美国智库发展经验对中国特色新型智库建设的启示——专访华盛顿发展绩效研究所高级研究员雷蒙德·J.斯特鲁伊克博士

■ 记者：吕青 栾瑞英

美国智库发展经验对中国特色新型智库建设的启示
——专访华盛顿发展绩效研究所高级研究员雷蒙德·J.斯特鲁伊克博士

■ 记者：吕青 栾瑞英

编者按：2016年12月17日，在由南京大学、光明日报社主办的2016中国智库治理论坛召开之际，我们有幸采访了出席此次会议的雷蒙德•J.斯特鲁伊克博士（Raymond J. Struyk），双方就高端智库建设、中美智库区别、智库独立性、影响力、高质量研究成果、智库评价与排名等问题进行了短暂而愉快的交谈，以期为中国新型智库建设提供参考。

【访谈专家简介】

雷蒙德•J.斯特鲁伊克（Raymond J. Struyk）是一位在发展中国家和转型期国家研究方面经验丰富的经济学家。1977年，他加入城市研究所，并于1981年开创城市研究所的国际项目。1980年，他加入了卡特政府的住房和城市发展部，担任负责研究和评估事务的副助理部长。2007年至2012年，他担任美国芝加哥大学国家民意研究中心高级研究员，致力于住房融资、项目评估以及智库制度化发展的研究。他曾帮助匈牙利和俄罗斯建立智库，并参与了十几个关于管理、沟通和研究议题的具体工作。斯特鲁伊克博士拥有圣路易斯华盛顿大学经济学博士学位，现为华盛顿发展绩效研究所高级研究员，学术著作颇丰。

1 中美智库的区别

问：中美智库之间有哪些差别？

答：中美智库最大的区别是，美国智库已经用多年的时间来进行管理实践，也与政策界建立了良好的交流机制。对于中美智库之间的差异这个问题我感触颇深。最近我在江苏省考察了6家智库，我以为这6家智库都是非政府组织，他们的管理实践丰富多样。其中一家是大学智库学院的所有教师同时也是智库的工作人员。智库管理者鼓励他们写3000字左右的文章放在微信公众平台上，每周发布3~4篇，管理者对这种经营方式感到非常自豪，但这种方式所产生的影响力并不理想。此外，智库管理者比较年轻，经验不足，他们需要时间来学习如何管理一家智库。当然，也有正面例子。有两家智库组织结构较为完善，并且与政府建立了良好的沟通渠道。其中一家智库最初把团队建立在政府办公室，但随后把办公地点搬至大学内。现在，工作人员在为一家智库而不是一个政府机构工作，他们拥有了相对自由的工作氛围，并且能够在传播他们的研究成果中追求更广泛的受众。他们高度关注政策问题，并希望将其研究成果与这些具体问题对接。

它们像其他智库一样，面临着如何避免资助机构提出小而琐碎的任务要求这一个普遍的问题。我们大多数人知道：你是工作人员，你会被告知做某事，并且也没有人想做。解决方案是把任务推给智库。智库避免资助组织不断提出临时请求的一个方法是，智库制定一系列未来2~3年内需要处理的优先问题以及实现这一目标的战略。资助者应该审阅和同意该计划。一旦战略被正式采纳，当智库从它的资助者那里收到过多数量的“意外任务”时，可以向其解释它相关的机会成本，即如果要完成新任务，那么将拖延执行战略计划。

政府机构应该制定一套智库评估标准评价智库的有效性和效率。显然，这是一个需要现在完成的关键任务。此外，有一个论点是，一组明确的标准以及标准协议应由智库以及智库所在省份的相关政府机构联合制定。这将鼓励资助者之间知识共享，从而使协议有更大的可信度。

2 美国智库建设经验

问：据我们所知，有些美国智库接受政府委托的方案，会获得政府资助。他们又是如何保持独立性的？

答：这是一个好问题。在卡特总统执政期间，他任命我负责住房部的政策研究和计划评估工作。在我为政府工作的这段时间里，我的办公室每年（按现价计算）委托智库和咨询公司的计划合同花费约2亿美元。智库和咨询公司需要通过竞标拿到这些合同。

合同的条款对于智库的独立性至关重要。其中有两个关键点，一是政府不能要求改变最终报告中的政策建议。当然，监督合同的官员有机会对报告提出意见。如果他们的意见是有价值的，智库需要对报告做相应修改。第二是智库有公布最终报告的权力。即使政府不喜欢智库提供的最终报告或没有给承包商提任何意见，60天后，智库仍有权发表报告。但政府也可能会反击，之后不再选择这家智库接受政府的委托合同（在通常情况下极少发生）。

问：美国智库如何与政府进行沟通呢？

答：有正式和非正式两种沟通方式。就正式沟通而言，智库可通过竞标拿到政府的订单，这就意味着智库可以与政府进行沟通了。另外，如果你一直研究A话题并成为这个方面的专家，那么政府可能会邀请你去向他人介绍你的发现或早期研究。这两种情况都是官方正式行为。如果你足够幸运，政府还会将你推荐给国会相关人员。美国国会拥有大约12000名员工，525位官员，包括国会参议员和众议员。其中有不少拥有博士学位的工作人员都接受过社会科学研究方面的培训。他们倾向于深入分析，例如阅读报告并与作者交谈，这样智库就有与国会议员沟通的机会了。而就非正式沟通而言，如果你是国会议员，我可以通过政府委派参加听证会而认识你。之后你可以私下联系我，讲一下你在某个领域的新进展，可以邀请我共进午餐并探讨一下相关问题。类似的情况也发生在政府其他人身上。他们会带一些人，你也会带一些人，共同参加一个活动，这样两个圈子的人可以逐渐了解和认识。随着时间的推移，你会建立起一个朋友圈。如果你在这行做了20年，那么你应该会拥有丰富的人脉资源。那么你会很容易得到关于你这个行业的最新资讯。另一种非正式沟通是，国会通常会举行大量的听证会，如果你跟国会相关人员很熟悉，他们可能会将你推荐给议员并邀请你参加听证会，长此以往，你的简历上就会有很多参加国会听证会的经历，那么人们看到这份简历就会知道你是智库领域的热门人物。

问：您的智库是否担心质量不高的研究报告会影响后续合同的签订？

答：是的，会担心。首先，我要说优秀的智库会有非常严格的质量管控。他们真的不希望报告质量差。如果他们的报告得到政府的负面评价，他们会迅速做出回应，消除这些评价。如果他们没办法消除这些负面评价，如果这是一份政府订单，那么最糟糕的情况是政府拒绝接受报告，这意味着扣除应支付给乙方费用的20%~25%。当然，政府通常设有评估委员会，他们负责评估提议和报告。但更糟糕的是，智库和主要研究者的声誉将受到严重破坏。如果团体有不良声誉，那么赢得下一个合同将是非常困难的。

问：美国有新型高端智库吗？如何建设高端智库？

答：我们对高端的定义跟您的可能有所不同。对我们来说，高端意味着两个方面：政策影响力和组织参与适量的活动。首先，一个智库可能在一个相对小的问题上有卓越见解，而且颇具影响力，但这并不意味着这家智库是高端智库。另一点是，在我们的系统中要成为一个有影响力的智库，必须能够成功地筹集资金，因为政府不提供这方面的预算支持。每个智库都与其他智库和咨询公司去竞争来自政府机构和基金会的资金。大多数智库都经历了扩张、政策高影响力以及低潮的时期。因此，高端智库不是永恒不变的称号。智库的政策影响力会随着时间而变化。可能经过若干年，一家富有影响力的智库影响力逐渐减弱，因为他们擅长的政策议题不再被政府关注，因此即使他们推出了优秀的成果，但依然没有受众。

我认为你这个问题里的重点应该是“新”。我想到一个例子，华盛顿发展绩效研究所（Results for Development Institute, 简称R4D），仅仅成立六年。这个研究所的创始人曾经就职于世界银行,通过在发展中国家开展示范项目来影响教育和健康等领域的新政策。这家智库不是与政府直接合作，而是主要与国际组织、基金会、美国驻发展中国家办事处合作。目前，这家智库在很多国家都具有一定的影响力。

建设高端智库，首先要明确智库需要不断创新，与时俱进。几乎所有智库的创立初衷都是因为他们的创始人认为某个问题没有得到足够的关注。在欧洲的智库亦是如此。他们最初几乎只专注于某一政策领域，逐渐形成一定的影响力。然后，开始扩展到其他政策领域。设立的新议题或新项目会接近过去研究的核心议题。随后他们设立更多的议题，雇佣更多的工作人员。智库在强大的管理者的领导下，还需要开展7方面的工作，具体如下。

（1）定义智库的使命。围绕这个使命，雇佣工作人员，同时，这个使命可以为开展具体项目提供重要指导。

（2）保持独立性。只有真正独立的智库才会做出强有力的客观分析，他们的结论和建议是基于证据而非政治或个人意见。确保提供持续的客观公正的政策建议的重要举措要从智库的董事会开始。董事会可以在智库签订合同或项目之前审查所有大额赠款，坚持更改或拒绝不符合此标准的相关条款。

（3）招聘优秀的政策分析师，以确保研究的专业性。这些优秀的分析师一直对他们的研究和政策制定策略采取严格的循证分析方法。

（4）严格的质量控制至关重要。以防止不直接基于分析结果的结论被公布或以其他方式被提倡。如果智库工作的早期阶段出现质量问题，很难恢复声誉。

（5）积极参加各种高层论坛和会议。主动与潜在的赞助商和政策制定者进行交流，描述相关倡议，并就可能研究的新政策问题征求建议。在这个阶段不要直接进行筹款。这些会议是进入政策决策层的关键。

（6）尽早建立官方网站，并不断丰富形式，完善内容。如果你不定义自己，展现自己，别人的错误描述可能会影响智库的声誉。必须通过网络平台展示自己的独立性和影响力。

（7）定期与所有工作人员沟通，不断完善智库管理机制。

问：您对美国智库发展态势有何看法？

答：据我粗略估计，美国现在有75%的智库是自主型和独立型。15%~20%的智库是半独立型。出现半独立型智库的原因是一些富有的资助者和团体支持认同他们的政策哲学或与他们的政治方向一致的智库。他们可能为智库提供非常大的资助。这些智库从发布基于证据的政策报告转向了销售预先确定的立场的游说产品。鉴于这种情况，一些基金会已经采取了行动，迫使所有智库保证资金来源透明化。这个想法是，如果研究的发起人是对结果有直接利益关系的组织或个人，那么阅读报告或者考虑报告中的政策建议的人可能会怀疑这份报告的公正性。例如，一家石油公司赞助一个与石油污染相关的项目。几个基金会创立了一个网站叫Transparify.org，他们关注智库网站公布的经费来源。

我认为美国智库的政治化倾向可以被控制。这将需要基金会、其他民间社会组织以及智库本身的不懈努力。如果政治化的影响继续下去，智库可能会失去在过去60年来所享有的在政策制定过程中的特殊地位。

3 智库评价对智库发展的作用

问：您认为智库的评价与排名，对智库发展有多大作用？

答：很难做这样的比较。但这种比较可以提供有价值的信息。最大的智库评价项目是由宾夕法尼亚大学詹姆斯·麦甘（James G. McGann）领导的。他的研究方法是保密的。因此，有些人不会非常重视排名。而比较通用的方法是设定普适的指标，例如智库在过去两年在同行评议期刊上发表的文章数量，参加国会听证的次数，参加电视访谈的人数，报纸引用次数。你也可以问相关智库，因为大部分智库保留了他们接到政府约谈的记录。而智库的产出和活动可以作为评估智库影响力的间接指标，但确定智库是否真正影响决策是非常困难的。总之，我认为人们不应该过分看重这些排名。

问：您如何评价由李刚教授主导的CTTI中国智库索引？

答：我认为这个索引很有用，也会成为真正的资源。如果想要找到某一个特殊话题的专家，那么可以查阅出版物，然后找到专家。这个索引可以促进智库研究工作的开展。同时，它可能也会引发智库专家的跳槽现象。因此，这是一把双刃剑。我不知道他们是否有国际期刊评价这种黄金评价指标。如果谈研究成果的质量，那么发表国际期刊论文无疑是高质量的体现。

简而言之，这个数据库具有成为极有价值资源的潜力。

附采访稿英文原文

1 The difference between Sino and USA think tanks

Question (Q): What is the biggest difference between Sino and USA think tanks?

Answer (A): The major difference, of course, is that USA think tanks have had many more years to develop their management practices and build bridges to the policy communities compared with their Chinese counterparts. I think a better question here is one about the differences among Chinese think tanks.

This week I met with six think tanks all in Jiangsu Province. I think they are all public NGOs, and no social NGOs were included. These sessions were for wide-ranging discussions of management practices, not me making presentations. Even with this tiny sample of six, a wide range of diversity in management practices was evident. I did not read any reports, on how they are organized, or on how they are setting their agenda or similar questions, but the discussions gave me some basic information.

The difference in some practices among these six is striking. Let me give a couple of examples without giving the names of the think tanks. At one university, all faculty are on the think tank’s staff automatically. The staff is encouraged to write essays over around 3,000 words that are put on the WeChat public platform—3-4 essays a week. And the managers are very proud of this productivity. As described to me there is no particular focus, no follow-up. No quality control was outlined, although it may exist. This approach is unlikely to result in much policy change. The people managing the organization are pretty young. They will learn and improve operations, but this will take time.,

On the other hand, I met with two think tanks that appear to have very good structures. They evidently have close relationships with the “right” government officials. One of these was initially staffed, by taking the team in a government office and moving it to the university to be the think tank’s core staff. Now the staff works for a think tank rather than a government agency and seems to have greater freedom in deciding the topics on which they will work and may be able to pursue a broader range of audiences in disseminating their work. They clearly focus on policy questions, and want to bring their research results to bear on these specific issues. They are pursuing“evidence-based policy making.” The individuals with whom I met seem to be really enjoying working in the new environment.

Part of the conversation was how they can protect their institute from getting endless requests to do small tasks for the ministry that provides its funds. This is a familiar arrangement that most of us know: You are the staff in the ministry, and you are told to do something and no one wants to do it. The solution is to push the task to the think tank. One approach for the think tank to control the fl ow of ad hoc requests from the funding organizations is to develop a set of priority issues that it will address over the next 2-3 years and a strategy for accomplishing this. The funder should, naturally, be consulted and agree with the program. Once the strategy is formally adopted,the think tank can, when it receives an excessive number of “surprise tasks” to do from its funder, explain the opportunity cost associated with doing it—if the new task is done, then there will be delays in carrying out the strategy.

The reality is that is too early to judge the productivity of most of these think tanks. One or two of the six I met with had been founded only in 2016. I do not know if any government agency is developing a set of criteria that can be applied in another year or two to rate their effectiveness and efficiency. Obviously this is a key task that needs to be done just now. Moreover, there is an argument that a standard set of criteria and a standard protocol for applying the criteria should be developed jointly by a group of key agencies from a group of provinces working with think tank leaders. This would encourage knowledge sharing among funders, give the protocols to develop greater credibility, and improve consistency across think tanks in their ratings.

2 The construction experience of American think tanks

Q: As far as we know, there are some think tanks to receive programs entrusted from the government and take money from the government. How can they keep independence?

A: Good question. It is one about which I know something. When President Carter was in the White House, he appointed me to be responsible for the policy research and program evaluations at the housing ministry. I worked for the government in these years. My office commissioned about 200 million dollars a year (in current prices) on contracts to think tanks and consulting firms for research and evaluations of the ministry’s programs. All awards were done through competitions.

The terms of a contract are critical for think tanks’ independence. Two terms were especially important. One fundamental term was that the government could not demand changes to policy recommendations in final reports. Of course, the officials overseeing the contracts had the opportunity to provide comments on reports. And if their comment had merit, the contractor would want to make the suggested change; that is fine, but they could not demand them except on narrow technical points. The second key term was the contractor’s right to publish the final report. Even if the government did not like it or did not give the contractor comments, after 60 days, the contractor still had the right to publish the report. The government could not block it. If you are a contractor, you do not want to do this too often, because presumably the government will fight back, not choosing you again for a new contract (even though this is officially not to happen).

Q: How does a think tank exchange information with the government?

A: There are two tracks—formal and informal. On the formal track, there are things like a competition for a new research or evaluation contract or formal requests from the government agency for a think tank to consult with it on a specific policy issue. There may also be a request from a staff member of the U.S. Congress to meet with you about research you are doing that is relevant to policy issues for which he has some responsibility. The Congress has about 12,000 staff members (there are 525 congressmen and senators in total). There are many staff with a Ph.D who are trained in social science research. They tend to want to dig fairly deeply into the analysis by reading the report and talking with the authors and so on.

On the informal track, analysts develop relationships with officials; these exchanges serve both the analyst and officials very well in broadening their thinking on specific policy issues. If you work consistently on subject A, then you are likely to be viewed as one of the experts in that subject. Officials will ask you to talk to them and others about what you are finding or what your early research shows on this topic. These are accepted as routine exchanges. If you are a staff member to the Congress, I get to know you by being brought over by the ministry. After that I can follow up, perhaps giving you a call and saying, “You know, we have a little more work on this topic, how about we discuss this over lunch?” The same process works with the people in the ministries. Often they will bring somebody with them, and you bring somebody with you. If you work at it steadily, you build upyour contacts, and you can be quite effective in the policy process. If you have been in the game for 20 years, you will have a lot of contacts and you can find out what is currently going on in your field and what topics will be “hot”in the months ahead.

Especially after I worked in the ministry, in the next ten years I had a number of opportunities that emerged from the informal contacts. The Congress holds a lot of hearings where Members of the Congress discuss policy issues with experts. You may have seen these hearings on TV. If you get to know the congressional staff well, they will recommend you to the committee chairmen to be an expert witness. When someone sees on your resume a list of congressional hearings where you have given testimony, he understands you are well-connected in the policy process.

Q: Does your think tank worry about that unsatisfactory research reports will affect follow-up order receiving?

A: Yes. This is a major concern for all think tanks in the USA. First of all, a good think tank has very strong quality control. It really does not want to turn in a bad report. When the researchers receive critical comments from reviewers, they really have to respond to them carefully and fully.

But a think tank can submit a poor quality reports because of a weak job on quality control, which does happen from time to time despite the fact that official policies that should prevent it. In the worst cases, if it is a government contract, the government will not accept the work, and the contractor will not be paid the last 20 percent or 25 percent of the contract amount. But even worse, the think tank’s and the primary researchers’reputations will be badly damaged within the ministry. If your reputation with the group in the ministry that reviews proposals is bad, then winning the next contract will be very hard.

Q: Does the USA have new high level think-tanks favored by the government? What kind of think tanks should be constructed in China today?

A: We do not have the concept of the “high level think tank”. High-level for us would mean a combination of two things—policy influential and a reasonable volume of activities. A think tank may be quite effective on a single and very narrow topic, but that alone does not make you a leading think tank. That is one point. The other point is to be an influential think tank in our system, the think tank has to be successful in raising money, because the government does not provide budget support. Each think tank competes against other think tanks and consulting firms for funds from government agencies and foundations. Hence, most think tanks experience times of expansion and policy influence and times of less success.

The accent in your question was on a “new” think tank, I think. I can think of one. It is only six years old. It is called Results for Development Institute (R4D). It was started by a fellow who just left the World Bank as a vice president and was primarily interested in implementing demonstration projects in developing countries as a tool for supporting new policies, especially in the health and education sectors. But he obtained support, not from our government, but from international organizations and foundations primarily, as well as, later, one U.S. government agency that works in developing countries. This think tank’s success in having genuine impact in a number of countries is an astonishing story. Eight people from Jiangsu Province came to Washington in September, where they met with R4D’s founding president and were impressed by R4D’s approach.

A key point is that think tanks’ effectiveness varies over time. One does not know if an organization will be more or less influential over time. It is possible that the policy issues where some think tanks are strongest are of little interest to the government; so they may be doing good work, but there is no audience. Hence, as for influence, it is really quite variable across think tanks and over time for the same think tank.

Think tanks keep getting created. Nearly all start because their founders believe that a certain issue is not being given enough attention. I can tell you that this is the case in the US. It is also the same in Europe and Eastern Europe. I have worked in these places and have some first-hand knowledge. They focus initially almostexclusively on their core policy area and, with luck, they have some impact. Then they begin spreading out into other policy areas. Typically the new areas are close to the core area so that current staff can work on both. As they take on more topics, they hire more staff.

Besides attracting a strong executive director, there are several other critical tasks in starting a think tank.

（1）Take the time and energy to define the think tank’s mission carefully—even if all the work done in the early years may not be perfectly consistent with it. It provides essential guidance for selecting work, hiring staff, project execution, and action in the policy arena.

（2）Visit potential sponsors and policymakers to describe your initiative and solicit advice on emerging policy issues you might study and on management tips. Do not ask for funds at this stage. These meetings are key to put you into the policy community consciousness.

（3）Focus on a few areas of high priority for the policy community to attract attention. Usually one needs to deliver a critical mass of advice in an area to be taken seriously, and can start research on other areas in the meantime.

（4）Strong quality control is absolutely critical from the very start. It is very hard for a think tank to recover respect if it has early problems with the quality of its work.

（5）Get a communication operation up early. If you do not define yourself, others will and their descriptions are likely to be inaccurate. It is essential to be clear about the relationship with the sponsor. You will need to demonstrate your independence from sponsors.

（6）Attract a few very good policy analysts to ensure professionalism in the organization’s work and to have an image of competence. Consultants are the second best because they can be hired by anyone and therefore, reports they prepare for you only strengthen your reputation to a limited degree.

（7）Governance:①establish a tradition of group decision making (not senior staff voting, rather consultation); ② communicate regularly with all staff—lots of options on how to organize this.

Q: What do you think about the development trend of American think tanks?

A: For the last ten years or so, this autonomous and independent group has been very dominant..

My rough estimate is that today still 75% of think tanks belong to this category. But15%-20% are in another category, quasi independent. This category has arisen because some wealthy donors and groups support think tanks that broadly share their policy philosophy or the political direction they favor. They might offer a think tank a very large grant for a new center on the environment or another topic of interest to the donor. If it is a conservative donor, the expectation is that the new center will fight against any more regulations that restrict what businesses can do. The think tank is expected to produce evidence that the costs of more restrictions on pollution will be too expensive for the economy. These think tank move away from evidence-based policy formulation to one where they are, in effect, selling a pre-identified position. Think tanks of this type have both conservative and liberal orientations.

Given this situation, civil society is thinking about what can be done to try to slow down this movement away from evidence-based proposals. Some key actors are outside the think tank community. Foundations in particular have already taken some action, particularly in the area of pressing all think tanks to be transparent about the sources of their funds, both in general terms and for each project. The idea is that someone reading a report or considering policy recommendations in a report may be skeptical about them if the sponsor of the research is an organization or individual that has a direct interest in the outcome—for example, an oil company sponsoring an analysis of the pollution associated with drilling for oil. Several foundations found a new group called Transparify. org, and they look at how much information is on think tank websites about where their money comes from.

There are also critical actions that can be taken to help ensure a continuation of evidence-based policyrecommendations. This starts with the board of directors whose main task is to make sure the think tank’s behavior remains consistent with its mission, which nearly always includes taking an independent, objective approach to its analysis. One important task the board can perform is to review all large grants or contracts before they are signed to be certain that their goals and terms are consistent with the organization’s mission and insist on changing or rejecting those that do not meet this standard. The second key area is hiring and rewarding analysts who consistently take a rigorous evidence-based analytic approach to their research and policy development. A strong quality control system must be in place to prevent conclusions that are not based squarely on analytic results from being published or otherwise advocated.

My sense is that the drift among U.S. think tanks towards politicization can be arrested. But this is going to take a strong effort by foundations, other civil society organizations, as well as think tanks themselves. If the drift to politicization continues, think tanks will likely lose the privileged position in the policy process they have enjoyed over the past 60 years.

3 The effect of think tank appraisal on the think tank development

Q: Is it beneficial to the development of think tanks to appraise think tanks through comparisons that result in rankings?

A: It is hard to do such comparisons well. But such comparisons can provide valuable information that can be especially useful for those outside the think tank community. The biggest think tank ranking machine is this one at the University of Pennsylvania. The methodology employed is secret. As a consequence, many people do not take the rankings very seriously. On the other hand, all think tanks that receive high ratings tout them.

An alternative to the secret methodology is to restrict the data employed to widely accepted indicators, such as how many articles a think tank published in the past two years in peer-reviewed journals, how many people testified before the parliament, how many TV appearances did staff make, how many mentions of the think tank appeared in newspapers. One could also learn from think tanks’ information they gather for internal use, such as how many appointments they had with ministry officials in the reference time period. Outputs and activities are indirect indicators of influence and so are only broadly effective in measuring success in the policy arena. But identifying who really influences something is extremely difficult.

In sum, I think one needs to look at these rankings as being only a very general indicator of success.

Q: What do you think of the CTTI database led by Professor Li Gang?

A: He gave me a tour of the new database for 30 minutes, but I do not claim to really understand it. It is useful and it can be a real resource. He pointed out, for example, if you are looking for someone who is expert in a particular topic, you can search publications to find the qualified people at think tanks. It has the potential to facilitate dramatically a lot of work involving multiple think tanks.

It may also result in strong analysts being hired away from their “home” think tank. You can look at such a transaction being positive or negative, depending on whether you are the winner or the loser in a particular case. The data base contains entries for individual analysts for many conference presentations and reports. I do not know the extent to which Chinese think tank analysts have been publishing in international refereed journals, which is the gold standard for quality publications. I am on the board of several journals and for these journals, at least, the incidence of authors with a Chinese name has increased very sharply in recent years..

In short, the data base holds the potential to be an extremely valuable resource. Of course, it will only achieve its potential if think tanks provide information on themselves to CTTI.

2017-01-16

2017-01-18 本文责任编辑：唐果媛

吕青（ORCID: 0000-0003-3101-1733），《智库理论与实践》编辑部主任，副研究馆员，E-mail: luq@mail.las. ac.cn。栾瑞英（ORCID: 0000-0002-4721-9128），中国科学院文献情报中心博士研究生，E-mail: luanruiying@mail.las.ac.cn。