Food for thought

Does industry funding taint the work of think tanks?

By George Gay

Now here’s a thought: Given that there are apparently thousands of think tanks in the world, is it reasonable to assume that thinking comprises one of the least productive sectors of all? Think about it. How many meaningful, original thoughts are generated worldwide each year by the members of independent think tanks that come within the definition of such organizations in the country or countries in which they operate?

If, like me, you’re having difficulty even guessing at an answer to the question above, it’s probably because such organizations aren’t always easy to identify. As far as I can see, any think tank operating in the countries where the bulk of these organizations are based (throughout North America and Europe) can be involved in one or more of a whole string of activities, including but not limited to advocacy, consultancy, lobbying and research. And although, because of the tax status of these organizations, their activities are generally subjected to limits in some areas, such as politics, it would seem that these limits are, shall we say, tested at times. Think tanks can have wide-ranging interests, or they can be little more than single-issue pressure groups.

Generally, the benign view of think tanks is that they comprise experts in various fields who use their expertise to try to solve problems that arise in those fields. Some view them, however, as more malign—organizations that push, sometimes using dodgy data as well as business and social agendas that are a response to invented problems and that are aimed at advancing the interests of only a minority. The reality is probably that they exist on a continuum that runs from one such extreme to the other.

One contentious issue that sticks to the bottom of think tanks’ shoes has to do with funding. Are they funded by people and organizations that approve of the views they expound? Or are those views guided by the source of the funding the think tanks can muster?

The impact of donations

In November 2018, The Guardian published a story by Jessica Glenza that was introduced with the statement that more than 100 free-market think tanks (FMTs) from North America to Europe and South Asia took positions helpful to the tobacco industry or accepted donations from the tobacco industry. A strap line said, “How tobacco industry donations cloud debates over cigarette controls” while the first paragraph said, “Free-market think tanks around the world provide a powerful voice of support to cigarette manufacturers in battles against tougher regulations, a Guardian investigation shows.”

I don’t have strong views on FMTs because I simply don’t know enough about them, and, since they operate in different jurisdictions, it is not easy to make generalizations. But my interest was raised by the use of the word “or” in the writer’s opening statement, and one thing led to another …

The tobacco manufacturers quoted in the story, on the other hand, responded to the more pointed idea behind the strapline: How tobacco industry donations cloud debates over cigarette controls. The manufacturers basically said that they supported think tanks that already opposed policies that did not achieve what was intended and that were inimical to conducting their businesses efficiently in a competitive environment. And the response of the FMTs was that they did what they did regardless of who was funding them.

The amounts of money that were mentioned seemed to support the idea that the FMTs were not in the pay of tobacco manufacturers. Even assuming that the manufacturers were wrong in apparently claiming that ideas are not for sale, it seemed unlikely that the amounts reportedly on offer would turn heads or buy too many great ideas, although it has to be said that the information on funding was patchy—because of a lack of transparency according to one side of the argument and because of the need to uphold democracy or some such on the other. From my reading of the results of The Guardian’s research, not all FMTs covered were found to have accepted tobacco industry funding, but I wasn’t certain whether, in individual cases, that was due to a lack of information, the fact that they weren’t offered such funding, or that they were offered it and refused it.

Worthy of debate

Interestingly, the issue mentioned most often as the one that FMTs had become involved in had to do with standardized packaging, which the FMTs oppose. I say this is interesting because it can be used as an argument for supporting the idea that the FMTs are in league with the tobacco industry, while, just as legitimately in my view, supporting the view that these organizations are looking at a wider picture. Yes, standardized packaging has been focused on the tobacco industry, but there can be little doubt that those in other industries are feeling the cold winds of such policies.

And it also has to be said that standardized packaging is a subject worthy of debate. It would be ridiculous to assume that governments could introduce such a radical, largely unproven policy that seems to run counter to ideas of commercial freedoms and free speech without somebody at least saying, “Wait a minute. Perhaps we should take another look at this.”

The second most-mentioned issue overall was cigarette taxes—though, if my adding up is anything to go by, this was the main issue in North America, possibly because FMTs there were opposing rises at the federal and state levels. Again, this can be interpreted in two ways. One is that this was about cigarette taxes and therefore supportive of the tobacco industry. But it is also in line with the nature of the FMTs, which are generally against what they would see as burdensome taxes and regulations aimed at the redistribution of wealth downward.

As with the question of standardized packaging, there is surely no surprise that there is a debate about taxes. In fact, it would be wrong if there were not such a debate, and for there to be a debate, there have to be naysayers.

Overall, the FMTs looked at some issues in ways that would be supported, I believe, by a fair number of people who are opposed to tobacco and tobacco manufacturers. For instance, some FMTs opposed the denormalizing of smokers and some supported the liberalizing of vaping regulations. Some would probably have even lent their support to arguments, made by at least by one FMT, against higher health insurance costs for smokers, but only those tending toward more libertarian views would have gone along with arguments against smoking bans and the raising of the minimum age at which people should be allowed to buy tobacco products. Clearly, more eyebrows are going to be raised when the issues being addressed by FMTs are more narrowly focused—opposition to a ban on the use of menthol in tobacco products, for instance, and support for the commercialization of the IQOS brand in the U.S.

Of course, while it might be correct, as some believe, that it is ridiculous to imply that supporting an FMT would result in its taking action it otherwise would oppose, you have to ask the question: What would happen in the case of an FMT that was formed of people who were generally free trade oriented but neutral in respect of a certain issue, say standardized packaging as it applies to tobacco products, and that was offered money by a tobacco manufacturer? Might it be swayed? And you cannot rule out the possibility that an FMT, especially a new one or one having difficulty raising funds, might latch on to pro-tobacco issues with the hope of obtaining tobacco funding.

Effectiveness

One thing that I found most difficult to gauge was the critical question of how successful these FMTs were in changing minds or, given largely sympathetic right-wing governments, at holding the line. I would guess patchy. My observation seems to indicate that the denormalization of smokers has been laid to rest, but then it was morally repugnant and so it was an easy target. With standardized packaging and taxation, FMTs possibly still have their fingers in the dyke, but they seem largely dead in the water when it comes to minimum age requirements and smoking in indoor public places.

Need people unconvinced by free trade thinking fear the work of these FMTs? In some respects, I think not, because I believe the FMTs’ thinking is too rigid. Thinking should be robust but not rigid, otherwise the brains of the thinkers will atrophy. Thinking, to my way of thinking, is about change, and I believe the whole free market agenda has been coasting for years in the wake of ideas put into practice by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher—ideas that have lost any buoyancy they ever had. Some of these FMTs seem to have become dogma tanks.

But they cannot simply be shrugged off. Their ideas don’t have to be new and shiny to influence the already committed legislator, and they don’t have to hold up the introduction of a tobacco tax rise for too long to make them attractive to manufacturers. And that is why I would come down on the side of the argument that says that whenever FMTs are involved in lobbying, they should be required to declare who their backers are, even if not how much funding those backers are providing—after all, that can be guessed at.

Of course, now you want to know what I mean by “lobbying.” Sorry, I seem to be out of words.