Presentation Notes for the panel on Civil Society, Non Governmental Organizations and the

Role of Research at the GDN Conference, Dec 6-8 1999.

New Partnerships in Research: NGOs and Think Tanks

An illustration from the NCAER, New Delhi

Ratna Sudarshan 1

This paper seeks to examine the constraints and opportunities of partnerships between NGO’s
and think tanks in the context of the research and policy process as it exists in India. It is
addressed in particular to the question ‘what are the optimal conditions for NGO and think tank
collaboration?’ and an answer is attempted using the experiences of the NCAER in India.
While this experience is undoubtedly specific, it helps in posing several questions that have a
wider applicability.

NGO- Think Tank interactions

The NCAER

NCAER was founded in 1956 in collaboration with the Ministries of Industry and Finance,
Government of India and the Ford Foundation, New Delhi Office. The particular niche that
NCAER was set up to fill was to give the government support in the exercise of planning for
development. To do this, it was necessary to set up a body of researchers, capable of generating
large-scale primary data on its own, and able to provide independent analysis of planning and
development problems at the national, state, sectoral and individual industry levels. The
transition from a planned economy to a liberalized, open economy, has increased the role of
NCAER in the creation of a knowledge base in crucial areas of research and study, particularly
since the Council provides an alternative data source to that of the government.

In the past, then, NCAER was unusual in that its work was done in response both to government
and industry. This included techno-economic surveys in which NCAER had special expertise.
The Annual Report for 1964-65 states that in the nine years since its inception, the Council had
completed ‘128 projects, of which 69 were sponsored by the Central and State Governments, 49
by the Industry, including 19 by the Public sector Undertakings, and 10 on its own initiative’
(NCAER 1965: 1). That is, while more than half of the projects were done for government,
almost 40% were for industry.

NCAER has worked with NGOs in the past, but these collaborations were almost exclusively
for the purpose of collecting primary data through the NGOs.

1
Opinions expressed in this paper are personal and do not necessarily represent the official
view of the Council. I am grateful to my colleagues for sharing with me their perceptions of
the Council and its work, to Abusaleh Shariff and Navsharan Singh for their candid comments,
and to Dr Rakesh Mohan, Director General for encouragement and helpful discussions.

1
Changing Policy Environment

Changes in the policy environment in the 80’s and 90’s have had an effect on the research
environment facing think tanks like NCAER.

1. There is greater visibility today to interactions between government and NGOs/civil society.
Interaction between think tanks and Government explicitly lay behind policy formulation in
the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The Planning Commission, in particular, has had a tradition of
widespread and open consultations, which have included research institutions. In the past
decade and a half, other actors, such as the voluntary sector/NGOs, have begun to have a
presence in different kinds of forums for policy dialogue. For example, consultations with
NGOs were first held by the Planning Commission prior to the finalization of the Eighth
Plan (largely in recognition of the fact that NGOs had begun to acquire an institutional
identity). Even if largely a symbolic gesture, this kind of formal consultation is now widely
used by most Ministries/ Departments. Another example is the much greater responsiveness
to users that is being displayed in the statistical agencies of Government. Once again, the
significance is in the process. The Central Statistical Organization, for example, has
appointed NGO representatives on several Advisory Committees, so at least at the level of
ideas, channels of communication have been established.
These and other changes in the working of the government also reflect requirements of
international donors, particularly the World Bank and the United Nations. Internationally,
there is greater recognition of the need to involve civil society in development interventions,
and this has been accompanied by a larger flow of funds to NGOs.

What these changes mean for think tanks is both that there are more users for research
output, and, potentially at least, more sources of funding (NGOs too now have both research
needs and access to funds). The relative contribution of different sponsors has been
changing systematically. For NCAER, the ratio of government to non-government funding
in the 60’s and 70’s was roughly 60:40. In the period 1980-81 to 1989-90, this ratio was 39:
61 (with 37% of the non-government funding coming from domestic private sources, and
25% from international donors). For the subsequent period, 1990-91 to 1998-99, the ratio
had further dropped to 32: 68. Of the 32% from government, 6% came from the public
sector. Of the non-government funding, 8% represented domestic private sector, and the
balance 60% was from international organizations. Much of the donor support in the 90’s
has been for research into the impact of liberalization and data on economic issues.

2. The increasing sophistication of representatives of civil society, and their more visible
presence in global networks, has led to greater interest on their part in using research for
advocacy. Local interventions do not require extensive research. But research based
interventions are far more effective in lobbying for policy change, and for a consciousness
raising exercise. More and more, NGOs engaged in local action are beginning to recognize
that an enabling policy framework can increase the impact of locally designed
interventions, and conversely, fail to be successful if policy initiatives favour a different set
of actions. Addressing policy makers thus becomes a necessary part of local action.
The significant difference in present day collaborations between NGOs and think tanks, and
those that have taken place in the past, is the fact that NGOs seek to be equal partners in the
relationship. In the past, collaboration has been initiated by organizations like NCAER,
mainly to obtain data using the field staff and insights of selected NGOs. This kind of
partnership tends to be top down. Agenda, methods of data collection, and the use of

2
 research findings would be dictated by NCAER, because of its research expertise. The role
of the NGO was a completely passive one. Today, more and more NGOs are attempting to
document their work and build up research competencies. There are also examples of
NGOs attempting collaborative research with research institutions. However, the
relationship between activists and academics is a complex one and partnerships in research
are relatively new. Moreover such interactions usually require financial support from a
third agency, so that the agenda setting has to meet the priorities and concerns of the funder
too. Finally, the role of NGOs in policy making is itself an evolving and relatively new
one.

Impact of changing environment on research process: NCAER

How far research methods or processes have actually changed within research organizations is a
moot point. On the one hand, a quick survey of NCAER staff suggests that although the
changes in the policy environment mentioned above are real enough, there has been much less
change that is perceptible within the organization. By and large the same methods of data
collection and analysis are in use (although with some added sophistication attributable to better
information technology and econometric abilities). The end product of a research process is
still seen as a report (or publication). Dissemination in the popular media or on TV is usually
done more in response to demand from journalists rather than a sense of reaching out or
attempting to generate public debate (although there may be some exceptions).

At the same time, organizational changes are inevitably slow, and it would be fair to suggest
that a process of change has been initiated. In response to the changing environment, NCAER
has developed an active recruitment policy, and the staff profile has significantly changed over
the last five years. Research outputs continue to include survey findings and descriptive
reports, but an increasing proportion of the output uses statistics in analytical work. Greater use
of IT is seen as one of the tools to improve research quality and keep abreast of international as
well as national developments.

Think tanks in civil society

If civil society is defined as intermediary organizations between the citizen and the state,
constituents of civil society include women’s groups; national and local NGOs; private, non-
profit sector; professional groups/associations such as medical association, nurses/midwives
association, population association; citizens groups; community groups; religious leaders and
research organizations and think tanks. What is unique about think tanks such as NCAER is
that while they are as intrinsic a component of civil society as activist organizations, they have,
and are perceived as having, a neutrality and objectivity in their approach. An essential
requirement for such neutrality is independence from any single source of financial support.
NCAER, for instance, acquires its funding from a diverse range of users, and although users
with a definite viewpoint often approach it, its research findings have always aspired to be
unbiased. This neutrality is clearly appreciated by sponsors, for whom the credibility of
favourable findings gets much enhanced.

While neutrality in research is an asset, it does not mean that research (and researchers) should
not be engaged with controversial issues. In this context, it is interesting to find that although

3
the established partnerships with government or industry are not questioned, the barriers
between working with activist civil society organizations are generally high.

This can be seen for example in the particular context of applied economic research in India.
With liberalization and widespread concern with the probable effects of structural adjustment
on vulnerable groups, there have been many discussions and many attempts at documentation/
research by non-economists and activists. However, such research efforts rarely reach or get
taken seriously within academic circles.

Moreover, suggestions that think tanks could contribute to issues and processes of concern to
social activists are not always well received. The reason appears to be a fear that working with
activists is tantamount to being activist (which compromises on neutrality).

Such reactions have much to do with the persistence of a belief among (some, conventional)
academics that ‘activists’ are necessarily flag raising protestors, who lobby for or against
policies based on emotional reactions to situations, and who cannot participate constructively in
a process of critical thought. This, ofcourse, is very far from the reality.

On the contrary, the fact that activist agencies are increasingly well integrated with research and
policy discourse, and can make the distinction between local action and consciousness raising
or policy advocacy, means that there are many real opportunities for constructive
collaborations. From the point of view of think tanks, relevance in research is important, and
such collaborations are one way of being in tune with actual policy or other developments and
impact, and identification of research issues. For activists, good research and objective findings
can only strengthen the cause.

The NCAER-SEWA project

The NCAER-SEWA project is the first think tank ~ NGO collaboration that NCAER has
participated in, in which the sponsor is the NGO (although the collaboration was made possible
by the (silent) support of a donor agency, the Ford Foundation). The two parties have been
'equals' in the research process, although contributing to different aspects of the work. In this
project, the NGO partner formulated the basic research question (What is the contribution of the
informal sector to the economy?). However, the specifics and methodology used relied more on
the technical expertise of the researchers involved.

SEWA is an example of an NGO with strong field base as well as one that is well knit into both
national and international networks and policy dialogues concerning the informal sector,
workers and women. Within the new environment of liberalization and free trade, it is
interesting to note that SEWA has not taken a standpoint of opposition to the new thinking. In
contrast, it argues for greater recognition and support to informal sector workers on the grounds
that their contribution is high and significant to the functioning of the economy.

This approach is fundamental to the success of the NCAER-SEWA collaboration. At no point

have the researchers involved in the project been under any pressure to formulate an alternative
economic policy; rather, the stress has been on generating numbers, finding out what is the size,
contribution and dynamics of informal employment, from available macro data and field
surveys. Such detachment, on the part of the NGO concerned, is also testimony to its own

4
ability and confidence in using the findings as also in working out strategies for its own work
that can draw upon environmental resources rather than attempting to oppose them.

Multi Stakeholder Networks

One way of implementing a research and policy process that is based on a viable interaction
between action, policy and research is to create a multi stakeholder network that holds the
process in place. So far, NCAER has had little experience in participating in or coordinating
such a research network, outside of the NCAER-SEWA project. But some general observations
can be made regarding such networks.

Networks are often described as networks of institutions. But as voluntary associations, they
are viable and sustainable only when some individuals, or an individual, is committed to the
purposes and activities of the network. If networks are seen as networks of individuals, the
question then is what is the relation of the individual to the institution and the institution to the
network. Different possibilities exist

1. The link between individual and institution could be weakened, and individuals may even
relocate to different places even to different types of work. That is, networks could lead to
greater personal mobility. It is not unusual to find activists turning to academia or
academics to activism, and the movement of academics to policy making is hardly new.
Networks can, ofcourse recognize this need for personal mobility and meet some of it by
actively offering opportunities for short term relocations. Moreover, many institutions (such
as NCAER) have begun to encourage contractual employment, thereby weakening the
individual-institution link. In such situations the reverse effect may be observed, i.e.
networks may well provide the additional support that individuals need to stay in
organizations which offer more tenuous employment contracts now than they did in the
past.
2. Networks enable people to ignore organizational hierarchies, or bypass them. This could
make research networks weak: i.e. the discipline/monitoring/quality control that
organizational hierarchies are expected to provide may be absent. Research networks need
to provide such mechanisms of quality control. On the other hand, networks may also
release energies.
3. Networks can considerably facilitate access to other disciplines and contribute to a more
holistic understanding of a given problem.

Activists through networks can access information more easily than through normal
organizational channels, while retaining the credibility of the organization; and through
networks, can get a wider and quicker diffusion of research findings and advocacy.

Policy makers can get quick access to relevant information. Moreover they are able to interact
with researchers/ activists in a wider, hence less constraining, space than one-to-one interactions
would imply.

Such networks are new forms of governance, likely to acquire greater importance in a
liberalized world. These are axes of connection, contact and decision making that run parallel
to formal governance structures: independent of them, neither supportive nor in conflict. One
of the observations that has been made about international networks is that they tend to be
dominated by Northern researchers who have greater access to IT and other resources. To play

5
a more effective role in international networking, it is very necessary to develop skills of
networking nationally.

Networks of this kind are an opportunity, but some problems too can be anticipated. In order to
make such networks viable, attitudes of all concerned have to be accommodating and some
‘ground rules’ may be needed. More explicitly,

1. Some re-orientation may be necessary within think tanks.

The diagram below shows the interaction between activists, researchers and policy makers
in different types of research processes. The traditional type of NCAER/ think tank research
can be placed in the ‘reactive’ research category. Independent research by NGO’s usually
falls into the ‘action research’ group. The new, recommended research, which can use
grassroots experience to conceptualize and analyze development issues, and develop its
policy implications, is called here ‘proactive research’.

In the past, NCAER has seen the most appropriate role for itself as a somewhat passive one:
providing the information base for policy decision. In the new environment of policy
making, within which a more proactive role is possible, less controversial, and indeed
probably necessary, the institution needs to strengthen its skills in such activities as (a)
organizing policy dialogues with relevant partners (b) popular dissemination and the use of
the media (c) sharing information through networks, in addition to the known skill of
academic publications and presentations.

2. The divisions between different groups of actors are not as rigid as the diagram makes them
appear. But on the whole, while the policy (government)-think tank interaction is relatively
well developed, the addition of action and activists into the picture requires for the present,
and until such time as more experience is gained in this area, some care. In particular, there
needs to be a clear understanding of each other’s domain, including such issues as
- Defining agenda: activists seek to influence the research agenda without necessarily
doing 'good research' as conventionally defined; this is sometimes resented by
academics. There are fewer examples of the reverse influence, of academics on the
activist agenda. Such partnerships can work where there is a shared sense of the
importance of the issue being researched into.
- Methods; 'Applied research' can be defined as the application of theory to test
hypotheses or answer questions, and the methods used and research outcomes are
considerably dependent on the data that may be available. The methods generally
employed by researchers may permit of fewer 'clear cut' answers than the activist would
like. This is partly a question of method; partly a reluctance to draw 'policy'
conclusions.
- Dissemination and use of findings; academics are often reluctant to disseminate in
non-academic journals, newspapers etc - civic education is not their primary
purpose. However, the activist's purpose is not served unless this is done.

There are, thus, considerable differences in the perceptions and world view of conventional
academics and conventional activists. But there are equally compelling reasons to develop such
interactions.

6
Optimal conditions for NGO- think tank collaboration

From the above discussion, it is possible to single out two factors that should be included in a
list of ‘optimal conditions’

1. Acceptance of a conceptual framework that places both research and its policy
implications within the same canvas (so, for instance, researchers need to show a
willingness to respond to grassroots issues and participate in popular dissemination of
research results). One way of operationalizing this is to create networks which enable
‘proactive’ research to be done with collaboration between NGO’s and think tanks, and
involving policy makers.

2. NGO’s on their part need to have realistic expectations from partners, and recognize the
constraints of ‘meeting academic standards’. This is of particular importance in the
early stages of NGO-think tank collaborative efforts. Such collaborations will
themselves help to make the boundaries between academia and activism less sharp over
time.

References

NCAER (1965). Review of Work and Activities 1964-65. National Council of Applied
Economic Research, New Delhi.

7
 Multi Stakeholder Networks and Proactive Research

Lobbying Policy formulation

Issues from grassroots Data

Documentation Research

‘ACTION’ RESEARCH ‘REACTIVE’ RESEARCH

Conceptualize from grassroots experience

Research and analysis

Formulate policy implications

‘PROACTIVE’ RESEARCH