Hobgoblin #8 November 2014 www.hobgoblin.org.nz

A left wing think tank in Aotearoa – a peculiar business by Brendan Tuohy This article is a response supporting Sue Bradford's proposal to set up a left-wing think tank in Aotearoa, as set out and justified in her recent doctoral thesis, A major left wing think tank in Aotearoa – an impossible dream or a call to action? (cited hereafter as Bradford (2014)). I take it as given that the NZ left needs a think tank and that it would be a good idea to set one up. Instead of focusing on that, my take on the think tank question will be to look at the business case for a think tank and considerations that flow from that in terms of the think tank's policy focus, style of work, staffing, management and governance and external relationships. Sue's research revealed general agreement among leftists that there is a need for sophisticated, scientifically grounded left-wing ideology that could be used to counter neo-liberal hegemony, in fact a “hunger” for it. But the question is whether that widespread demand for the product of skilled left wing ideological labour is what economists call effective demand, the kind of demand that is backed by the ability to pay. A think tank will need to be adequately paid for its work, simply because it will be a small business enterprise embedded in the NZ capitalist economy. It will have to pay its bills or die. As Matt McCarten put it: With something like this, in the end … what's the market and what are they willing to pay for? First of all find the market, and then you can say how the product then is sold, because that's the relationship. Unless there's a need, it won't happen. Bradford (2014) page 193. I think Matt nailed it right there and that's why my contribution addresses this central question. So what is a left think tank? Sue's paper uses the following definition of think tank: Think tank: a community based not for profit organisation [that] undertakes detailed research and policy development in order to influence and enhance public policy formation across a broad range of issues, through publications, media work, lobbying, conferences, workshops and other forms of advocacy and education. Bradford (2014) Page 21. To focus on the practicality of a think tank, I will use a very different definition with a similar extension: a think tank is an enterprise specialising in the manufacture of political ideology. The manufacture of political ideology is a staged production process in which raw material – knowledge of facts – is gathered through research, then processed – formulated – into political ideology and finally distributed as concrete ideological products like publications, media interviews, conferences, workshops, lobbying etc. Thus there are 3 main types of specialised labour at a think tank: research, analysis and publicity, and these correspond to the elements in Sue's definition. Sue's definition adds additional elements that apply to her proposed NZ left think tank but not to think tanks in general: that it should be community based, not for profit, and cover a broad range of issues. So my definition, while it generally coincides with Sue's, is broader and includes e.g. government, university, religious and for-profit think tanks. So that's a think tank, but what is a left think tank? Sue's definition of left is Left: a commitment to working for a world based on values of fairness, inclusion, participatory democracy, solidarity and equality, and to tranforming Aotearoa into a society grounded in economic, 1

social, environmental and Tiriti justice. Bradford (2014) Page 18. Again, for my purposes I'll use a simpler definition that covers much the same ground in a different way: left means expressing the interests and perspectives of working people rather than those of the capitalist ruling class. This sense of left includes reformists as well as what Sue calls the transformational left. Reformism is left to the degree that it expresses the workers' interests albeit within the capitalist frame. Social democratic ideology necessarily expresses working class interests even while subordinating them to capitalist interests, otherwise it isn't social democracy at all but just plain liberalism. Even the more right wing social democrats who are eager to sell out working people's interests still need something to sell. So, for me, a left think tank is an enterprise manufacturing political ideology that expresses the interests and perspectives of working people. Business case Now let's look at the business case for a left think tank in Aotearoa. Think tanks are unusual enterprises within capitalist society in that they generally exist because a sponsor promotes them. Sponsors generally sponsor think tanks because they intend to make direct use of the political ideology the think tank manufactures for their own political purposes, rather than to sell it in the market as a commodity like most capitalist enterprises do with their products. That's why so many think tanks are governmental organisations or non-profits rather than ordinary profit-making enterprises. The main issue for any NZ left think tank is obviously going to be funding in the absence of a single sponsor with deep pockets. Quite simply, there is no wealthy left wing sponsor organisation that could set the think tank up and bankroll it for years. Any organisation set up expressly to sponsor the think tank will have to find a great deal of extra funding from outside to keep it going, which means that it will be obliged to sell a large part of the think tank's political ideology output in a wider market, literally sell it, for money. Chapter 6 of Sue's paper examines a range of possible funding sources, including wealthy leftists, philanthropic trusts, commnity sector funding sources, university support, contract research jobs, publication sales, sustainer funding from supporters, funding from churches, community groups, political parties, Māori sources, government funding and contracts, and international sources including UN subcommittees and overseas think tanks. Bradford (2014) pages 193-194. I suggest that the business model should be open to all of these sources. That means that these outside funders will either be paying for work done directly for them (research contracts, publications) or donating to the sponsor organisation to support the work of the think tank generally. That need to satisfy the customers in turn means that the think tank should focus on manufacturing left political ideology that has the broadest possible customer appeal. Ideological production should extend to items purchasable not just by reformist left organisations but even by agencies of the bourgeois government. A research focused think tank model These considerations lead to the following proposed business model for the think tank: 1. 2. 3. 4.

It should focus primarily on research, only secondarily on analysis, and even less on advocacy and promotion. Its research and analysis should be of the very highest academic and scientific quality. Rather than specialise on particular issues, it should specialise on an area of expertise: the lives and interests of working people and beneficiaries. It should be a non-profit enterprise led and managed by a prominent and gifted academic under the governance of a left wing community trust. It should flexibly bring in outside labour as required, through contracting out, joint ventures, 2

5.

voluntary work and project employment. It should be started with some guaranteed project funding arranged beforehand.

1. Research The role of research was seen as fundamental. Bradford (2014) page 194. The balance between research, analysis and publicity varies a lot between different think tanks. There is a range from purely research think tanks, whose publicity output is confined to academic publications, through to purely advocacy think tanks that are all about propaganda and only pretend to do research, like the corporate front think tanks shilling for tobacco harm or climate change denial. A special focus on research (and to a lesser extent on analysis) would benefit the proposed NZ left think tank because the knowledge gained by scientific research is generally usable by customers with a wide range of political perspectives. Obviously any research needs analysis, but this should be data-oriented, i.e. focussed on explicating the facts, rather than publicity-oriented, i.e. focussed on making political use of the research results. For example, consider the imaginary case of a scientific research study that explicates the causal relationship between overcrowded housing and respiratory disease. That study would be useful for radical housing activists, although they would have to create their own publicity. It would also be useful for the Labour Party to justify a mildly reformist government housing scheme, using a very different publicity campaign. It would even be useful to a National Party run District Health Board seeking to justify to the government its spending from the health budget on remedial housing (this is one of the few exceptions to the rule that health funding is spent only on narrowly-defined health matters). This wide range of potential customers would be severely restricted if the analysed data of the research study was marketed bundled with extensive publicity material, because that publicity material would inevitably be based on a particular political agenda. Another inevitable issue faced by a left wing think tank will be the organised hostility and contempt of the ruling class and its propaganda apparatus. If the think tank has unimpeachable academic credibility, then it will be far harder for professional liars to dismiss its output as “screaming left wing conspiracy theory.” A focus on top-class science and academic quality is an effective defence strategy. The NZ left is generally less weak in publicity and activism than it is in scientific research. That means that leftists outside the think tank can usefully add their own value to its products at the publicity end. We can all use the think tank's research in our diverse activism without the think tank having to take responsibility for all strands of that activism. 2. Working people's lives as a specialist area of expertise Any enterprise can generally strengthen its position in the market by specialisation, thereby finding a niche for itself, and think tanks are no exception to this rule. Often think tanks specialise in a particular policy area, as for example CAFCA does in the area of foreign control. But I share Sue's urge to keep the think tank open to working on a broad range of issues. That's why I propose specialising on developing expertise in all issues relating to a particular social subject, the working people and other socially excluded sectors of the NZ population. It is no accident that the lives, social conditions and perspectives of working people and beneficiaries are systematically under-studied and neglected in our country: after all, excluding the perspectives and interests of the working people is a big part of what the ruling class does when it rules. But eventually some of the problems facing working people (e.g. child poverty) become too big to ignore and the facts have to faced even by the bourgeoisie, and they have to be discovered before they can be faced. Bourgeois think tanks oriented to promoting the narrow interests of this or that business sector or political party are ill equipped to study workers and the poor, and therefore there is a market opening for a research agency with just this focus. Our think tank could be the recognised centre of expertise regarding the lives and perspectives of NZ working people. 3

There is also a deeper reason for the proposed focus on studying working people and the poor. It follows from the notion of left ideology as ideology that expresses the interests of working people that scientific study of their lives and perspectives naturally tends to produce genuine left wing ideology, independently of and even at times despite the political position of the researcher. At one level socialism simply is scientific knowledge of the interests of the working class. So an explicit scientific research focus on the lives of workers and other socially excluded people would tend towards keeping the politics of the think tank on track through its own activity, rather than through costly and difficult corrective interventions into the think tank's running by its left wing sponsors and outside critics. 3. Management and governance For the think tank to survive as a community academic institution, it will need to attain the highest possible academic and scientific standards. A left wing think tank has some advantages in this area, because left wing social science academics have limited opportunities to develop their research programmes within the official academy where bourgeois hegemony is institutionalised. That lack of academic opportunity opens the possibility of acquiring outstanding academic figures, or at least an outstanding academic figure, to lead the think tank and be its public face. Alongside that academic and public leadership the think tank will need advanced project management, contracting and marketing skills. It will need a top-notch business manager to manage what will inevitably be complex business relationships with employees, funders, contractors, contract clients and creditors, as well as publishers, media and other institutions. It should go without saying that the performance of the key personnel will be decisive for the success of the think tank as an enterprise. Staff positions should be filled with great care, following rigorous standards and if possible after keen competition. The employed workers at such an enterprise inevitably have the greatest day to day influence over it. That can't be avoided and isn't really undesirable. But that doesn't mean that the left wing group sponsoring the think tank must surrender overall control to their employees. Instead they can maintain strategic control in the form of governance. Under the well known governance/management business model, a board of governors sets policy for the organisation, manages the chief executive and oversees performance, while executive and management powers are delegated. This would be an appropriate, hands-off mechanism for a broadly based left wing governance group to use to direct the think tank at a strategic level. The governance group should by no means be academic in its outlook or membership but should ideally reflect the alliance of left wing activists and academics underpinning the think tank project. It should also include representation of any institutional supporters and funders of the think tank, e.g. political party research units or church social justice groups. 4. Flexibility and productivity Even if all goes well on the funding side, the NZ left think tank will inevitably be rather impecunious as think tanks go. Lack of cash means there can be no room for inefficiency. The think tank will need to be highly productive in terms of units of high quality left wing ideology produced per dollar spent. That will require making extensive use of flexible working methods, contract and voluntary labour and high-technology, networked research and communication techniques. This means that the think tank enterprise will have to have a high technical level particularly in information technology. 5. Start-up funding The most difficult time in the life of any business is when it is starting up. To kick off a think tank, the best way would be to arrange some guaranteed base funding for year one and two, derived from well defined research projects commissioned by outside agencies. Possible clients could be the Labour or Green Party parliamentary research units, social science departments within the universities, private philanthropic organisations, unions and the church social justice agencies. The negotiation of these start-up contracts should be part of the think tank setup process and would also cement long term buy-in from the outside sponsors in question.

4

In lieu of a conclusion I hope that this brief article stimulates further thought and debate about the think tank project among the broad left. I share Sue's belief that the process of forming a viable NZ left think tank needs widespread discussion and planning before it could be realised. Nothing is set in stone at this point, but we are at least at the stage of working through the issues involved in launching this hopeful and necessary project. For that Sue Bradford deserves heartfelt thanks.

5