Search results

While the number of think tanks active in American politics has more than quadrupled since the 1970s, their influence has not expanded proportionally. Instead, the known ideological proclivities of many, especially newer think tanks with their aggressive efforts to obtain high profiles, have come to undermine the credibility with which experts and expertise are generally viewed by public officials. This book explains this paradox. The analysis is based on 135 in-depth interviews with officials at think tanks and those in the policy making and funding organizations that draw upon and support their work. The book reports on results from a survey of congressional staff and journalists and detailed case studies of the role of experts in health care and telecommunications reform debates in the 1990s and tax reduction in 2001

Objective. Experts are increasingly active in U.S. policymaking, but what accounts for their varied visibility is unclear. The agenda‐setting and media studies literature suggest that experts are generally neutral, distant actors in policymaking whose products are made visible by Congress and the news media when helpful. This study examines how and when the intentional efforts of experts can also affect their relative visibility and whether a proliferation of expert organizations, as has occurred in American policymaking in recent decades, is correctly viewed as creating conditions for more rational, thoughtful decisionmaking, as some existing scholarship might suggest. Methods. I consider the conveyance of expertise among a sample of 66 public policy think tanks in congressional testimony and three national newspapers between 1991 and 1995. In a multivariate analysis, I evaluate what accounts for the quantity of congressional and media visibility. I then use a content analysis to examine differences in the nature of visibility received by think tanks. Results. Washington‐based think tanks and think tanks of no identifiable ideology have some advantage in gaining congressional and media visibility overall. Think tanks deemed credible receive more, and more substantive, visibility than those that are ideological and marketing‐oriented. Conclusions. Cumulatively, my findings suggest that more credible, staid, not identifiably ideological expert organizations are slightly favored by congressional staff members and journalists to provide guidance on issues and news stories. More ideological and marketing‐oriented sources of expertise, by contrast, are more relied upon to build support for ideas, either in staged congressional hearings or on the editorial pages of newspapers. Expert organizations can affect their relative visibility; the evidence is mixed on whether their proliferation makes policymaking and decisionmaking better informed or more rational or thoughtful.

Objective. Experts are increasingly active in US policy making, but what accounts for their varied visibility is unclear. The agenda-setting & media studies literature suggest that experts are generally neutral, distant actors in policy making, whose products are made visible by Congress & the news media when helpful. This study examines how & when the intentional efforts of experts can also affect their relative visibility & whether a proliferation of expert organizations, as has occurred in American policy making in recent decades, is correctly viewed as creating conditions for more rational, thoughtful decision making, as some existing scholarship might suggest. Methods. I consider the conveyance of expertise among a sample of 66 public policy think tanks, in congressional testimony, & three national newspapers, 1991-1995. In a multivariate analysis, I evaluate what accounts for the quantity of congressional & media visibility. I then use a content analysis to examine differences in the nature of visibility received by think tanks. Results. Washington-based think tanks & think tanks of no identifiable ideology have some advantage in gaining congressional & media visibility overall. Think tanks deemed credible receive more, & more substantive, visibility than those that are ideological & marketing-oriented. Conclusions. Cumulatively, my findings suggest that more credible, staid, not identifiably ideological expert organizations are slightly favored by congressional staff members & journalists to provide guidance on issues & news stories. More ideological & marketing-oriented sources of expertise, by contrast, are more relied on to build support for ideas, either in staged congressional hearings or on the editorial pages of newspapers. Expert organizations can affect their relative visibility; the evidence is mixed on whether their proliferation makes policy making & decision making better informed or more rational or thoughtful. 4 Tables, 19 References. Adapted from the source document.