Comments on: Ranking the world’s top think tanks

By: AdrienSword

AdrienSword — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:25:13 +0000

Dave Bath – The grudging respect of antagonists is worth much more than the adulation of allies.
.
Halle (fuckin’) loo-yah!!!

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:22:38 +0000

Thanks NPOV! To be concrete, how helpful is David McKnight and his take on the so-called neo-liberals? His book on Left and Right is a catalogue of errors, endorsed by about twenty of his colleagues and others like Robert Manne.

By: NPOV

NPOV — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:40:16 +0000

Rafe but surely you know that nobody since von Mises has ever had anything new and helpful to offer!

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:19:33 +0000

I don’t know how impressed CIS people will be with the products of the CPD, judging from some of their fellows I am rather concerned!
http://cpd.org.au/about-us/fellows

How many of these folk have anything new and helpful to offer?

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:03:35 +0000

Even lefties should admit that IPA, like Quadrant, makes some valid points as well, though they quite deliberately (and appropriately) have a different modus operandi from CIS.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:52:52 +0000

Lowy is 14 while CIS is joint 50? Let me call out in a loud and clear voice “Bullshit”! But it seems I misunderstood what Don had written. The CIS is 50th on a list of Non-US think tanks (table 3) while Lowy is on another lists of Asian institutes only.

Method here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/2008_Global_Go_To_Think_Tanks.pdf

By: davebath

davebath — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:52:13 +0000

Andrew,
Take some of the kudos!! Forget the which metrics are used (which may be dodgy) and look at the quality of the product from you folk at the CIS.

Even a lefty like me has to admit the CIS stuff raises many valid points – deserving rebuttal rather than debunking, and the main source of disagreement with lefties stems from different sets of assumptions. I’d imagine that righties have the same respect for the CPD.

The grudging respect of antagonists is worth much more than the adulation of allies.

And the IPA doesn’t come close. chrysellis is right: lobbyists and perception managers for hire rather than a thinktank.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:32:57 +0000

The endless fascination with lists and rankings. Though the methodology is better than for the dubious top public intellectuals list FP did with Prospect, measuring the performance of think-tanks in an objective way is impossibly difficult. We often end up using proxies like media mentions, but they are really only a means to the end of changing opinion and/or policy. And while changed opinion / policy can often be measured, the role of the think-tank in achieving that change is much harder to assess.

By: Don Arthur

Don Arthur — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:21:20 +0000

The IPA wasn’t even nominated. According to the report:

… 407 think tanks were nominated by a diverse
panel of experts comprised of peer institutions, donors, directors of think tank networks, and representatives from intergovernmental organizations. Only those organizations that received two or more nominations were included in the final rankings process, most received well in excess of that number.

Without knowing who McGann and his associates chose for the expert panel it’s difficult to know what this means.

The report identifies Sydney as a regional think tank hub (along with Kuala Lumpur and Tokyo).

By: chrysellis

chrysellis — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:09:24 +0000

Tell me it isn’t true! The IPA didn’t make it?

Oh, wait, they’re more a lobby group than a think tank. Or maybe a groupthink tank?