智库缘何有益？

JOHN DEBOER

[摘 要]智库通过商议提案、激发公众讨论等方式，为解决当代世界极为紧迫的问题，催化产生一系列理论和观点，集合专家的创意和智慧以影响决策。同时，智库还帮助设定政策议程，成功的智库应随时准备着提案，当问题一出现便可立马付诸实施。但是，如果智库的意识形态狭隘，则会造成决策失误。因而智库应提供开放平台，引入全新理念，让决策者直面相关意见，并省视自己的观点，从而做出正确决策。

[关键词] 智库；决策；有益

[中图分类号] C932 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1002-8129（2016）08-0086-07

In a thought-provoking conversation at the United Nations University in Tokyo with Rohinton Medhora， the President of the Centre for International Governance Innovation（CIGI）， I asked the question，“What Are Think Tanks Good For？”His answer was to the point， “influence peddling， in the best sense of the term.” He went on to stress that while one could question the tactics and motivations behind how and who Think Tanks influence， the bottom line was that they are in the business of pushing for change through ideas and networks. The litmus test of a good Think Tank， according to Medhora， was not whether it was “right， left， liberal or not， but whether it was proposing evidence-based discussion.”

在一次与东京联合国大学国际治理创新中心（CIGI）主席罗欣顿·麦德拉德的深谈中，我问道：“智库到底有什么好处？”他简洁明确地回答：“智库的影响力本身就是最好的解释。”然后他继续强调，虽然人们可以质疑智库影响力背后的策略和动机，但最重要的是， 智库促使了观念和网络的改变。麦德拉德认为，检验好的智库最立竿见影的方法，就是看其是否会激起基于证据的讨论，而非争论到底是偏左翼、偏右翼或是自由派。

Medhoras view is widely held. The dominant understanding is that Think Tanks exist to mobilize expertise and ideas to influence the policy making process. The raison dêtre for most Think Tanks is to serve as important catalysts for ideas and action. In a world facing many pressing problems that include extreme poverty， inequality， climate change， rapid urbanization， the spread of infectious disease， armed conflict， international terrorism， organized crime， and the proliferation of nuclear weapons， good ideas that can be acted upon are essential. At their best， Think Tanks possess the ability to capture the political imagination by brokering ideas， stimulating public debate， and offering creative yet practical solutions to tackle the worlds most pressing problems.

麦德拉德的观点获得了广泛的支持和认可。大多数人都认为，智库就是集合了专家的创意和智慧来影响决策。智库的存在就是观点和行动的催化剂。当今世界面临着许多紧迫的问题，包括赤贫、不公平、气候变化、快速城市化、传染病的蔓延、武装冲突、国际恐怖主义、有组织犯罪以及核武器扩散。因此，针对这些问题的解决提议就显得至关重要。从最好的角度来看，智库可以通过商议提案、激发公众讨论来收集政治上的设想，并且提供具有创意且切实可行的方法，来解决当今世界存在的最为紧迫的问题。

Think Tanks have made these kinds of contributions in the past. For example， Leo Pasvolsky， a Brookings Institution expert， was instrumental in helping to rebuild Europe after World War II by putting forward concrete recommendations that helped shape the Marshall Plan. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace， led by its then president Raphael Lemkin， played a pivotal role in promoting the passage of the UN anti-Genocide Convention by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948， spurred on by the need to prevent another Holocaust. In the midst of the 2008 financial crisis，CIGIs proposals for innovation in the G8 system helped lead to the creation of the G20 leaders group. This development helped to establish the G20 as the premier forum for international economic cooperation in troubled economic times. Another example of a breakthrough spearheaded by a Think Tank was the idea of Advanced Market Commitments for Vaccines championed by a Center for Global Development Working Group. The result was a mechanism that provided guarantees to increase private investment in R&D; for vaccine development for diseases that primarily affected developing countries. In 2005， theG-7 Finance Ministers endorsed this idea and six donors committed US $1.5 billion to the initiative. These ideas were often not developed in isolation but were part of an iterative process of discovery， learning， and adaptation sometimes through failure. In each case， timing proved to be critical.

智库在过去已经做出过这些贡献。例如，布鲁金斯学会的专家里奥·帕斯沃尔斯基，他曾帮助重建二战后的欧洲大陆，正是他提出的具体建议才形成了马歇尔计划。由时任总统拉斐尔·莱姆金领导的卡内基国际和平基金会，在促进联合国反种族灭绝公约的通过进程上发挥了举足轻重的作用，该大会是由联合国大会于1948年为防止再一次发生大屠杀事件而设立的。正当2008年经济危机的时候，国际治理创新中心提出革新八国集团系统（G8），从而创建了20国首脑集团（G20）。这一革新帮助建立了G20，使之成为了经济危机时期国际经济合作的主要论坛。另一个智库发挥突破性先锋作用的例子，就是全球发展工作中心支持的关于疫苗的先进市场委员会的提议。这一提议的结果就是建立了一种机制，该机制保证了对于最初影响发展中国家疾病疫苗研发的私人投资。2005年，7国集团财长肯定了这一想法，其中6位承诺捐款15亿美元支持这一行动。以上这些想法都不是孤立发生的，而是反复地发现、学习以及不断适应，甚至有时也通过失败。在每一个案例中，时间都显得至关重要。

Serving as a catalyst for ideas is only one aspect of the role that the best Think Tanks play. Another essential role is in helping to set the policy agenda. Yet， getting on the policy agenda is a complicated task. Even the best Think Tanks miss key opportunities to translate a persuasive idea into reality. John Kingdons work on this subject is instructive because it underscores the inherent unpredictability of the policy process. According to Kingdon， getting an idea on the governmental agenda requires persistence， expertise， cultivating the right connections， and above all， good timing. As he put it in his book Agendas， Alternatives， and Public Policies， “being heard in the policy process is often more a matter of being positioned to take advantage of opportunities when they arise， than it is doing a set of things fully under ones control.”

作为想法迸发的催化剂，仅是智库所应扮演角色的一个方面。智库的另一个重要角色就是帮助设定政策议程。政策执行过程是一件非常复杂的事情。甚至最好的智库也会错失将有说服力的想法转化为现实的关键时机。约翰·金登对于这一问题的研究颇具指导意义，因为他强调了政策制定过程中固有的不可预见性。根据金登的观点，把一个想法提上政府的议事日程需要不懈的坚持、专业的知识、创造正确的联系，以及最为重要的就是好的时机。正如他在《议程、备选方案与公共政策》一书中所言，“在政策过程中陈词不仅仅是在别人完全控制下所做的事情，而更应该是在机会来临时把握好机会”。

Successful Think Tanks keep their proposals at the ready and when a problem emerges to which their proposals can be the solution， they jump into action. Having good ideas is not enough. As Kingdon stressed， “ideas do not drive policy changes by themselves， they must be coupled with more conventional political forces.”To be successful， Think Tanks need to have sufficient resources and persistence to continuously cultivate an idea as they wait for the right moment to mobilize an alliance of supporters around it.

成功的智库随时都准备着提案，当问题一出现，这些提案就会变成解决方法，并且可以立马付诸实施。然而，单单有好的想法是远远不够的。正如金登所言，“想法本身是无法驱使政治有所变化的，他们必须与更为常见的政治因素相结合才会带来政治变化”。当智库在等待合适的时机去组建支持者的联盟时，为了获取成功，它需要足够的资源和毅力坚持去持续地培育理念。

There is a flip-side to the inherent unpredictability of the policy process， which is that good ideas do not always win out. Unfortunately， there have been instances when ideologically driven Think Tanks supported misguided ideas that shaped how governments understood the world， assessed their options， and acted to great detriment. We saw this in the run up to the 2003 Iraq War when the terrorist attacks of 9/11 gave proponents of regime change in Iraq （among them the Project for the New American Century PNAC） the cover to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein in the name of spreading democracy and winning the war on terror. PNAC and other proponents of regime change were so effective at shaping the policy preferences of George W. Bush and his administration that persuasive evidence to the contrary was ignored and discounted， leading to a costly war.

政策过程中固有的不可预测性会产生负面作用，即好主意并不总是获得成功。遗憾的是，经常会有受意识形态主导的智库支持错误理念的例子出现，这些理念限制了政府对这个世界的理解，错误评定他们的选择，并造成巨大的伤害。我们在2003年的伊拉克战争中已经见识过，当时911恐怖袭击事件给予伊拉克政变支持者们（这是PNAC——新美国世纪计划的一部分）借口入侵伊拉克，并以传播民主和赢取反恐战争的名义铲除萨达姆·侯赛因。PNAC和其他政变支持者的意见在乔治·W·布什政策选择和管理的形成方面具有极高的有效性，而反面性的具有说服力的证据已被忽略，结果导致了一场代价昂贵的战争。

As former Canadian Senator Hugh Segal has suggested， Think Tanks are at their worst when they are narrowly ideological and consistently generate predictable findings on any question despite evidence to the contrary. Think Tanks that demonstrate such behavior should be discounted. However， as the seminal study by Robert Jervis on Perception and Misperception in International Politics demonstrated， experts and policy makers can be susceptible to actively avoiding and ignoring information that contradicts their beliefs. More recently， the 2015 World Development Report on Mind， Society and Behavior from the World Bank explained how policy makers and even experts can be prone to “thinking automatically”.As the WDR 2015 underscored， discussions among people who share similar views can lead them to become more extreme in their positions. In fact， the report clearly demonstrated how a failure to confront the concerns of individuals with differing views can lead to “consistently biased decision making.”Research has shown that it is critical for policy makers to become aware of their own biases in order to avoid selecting and filtering evidence in a way that confirms their views.

正如前加拿大参议员休西格尔所指出的，当智库的意识形态狭隘，对任何问题忽略其反面迹象并不断做出预测性结论时，正是其最差的工作状态。而当智库出现这种情况时，其效率常常会大打折扣。但是，罗伯特杰维斯在《国际政治中的知觉和错误知觉》中做出的开创性研究显示，专家和政策制定者在主观上很容易回避或忽略与他们观点相反的信息。最近，世界银行发表的《2015年世界发展报告：思维、社会与行为》指出政策制定者甚至专家易于产生机械化的思维。随着这份报告的关注度越来越高，持有同样观点的人之间的讨论会使他们在原有的立场上变得更加极端。事实上，这份报告已经明确指出，如果在处理不同个人观点时失败，就会造成“持续性的偏颇的政策制定”。研究指出，对于政策制定者，认清自己的偏见，在发表观点过程中避免证据选择和过滤的情况出现是十分重要的。

One of the best ways to avoid confirmation bias， according to the WDR 2015， is to expose people to opposing views and invite them to defend their own. The best Think Tanks do just that. They create social and intellectual settings that force people to argue and become aware of their own biases. They provide a platform to introduce new ideas and provoke public debate on the critical issues of the day and in so doing expand the scope of the debate.

根据《2015年世界发展报告》，避免确认性偏见的最好方法就是让人们直面相左意见并让他们为自己的观点进行辩护。而最好的智库正是这样做的。它创造出社会型和智慧型的环境，激发人们进行讨论，从而了解到自己的偏见所在。它提供一个平台用于引入全新的理念，并就当下的关键话题激发公共探讨，以此来扩大讨论的范围。

In developing country contexts with relatively recent democratic traditions，Think Tanks are increasingly taking on this function. For example， the Institute of Economic Affairs in Ghana played a pivotal role in helping to strengthen democracy in a context of political instability by organizing workshops， voter education forums， and presidential and vice-presidential debates. The Think Tank Initiative （funded by Canadas International Development Research Centre，the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation，the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation，UK Aid，the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands， and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation）， is just one example of a program that is helping to strengthen the role of Think Tanks in the Global South to provoke public debate on important public policy issues of the day.

在发展中国家相对民主的环境下，智库正逐步发挥这种功能。例如，加纳经济事务研究所就扮演着关键性的角色，它通过组建工作坊、选民教育论坛以及总统和副总统辩论等方式，在国内政治不稳定的环境中强化民主。智库行动（由加拿大国际发展研究中心、比尔和梅琳达盖茨基金、威廉和弗洛拉休利特基金、英国援助所、荷兰外事局、挪威发展合作事务所赞助），正是类似项目中的一个例子，通过就当下重要的公共政策话题激发公众辩论，加强智库在南半球的重要性。

2015 will be a pivotal year for the world. With a large number of very important policy processes underway， the UN Secretary General has declared that “2015 can and must be a time for global action”. These policy processes will culminate with important decisions that will shape the course of action on issues ranging from international peace and security， to climate change， and global development and Think Tanks need to play a constructive role.

对世界来说，2015年将是关键性的一年。一大批非常重要的政策过程正在进行，联合国秘书长已声明，“2015将是也必须是全球性行动的一年”。从国际和平和安全、气候变化到全球发展，重要的决策将为这些问题形成行动方针，政策过程将达到高潮，智库需要发挥建设性的作用。

In terms of international peace and security， the United Nations is currently undertaking two important independent reviews. The first is on peace operations， where the Secretary General has appointed a High Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations to assess how UN-led peace operations need to change in order to remain effective in a world confronting increasingly complex and volatile security environments. Another important policy process that will have an impact on war-torn societies is the expert review panel on the UNs Peacebuilding Architecture.

在国际和平与安全这个问题上，联合国目前正着手进行两项重要的独立审议。第一项审议针对维和行动，就此，联合国秘书长全权委派高级别维和行动独立委员会，分析评估在当今这个复杂、不稳定的国际环境中，联合国主导的维和行动应该做出怎样的调整，才能保证行动的切实有效。另外，还有一项政策过程将对饱受战争蹂躏的国家产生重要影响，即是对联合国建设和平住房建议计划的评审。

Negotiations leading up to the Special Summit on Sustainable Development （15-28 September）， also represent a critical policy process. At this Summit， UN Member States will debate and ultimately approve the Sustainable Development Goals that will set the global development agenda for the next fifteen years. The challenge， as UNU Rector David M. Malone put it in arecent article， is to craft a sharp and compelling post-2015 framework that could stand the test of time and relevancy over a 15-year period. The complex negotiation process involving many diverging national interests， however， will make this outcome difficult to achieve. Yet， as I stressed in a recent article， it is imperative that the world sets realistic goals that build on success to date and commit to promoting human dignity， equality， and equity.

可持续发展特别峰会（9.15 - 9.28）的主要讨论内容，同样可以视为一项重要政策的制定和落实过程。在此次会议上，联合国各成员国将就制定未来15年全球发展目标展开讨论，并最终支持可持续发展目标。正如联合国大学校长大卫·M·梅隆在最近一篇文章中提到的，目前的挑战在于构建一个在2015年后完备而有力的框架，确保其能够经受住时间的考验，并且在接下来的15年里一直有效地运转。协商的过程十分复杂，且涉及到多个国家不同的国家利益，无疑加大了达成最终共识的难度。但就像我在最近一篇文章所强调的，到目前为止全世界设定切实可行的目标确保成功，并致力于提高人的尊严、平等与公正，是势在必行的。

Finally， another critical period will be between 30 November and 11 December when Paris will play host to the 21st Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change. At this conference， 190 parties will try to arrive at an agreement on greenhouse gas emission targets to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

最后，另一段关键时期是11月30日到12月11日，在此期间，巴黎将主办联合国气候变化框架公约第21次缔约方会议。此次大会上，190个与会方将努力就温室气体的排放标准达成新的共识，以取代过去京都议定书中的有关规定。

To put it bluntly， policy makers are struggling to develop effective responses to many of the key issues that will be debated in these policy processes and Think Tanks can play a constructive role by bringing practical and feasible options that tackle these issues to the negotiating table. Think Tanks， including the United Nations Universitys Centre for Policy Research， are already playing an important role in contributing evidence based assessments （see for instance UNU-CPRs paper for the High Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations）. Yet， more ideas are needed so that these processes generate effective recommendations and solutions.

坦白的说，政策制定者正努力对政策过程中会讨论到的关键事项做出有效的回复，而智库针对这些事项，在会谈中通过提供给各方与这些事项相关的切实可行的选择，从而发挥建设性作用。包含联合国大学政策研究中心在内，智库在贡献基于证据的评估方面已经发挥了重要作用（示例可见联合国大学政策研究中心有关维和行动事项高级别独立委员会的相关报告）。但政策过程仍需要更多的观点来形成有效的建议及其解决措施。

This ultimately， brings me back to my conversation with Rohinton Medhora. To succeed， Think Tanks need at least four elements. They need good ideas， a coalition of actors to support those ideas， the institutional capacity （including resources） to nurture and shepherd those ideas in a dynamic context， and the ability to seize the moment when the timing is right. What they need is the means to champion good ideas when the world needs them most. In other words， Think Tanks need to do what they are good at， influence peddling in the best sense of the term.

最后，回到我与罗欣顿·麦德拉德之间的谈话。我认为，智库的成功至少需要四个因素的支持。他们需要好的想法，需要一个支持这些想法行动者的联合体，需要制度化并可以（包括资源）在一个动态的环境中去培养、引导这些想法的能力，以及在时机成熟之时当机立断的能力。他们需要的是，当全世界急需优秀想法时能够真正支持这些想法的方法。换句话说，智库需要专注于自己的长处，坚信智库的影响力本身，就是对所有疑问最好的解释。

本文选译自（https：//www.cigionline.org/articles/what-are-

think-tanks-good）

[责任编辑：马昌运，王丽琼]