#256 Russian and American Think Tanks: An Initial Survey Conference papers from a November 1993 workshop at the Kennan Institute "Consulting on the Policy of Reform: A Workshop for New Russian Think Tanks/' was held at the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies and independent research institutes throughout Washington, D.C., during the week of 8--12 November 1993. The conference was cosponsored by the Kennan Institute; Interlegal Research Center, Moscow; Interlegal USA, Inc., New York; and the Samuel Rubin Foundation, New York; with funding provided by the Eurasia Foundation of Washington, D.C. The Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars The Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies is a division of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Through its programs of fellowships, meetings, and publications, the Institute encourages scholarship on Russia and the former Soviet Union, embracing a broad range of fields in the social sciences and humanities. The Kennan Institute is supported by contributions from foundations, corporations, individuals, and the United States Government. Kennan Institute Occasional Papers The Kennan Institute makes Occasional Papers available to all those interested in Russian studies. Occasional Papers are submitted by Kennan Institute scholars and visiting speakers, particularly those who wish to receive timely feedback on their work. Copies of Occasional Papers and a list of papers currently available can be obtained free of charge by contacting: Occasional Papers Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Suite 704 Washington, D.C. 20024-2518 (202) 287-3400 This Occasional Paper has been produced with support provided by the Russian, Eurasian, and East European Research and Training Program of the U.S. Department of State (funded by the Soviet and East European Research and Training Act of 1983, or Title VIIT). We are most grateful to this sponsor. The views expressed in Kennan Institute Occasional Papers are those of the authors. ©May 1994 by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Edited by Peggy Mcinerny RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN THINK TANKS: AN INITIAL SURVEY TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 by Nina Belyaeva Workshop Agenda v The Culture of American Think Tanks 1 by fames Allen Smith Think Tanks as Instruments for Enlightened and Responsible Pluralism 11 by Nina Belyaeva Periodicity in the Social Movement of the USSR 31 by Vyacheslav Igrunov The Independent Sector: Filling the Gap between Academic Science and Political Practice 41 by Anatoly Kovler Problems in Studying the Contemporary Russian Business Elite 53 by Vladimir Leplkhin The Analytical Community and Reform in Russia 61 by Gleb Pavlovsky The Russian Political Market 71 by Georgii Satarov About the authors 84 INTRODUCTION would like to thank the ing their social roots, the conditions that made their establishment and I Kennan fustitute, the Eurasia growth possible, issues of man- Foundation, Interlegal USA, agement, and the different models and the Samuel Rubin Founda­ that permit these institutions to tion for their support in realizing play a role in political decision the workshop "Consulting on the making; and 4) to explore oppor- Policy of Reform: A Workshop for tunities for possible cooperation New Russian Thlnk Tanks." This between U.S. and Russian inde- workshop, which took place from pendent research institutions. 8-12 November 1993, allowed a The introduction of Russian group of Russian who direct researchers and institutions to experts their counterparts in the United independent research institutes in States took place at a highly pro­ Moscow to learn about the political fessional level and proved very environment, practical activities, and useful for the Russian partici­ research products of think tanks in pants. A detailed description of the United States. The workshop each of the participating Russian provided us with numerous oppor­ think tanks, together with the cur­ tunities to discuss the issues of politi­ riculae vitae of the directors and cal culture that sustain U.S. think individual papers were dissemi­ tanks with such American experts nated to American colleagues in on these institutions as James Allen Washington-based institutions. We encountered sincere interest Smith of the Howard Gilman Foun­ and appreciation of the informa­ dation of New York and Kent tion we had to share, as well as a Weaver of the Brookings Institution. willingness to sustain professional It also permitted us to explore the and personal contacts at every in­ way in which these organizations stitution we visited. This was the develop their research agendas, first time many of the Russian conduct fundraising, and manage think tanks and their directors their activities. The papers that were officially introduced to their follow were written for the first analogues in the United States session of the workshop, a day­ and our visits provided them an long meeting held at the Kennan excellent introduction to the inde­ pendent U.S. research community Institute. Over the next four days, in Washington, D.C. we visited nine different think Undouotedly, our most impor­ tanks in the city, as well as the tant achievement was to learn Russian Area Studies Program of various skills, methods, and con­ Georgetown University, where I cepts from American think was currently teaching. taitks-from the importance of an When I began to plan this institution's governance structure, workshop, I had four basic goals. to the way in which research These were: 1) to introduce inde­ agendas are established, to the or­ pendent Russian research institu­ ganization of peer review proce­ tions and their directors to their dures for research products, to U.S. counterparts; 2) to examine issues of fundraising and public the research. products, research relations. I will briefly sketch here agendas, and institutional struc­ each of the workshop sessions tures of U.S. think tanks; 3) to and highlight specific features learn from the experience of the that the Russian participants American think tanks by examin- found of most interest. Introduction i At the Center for Strategic and tage Foundation. The Russian International Studies we learned participants were extremely im­ that CSIS does not have a large pressed by the wide variety of dif­ endowment and must raise funds ferent strategies, tactics, and types every year-definitely the case for of published materials that reach Russian institutions. In order to out to different audiences used by continue to raise funds, CSIS must these institutions-from thick present to potential funders well­ books to beautifully published an­ organized projects that have a direct nual reports, from modest news­ impact on practical decision makmg letters to briefing papers for the concerning domestic and foreign press, to published articles to pub­ policy. Of special interest to the lic events. Russian participants was the prac­ During a luncheon at the tice of creating congressional re­ RAND Corporation, the Russian search groups in which repre­ participants expressed a special sentatives ofboth parties consider interest in learning about ilie in­ leading issues in American poli­ ternal expertise of RAND in order tics. Such groups create "common to raise the quality of their re­ ground" for bipartisan discussion search products to RAND stand­ and provide highly professional ards. We were extremely lucky to published recommendations that have had Jeremy Azrael with us, are often used by policymakers. who is responsible for RAND's Also of interest was the CSIS de­ initiative to develop analytical ca­ partment of East European and pabilities for the Russian govern­ Russian studies, which has several ment in Russia, and learned about current projects in Russia and the project firsthand. Our meeting other CIS countries. For many of with administrators and re­ us, our visit to CSIS was the most searchers of the United States In­ memorable and perhaps the most stitute of Peace taught us productive of the workshop due something unique about its fund­ to shared research interests and ing: the money given to the Insti­ the applicability of the CSIS expe­ tute by the U.S. Congress becomes rience to most of the Russian insti­ independent the minute it is tutions represented. transferred into the Institute's ac­ At the Foreign Policy Institute count. This permits the Institute a of the Johns Hopkins University great deal offreedom in designing (Nitze School of Advanced Inter­ its research projects, freeing it national Studies), we learned a from the headaches of fundraising peculiarity of this particular type and tailoring research to fit the in­ of think tank model: the re­ terests of sponsors. Not only did searchers themselves are gener­ we learn from our colleagues at ally responsible for raising the USIP, we had an opportunity to funds for their individual research share our analysis of the October projects. At the American Enter­ 1993 crisis in Russia from the dif­ prise Institute we participated in a ferent perspectives of our respec­ discussion of different models of tive think tanks. think tanks and the specific role At the Brookings Institution played by conservative think we could not but note the impor­ tanks in the "political market" of tance of its history and the major U.S. social science. Our hosts there stages of its development as one presented a comparative analysis of the classic private think tanks of the activities of the American in American society. In practical Enterprise Institute and the Heri- terms, we learned about publicity ii Introduction matters and the way in which backgrounds of their institutions. Brookings arranges support for its For example, Anatoly Kovler and research among locaf communi­ his institution (Center for Com­ ties of businessmen and politi­ parative Law, Institute of State cians. One fascinating detail we and Law, Moscow) have been learned was that a fiJ:lal research deeply involved in drafting the product is sometimes advertised new constitution and he naturally before the product is ready in or­ defended the necessity of its der to prepare its potential audi­ adoption.