of a policy transfer network is closer to that of an advocacy coalition as the members of a network are expected to be from diverse backgrounds, and not restricted to possessors of scientific knowledge, as in the case in respect of epistemic communities. A policy transfer network is by nature ad hoc, and concerns a process of policy change via policy transfer (Evans and Davies, 1997: 15-17).

Evans and Davies (1998: 18-22) provide an illustrative sequence of stages for a voluntary policy transfer process and another one, with slight differences, for a coercive transfer. The role of think-tanks is discussed within that framework. The first stage includes the recognition of the existence of a problem in a particular policy area, which requires action to instigate change. The decision is taken by politicians or bureaucrats and it stipulates the emergence of a policy transfer network. The possible reasons for, and ways in which the decision is taken, are not discussed by the authors, these are important, however, as they could provide valuable information about the rest of the policy transfer process. Nevertheless, the different causes for decisions cannot easily be identified and there are many diverse ways in which a decision for policy change can emerge (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996), special consideration should therefore be given to each case. The role of think tanks in the recognition stage can be significant if they manage to influence the way in which the problem is defined and persuade decision-makers of the necessity to act.

The next step for the key agents is to search for new ideas, and this will happen if they feel that the existing ideas are not satisfactory. In a process of coercive transfer the main difference is that the agents

12

who try to impose the transfer, for example a government or the EU, play a very active role in these first stages. The search activity is considered to be central in the policy transfer process and it is very closely related to the next process which is the contact stage (Evans and Davies, 1998: 18-26). Think tanks could become important actors in the policy transfer process at that stage if they possess, or they say that they possess, the knowledge resources, and contacts with the knowledge elites (Stone, 1996: 14-16) which the agents of transfer are looking for. Think tanks, in their attempt to demonstrate their knowledge resources, will present their information resources by acting as an information feeder network. If the client is satisfied by the capacity which the think tank demonstrates, the next step will follow, and this may lead to the cognition, reception and emergence stages of the policy transfer network. The entrance of the think tank into the network doesn’t depend so much on its innovative ideas, but more upon whether or not it shares a common value system with the client. In the next stage, the think tank will have to provide detailed information about possible transfers. The policy transfer network is expected to act as a barrier of entry to ideas and programmes that are opposed to its value system (Evans and Davies, 1998: 18-26).

The following stage of interaction is of particular importance in the case of an agent of transfer such as a think tank: the think tank will organise forums for the exchange of ideas between the relevant actors in the form of conferences, seminars etc. After this stage, the evaluation process will start and the objects, degree and prerequisites of the transfer will be decided upon (Evans and Davies, 1998: 21). The final decision upon the transfer depends on the broader processes of policy change (Wolman, 1992). In order to occur it has to be successful in competition with other possible alternatives. The role of the think tank at this stage is expected to be rather limited, as they have already tried to persuade policymakers of the value of their proposals during the previous stages. The final decision will be made by politicians or bureaucrats. Finally, in order to have a complete picture of the policy transfer, the

13

implementation of the adopted policies or programmes should be considered (Evans and Davies, 1998: 21-22). Even at this last stage of the transfer, think tanks can be significant actors because they can offer their expertise during the establishment and implementation of policies or programmes.

To summarise, the main hypothesis which may be derived from this section is that: Think tanks are key agents for the dissemination of ideas thus of policy transfer in the international domain. Evans and Davies (1998) conception of a ´policy transfer network´ is a useful heuristic framework for analysing the role of think tanks as agents of policy transfer. In the empirical part of the paper, the hypotheses introduced in this section are tested through the study of the role of the IDF in the transfer of youth employment policy projects and ideas among European and Arab-Mediterranean countries.

CASE STUDY: THE IDF AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT POLICY1

THE FRAMEWORK

The IDF is an independent Dutch non-governmental organisation. It is supported by voluntary advisors and its finances are derived from project-related grants. Its decision-making body is the General Board, which has recently developed an international character by including members from various European and Arab-Mediterranean countries. Its key areas of activity include the organisation of conferences and the publication of documents and reports which mainly concern the dialogue between Islam and the West (IDF, February, 1998: 1). This case study concentrates on the projects that IDF developed for the youth target group.

The first European youth conference was held in 1995 and was entitled

’Intercreation: Islamic Youth in Europe’. The conference, which was held in Istanbul, concentrated on

14

general questions about Islamic and Western societies. A common call from the participants was for the next conference to be more practical.

The IDF’s profile conforms, in general, to the criteria Stone (1996: 14-16) sets out in order to identify a think tank. Firstly, the IDF is an independent organisation and has been in existence for ten years. The fact that it is independent is clearly stated in any form of information leaflet that it publishes (e.g. IDF, February 1998). Its truly independent, however, status can also be gleaned from the nature of its funding resources, which include not only a number of different bodies and institutes such as the EU and the Dutch government, but also apolitical private organisations. The second characteristic, which is very closely related to the first, is that the IDF largely determines its own research agenda. IDF keeps in mind the policies of the EU and of the government, but this does not mean that it is unable to maintain its own research agenda. Edu Willemse (Interview, 2nd of July 1998), the project co-ordinator of IDF, states: “a) we are independent and b) we keep in mind the criteria and the policy lines of our donors”. The third characteristic is that the IDF tries to influence, at least indirectly, the policy process. As both Edu Willemse (Interview, 2nd of July 1998) and Peter Idenburg (Interview, 2nd of July 1998) remark, they don’t expect to influence policy directly, but they think that policy-makers at least read IDF’s reports and this can provide them with a new perspective on certain issues. Fourthly, public purpose forms a crucial part of its rhetoric in the sense that dialogue is viewed as the main way to promote public awareness of issues such as Euro-Arab relations. Fifthly, its advisory board consists of a professional elite. Additionaly IDF possesses a good network of communications, which is in a sense, even more important than the possession of knowledge, because it facilitates the acquisition of knowledge, even from outside the organisation. Finally, the IDF acts through publications and conferences.

The political framework in which IDF works includes the Dutch political scene and the European Union

15

(EU), and can be described as friendly. The EU, because of its goals of a common market and of increasing the mobility of its workers, was forced to take action in the field of employment policy, at an early stage in its development, with the establishment of the European Social Fund. In 1994 the new employment Initiative was approved. It is composed of four main strands, which are ’Horizon’,’ NOW’, ’Youthstart’ and ’Integra’. The projects which apply for funding have to fulfill three main criteria; innovation, transnationality and multiple effect: “The objective of transnationality is to facilitate the transfer of expertise and dissemination of good practice between the Member States.”(Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, 1998). Finally, the Commission has announced ’Agenda 2000' which contains its proposals on the topic for the period 2000-2006 (EU, March 1998). Another element which is of interest for this case study is EU activity in the Mediterranean region. The EU, since 1991, has adopted a new Mediterranean policy with two central objectives: to develop economic ties between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and to promote cooperation between the Mediterranean countries (EU, 1998).

The Netherlands is one of the countries with the lowest rates of unemployment in Europe. Despite the fact that the overall situation appears satisfactory, however, there is still a large number of long-term unemployed people in Holland, especially amongst unskilled workers and immigrants. Policies are developed in accordance with the EU guidelines in order to further limit the unemployment rate (Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 1997). In Holland there are three main pathways which are followed in order to deal with the problem of youth unemployment (Interview, Van Vlerken, 29th of June 1998). The first is the decentralisation of policy-making and the use of opportunities for employment generated at a local level. The second route is named ’a chance for everyone’ and it guarantees that “every unemployed youngster will be offered a job before he has been unemployed for more than six months” (Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 1998: 8). The third pathway is to maintain a multi-

16

dimensional and interdepartmental approach to the problem.

THE BONN CONFERENCE AND ITS AFTERMATHS

The Bonn conference which was organised by the IDF, took place between the 13th and 15th of March 1998 and had as a theme ’Employment for Migrant Youth in Europe and Youth in the Emigration Countries’. The purpose of the conference, as stated in the invitation letter (IDF, 29th of January 1998), was that “youth employment projects will be presented and discussed in workshops in order to find under which circumstances these projects could also set up in other participating countries”. The conference was organised into two parts, the first part focussed on migrant youth within the EU, and the second on Arab/Mediterranean countries from where many immigrants originate. In summary, the aim of the conference was two-fold: to build alliances between the participating organisations and to exchange experiences in setting up youth employment projects.

The conference was sponsored by a range of different bodies, but as Edu Willemse notes (Interview, 15th of March 1998), 50 per cent of the whole budget was covered by the EU. The Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Dutch European Cultural Foundation, the Dutch Commission for Sustainable Development and Cooperation and the Robert Bosch Foundation also provided sponsorship. The main reasons that these institutions provide IDF with funding are that they consider solving the problem of youth unemployment to be essential and they approve of IDF´s methods which involve interaction between European and Arab-Mediterranean organisations. The participants at the conference came from a great diversity of backgrounds. Among them there were representatives from political youth organisations, immigrant organisations and NGOs, and a number of civil servants and entrepreneurs (IDF, 10th of March 1998). The conference organised six workshops, the aim of which was to prepare draft proposals

17

for new projects based on proposals presented by the co-ordinators of the workshops. A second aim was to build networks by establishing contacts between the participating organisations. The proposed projects have to be organised by a variety of participating countries depending on whether they are European or Euro-Mediterranean projects (IDF, 5th of March 1998: 2). The six workshops that functioned during the confernce were Continue Learning, Start-Up - Migrant Entrepreneurs in Europe, Youth Employment Assistance Company, Young Entrepreneurs, Work for Students and Academics and The Bridge Building Function of New Media.

In Bonn, it was decided that the IDF was going to organise a permanent European youth platform for employment in order to facilitate communication between organisations and the implementation of agreed projects. The IDF has proposed a Steering Committee which includes members from EU and Arab-Mediterranean countries who belong to a range of organisations (IDF, May 1998). A meeting of the Steering Committee took place in February 1999 in Holland. The tasks of the Steering Committee are to keep the network of organisations in contact, to look at the progress of the programmes adopted for implementation and to organise the third conference for the Spring of 2000 (Edu Willemse, Interview, 2nd of July 1998).

APPLICATION OF THE MODEL

In this section the policy transfer network model is applied to the case of IDF. It is argued that we have discovered a case of indirect coercive policy transfer because, on the one hand, the organisations were free to participate and to form partnerships during the conference, but on the other hand the nature of the projects adopted was largely influenced by the funding priorities of the EU, such as that of EuroMediterranean cooperation. As was noted during interviews with participants, it is mainly ideas that

18

have so far been transferred but a start has been made on the transference of projects. The degree of transfer is also difficult to identify before the implementation of the projects, In this respect the degree of transfer that has so far occurred, however, can be described as ’inspiration', which refers to a transfer of ideas. Therefore a degree of synthesis can be expected depending on each country’s individual characteristics (Veronie Willemars, Interview, 30th of June 1998). The main constraints upon policy transfer which where observed during the conference in Bonn are twofold: firstly, the proximity of the cultural environments of the actors involved, it was easier for European countries to exchange projects between each other rather than with Arab-Mediterranean countries, and secondly, the technological ability of the Arab-Mediterranean countries wishing to adopt a programme, this was particularly so in respect of the Internet project. Evans and Davies’ (1998) concept of a policy transfer network can be applied to the case of the IDF in order to systematise the analysis and to evaluate the validity of the model. In particular, the sequence of the stages of a voluntary policy transfer, as applied to the IDF case study, are summarised in Table 1. As the Table demonstrates, not all of the stages described by Evans and Davies can be observed in the case of the IDF, although this is anticipated by the authors who maintain that they are not making any claims about the rationality of the policy transfer process. An interesting point is that the stages of ’interaction’ and ’evaluation’ are distinguished with some difficulty in the case of the IDF, but this can be explained by the irrationality of the policy process. The above stages could have been collapsed into Table 1: The emergence and development of a voluntary transfer network: the case of the IDF The Process of Transfer

The Role of the EU or Dutch government

The Role of the IDF

1. Recognition

The EU and the Dutch government recognise the existence of the unemployment problem. The EU recognises the necessity of cooperation with Mediterranean countries.

As expected, the IDF does not play an important role at this stage.

2. Search

The EU searches indirectly for relevant agents through the establishment of funding programmes.

The IDF decides to take action in the field of youth employment policy and Mediterranean cooperation.

3. Contact

The EU and the Dutch government are passive.

The IDF contacts the EU to obtain funding.

4. Emergence of information feeder network

There is no evidence of the emergence of such a network at this point.

There is no evidence of the emergence of such a network at this point.

19

5. Cognition, reception and emergence of a transfer network

The EU and the Dutch government are persuaded of the capability of the IDF.

The IDF persuades the EU and the Dutch government that it is capable of action in relation to the problem. The IDF obtains funding for the organisation of the conference in Bonn. The transfer network began to emerge at this stage.

6. Elite and mobilisation

The EU and the Dutch government don't play a role at this stage.

The IDF mobilises its contacts in order to find suitable organisations for the policy transfer process.

7. Interaction

EU and Dutch Government representatives are present at the Bonn conference.

The interaction stage is the Bonn conference.

8. Evaluation

The EU, the Dutch government, and the governments of the participant countries are expected to play a significant role, in determining whether to adopt projects.

The evaluation stage started at the same time as the interaction stage, but it is still in progress as the transfer has not been completed

9. Decision

The EU, the Dutch government and the governments of the participant organisations are expected to play a significant role at this stage.

The IDF is not expected to play a role at this stage.

10. Implementation

This stage will be evaluated when decisions are taken by client organisations.

This stage will be evaluated when decisions are taken by client organisations.

cognitive

Source: Adapted from Evans and Davies (1998).

one in respect of this case study without weakening the analytical capability of the model. Finally, there are some issues such as the previous work of the IDF at the Istanbul conference, which are not easily analysed through the application of the policy transfer network model. This is because they are not part of the actual transfer process. In general, it can be maintained that the policy transfer network is a useful analytical framework when the particularities of the different agents and cases of policy transfer are taken into account. In the next section, some general conclusions are drawn and some of the weaknesses of the study are identified.

IN CONCLUSION

20

The first hypothesis outlined in the introduction suggested that policy transfer is a catalyst for the processes of globalization leading to policy convergence and/or divergence. The case study demonstrates that there is some evidence that the policy transfer which occurred will lead, in some cases, to policy convergence, and in others to policy divergence. Policy convergence is expected to occur between countries with a close cultural proximity, while policy divergence could occur in cases of cultural diversity. At this stage of the case study, no concrete conclusions can be drawn about policy convergence with regard to its role in educing further policy transfers. Nothwistanding this, it can also be said that the creation of a permanent youth platform for employment and the plan to organise a third conference in 2000 are likely to promote further policy transfer. In general it can be concluded, however, that the phenomenon of globalization and processes of policy transfer co-exist in a duality.

The study of the IDF indicates that think tanks can be key agents in the dissemination of ideas and thus of policy transfer in the international domain. At this stage of the case study there is clear evidence of a transfer of ideas, and it is arguable that this will provide opportunities for further policy transfer to occur, for example the transfer of concrete programmes. In order to generalise from this conclusion, however, a longitudinal examination of the IDF case needs to be made in order to allow us to provide a comprehensive study of all the different stages of policy making and implementation. Secondly, comparisons with other think tanks active in the field of youth employment policy should be undertaken, in order to highlight similarities and differences, and establish when the role of a think tank is decisive and when other agents play the primary role. Thirdly, youth employment policy in the countries which are the subject of transfer should be analysed, in order to provide a clear view of the policy and institutional environment, and its impact on the actions of the think tank and of the recipient organisations.

21

It can be seen from the attempt to apply the policy transfer network to the case of the IDF, that a perfect match does not exist between the two; the EU or the governments of the participant countries cannot be identified clearly as ’clients’. This suggests that the policy transfer network concept cannot adequately analyse the role of think tanks which can fulfill multiple roles in the process. On the other hand, however, it also suggests that the role of think tanks in the policy transfer process cannot always be clearly identified because there are numerous actors involved at the same time. In any case, the policy transfer network is a heuristic device, and as a result a perfect match was not expected to occur. It did prove to be a useful model, however, for pointing the way towards a more systematic analysis of the case study.

Another issue which needs to be further examined is that of knowledge as a central resource of think tanks. As is shown by the case study, knowledge is one of the ’commodities’ that think tanks have to offer. Equally important is their ability to point out where knowledge can be found by using their networking ability. Common knowledge and common attitudes to policy change are seen as the forces which bring the members of knowledge communities together. Is knowledge the most powerful tool of political actors in a globalized environment ? Or is it just rhetoric used in order to justify political decisions? This paper shows that knowledge has power in itself, but further research is needed to strengthen this argument. NOTES

1.For an account of the methodology employed in this research see S. Ladi (1998) "Globalization, Policy Transfer and Think-Tanks: the Case of IDF and Youth Employment Policy", Department of Politics, University of York. REFERENCES

22

ACADEMIC ARTICLES AND BOOKS: ANDERSON, J. (1995), “The Exaggerated Death of the Nation-State” in J. Anderson, Ch. Brook and A. Cochrane (eds.), A Global World? Re-ordering Political Space, Oxford: Oxford University Press and The Open University: 65-106. AQUINA, H. (1992), " A Partnership Between Government and Voluntary Organisations: Changing Relationships in Dutch Society" in B. Gidron, R. Kramer and L. Salamon (eds.), Government and the Third Sector, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers: 57-74. AXFORD, B. (1995), The Global System, Cambridge: Polity Press. BENNETT, C. and HOWLETT, M. (1992), “The Lessons of Learning: Reconciling Theories of Policy Policy Sciences 25: 275-294. BENNETT, C. (1991), “Review Article: What is Policy Convergence and What Causes it?” British Journal of Political Science 21: 215-233. BERGER, S. and DORE, R. (eds.), (1996), National Diversity and Global Capitalism, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. CANTWELL, J. (1992), “The Internationalisation of Technological Activity and its Implications for Competitiveness” in O. Granstand, L. Hakanson and S. Sjolander (eds.), Technology Management and International Business, Chichester: Wiley. CERNY, P. G. (1996) "Globalization and Other Stories: The Search for a New Paradigm for International Relations" International Journal 51, 4 (Autumn): 617-37. CERNY, P. G. (1997), "Globalization and Politics" , Swiss Political Science Review. CERNY, P. G. (1999), "Globalization, Governance and Complexity" in J. Hart and A. Prakash (eds.), Globalization and Governance (forthcoming). CORNFORD, J. (1990), “Performing Fleas: Reflections from a Think Tank”, Policy Studies 11, 4 (Winter): 22-30. DOLOWITZ, D. (1999), “Where’s the State ? The Political Process of Globalization”, in C. Hay and D. Marsh (eds.), Globalization and Governance, London: Macmillian (forthcoming) DOLOWITZ, D. and MARSH, D. (1996), “Who Learns from Whom?”, Political Studies, XLVI: 343357. DUNLEAVY, P. (1994), “The Globalization of Public Services Production: Can Government be ’Best Public Policy and Administration, 9.2, Summer: 36-65. EVANS, M. and DAVIES, J. (1999), “Understanding Policy Transfer: A Multi-level, Multi-disciplinary Public Administration (accepted and forthcoming). GAGNON, A.-G. (1990), “The Influence of Social Scientists on Public Policy” in S. Brooks and A.-G. Gagnon (eds.), Social Scientists, Policy and the State, New York: Praeger: 1-18. GRAY, C. (1978), “’Think Tanks’ and Public Policy”, International Journal 33, 1: 177-194. GRANT, W. (1995), Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain, New York: Harvester Wheatcheaf. HAAS, P. M. (1989), “Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Evolving Policies to Control International Organisation 43, 33: 377-403. HARMAN, C. (1996), "Globalization: a Critique of New Orthodoxy", International Socialism 73: 3-33. HELD, D. (1991), "Democracy and the Global System" in D. Held (ed.), Political Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press: 197-235. HELD, D. (1996), Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press. HIRST, P. (1997), “The Global Market and the Possibilities of Governance”, paper presented in Globalization-Critical Perspectives, University of Birmingham, 14-16 March 1997. HIRST, P. and THOMPSON G. (1996), Globalization in Question, Cambridge: Polity Press. 23

INKELES, A. (1981), “Convergence and Divergence in Industrial Societies” in M. Attir, B. Holzner and Z. Suda (eds.), Directions of Change, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press: 3-38. JAMES, S. (1993), "The Idea Brokers: the Impact of Think-Tanks on British Government", Public Administration, 71: 491-506. JENKINS, C. (1987), "Nonprofit Organisations and Policy Advocacy" in W. Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector, New Haven and London: Yale University Press: 296-318. KERR, C., DUNLOP, J., HARBISON, F. and MYERS, CH. (1973), Industrialism and Industrial Man, Middlesex: Penguin Books. KOFMAN, E. and YOUNGS, G., (eds.), (1996), Globalization: Theory and Practice, New York: Pinter. MARSH, D. and RHODES, R. (1992), Policy Networks in British Government, Oxford: Clarendon Press. McGANN, J. (1995), The Competition for Dollars, Scholars and Influence in the Public Policy Research Industry, Lanham: University Press of America. McGREW, A. G. (1992), "Conceptualizing Global Politics" in A. McGrew and P. Lewis (eds.), Global Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press. ROSE, R. (1991), “What is Lesson-Drawing?”, Journal of Public Policy, II, 1: 3-30. ROSE, R. (1993), Lesson Drawing in Public Policy A Guide to Learning Across Time and Space, Chatham House. SABATIER, A. and JENKINS-SMITH, H. (1997), “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment”, paper presented at the Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam. SALAMON, L. (1994), "The Rise of the Nonprofit Sector", Foreign Affairs, 73, 4: 109-129. SALAMON, L. (1995), Partners in Public Service, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. SMITH, B. (1977), "The Non-Governmental Policy Analysis Organisation", Public Administration Review 3: 253-258. SMITH, T. (1994), “Post-Modern Politics and the Case for Constitutional Renewal”, Political Quarterly (Summer): 128-137. STONE, D. (1996a), “Non-Governmental Policy Transfer: The Strategies of Independent Policy Policy Transfer Conference: The Global Spread of Ideas, Policies and Institutions, University of Birmingham, 26-27 October 1996. STONE, D. (1996), Capturing the Political Imagination, London: Frank Cass. STONE, D. and GARNETT, M. (1998), "Think-Tanks, Policy Advice and Government" in D. Stone, A. Denham and M. Garnett (eds.), Think-Tanks Across Nations, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press: 1-20. TINBERGEN, J. (1959), The Theory of the Optimum Regime, North Holland, Amsterdam. UNGER, B. and VAN WAARDEN, F. (eds.), (1995), Convergence or Diversity? Aldershot: Avebury. WATERS, M. (1995), Globalization, London, New York: Routledge. WOLMAN, H. (1992), “Understanding Cross National Policy Transfers: The Case of Britain and the Governance, 5, 1: 27-45. DOCUMENTS: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Ireland (1998), Employment Initiative Web Site. EU (March 1998), The European Social Fund: an Overview of the Programming Period 1994-99 (Web Site). IDF (29th of January 1998), The Hague. IDF (February 1998), Programme of Activities, The Hague. IDF (5th of March 1998), Workshop Procedures & Rules of Plenary Parliament Session, The Hague. 24

IDF (10th of March 1998), List of Participants, The Hague. IDF (May 1998), Open European Youth Platform for Employment-draft member list for the Steering Committee, The Hague. Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (1997), Info on the Employment Policy Pursued in the Netherlands, The Hague: Information, Library and Documentation Directorate. Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (1998), National Action Plan Employment 1998, The Hague: Information, Library and Documentation Directorate. INTERVIEWS: Idenburg, Peter (The Hague, 2nd of July1998), Director of IDF, The Netherlands. Karadeniz, Ekrem (Amsterdam, 30th of June 1998), Chairman of Studenten Unie Nederland (SUN), The Netherlands. Rhanimi, Mohammed (Bonn, 15th of March 1998), Moroccan Social Work Camps, Morocco. Van Vlerken, Anja (The Hague, 29th of June1998), Project Subsidies Adviser in the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, The Netherlands. Willemars, Veronie (Amsterdam, 30th of June 1998), Grants Officer of the European Cultural Foundation, The Netherlands. Willemse, Edu (Bonn, 15th of March 1998), Project Co-ordinator and Co-ordinator of the Bonn Conference, IDF, The Netherlands. Willemse, Edu (Leiden, 2nd of July 1998), Project Co-ordinator and Co-ordinator of the Bonn Conference, IDF, The Netherlands.

25