JOHN DEBOER

[摘 要]智庫通過商議提案、激發(fā)公眾討論等方式，為解決當(dāng)代世界極為緊迫的問題，催化產(chǎn)生一系列理論和觀點，集合專家的創(chuàng)意和智慧以影響決策。同時，智庫還幫助設(shè)定政策議程，成功的智庫應(yīng)隨時準備著提案，當(dāng)問題一出現(xiàn)便可立馬付諸實施。但是，如果智庫的意識形態(tài)狹隘，則會造成決策失誤。因而智庫應(yīng)提供開放平臺，引入全新理念，讓決策者直面相關(guān)意見，并省視自己的觀點，從而做出正確決策。

[關(guān)鍵詞] 智庫；決策；有益

[中圖分類號] C932 [文獻標識碼] A [文章編號] 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.”

在一次與東京聯(lián)合國大學(xué)國際治理創(chuàng)新中心（CIGI）主席羅欣頓·麥德拉德的深談中，我問道：“智庫到底有什么好處？”他簡潔明確地回答：“智庫的影響力本身就是最好的解釋?！比缓笏^續(xù)強調(diào)，雖然人們可以質(zhì)疑智庫影響力背后的策略和動機，但最重要的是， 智庫促使了觀念和網(wǎng)絡(luò)的改變。麥德拉德認為，檢驗好的智庫最立竿見影的方法，就是看其是否會激起基于證據(jù)的討論，而非爭論到底是偏左翼、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.

麥德拉德的觀點獲得了廣泛的支持和認可。大多數(shù)人都認為，智庫就是集合了專家的創(chuàng)意和智慧來影響決策。智庫的存在就是觀點和行動的催化劑。當(dāng)今世界面臨著許多緊迫的問題，包括赤貧、不公平、氣候變化、快速城市化、傳染病的蔓延、武裝沖突、國際恐怖主義、有組織犯罪以及核武器擴散。因此，針對這些問題的解決提議就顯得至關(guān)重要。從最好的角度來看，智庫可以通過商議提案、激發(fā)公眾討論來收集政治上的設(shè)想，并且提供具有創(chuàng)意且切實可行的方法，來解決當(dāng)今世界存在的最為緊迫的問題。

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.

智庫在過去已經(jīng)做出過這些貢獻。例如，布魯金斯學(xué)會的專家里奧·帕斯沃爾斯基，他曾幫助重建二戰(zhàn)后的歐洲大陸，正是他提出的具體建議才形成了馬歇爾計劃。由時任總統(tǒng)拉斐爾·萊姆金領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的卡內(nèi)基國際和平基金會，在促進聯(lián)合國反種族滅絕公約的通過進程上發(fā)揮了舉足輕重的作用，該大會是由聯(lián)合國大會于1948年為防止再一次發(fā)生大屠殺事件而設(shè)立的。正當(dāng)2008年經(jīng)濟危機的時候，國際治理創(chuàng)新中心提出革新八國集團系統(tǒng)（G8），從而創(chuàng)建了20國首腦集團（G20）。這一革新幫助建立了G20，使之成為了經(jīng)濟危機時期國際經(jīng)濟合作的主要論壇。另一個智庫發(fā)揮突破性先鋒作用的例子，就是全球發(fā)展工作中心支持的關(guān)于疫苗的先進市場委員會的提議。這一提議的結(jié)果就是建立了一種機制，該機制保證了對于最初影響發(fā)展中國家疾病疫苗研發(fā)的私人投資。2005年，7國集團財長肯定了這一想法，其中6位承諾捐款15億美元支持這一行動。以上這些想法都不是孤立發(fā)生的，而是反復(fù)地發(fā)現(xiàn)、學(xué)習(xí)以及不斷適應(yīng)，甚至有時也通過失敗。在每一個案例中，時間都顯得至關(guān)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.”

作為想法迸發(fā)的催化劑，僅是智庫所應(yīng)扮演角色的一個方面。智庫的另一個重要角色就是幫助設(shè)定政策議程。政策執(zhí)行過程是一件非常復(fù)雜的事情。甚至最好的智庫也會錯失將有說服力的想法轉(zhuǎn)化為現(xiàn)實的關(guān)鍵時機。約翰·金登對于這一問題的研究頗具指導(dǎo)意義，因為他強調(diào)了政策制定過程中固有的不可預(yù)見性。根據(jù)金登的觀點，把一個想法提上政府的議事日程需要不懈的堅持、專業(yè)的知識、創(chuàng)造正確的聯(lián)系，以及最為重要的就是好的時機。正如他在《議程、備選方案與公共政策》一書中所言，“在政策過程中陳詞不僅僅是在別人完全控制下所做的事情，而更應(yīng)該是在機會來臨時把握好機會”。

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.

成功的智庫隨時都準備著提案，當(dāng)問題一出現(xiàn)，這些提案就會變成解決方法，并且可以立馬付諸實施。然而，單單有好的想法是遠遠不夠的。正如金登所言，“想法本身是無法驅(qū)使政治有所變化的，他們必須與更為常見的政治因素相結(jié)合才會帶來政治變化”。當(dāng)智庫在等待合適的時機去組建支持者的聯(lián)盟時，為了獲取成功，它需要足夠的資源和毅力堅持去持續(xù)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.

政策過程中固有的不可預(yù)測性會產(chǎn)生負面作用，即好主意并不總是獲得成功。遺憾的是，經(jīng)常會有受意識形態(tài)主導(dǎo)的智庫支持錯誤理念的例子出現(xiàn)，這些理念限制了政府對這個世界的理解，錯誤評定他們的選擇，并造成巨大的傷害。我們在2003年的伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭中已經(jīng)見識過，當(dāng)時911恐怖襲擊事件給予伊拉克政變支持者們（這是PNAC——新美國世紀計劃的一部分）借口入侵伊拉克，并以傳播民主和贏取反恐戰(zhàn)爭的名義鏟除薩達姆·侯賽因。PNAC和其他政變支持者的意見在喬治·W·布什政策選擇和管理的形成方面具有極高的有效性，而反面性的具有說服力的證據(jù)已被忽略，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致了一場代價昂貴的戰(zhàn)爭。

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.

正如前加拿大參議員休西格爾所指出的，當(dāng)智庫的意識形態(tài)狹隘，對任何問題忽略其反面跡象并不斷做出預(yù)測性結(jié)論時，正是其最差的工作狀態(tài)。而當(dāng)智庫出現(xiàn)這種情況時，其效率常常會大打折扣。但是，羅伯特杰維斯在《國際政治中的知覺和錯誤知覺》中做出的開創(chuàng)性研究顯示，專家和政策制定者在主觀上很容易回避或忽略與他們觀點相反的信息。最近，世界銀行發(fā)表的《2015年世界發(fā)展報告：思維、社會與行為》指出政策制定者甚至專家易于產(chǎn)生機械化的思維。隨著這份報告的關(guān)注度越來越高，持有同樣觀點的人之間的討論會使他們在原有的立場上變得更加極端。事實上，這份報告已經(jīng)明確指出，如果在處理不同個人觀點時失敗，就會造成“持續(xù)性的偏頗的政策制定”。研究指出，對于政策制定者，認清自己的偏見，在發(fā)表觀點過程中避免證據(jù)選擇和過濾的情況出現(xiàn)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.

根據(jù)《2015年世界發(fā)展報告》，避免確認性偏見的最好方法就是讓人們直面相左意見并讓他們?yōu)樽约旱挠^點進行辯護。而最好的智庫正是這樣做的。它創(chuàng)造出社會型和智慧型的環(huán)境，激發(fā)人們進行討論，從而了解到自己的偏見所在。它提供一個平臺用于引入全新的理念，并就當(dāng)下的關(guān)鍵話題激發(fā)公共探討，以此來擴大討論的范圍。

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.

在發(fā)展中國家相對民主的環(huán)境下，智庫正逐步發(fā)揮這種功能。例如，加納經(jīng)濟事務(wù)研究所就扮演著關(guān)鍵性的角色，它通過組建工作坊、選民教育論壇以及總統(tǒng)和副總統(tǒng)辯論等方式，在國內(nèi)政治不穩(wěn)定的環(huán)境中強化民主。智庫行動（由加拿大國際發(fā)展研究中心、比爾和梅琳達蓋茨基金、威廉和弗洛拉休利特基金、英國援助所、荷蘭外事局、挪威發(fā)展合作事務(wù)所贊助），正是類似項目中的一個例子，通過就當(dāng)下重要的公共政策話題激發(fā)公眾辯論，加強智庫在南半球的重要性。

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.

對世界來說，2015年將是關(guān)鍵性的一年。一大批非常重要的政策過程正在進行，聯(lián)合國秘書長已聲明，“2015將是也必須是全球性行動的一年”。從國際和平和安全、氣候變化到全球發(fā)展，重要的決策將為這些問題形成行動方針，政策過程將達到高潮，智庫需要發(fā)揮建設(shè)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.

在國際和平與安全這個問題上，聯(lián)合國目前正著手進行兩項重要的獨立審議。第一項審議針對維和行動，就此，聯(lián)合國秘書長全權(quán)委派高級別維和行動獨立委員會，分析評估在當(dāng)今這個復(fù)雜、不穩(wěn)定的國際環(huán)境中，聯(lián)合國主導(dǎo)的維和行動應(yīng)該做出怎樣的調(diào)整，才能保證行動的切實有效。另外，還有一項政策過程將對飽受戰(zhàn)爭蹂躪的國家產(chǎn)生重要影響，即是對聯(lián)合國建設(shè)和平住房建議計劃的評審。

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.

可持續(xù)發(fā)展特別峰會（9.15 - 9.28）的主要討論內(nèi)容，同樣可以視為一項重要政策的制定和落實過程。在此次會議上，聯(lián)合國各成員國將就制定未來15年全球發(fā)展目標展開討論，并最終支持可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標。正如聯(lián)合國大學(xué)校長大衛(wèi)·M·梅隆在最近一篇文章中提到的，目前的挑戰(zhàn)在于構(gòu)建一個在2015年后完備而有力的框架，確保其能夠經(jīng)受住時間的考驗，并且在接下來的15年里一直有效地運轉(zhuǎn)。協(xié)商的過程十分復(fù)雜，且涉及到多個國家不同的國家利益，無疑加大了達成最終共識的難度。但就像我在最近一篇文章所強調(diào)的，到目前為止全世界設(shè)定切實可行的目標確保成功，并致力于提高人的尊嚴、平等與公正，是勢在必行的。

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，另一段關(guān)鍵時期是11月30日到12月11日，在此期間，巴黎將主辦聯(lián)合國氣候變化框架公約第21次締約方會議。此次大會上，190個與會方將努力就溫室氣體的排放標準達成新的共識，以取代過去京都議定書中的有關(guān)規(guī)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.

坦白的說，政策制定者正努力對政策過程中會討論到的關(guān)鍵事項做出有效的回復(fù)，而智庫針對這些事項，在會談中通過提供給各方與這些事項相關(guān)的切實可行的選擇，從而發(fā)揮建設(shè)性作用。包含聯(lián)合國大學(xué)政策研究中心在內(nèi)，智庫在貢獻基于證據(jù)的評估方面已經(jīng)發(fā)揮了重要作用（示例可見聯(lián)合國大學(xué)政策研究中心有關(guān)維和行動事項高級別獨立委員會的相關(guān)報告）。但政策過程仍需要更多的觀點來形成有效的建議及其解決措施。

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，回到我與羅欣頓·麥德拉德之間的談話。我認為，智庫的成功至少需要四個因素的支持。他們需要好的想法，需要一個支持這些想法行動者的聯(lián)合體，需要制度化并可以（包括資源）在一個動態(tài)的環(huán)境中去培養(yǎng)、引導(dǎo)這些想法的能力，以及在時機成熟之時當(dāng)機立斷的能力。他們需要的是，當(dāng)全世界急需優(yōu)秀想法時能夠真正支持這些想法的方法。換句話說，智庫需要專注于自己的長處，堅信智庫的影響力本身，就是對所有疑問最好的解釋。

本文選譯自（https：//www.cigionline.org/articles/what-are-

think-tanks-good）

[責(zé)任編輯：馬昌運，王麗瓊]