Stefan Einarsson

Policy institutes, or “think tanks”, are becoming increasingly ubiquitous in our societies. In this article, we conceptualize think tanks explicitly as a civil society phenomenon, linking the proliferation of this relatively new type of actor to the transformation of civil society structures and of systems of interest representation. Using the case of Sweden as an illustration, we argue that the recent decades’ rise of think tanks in institutional settings outside of the USA can only be understood if we take into account the particular features and institutional policy access opportunities of the domestic civil society in each national case, and that think tanks should be analytically understood as the allies of, rather than competitors to, the older, established forces in civil society. 

Think tanks, defined as organizations that produce policy research for political purposes (McGann, 2007; Medvetz, 2008), are an increasingly ubiquitous type of policy actor world-wide. In Sweden, the last 20 years' sharp increase in think tank numbers (Aberg, Einarsson,XX1Reuter, 2019) has coincided with the decline of the traditional Swedish corporatist model based on the intimate involvement of the so-called 'popular movements' in policy-making (Lundberg, 2014; Micheletti, 1995). Contrary to the large, mass-membership based and democratically organized movement organizations, think tanks are small, professionalized, expert-based, and seldom represent any larger membership base. Their increasingly important role as the ideological greenhouses in Swedish civil society might, therefore, be interpreted as an indication of an increasingly elitist and professionalized character of the latter. But what is a think tank? The article explores how a shared understanding of what constitutes a think tank is constructed by think-tankers themselves. In the study, interviewed think tank executives and top-level staff reflect upon their own organizations' missions and place in the Swedish policy system.

Co-operatives are constitutional hybrids where the hybridity is laid down in structural components such as rules and regulations and is visible in ownership arrangements and organizational mission. We seek to advance the current scholarly debate on organizational governance by applying a structural and processual analytical framework on empirical data consisting of interviews with members and elected officials in a sizeable Swedish forestry co-operative.We argue that market imperatives of economies of scale in the agricultural industry have led to increasingly larger farms and also to increasingly larger and more centralized agricultural businesses. This has in turn diminished the number of members which are to govern the businesses in these co-operatives, and also increased the size and complexity of the governance task. We will thus argue that this development indicates an ongoing re-balancing of the hybrid character of the co-operative studied, with clear governance implications.

Foundations and philanthropy currently play a very limited role in the Swedish welfare. The same is true in fields like Culture and Recreation or International Activities. Only in the case of funding of research do Swedish foundations exhibit a role possible to define in terms of substitution rather than weak complementarity in relation to government. Despite marginal positions for philanthropy, Sweden displays a wealthy as well as growing foundation population, which seems like a paradox, at least in comparison to the situation in Germany and the United States where foundations traditionally play a more visible and pronounced role in society. A striking difference between the Swedish foundations and their U.S. or German counterparts is their weak bonds to religious communities or causes. Instead, we can identify in our new data set a growing segment of the Swedish foundation world that is affiliated with other parts of civil society. The same is true for the category of independent foundations, which points toward the U.S. model. We find in the article some limited support for a “philanthropic turn” in Sweden, but overall the foundation world is still deeply embedded in the social contract and strong Social-Democratic regime of the 20th century. In comparison to neighboring Scandinavian or Nordic countries, both similarities and differences are identified where, for example, the Norwegian case display a much larger segment of operating foundations, closely affiliated with government, while in Denmark, on the other hand, the corporate-owning foundation seems to be a much more important form than in Sweden.

The Expert Group on “Foundations, Venture Philanthropy and Social Investments” was commissioned by the European Commission (EC) Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD) to invite and facilitate philanthropic foundations and philanthropists to join other partners to foster the impact of the EU’s knowledge economy. To achieve this purpose, framework conditions, innovative financial tools and policy actions, and inspiring forms of collaboration have to be explored. This report contains the results of this mandate for each of these three areas.
The Expert Group started in June 2017. It had the advantage of being able to build on the results of previous reports, research, advisory groups and conferences on foundations and research since 2005 including, in brief, "Giving More for Research in Europe: Strengthening the role of philanthropy in the financing of research” (EC, 2006); "Giving in Evidence – Fundraising from Philanthropy in European Universities” (EC, 2011); "The Role of Philanthropy in the Promotion of Responsible Research and Innovation” (EC, 2013); "The European Foundations for Research and Innovation (EUFORI) Study” (EC, 2015); the conference "Building Capacity for the Future” (EC, 2015) and the “PhiSi Conference Report” (EC, 2016).
The time has come to harvest the products of such work and to act. This report offers concrete steps to take and presents evidence-based examples of good practice of collaboration and promising financial tools. The recommendations are addressed to a variety of stakeholders: the European Commission (EC), national governments, research and innovation (R&I) foundations, venture philanthropists, research performing institutions (RPOs), businesses, private bankers, citizens, umbrella organisations and researchers. A strong call is made to these constituencies for readiness to explore and learn, for implementing new approaches, for inviting new actors to join and to collaborate. If the rules of the game change, all players have to rethink their positions and redefine their roles.
The Expert Group was composed of representatives of foundations, the business community and academia (see Annex 1). Working with experts from different disciplines and countries has been an enriching and inspiring experience. I would like to thank the experts for their dynamic and fruitful collaboration.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to those who have been supportive of the work of this Expert Group. First of all, many thanks are due to the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Unit B.3 SMEs, Financial Instruments and State Aids, for taking the lead in setting up this Expert Group and for recognizing foundations as important partners in finding solutions for societal challenges in Europe. We are particularly grateful to Ignacio Puente González of the DG RTD for his advice and commitment. The Expert Group also benefited from the input received from policy officers of different DGs and departments of the European Commission, and from Hanna Surmatz of the European Foundation Centre (EFC), Max von Abendroth of the Donor and Foundation Network Europe (DAFNE), Priscilla Boiardi of the European Venture Philanthropy Association (EVPA) and Stuart Pritchard of the Wellcome Trust who shared the ideas and outcomes of an informal working-group of foundations and the EC.
Many other stakeholders kindly offered information and guidance and they deserve a special thanks. A full list is set out in the Acknowledgements (Annex 2).

It is our hope that this report will meet with a positive response and create constituency and stakeholder engagement for the actions proposed.
Theo Schuyt, Chair