independent think tanks and government: partners in promoting reforms or two parallel worlds?
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
1
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY:
Iurii Gorban Iryna Filipchuk Anatolii Kotov Andriy Sukharyna
Iryna BEKESHKINA Ruslan KERMACH Orysia LUTSEVYCH
RESEARCH TEAM:
Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation would like to express its gratitude to Mrs.Orysia Lutsevych,
the Chatham House researcher, for cooperation in the study, helping prepare research methodology tools
and conducting in-depth interviews with representatives of government, business and donor organizations,
and preparing the final report.
3
Table of contents:Independent think tanks and government: partners in promoting reforms or two parallel worlds? .....................................................................4
Reforms as a challenge and a chance to renovate the country ......................................................8
Survey methodology ..............................................................................................................................................9
Key findings from the survey of government authorities and non-governmental think tanks ...........................................................................................................12
• Government views of non-governmental think tanks. Are government authorities aware of non-governmental think tanks? Do they use their research and information? ......................12
• Think tank influence on policy making ...................................................................................................13
• Who are key end users of think tank products? ...................................................................................16
• What are the channels think tanks rely on to influence policy and decision making? ...............18
• Policy influence: key elements for success .............................................................................................19
• DIXI Group Case ............................................................................................................................................21
• Mechanisms of cooperation between think tanks and central and local governments ............ 23
• Partner selection criteria: what government agencies consider when choosing an independent think tank to work with? ............................................................................................ 25
• What are main barriers to effective cooperation between government and independent think tanks? ..................................................................................................................27
• Who will pay for research: financial side of the partnership ............................................................ 30
• Most relevant research topics according to think tanks and policymakers .................................. 30
• Most reputable non-governmental think tanks .................................................................................. 33
• Media perception of non-governmental think tanks .........................................................................34
Key recommendations on strengthening policy influence and cooperation between government and think tanks .................................................................................................. 36
Survey findings .................................................................................................................................................40
Annex 1. Non-governmental think tanks and government: partnership opportunities ...................40
Annex 2. Survey of non-governmental organizations and think tanks. Non-governmental think tanks and government: partnership opportunities .....................................51
Annex 3. Survey of think tanks and mass media: best partnership models ......................................... 58
4
Independent think tanks and government: partners in promoting reforms or two parallel worlds?
Given the scale and complexity of the task, local
governments of Ukraine and civil society must join
efforts to give quality intellectual justification to reforms.
Therefore, building effective cooperation between the
government, on the one hand, and independent think
tanks (ITT), on the other hand, gets extremely important
today as never before.
Is the government – both central executive and
legislative authorities as well as local administrations –
willing to cooperate with think tanks? What hinders
such cooperation and how a final product should look
like? What determines the role and influence of think
tanks on the policy-making process? These questions
are the main focus of the study conducted by the
Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation. The
study was initiated by the International Renaissance
Foundation and held within the Think Tank Development
Initiative, implemented by the International Renaissance
Foundation in cooperation with the Think Tank
Foundation (TTF) supported by the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). The interim
results were presented at the International Conference
Ukraine is going through the most difficult and yet crucial time of its history. Implementing urgent reforms can become a real break-through that would take the country to the forefront of economic and social development while failure to pass reforms would challenge the very existence of the state.
5
“Role of Think Tanks in Ukraine Key Reforms” in Kyiv on
December 7th, 2015.
The data was collected between November 20 and
December 3, 2015 by email questionnaires. The total
number of government officials interviewed was 158.
Among them there were 75 representatives of local
governments who responded to the survey. Besides Kyiv, the
survey was conducted among local councillors and mayors
of Dnipropetrovsk, Lviv, Odessa, Kharkiv, Severodonetsk
and Kramatorsk. We also interviewed 53 representatives
of national and regional media in Ukraine. Lastly, 82
respondents come from national NGOs and independent
think tanks from the center and regions of Ukraine.
On top of that, there were 23 in-depth interviews with
representatives of central government, local governments,
media, international donor agencies and international
business community. For a better understanding of the
factors that affect think tank performance, we had nine
think tanks that are illustrative examples of successful
policy influence both in Kyiv and in regions complete
email surveys.
NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INTERVIEWED
OF THEM:
158
75REPRESENTATIVES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
53EPRESENTATIVES OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MEDIA IN UKRAINE
82EPRESENTATIVES OF NATIONAL NGOs AND INDEPENDENT THINK TANKS
in-depth interviews with representatives of central government, local governments,
media, international donor agencies and international business
community. 23
6
• All government representatives – national,
local, legislative and executive – have
expressed willingness to cooperate with non-
governmental think tanks. However, the level
of claimed awareness about independent
think tanks was rated as average and this
awareness has not increased since 2014. Only
a third of government respondents know well
the work of independent think tanks, 22%
regularly read research and studies and 13%
cooperate with independent think tanks on a
regular basis. However, 95% of respondents
declared that it is important to cooperate
regularly.
• Added value of independent think tanks,
according to government representatives,
is providing neutral, proper and unbiased
environment to discuss reforms and raise
public awareness and understanding of
reforms. When selecting a think tank to
partner with, government officials consider
mainly the quality of published materials,
reputation, overall performance of a think
tank (fairness, political impartiality) and
relevant experts on staff.
• The high demand among new reformers
for good research and analytical products
that could be used for enacting reforms
and building a quality policy creates, on
the one hand, new opportunities for non-
governmental think tanks while, on the
other hand, instigates competition with
international consulting firms, as government
respondents think. International technical
assistance provides funding to employ such
consulting services.
• It is mainly think tanks that initiate cooperation,
not the government; although there is a small
group of policymakers and MPs who seek ways
to work with think tanks on making policies
and holding public debates.
• Influence of think tanks on policy making is
mainly indirect and exercised primarily through
media and building public opinion. Effective
cooperation often depends on an individual
contact in the government since the political
system is overall poor and the institutions are
weak, which hinders any direct attempt to
influence public policy openly.
• Successful independent think tanks believe
that main factors affecting the performance
are quality research, policy relevance and
reputation of experts. DiXi Group case study of
the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
showed that it is highly important to build
strong information campaign, hold an ongoing
dialogue with respective ministries, appeal to
international obligations, work with reform
champions, build a multi-stakeholder group,
create a regional coalition and have a strong
expertise in energy sector (applicable to the
case).
• The study confirmed that the following
factors hinder developing cooperation
between government and independent think
tanks: underfunding, poor awareness, weak
institutions, low political culture and lack of
effective mechanisms of cooperation.
• At the same time, end users of analytical services
believe that there are also problems within the
Key survey findingsinclude as follows:
7
independent think tanks sector, including a
lack of high-quality applied analysis, political
bias, suspicion about political servicing, and
low efficiency.
• To get to a new level of cooperation between
government and independent think tanks,
it is recommended to strengthen existing
cooperation mechanisms, such as working
with the Secretariat of the National Council
of Reform (NCR) and ministry project offices,
developing new mechanisms for engaging
independent think tanks into policy making.
Independent think tanks should improve the
quality of their research products, observe
the principle of impartiality and applied
nature of their work. To promote reforms,
independent think tanks should create more
platforms for professional policy debate and
carry out advocacy campaigns not only among
policymakers, but also among public activists
and the general public. It is necessary to
strengthen two-way communication between
government and non-governmental think
tanks.
• It is significant to strengthen the synergy
between donor support, think tank proposals
and research needs of the state. International
donors should pay attention to the shortage of
funding for independent think tanks necessary
to strengthen their analytical capacity on
the institutional basis. One should consider
new programs to fund projects oriented on
the development of regional think tanks and
promotion of their cooperation with local
governments. Working with governmental
open data should be among new areas of
funding and new focus for independent think
tanks.
All government representatives – national, local, legislative and executive – have expressed willingness to cooperate with non-governmental think tanks. However, the level of claimed awareness about independent think tanks was rated as average and this awareness has not increased since 2014.
Governmenrespondents
DECLARED THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO COOPERATE REGULARLY WITH
INDEPENDENT THINK TANKS
22%GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS
REGULARLY READ RESEARCH AND STUDIES
13%COOPERATE WITH
INDEPENDENT THINK TANKS ON A REGULAR
BASIS
95%
ONLY A THIRD OF GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS KNOW WELL THE WORK OF INDEPENDENT THINK TANKS
8
Reforms as a challenge and a chance to renovate the country
The country’s crisis - financial and economic turmoil, a sharp
drop in well-being, and ongoing hostilities in the Donbas
region – sure enough opens the door for necessary reforms
backed by pretty much unanimous public consensus that “we
can’t live like this anymore”. Ukraine’s high aid dependency
on Western partners and international donors expands the
window of opportunity for adopting and implementing
these long-awaited reforms in a whole range of industries
and areas of social and political life of the Ukrainian citizens.
However, despite the common understanding of the
need for change and constant pressure from international
institutions and partners of Ukraine, the overall pace and
quality of reforms often come under strong criticism from
both the Western partners of Ukraine and experts as well
as civil society representatives inside the country. According
to the sociological data, the pace and depth of reforms
implemented in Ukraine are viewed as negative by the public.
Complex structural changes in key areas of public life –
economic, social, military, education or cultural – must
be supported primarily by an in-depth expert analysis of
problems. However, it turns out that neither the Parliament
nor political parties nor ministries have their own think tanks
that would provide a proper analytical study necessary to
justify and to carry out necessary reforms. Our public
research organizations, including institutes, academies of
sciences and government affiliated agencies focus primarily
on scientific research and are not very effective in addressing
urgent tasks.
The situation in which Ukraine has ended up due to the tragic events of the past two years has put up on the agenda the urgent need for reform. Today, Ukraine is in fact on the most important stage of development, when urgent reforms would mean European prospects while failure of change would threaten Ukraine’s very existence as an independent state.
1. Public Opinion Survey – Residents of Ukraine // International Republican Institute (IRI), July 16-30, 2015 – http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/2015-08-24_survey_of_residents_of_ukraine_july_16-30_2015.pdf See Reforms in Ukraine: Public Opinion of Citizens // The Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, 9.09.2015 – http://www.dif.org.ua/ua/polls/2015a/reformi-v-elennja-.htm
9
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The data provided in this report was collected from the four basic groups of
respondents: government, business, public and media. The main component
of the study was polling government officials to learn their willingness to
cooperate with non-governmental think tanks, research interests (topics and
format) and to identify factors that hinder constructive cooperation between
government and independent think tanks. A total of 316 experts were polled.
The survey was conducted in the period between November 20 and December
3, 2015 through the direct e-mail distribution of questionnaires, through the
social networks or personal distribution of specific questionnaires among
experts. Total of 158 government respondents were polled.
83 respondents represent executive and legislative branches of Ukraine’s
government:
316EXPERTS WERE POLLED
75LOCAL GOVERNORS PARTICIPATED IN THE
SURVEY
Along with that, 75 local governors participated in the survey. In addition to
Kyiv, where 20 representatives of local authorities were polled, the data was
collected from local councillors and mayors of Dnipropetrovsk (10), Lviv (10),
Odessa (9), Kharkiv (14), Severodonetsk (7) and Kramatorsk (5). Selection of
respondents was held purposefully - mainly from the administrative agencies
whose activities are based on research and analysis.
20
10 57
9
10 14
20REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH
7REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION
36MPS AND THEIR
ASSISTANTS
20REPRESENTATIVES OF LOCAL STATE
ADMINISTRATIONS
a total of
10
82EXPERTS FROM NGOS AND
THINK TANKS WERE POLLED
53REPRESENTATIVES OF NATIONAL
NGOS AND THINK TANKS
29EXPERTS FROM REGIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS
53REPRESENTATIVES OF
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MEDIA
In addition to central and local governments of Ukraine,
between November 20 and December 3, 2015 the Ilko
Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation also polled
experts from NGOs and think tanks. Total of 82 respondents
of this group were polled, including 53 representatives
of national NGOs and think tanks, and 29 experts from
regional organizations (in particular, in Odessa, Lviv, Kharkiv,
Chernivtsi, Sumy, Lutsk, Chernihiv, Izmail, Kramatorsk,
Severodonetsk and Mariupol). The most well-known and
respected public organizations and non-governmental
think tanks of Ukraine were selected for the study. The
views of the latter were necessary to provide a complete
understanding of the problems and fundamental differences
arising from bilateral cooperation between government and
non-governmental think tanks (NTTs).
Media representatives constitute an important group of
survey respondents within the study. Between November
20 and December 3, 2015, total of 53 representatives of
national and regional media, including employees of print
(newspapers, magazines, television, radio) and online
media were polled. Media representatives were included in
the study because they play the role of both end users of
think tank products and key mediators, the bridge between
independent think tanks, government and the general
public.
11
For a more thorough understanding of the role that
think tanks play in collaboration with central and local
governments, the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives
Foundation included in-depth interviews as a separate
component of research methodology. Total of 23 in-depth
interviews were conducted, included with representatives
of central government (5 interviews), local government (5
interviews), media (5 interviews), international donor agencies
(5 interviews) and international business (3 interviews).
15THINK TANKS WERE SURVEYED ONLINE
23IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
WERE CONDUCTED
The study also includes online surveys of 15 think tanks
that are successful in promoting change and influencing
policy. The data was collected from nine organizations.
These think tanks work in various areas, including foreign
policy, energy, local development and education. The
independent think tanks interviewed include two regional
think tanks, while the rest of the organizations are national.
In addition, the report provides a case study of successful
performance of non-governmental think tank DiXi Group.
1.
2.3.
Criteria to measure think tank performance are based on the following aspects:
Did a think tank develop an analytical product
independently or in coalition (that is a policy document
including recommendations about amendments to a
policy)?
Did the research influence policy decisions? Is there a
positive outcome (new decision)?
Does a think tank actively cooperate with government
authorities (on an institutional or personal level -
director / experts)?
5WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
5WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
5WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF
MEDIA
5WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF INTERNATIONAL DONOR
AGENCIES
3WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
12
Key findings from the survey of govern-ment authorities and non-governmental think tanks
This was indicated by at least 35% of respondents. Although,
this is somewhat lower compared with the data from 2014,
when half of government respondents indicated good awareness
of think tank activities. According to the data from 2015, 44% of
government representatives reported that they know something
about think tanks, while only 16% of respondents indicated that
they know little about their activities, and 5% of respondents
did not actually know anything. At the same time, a survey
from 2014 showed that only 3% of respondents did not know
anything about the activities of non-governmental think tanks.
MPs of the new convocation, especially those who came to the
Parliament from a private sector, know little about the activities
of independent think tanks. They indicated that there is a lack
of platforms for direct communication with non-governmental
think tanks.
After the EuroMaidan victory, Western donors have been
actively supporting new reforming ministers. Significant amounts
of technical assistance were allocated to support reforms and
Ukrainian ministries could pay for surveys. Donor funds pay for the
development of different strategies, including the export promotion
strategy for the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of
Ukraine (MEDT) or the new Tax Code, which was developed by
the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and funded by the British
Government. The representatives of the ministries often employ
consulting firms such as PricewaterhouseCoopers or McKinsey to
prepare the necessary analytics. This creates serious competition for
local think tanks and it is not easy to compete with the high-quality
and prompt services of international consulting companies.
Whereas, as it was with the draft Tax Code, Ukrainian analysts
might be engaged later in the discussion of an already finished
product.
The representatives of Ukraine’s present government have a relatively medium level of awareness of think tanks.
Government views of non-governmental think tanks. Are government authorities aware of non-governmental think tanks? Do they use their research and information?
44%KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT
THINK TANKS
35%OF GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS
HAVE A RELATIVELY MEDIUM LEVEL OF AWARENESS
OF THINK TANKS
16%KNOW LITTLE ABOUT THINK
TANKS ACTIVITIES
5%DID NOT ACTUALLY KNOW
ANYTHING
3%DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING
ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL THINK TANKS
GOVERNMENTREPRESENTATIVES:
13
The share of uncertain respondents has grown over this
period from 24% to 36%. At the same time, the share of
government respondents who think that independent think
tanks have no impact on the policy-making process fell to
15% in 2015, compared with more than a quarter of such
respondents (26%) in 2014.
It should be noted that despite a fairly large share of respondents who are uncertain about the influence of think tanks on policy making, almost all the policymakers interviewed (95%) are convinced of the importance of cooperation between central and local governments, on the one hand, and independent think tanks, on the other.
Herewith, the majority of them (66%) believe that such
partnership should be long-term and 29% indicated the
need for ad hoc cooperation with independent think tanks
whenever needed. Only 3% of government respondents
see no need to cooperate with non-governmental think
tanks, while 2% of respondents remained undecided on
the issue.
The government officials interviewed indicated the
importance of think tanks in raising public awareness of
reforms and promoting dialogue between government
and the public. Independent think tanks help the public to
hear an unbiased, most objective and reasonable opinion
supported with a wide range of arguments on a particular
issue. They can present the neccessary alternatives
(policies or recommendations) to the society and decision
makers.
The survey reported different opinions of government officials about the influence of think tanks on policy making and decision making. Compared to the data from 2014, last year (2015) a number of respondents expressing uncertainty about the role of think tanks in influencing public policy significantly increased.
Think tank influence on policy making
95%ARE CONVINCED
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF COOPERATION BETWEEN CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
INDEPENDENT THINK TANKS
66% of them
BELIEVE THAT SUCH PARTNERSHIP SHOULD BE LONG-TERM
29%INDICATED THE NEED FOR AD HOC
COOPERATION WITH INDEPENDENT THINK TANKS WHENEVER NEEDED
3%OF GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS
SEE NO NEED TO COOPERATE WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL THINK TANKS
14
89%INDICATED THAT THEY NEED MATERIALS DEVELOPED BY
NON-GOVERNMENTAL THINK TANKS
61%WORK WITH THINK TANKS ONLY OCCASIONALLY OR
FROM TIME TO TIME
13%WORK WITH THINK TANKS
REGULARLY
26%HAVE NEVER HAD ANY PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH INDEPENDENT THINK TANKS
Moreover, the majority of policymakers and local governors
(89%) indicated that they need materials developed by non-
governmental think tanks. The majority of respondents use
research materials of independent think tanks: 63% use
them occasionally, while 22% of state and local government
officials use them regularly. 16% of respondents have never
used research products of independent think tanks. Herewith,
none of the government representatives interviewed could
name at least one landmark study of Ukrainian think tanks
in his/her field. The donors mentioned the Institute of
World Policy Study “How could the EU accelerate reforms
in Ukraine?”, the CASE Project “The Price of the State”,
a cost benefit analysis by Texty.org.ua for the Ministry of
Infrastructure of Ukraine, public opinion studies by the Ilko
Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, CEDOS study of
women in tough jobs.
As you can see from the above data, the majority of the
respondents are convinced that it is important to work
with independent think tanks on a regular basis, although
research materials of think tanks are not used regularly, but
rather occasionally. The same way, actual cooperation with
independent think tanks, either personal or institutional,
is different from willingness to cooperate indicated by
government representatives: 61% of respondents work
with them only occasionally or from time to time, while only
13% do that regularly. The sad part here is that about 26%
of government officials, according to the study, have never
had any personal experience working with independent
think tanks.
1.2.3.
are more up-to-date, flexible and competent
compared to state research institutions;
use best international practices;
are non-governmental, and therefore independent,
unbiased, and can fill the important research ‘gaps’,
which government officials may not notice.
Almost all policymakers interviewed indicated that it is important to partner with independent think tanks because they:
15
“Trust in NGOs is higher than trust in MPs, so
people trust their information”. For example, before
constitutional amendments on decentralization
were scheduled to vote in the Parliament, the
MPs held an open discussion with think tanks and
NGOs in the Ukrainian crisis media center. The
meeting and discussion, in turn, helped the MPs
clearly define their positions on the proposed
constitutional amendments.
As for independent think tanks, they share similar
dynamics of cooperation with government officials,
very close to what government representatives
themselves indicated with regard to the think tanks.
67% of NGO and think tank respondents indicated
the ad hoc character of partnerships, while only
27% cooperate with central and local governments
on a regular basis. Only 6% of public sector
representatives indicated that their organizations
do not work with government agencies at all.
However, 35% of the think tank respondents who
cooperate with government indicated that usually
such partnerships are initiated by think tanks, while
only 2 respondents (3%) stated that their services
were requested by government authorities.
Regarding cooperation between think tanks and
business associations, business representatives
interviewed shared a positive view of such partnerships.
They believe that the added value of think tanks is
primarily to provide an independent platform for
debate, create opportunities for reconciliation of
business and expert positions, and develop a new
vision of old problems. Business associations do not
use analytics very often. They conduct their own
opinion polls among member companies, the so-
called “reality checks”, to learn business attitude
towards some issue, and provide insights based on
the collected data. As an example, the American
Chamber did a report on energy sector reform.
Among the factors that motivate MPs to work with non-governmental organizations, the respondents indicated a fairly high level of public trust in civil society.
2. http://www.chamber.ua/Content/Documents/-58349842Gas_Oil_WhitePaper_UA_WEB.pdf
The National Council of Reform (NCR) is trying
to boost cooperation with Ukrainian think tanks.
However, it is often on an ad hoc basis. For instance,
the NCR had difficulties finding specific experts
to work on an export database - develop action
plans, process raw data etc.
The government respondents listed some
good examples of partnership with think tanks,
including the development of the human rights
strategy, the strategy of national patriotic
education, and a new national strategy for civil
society development.
16
A predominant trend in their relationship is rather
sporadic and ad hoc, despite allegedly declared willingness,
both by the government and think tanks, to strengthen
bilateral cooperation and grow it into consistent, mutually
beneficial and long-term cooperation. The strength of the
cooperation also often depends on previous relationships,
level of awareness among government agencies and think
tank experts, as well as available funding for analytical
services and research.
Meanwhile, NGO respondents chose international founda-
tions and donor organizations that actually support think tank
activities as key users of independent think tank products.
In a separate interview government representatives also
listed donor organizations as key users of think tank materi-
als, while expressing a standard view that central and local
governments should be actual users of think tank research
and analysis. It is interesting to note that media and jour-
nalists were mentioned as key users only by one govern-
ment respondent during the interview, while according to
questionnaire results, media were selected by government
respondents (along with international foundations and civil
society organizations) as key users of independent think
tank analytical products.
As you can see from the findings presented in the report, the relationship between think tanks, central government and local bodies of Ukraine has not grown into systematic and inclusive cooperation.
Who are key end usersof think tank products?
Based on the study findings, key end users of non-governmental think tank products are media and civil society, according to a majority of central and local government respondents and non-governmentalthink tanks interviewed.
17
Donors who are interested in promoting reforms
in Ukraine do not see themselves as key users of re-
search and analysis. The western donors interviewed
explained their motivation to support think tanks in
Ukraine first of all as a desire to strengthen dialogue
between the government and the public. They in-
dicated that the role of think tanks is to promote
reforms, produce public expertise, and engage into
such government entities as the National Council of
Reform (NCR). Donor organizations support think
tanks in developing high-quality research, which
can encourage public debate and influence public
opinion. Thus, for example, the International Renais-
sance Foundation supported the Strategic Advisory
Groups, consisting of independent experts at Ukrai-
nian ministries. The SAGs have been quite successful
in working with the Ministry of Education, Ministry
of Economic Development and Trade and the Min-
istry of Health of Ukraine.
The number of public sector respondents, who,
similar to policymakers, consider media and civil
society organizations to be key users of think tank
products is somewhat smaller. Furthermore, twice
less respondents, both from non-governmental
organizations and from central and local bodies
claimed that central or local authorities are key us-
ers of think tank materials.
Business companies, especially international,
tend to use international analytics prepared by the
World Bank or the European Bank for Reconstruc-
tion and Development (EBRD). If a business associa-
tion requests a research it prefers to employ such
well-known consulting firms as PricewaterhouseC-
oopers (PwC), Ernst&Young (EY), Sigma Blazer. As
an example, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) de-
veloped “Roadmap for development of the phar-
maceutical sector” for the American Chamber of
Commerce.
The American Chamber of Commerce has also
used some materials of Ukrainian think tanks. For
example, the Chamber partnered with DiXi Group
on energy issues, in particular in promoting the
Law of Ukraine on Gas Market. This cooperation is
viewed as a partnership, not just as a contract for
analytical services. DiXi Group held consultations
with the ACC member companies. Other examples
include the International Centre for Policy Studies
(ICPS) study on judicial and tax reforms. The Center
for Economic Strategy actively cooperated with the
Chamber Banking Committee.
So, significant change has not been observed yet
in a hierarchy of think tank customer user group over
the past year, as media, civil society organizations
and international foundations still remain, according
to government and public sector respondents, the
main consumers of independent think tank prod-
ucts. This trend, in turn, shows the prevalence of
rather indirect mechanisms of independent think
tanks influencing policy and state decision-mak-
ing.. Such influence is mainly done through third
party, the mediators, which in this case would be
the above-mentioned media, civil society organiza-
tions and international foundations. Herewith, there
is no 100% guarantee that after all, the actual
impact of independent think tanks is achieved and
respective state policies or decisions are adopted.
3. http://www.usubc.org/site/files/Ukr_Monthly_Ec_Report_October_2015%20Final.pdf 4. http://www.slideshare.net/KyivSchoolofEconomics/ss-38254406
18
Another evidence of indirect influence exercised
by non-governmental think tanks on public policy
and decision-making is based on how government
and public sector respondents assess main tech-
niques of this influence.
Whereas, think tank representatives have a dif-
ferent opinion about their main channels and tech-
niques of public policy influence. Most of them be-
lieve that policy impact is achieved primarily through
partnerships with international organizations that
in turn influence the Ukrainian government (64%)
at their end. Similar to government respondents,
the public sector representatives interviewed also
refer to media (60%) as an important channel to
influence public opinion as well as involvement of
individual think tank experts into public policy and
decision making process (58%). Slightly fewer of
them noted the importance of round table discus-
sions and conferences with government represen-
tatives (44%) and acting in an advisory boards to
the government (38%).
It should be mentioned that the effectiveness
of such influence techniques as transition of think
tank experts to government jobs or various types
of pressure on the government (rallies, protests,
flash mobs, etc.) is estimated significantly higher by
the public sector than by the government and local
government respondents.
So, just similar to how government and public
sector respondents focus primarily on third party or
the mediators in public policy and decision making
(such as media, NGOs and international founda-
tions) when identifying key users of independent
think tank products, they also see primarily indirect
channels as the most effective in policy influence:
mainly, cooperation with international organiza-
tions, influencing public opinion through media
and organization of public events. These mecha-
nisms of influence are primarily associated with the
necessity of direct interaction between think tanks
and third parties which actually were identified as
key users of think tank materials.
In addition, there is a positive sign that the role of
direct influence mechanisms on public policy and
decision making grows up because quite a signifi-
cant part of both government and NGO representa-
tives indicated, among other things, the effective-
ness of such influence technique as involvement of
think tank experts into developing policy strategies
and decision making process.
What are the channels think tanks rely on to influence policy and decision making?
Thus, according to the majority of central and local government respondents a top-priority channel that think tanks rely on to influence public opinion is through media (57%). Slightly fewer government respondents referred to round table discussions (39%), an advisory capacity to the government (38%) and involvement of individual experts or entire think tanks into public policy and decision making (37% and 35% respectively).
19
The study includes an additional online survey of think tank representatives to identify effectiveness of their direct influence on policy making.
The think tank respondents surveyed gave the
following examples of effective influence on policy
making:• improvement of cross-border cooperation in the
Lviv region
• adoption of the Law of Ukraine On Higher Educa-
tion
• reform of social services in Odessa: improved pay-
ment procedure for social benefits and increased
budget for local programs (by?) UAH 22 million.
• transfer of some medicine procurement procedures
from the Ministry of Health of Ukraine to interna-
tional organizations
• new Head and expanded mandate of EUAM
Ukraine
• adoption of the Law On Public Television and Radio
Broadcasting in Ukraine
• withdrawal from the ‘shadows’ of donations which
are collected from patients by the charitable foun-
dations and then settle ‘in the pockets’ of such
funds
• adoption of the Law of Ukraine On Administrative
Services, opening of centers of administrative ser-
vices in cities of Ukraine
• launch of web portal E-DATA in accordance with
the requirements of the Law of Ukraine On the
openness of the public funds usage
Table 1 shows a list of success factors in descending order of priority.
Policy influence: key elements for success
55% 44%
THE THINK TANKS THEMSELVES BELIEVE THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS IN ACHIEVING IMPACT ON POLICY MAKING ARE THE FOLLOWING:
• Quality of research (77%)
• Policy relevant research (55%)
• Reputation of experts (44%)77%
20
DECISIVE FACTORS IMPORTANT FACTORS
LESS IMPORTANT FACTORS UNIMPORTANT FACTORS
• Quality of analysis
• Reputation of experts
• Policy relevant research
• Partnerships with influential media
• Political will of government officer in charge
• International obligations
• Innovations
• Advisory support to stakeholders
• Advocacy through reform champions
• Image of a think tank as an independent
organization
• Draft law
• Social media marketing
• Leader positions in the coalition of experts
• Pressure through Western partners
Think tank respondents gave different opinions
regarding the importance of having a draft law and
international obligations that Ukraine has assumed
by becoming parties to international treaties and
conventions.
It is important to note that social changes and
structural reforms take time. According to the think
tanks polled, the time required to achieve a success-
ful outcome is from 6 months to 16 years, but on
average - 5 years.
The above list of factors is for sure not complete
and a combination of these factors as well as their
priority may vary depending on a situation, scope of
work and even political environment. However, this
list is useful because it is based on the experience of
dynamic and quite successful even in today’s reali-
ties think tanks. Here we present an interesting case
study of DiXi Group’s cooperation with the govern-
ment and its efforts in impacting energy policy in
Ukraine.
Table 1.List of success factors in descending order of priority.
21
What are key success factors for DiXi Group?
The main objective of the initiative is disclosing information
about production volumes, payment and key players to reduce
corruption in the mining industry and promote changes that
would ensure proper management of these resources for the
benefit of all citizens of Ukraine. Over the past years the oil
and gas resources of Ukraine have often been abused for illicit
enrichment, support of political elite and money laundering.
That’s why the initiative is highly relevant today.
In the past five years DiXi Group put a lot of effort into
soliciting the first EITI Report from mining companies of
Ukraine, which, according to the EITI standard, should be
published annually. A major step towards success is expected
this year. In December 2015, the first EITI Report will be
prepared and presented to the government and the public
by independent consulting firm Ernst & Young (EY) with the
support of the World Bank. It will disclose the production
volumes, taxes paid by mining companies and actual revenues
from the industry. The Report should show major gaps and
initiate a public debate on transparency and efficiency of the
energy sector.
DiXi Group Сase
to promote the importance of transparency in the extractive
sector to a wider audience. The think tank worked with influential
media and experts from other non-governmental organizations.
Some journalists went on a study tour to the EITI Secretariat (Oslo,
Norway); every year three or four public activists or civil servants
attend trainings in the Regional Hub (Istanbul). DiXi Group also holds
regular roundtables and press conferences, prepares brochures on
the Transparency Initiative with the support of embassies and other
donors. The Initiative has its separate Ukrainian website – www.eiti.
org.ua, which is a part of the global site www.eiti.org. In addition,
the organization has its own website which is a separate source of
information – www.ua-energy.org, and its attendance is more than
600 hosts per day.
Strong information campaign
DiXi Group DiXi Group has been working on promoting transparency in the extractive industries since 2010. The think tank is among leading Ukrainian NGOs in promoting the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (UAEITI) in Ukraine.
DiXi Group informed every newly appointed energy minister about
the importance of the first EITI report. Also, the Organization worked
closely not only with the top management of the ministry, but also
with middle level managers, who form the basis of / institutional
memory with regard to promotion of change. These relations
allowed to pursue the Initiative even when top management of the
ministry was not interested to implement it.
Regular communication with the Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry of Ukraine
22
The Government of Ukraine officially joined the Initiative in
2009, and its commitment to publish the first EITI Report was
part of international donor’s requirements, including the World
Bank and European Commission. It was important to maintain
the requirement for a long time so the Report gets published.
who are interested in the energy sector, particularly in the
Parliament. For example, 9 MPs from three factions became
the co-authors of the Law on Strengthening the Transparency
in Extractive Industries of Ukraine, which removed the legal
obstacles preventing the publishing of the first EITI Report.
which includes representatives of large companies, government,
and independent experts. The multi-stakeholder group was
required by the Transparency Initiative. The group helped raise
awareness of both companies and government officials about
the importance of transparency in the industry. The group plays
an important role by promoting dialogue, reaching a compromise
between all parties involved and elaborating of joint coordinated
solutions.
of independent NGOs from the coal mining regions. It united
the organizations from Poltava, Kharkiv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and
Chernihiv, mainly the experts involved in regional development.
DiXi Group together with Ukrainian and international partners
did trainings and workshops for these organizations on
monitoring local revenues from extractive companies. Civil
activists were trained how to work with business and advocate
the community interests on environmental issues. Strengthening
local groups can stop corruption schemes where companies solve
community problems by paying bribes to MPs. These groups
help communities get their voices heard and can better protect
citizens’ rights and community interests.
DiXi Group is a member of the international PWYP coalition
that aims at promoting transparency in energy sector around the
world and helping analyze documents to enhance transparency.
In addition, DiXi Group works closely with international experts on
transparency issues and consults with them about the experience of
other countries in similar initiatives. Since increasing transparency
in the mining sector is also among the EU directives, DiXi Group
works closely with the European coalitions to exchange experience
and develop common positions in this area.
Appealing to the international obligations of Ukraine
Working with reform champions
Building a multi-stakeholder group under the Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry
Building a regional coalition
Strong expertise on energy issues
23
In Ukraine there are certain techniques that non-
governmental organizations, including independent
think tanks, rely on to influence policy making. They
include community councils, advisory boards, working
groups at ministries, project offices for reforms, NCR,
working groups for strategy development at the
Presidential Administration, Parliament hearings, and
public expertise.
As previously mentioned, the majority of
policymakers and local governors believe that it is
important to cooperate with think tanks and are
overall interested in building a long-term partnership.
Moreover, central and local government respondents
indicated that if they need some research or analysis,
the majority of them would seek help primarily from
individual experts and think tanks in general.
All other sources and options of obtaining the
necessary analytical services are significantly less
popular among government officials. The demand for
state research institutions (29%) is relatively mediocre,
while universities and foreign (or Ukrainian) consulting
firms and experts are even less popular among the
government and local government respondents.
However, besides the preferences and interests in
analytical services claimed by government officials in the
questionnaires, during interviews some representatives
of ministries and government departments emphasized
that they would be interested in employing major
consulting firms to develop policies. New technocrat
reformers who came to the government mainly from
private sector or business, have high expectations for
quality and efficiency of analytical materials. They
require competence, policy relevance, time efficiency
and high quality. They also expressed doubts of wether
relevant expertise is offered by national independent
think tanks.
Mechanisms of cooperation between think tanks and central and local governments
Following regime change in Ukraine after the Euromaidan protests, Western donors started setting up project offices to promptly respond to the problem of inefficient bureaucracy and attract highly qualified staff to work in the ministries.
The project offices hired individual consultants
who would often perform analytical work and
develop policies and strategic documents. The
Canadian Program (EDGE) supports Professionals for
Reform Support Mechanism (PRSM), which provides
the government ministries with human resource
support to reform initiatives. Only within six weeks’
work from November through December 2015 the
program supported 14 local experts in four ministries
to implement seven reforms in trade, investment
and growth, infrastructure, penitentiary system, gas
industry and public finance transparency. The experts
work in the Ministry of Economic Development and
Trade (5 people), the Ministry of Justice (3), the Ministry
of Finance (2) and the Ministry of Infrastructure of
Ukraine. Most of the experts have experience in
24
The study revealed that two main sources of information about non-governmental think tank activities
include, first of all, media (53%) and public events (49%) (presentations, round tables and conferences)
organized by non-governmental think tanks. Slightly fewer government respondents look for the information
directly on the websites of think tanks (41%). About a quarter of all government respondents say they learn
of independent think tank projects from their e-mail updates (27%) and their staff, colleagues and friends
(22%). About the same number of respondents receive relevant information from think tank managers and
experts (18%), their promotional brochures (17%) and, importantly, the materials specially tailored to a
specific government agency (18%)
Such priority of various information sources
with media, websites and public events being
on top of the list, clearly shows that government
representatives learn about think tank research
mainly post factum, which reveals a weak link
between research agenda and government demand
respectively. Only about a fifth of all central and
local government respondents shape a research
agenda of think tanks by their specific orders for
analytical materials.
53%MEDIA
41%WEBSITES
OF THINK TANKS
18%MANAGERS
AND EXPERTS OF THINK TANKS
27%THINK TANKS E-MAIL
UPDATES
17%PROMOTIONAL
BROCHURES
22%COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS
18%MATERIALS SPECIALLY
TAILORED FOR A SPECIFIC GOVERNMENT AGENCY
49%PUBLIC EVENTS
MAIN SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT NON-GOVERNMENTAL THINK TANK ACTIVITIES
Main sources
the private sector, either investment or consulting
companies. They also perform the tasks that could
be outsourced from independent think tanks. The
project offices help in solving the problems of low
institutional capacity of Ukrainian ministries and
address urgent needs. Herewith, national non-
governmental think tanks are pretty much not
involved in the work of project offices.
However, despite the new realities and trends,
independent think tanks still remain the organizations,
which most of the government officials would come
to looking for expertise or analytical materials on
various issues concerned.
The data presented above is raising a good question
about where the central and local government
agencies get information about topics and issues
of think tank research. That is what actually should
guide government agencies in searching for the
most relevant think tanks with respective areas of
expertise, when needed.
25
In this study, we tried to find out what criteria the government representatives look for when selecting
a think tank to partner with or obtain analytical services from. What do they consider above all when
making a choice?
Much fewer government respondents, while
selecting a think tank, look at such criteria as
previous experience in working with government
agencies (20%), partnerships with foreign think
tanks (18%), available project-specific grants (16%).
However, low rating of the above mentioned criteria
(compared to those identified as the main criteria)
may be explained by a somewhat stereotypical and
idealistic response approach of civil servants who try
hard to demonstrate their objective and impartial
attitude towards selecting a partner think tank.
Whereas, real-life experience indicates that personal
relationships are very important when it comes to
selecting an independent think tank, the same way
as a financial component: mainly whether a think
tank has available grants or funding to perform
specific analytical services for the government.
Furthermore, it is no secret that there have been
cases when non-governmental organizations,
research services or even think tanks were
established by specific sponsors in order to
pursue certain political or business agenda. Such
“institutions” are designed to manipulate an
‘expertise’ for a sponsor with the aim to legalize
some necessary for him (her) policy decisions.
However, just to make things clear, these activities
have nothing to do with real research and
expert work that is carried out by unbiased non-
governmental think tanks with good reputation.
Partner selection criteria: what government agencies consider when choosing an independent think tankto work with?
OVERALL QUALITY OF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY THE THINK
TANK
REPUTATION AND OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF A THINK TANK (FAIRNESS, POLITICAL
IMPARTIALITY)
RELEVANT EXPERTS ON STAFF
According to the survey findings, the government agencies usually consider three main criteria while selecting a partner think tank:
5. Texty.org.ua conducted a detailed survey “Sellers of Ratings” where they collected data on scam research services and researchers in Ukraine who have published shady information over the past 15 years - See http://texty.org.ua/d/socio/
26
At the same time, almost all government
respondents emphasized the importance of social
research and opinion polls. One of the experts shared
the following comment: “As for me, a politician
and at the same time an expert, in-depth analysis
supported with credible datasets is the most valuable
(...) because analytics without sociological data is
scholastic and sometimes is personal in nature,
author’s opinion, which is not always unbiased”.
The business representatives interviewed also
reported that researchers and experts in Ukraine
are often engaged in lobbying someone’s private
or political interests. International business
respondents indicated, among other things, that an
analytical product must be supported with strong
methodological justification, based on actual
datasets and updated depending on the situation,
properly presented and unbiased.
When interviewed, the government respondents
mentioned, among other things, that our research
environment is politically biased. The examples
provided would include unethical partnerships
when the public voice was suspected to be used for
political games and to pursue a political agenda.
Whereas, during the interviews government
representatives emphasized that when selecting a
think tank, they, first of all, consider impartiality of
research and information, rigor, recommendations,
conclusions, policy relevance (including the use of
tabular data, info graphics, etc.) of research.
A GOVERNMENT EXPERT COMMENTED ON THE MOST USEFUL ANALYTICAL PRODUCT AS FOLLOWS:
“It should not be just bare analytics, cold facts, but analytics with a focus on practical application in your (professional - author) field”.
27
The respondents explain that lack of appropriate
political culture is a consequence of mixing business
(interest groups) and politics. It was noted in the
interview “many MPs simply do not care to read
bills because they are not going to vote for them
for pure political reasons.» Another problem is that
some interest groups take advantage of think tanks
for their own benefit, which discredits an entire
non-governmental sector. The intensity of reforms
and lack of time to discuss policies and strategies
implemented also constitute an obstacle. A
respondent made a comment that “the Parliament
has an overwhelming amount of bills” and reform
agenda is poorly planned and unpredictable.
40% of respondents referred to poor awareness of think tank activities as a barrier.
Fewer government respondents indicated that the
government does not know how to work with experts
(34%) and government employees suffer from chronic
shortage of time (33%), that’s why they are forced
to take quick management decisions without proper
prior analysis and expertise. Other possible barriers,
such as low competence of government workers,
no in-house think tanks or poor quality research
produced by independent think tanks, were rated low
by central and local government respondents.
What are main barriersto effective cooperation between governmentand independent think tanks?
The non-governmental think tanks, on the one hand, and central and local government respondents, on the other, have somewhat different opinions regarding the major barriers to their effective bilateral cooperation.
For example, the vast majority of policymakers
and local governors agree that the major obstacle
is the shortage of government funding to pay
for services of independent think tanks (53%). In
addition, government representatives pointed to
such obstacles as lack of appropriate political culture
on policy formation and decision making (48%).
48%LACK OF APPROPRIATE POLITICAL CULTURE
ON POLICY FORMATION AND DECISION MAKING
53%THE SHORTAGE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
TO PAY FOR SERVICES OF INDEPENDENT THINK TANKS
THE VAST MAJORITY OF POLICYMAKERS AND LOCAL GOVERNORS AGREE THAT
THE MAJOR OBSTACLE IS:
28
Although poor quality materials of independent
think tanks were indicated by a relatively small
number of policymakers, as a part of the survey,
it was done an attempt to better understand
what exactly civil servants dislike about analytical
materials produced by the think tanks? The study
revealed that the things they dislike most of all
are abstractness of analysis and lack of specific
recommendations, common knowledge (summary
of the generally known stuff) in reports and political
bias of think tanks. Whereas, about a quarter of
all respondents are pretty much happy about the
materials produced by non-governmental think
tanks of Ukraine. The government respondents
interviewed also pointed to the importance of
applied nature of recommendations. It is important
for them that the study considers the realities of
the proposed amendment implementation as well
as the capacity of theadministrative system. An
analysis should be in-depth and include legal and
regulatory component. Policy analysis with likely
effects of different policy choices is very popular
among the MPs.
WHAT GOVERNMENTRESPONDENTS DISLIKE MOST OF ALL IN RESEARCH AND INFORMATION PRODUCED BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL THINK TANKS:
• abstractness of analysis and lack of specific recommendations
• common knowledge (summary of the generally known stuff) in reports
• political bias of think tanks
ALSO, THEY POINTED TO:
• Importance of applied nature of recommendations
• An analysis should be in-depth and include legal and regulatory component
• Policy analysis with likely effects of different policy choices
OTHER BARRIERSMENTIONED INCLUDE:
• low operational efficiency of think tanks
• poor understanding of public administration system
• poor knowledge of bureaucratic procedures
• lack of consistency in the obligations assumed
• government agencies do not preserve institutional memory regarding cooperation with non-governmental think tanks
Both government representatives and donors
interviewed referred to poor quality of research
and analysis. They said, in particular, “many
experts have a superficial knowledge, but if you
dig deeper on many topics, you won’t find a true
expert”. They also mentioned inconsistent quality
of expertise when the quality of research produced
by the same think tank varies significantly.
Other barriers mentioned include low
operational efficiency of think tanks, poor
understanding of public administration system,
and poor knowledge of bureaucratic procedures
and lack of consistency in the obligations
assumed. One of the respondents during the in-
depth interview shared such an original point
as that “government agencies do not preserve
institutional memory regarding cooperation with
non-governmental think tanks”.
29
Speaking of barriers, it should be emphasized
that most respondents from non-governmental
sector indicated the same barriers as government
respondents did. They include the lack of
government funding to pay independent think
tanks (55%), government employees suffer from
chronic shortage of time (44 %) and low awareness
of think tank activities (38%). However, the
majority of respondents primarily emphasized the
inability of government institutions to work with
think tanks (69%) and, just as importantly, the very
fact that government decisions might be motivated
by political or personal financial gain (63%).
Fewer government respondents mentioned in the
interview a poor planning by non-governmental
think tanks. Sometimes think tanks invite MPs
to participate in debates that take place during
sitting hours and MPs simply cannot attend such
events. Respondents also felt that there is a lack of
cooperation between government and civil society
organizations. The quality of such cooperation
often depends on the personality working in a
government agency.
Many of the identified barriers to bilateral
cooperation between government and think tanks,
such as shortage of government funding, low
awareness and, at the same time, the fact that
government does not know how to work with
independent think tanks, were selected both by
government representatives and NGO respondents.
Therefore, the above-mentioned factors should be
given priority attention. However, such structural
obstacles as political bias, poor quality of research
and information as well as simple government or
think tanks’ disinterest in producing? unbiased and
rigorous analysis should also be considered.
1.
2.
Other barriers to coopera-tion between government and think tanks include as follows:
poor understanding of government needs for
research and information by donors
lack of a transparent competitive environment
(public tenders) in ordering analytical products of
independent think tanks by the central and local
authorities.
Some government respondents expressed their doubts as to whether independent think tanks can generate new innovative solutions. For example, lustration or restor-ing confidence in justice are complicated issues, and often, regulations are just com-promise documents that weakens their strength and quality. Herewith, the propos-als of independent think tanks are not always constructive and do not always offer innovative approaches to problem solving.
30
Financial aspect is a key determinant of bilateral
cooperation between government agencies and
think tanks, as revealed by the survey results. Most
policymakers and NGO representatives believe
that a shortage in government funds to pay for
the research of non-governmental think tanks is
hampering partnership opportunities.
No more than one fifth (1/5) of all central and local government respondents ex-pressed willingness to pay for research.
The vast majority of them are willing to pay, but
not as much as well-known and reputable think
tanks would be willing to accept. More than a third
of all respondents are not willing to pay for think
tank services at all, while a little over a quarter of
respondents would agree to share the cost of think
tank services with a charitable foundation or donor
organization. Finally, about 20% of respondents
remained undecided on whether they are willing to
pay for think tank products.
Such rather disappointing data is confirmed by
funding sources named by non-governmental think
tanks themselves. The main source of income for
them is international donors, while government
is not listed among main sources of funding for
independent think tanks.
When asked during interviews on whether they
are ready to pay for research respondents said it is
very unlikely to have funds available for research in
the medium term.
Think tanks, policymakers and local ad-ministrations need to develop mecha-nisms for the efficient long-term coopera-tion.
To ensure highest impact and efficiency of such
cooperation, it is important to make it address
priority topics that are mostly requested by main
consumers? of analytical services in Ukraine.
Policymakers indicated a variety of research
areas of social, political, legal and international,
security, environment and cultural areas to be
important. However, the majority of central and
local government respondents noted that the
main areas where government needs expertise
and analytical support from non-governmental
sector is primarily opinion polls, comprehensive
assessment of current situation and development
trends, decentralization and anti-corruption
reforms. Policymakers were prompted to specify
5 most important research areas from among a
variety of answer choices, and in addition to the
already above mentioned four areas, they also
selected national macroeconomic problems to
the top-priority research areas.
Who will pay for research: financial side of the partnership
Most relevant research topicsaccording to think tanks and policymakers
31
Despite different opinions of government officials and think tanks regarding priority areas, each
relevant problem specified by policymakers can be addressed by at least a few think tanks that deal
with these issues and therefore can provide some issue-related research and relevant expertise.
1.2.3.
Main areas where government needs expertise and analytical support from non-governmental sector
opinion polls
comprehensive assessment of current situation
and development trends
decentralization
and anti-corruption reforms
HIGHEST PRIORITY AREAS WHERE GOVERNMENT NEEDS EXPERT SUPPORT OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL SECTOR.
• decentralization
• anti-corruption reforms
• opinion polls
• implementation of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement
• development of civil society
NGO respondents were also asked to specify the
highest priority areas where, in their opinion, government
needs expert support of non-governmental sector. Some
of the priority areas (such as decentralization, anti-
corruption reforms and opinion polls) are the same as
those specified by government respondents. However,
only NGOs and think tanks indicated the implementation
of the Association Agreement and development of civil
society to be important areas, whereas according to
policymakers they are not top priority at the moment.
Thus, among independent think tanks interviewed for the survey there are many organizations engaged more or less into priority areas for the government:
35DECENTRALIZATION
22ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SOCIAL SITUATION AND TRENDS OF ITS FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT
22OPINION POLLS ON
VARIOUS ISSUES
18ANTI-CORRUPTION
REFORMS
15NATIONAL
MACROECONOMIC PROBLEMS
32
At least 8 NGOs interviewed focus on energy
security issues, while other 4 think tanks deal
with judicial reform of Ukraine.
Future reintegration of the occupied territories of Ukraine
(Crimea and uncontrolled areas of Donbas) was also among
relevant issues. In particular, Putin and Russian aggression
united the country to resist but there are some concerns
that this unity can significantly weaken in the future. The
issue of demobilized ATO (anti-terrorist operation) soldiers
was also mentioned. It is reported that there are more than
200,000 ATO veterans and 50,000 ex-soldiers who know
how to use weapons and are not satisfied with current
state of affairs in the country. It is very important to help
them integrate and successfully engage into social and
economic life of the country.
In general, according to the survey findings, non-governmental think tanks are more or less en-gaged into priority research areas and can provide necessary expertise on relevant issues and topics.
While it is important to focus on government’s priority
list of research areas, it is also important to have those
issues that can arise unexpectedly in the future covered
with research as well. They include, first of all, the above
mentioned issues such as reintegration of uncontrolled
Donbas territories or integration of ATO ex-servicemen in
social life of the country, which currently may seem to be
not so urgent, but can come up on top of political agenda
very soon.
The policymakers interviewed for the study alsoindicated such urgent research areas as information security, agricultural business development,privatization, antimonopoly regulation, trade andexport policy of Ukraine.
8FOCUS ON ENERGY
SECURITY ISSUES
4 JUDICIAL REFORM OF
UKRAINE
33
The latest ranking of think tanks 2015 shows an
interesting dynamic especially compared to 2014
ranking results obtained from the survey two years
ago. Only first two think tanks, the Razumkov Centre
for Economic and Political Studies and the Ilko
Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, remain
on their positions of the rankings. ICPS leapfrogs
the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (CPLR) and
moves up to the third position from the 5th position
in 2014 rankings. The latter dropped to the 4th
spot accordingly. Finally, the Institute for Economic
Research and Policy Consulting (IER) finished in the
bottom of top 5 independent think tanks according
to 2015 rankings. Only two years ago IER ranked
the 6th in in the overall ranking of the most popular
and useful independent think tanks according to
government respondents.
Other well-known think tanks that were
mentioned in the interview were the Reanimation
Package of Reforms (RPR) advocacy platform (two
references), Civic Platform “Nova Kraina” (The New
Country) (2 references) and Civil Society Institute (2
references).
It should be also noted that the 2015 ranking
of top 10 think tanks has got some “newcomers”
like the Kyiv Gorshenin Institute of Management,
Centre for Global Studies “Strategy XXI” and the
Institute for Political Education (IPE). During the
interview, respondents also noted the emergence
of new think tanks like the Center for Economic
Strategy and Bendukidze Free Market Center. NGO
“Telekrytyka” and Civil Network OPORA were also
mentioned by respondents.
It is difficult to determine true leaders among
regional think tanks that are located outside of
Kyiv, because most central and local government
respondents could not even remember any
of the regional think tanks. However, a few
regional think tanks were mentioned one time,
including Kharkiv Fund for Local Democracy, Odessa
Civil Institute of Social Technologies, City Institute
(Lviv), Center for Education Policy (Kamenets-
Podilskyy), Luhansk Region Agency for Sustainable
Development, Dnipropetrovsk Centre for Social
Research (Dnepropetrovsk), and Institute for
European Integration (Lviv).
Low awareness about regional think tanks can be
explained by new local government that was elected
at the end of 2015. Thus, the newly elected regional
MPs, who participated in the questionnaire survey,
could have simply had no time to get to know and
partner with local non-governmental think tanks.
Most reputablenon-governmental think tanks
Razumkov Centre for Economic and Political Studies still leads among
government preferences (the think tank was specified by 53 policymakers).
The Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation is ranked second. Top
five most popular and effective think tanks also include the International
Centre for Policy Studies (ICPS), Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (CPLR)
and the Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting (IER). Within
the top ten are also the Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
(UCIPR), Kyiv Gorshenin Institute of Management, Centre for Global Studies
“Strategy XXI”, Institute for Political Education (IPE) and Kyiv International
Institute of Sociology (KIIS). However, at least one of the think tanks listed
by policymakers is not really a non-governmental think tank: the Kyiv
International Institute of Sociology is actually a privately owned company. 6
The survey asked respondents from central and local government to name the think tanks whose products are, in their opinion, the most useful and helpful.
34
The survey of policymakers, local administrations and non-
governmental think tanks, among other things, revealed
the special role that media plays in the overall activity of
non-governmental think tanks and, particularly, in their
cooperation with government. Acting as an important bridge
to provide information to central and local government about
the activities of non-governmental think tanks, media is
also recognized as a consumer of research and information
produced by independent think tanks. Moreover, as previously
mentioned, the majority of respondents from government and
non-government sector find media to be the most effective
tool to influence public opinion.
Representatives of the Ukrainian media organizations are gener-ally well informed about the activities of non-governmental think tanks.
Only 6 representatives of media sector know less than they
would like to know, while 24 respondents are generally aware
of the activities of non-governmental think tanks Every single
journalist polled knows at least something about activities of
non-governmental think tanks.
The vast majority of media respondents (37 experts) believe
that research findings of think tanks are normally used from
time to time. When identifying key users, representatives
of journalist community agree with two other groups of
respondents (government and NGO sector): the vast majority
of experts (43 and 41 accordingly) named media and CSOs
as key users of think tanks’ materials. A little fewer media
experts referred to another indisputable favorite - international
foundations and organizations (35 experts).
Media perceptionof non-governmental think tanks
The vast majority of journalists personally use research and information produced by non-governmental think tanks: 30 experts generally need such materials, 18 - need them a lot. However, only three media respondents recognized that they generally do not need research and information produced by non-governmental think tanks.
3EXPERTS DO NOT
NEED RESEARCH AND INFORMATION PRODUCED BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL
THINK TANKS
30EXPERTS GENERALLY NEED THINK TANKS MATERIALS
18EXPERTS NEED A LOT THINK
TANKS MATERIALS
35
The study results indicate that media organiza-tions are interested primarily in express analysis in the form of expert comments, brief survey findings or personal consulting for journalists on specific issues, while in-depth research and stud-ies are of less interest to journalists.
However, such priority placement for analytical
genres looks quite reasonable given the dynamic
nature of journalistic work. It is interesting to
note, that journalists, as well as policymakers and
local governors, learn about think tank activities
primarily from media and less often from - websites
of independent think tanks and their public events
(presentations, roundtables, conferences, etc.).
According to the journalists, the Razumkov Centre
for Economic and Political Studies and the Ilko
Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation work
with media most often.
The most relevant research topics for journalists
include general assessment of reforms and
progress, Ukraine’s economic development, various
opinion polls, military, security and international
policy issues, etc.
Regarding possible barriers to cooperation between media and non-governmental think tanks, the journalists polled indicated a wide range of hindrances to cooperation, including those mentioned earlier in the study: experts of independent think tanks do not know how to work with the media, lack of funds and time shortage, chasing after sensations instead of seeking rigorous research and analysis.
Although mass media is recognized as one of
the main users of think tank materials, as it was
mentioned earlier, media organizations cannot be
regarded as a key donors for independent think
tanks. In fact, only 3 experts admitted that they
are paying for think tank services, and another 4
experts would be willing to pay for research and
expertise provided by non-governmental think
tanks, while most media respondents (21 experts)
are not willing to pay for analytical products,
and 12 experts will agree to pay if it would be
inexpensive. 12 experts remained undecided on
this issue.
The majority of answers provided in personal
in-depth interviews confirm the quantitative data
collected from media respondents after processing
questionnaires. The interview materials generally
confirm that journalists have some experience
in partnering with non-governmental think
tanks, and would be interested to strengthen
this cooperation in the future. The journalists
interviewed recognized, among other things,
that they use results of sociological research
(infographics) to prepare certain TV programs and
news. Special attention is given to public events
(conferences, round tables, etc.) organized by
independent think tanks. Materials of interviews
have confirmed the aforementioned demand
for expertise on military and international affairs
among journalists and media organizations.
A journalist commented in the interview as follows:
“Life has revealed so many international, military,
and legal issues, that our traditional provinciality
turned out to be pretty much revealing. It is a huge
problem to find an expert or research on, let’s say,
the Middle East issue. (...) It would be good if
think tanks could respond to the challenges of the
present.” Overall, the research topics recognized
by journalists as important during the interview
largely overlap with those identified by media
respondents as top priority in the questionnaire
survey - judicial reform, prosecution, economic
and security issues.
36
Key recommendations on strengthening policy influence and cooperation between government and think tanks
The study revealed a high level of interest of central and local government as well as non-
governmental think tanks in developing long-term bilateral cooperation. However, now the
cooperation is rather ad hoc and sporadic. Non-governmental think tanks are regarded by poli-
cymakers as good partners for producing high-quality analytical products, which leaves room
for optimism and hope that the declared willingness to deepen bilateral cooperation will be
actually implemented in practice. To enter a new level of cooperation, non-governmental think
tanks are recommended the following:
1. Today, non-governmental think tanks continue to have rather
limited capacity to influence public policy and decision making.
Therefore, it is necessary to create effective mechanisms for di-
rect involvement of independent think tanks into expert-based
policy and decision making process, which is impossible without
having regular effective bilateral cooperation and communica-
tion between central and local government bodies and non-
governmental think tanks. It is important to enhance coopera-
tion with the Secretariat of the National Council for Reforms and
project offices at ministries, where such offices are already oper-
ating. Independent think tanks can strengthen efforts of project
offices and, possibly, propose new projects, which would have
had clearly defined order for independent research and analysis.
Think tank experts should be actively involved in drawing out
the Action Plan on the implementation of the National Strategy
for Civil Society Development, where one of the objectives is
“to ensure efficient procedures for public participation in shap-
ing and implementing state and regional policy and addressing
local issues”.7
2. Increasing technical assistance, growing cooperation between
the ministries and international business consulting firms as
well as the emergence of new think tanks drive competition
in the market of analytical services. Non-governmental think
tanks should focus on quality, innovation and efficiency to stay
competitive in the marketplace. Government agencies look for
quality research and analysis that are focused on the demands
37
and needs of policymakers. Government officials
are not interested in academic texts or common
knowledge facts; instead they are looking for in-
novative while brief applied policy research that
includes specific recommendations or proposals
for the government. Think tanks should moni-
tor the quality of their publications. External
reviews, perhaps involving policymakers,
will help to improve the quality and applied
nature of policy documents.
3. The value of independent analysis for deci-
sion making process includes communicating
the most objective and unbiased information
to the public. Government and donors have very
high expectations of think tanks in promoting re-
forms. Therefore, non-governmental think tanks
should also improve their work with media, and
develop new formats of direct dialogue with pub-
lic activists. It is also important to assess impact of
reform on various groups and study the views of
various stakeholders on reforms in specific sectors
(education, healthcare, public service, etc.). Non-
govermental think tanks should find a balance be-
tween meeting government demand for research
services, on the one hand, and, not turning into
government subcontractors, on the other hand.
Furthermore, independent think tanks should
always remember their organization’s strategic
objectives and pursue their mission in everything
they do. It is important to observe the principle of
impartiality, which is not that easy considering a
politically charged environment of Ukraine. Non-
governmental think tanks should advocate for
changes without promoting any political party or
political actor.
4. As much as it is important to have think
tanks or individual researchers involved with
government agencies, it is also important to
have civil servants and policymakers guide
a research agenda of think tanks with their
clear and precise requests for research and
expertise. Think tanks should strengthen rela-
tions at their end with those government agen-
cies, which deal with policy areas concerned.
Since most of policymakers learn about the
work of independent think tanks from the me-
dia, it is important to improve communica-
tion and build relations with those media
organizations and journalists that cover the
topics related to think tank’s expertise.
5. One of the main barriers to establishing a pro-
ductive cooperation between non-governmental
think tanks and government agencies remains is
the factor of limited financial resource allocated
for government agencies, which supposedly
holds them back from paying properly for the
service of independent think tanks. Building
transparent and competitive market of an-
alytical services in Ukraine should become a
priority objective for the government in the
nearest future. State research institutions must
participate in open tenders and compete with
non-governmental think tanks and other institu-
tions (consulting firms or agencies) for the right
of providing provide their expertise and analyti-
cal services to government agencies and local
administrations. This will not only best serve to
minimization of corruption in the field of expert
and research services in Ukraine, but also help
improve the overall quality of the services and
research products. There is a possibility that in
the future government funding allocated for
state think tanks or departments will be restruc-
tured and some portion of these funds will be
used to pay for services / products of non-gov-
38
ernmental think tanks under a tender. It is nec-
essary to study the use of research and informa-
tion produced by government institutions and
compare it with the cost of non-governmental
research services. For example, where does the
Presidential Administration order opinion polls?
Do the Ministry of Economic Development and
Trade use analytics of a state research institute?
( http://ndei.me.gov.ua)
6. It is necessary to strengthen the synergy be-
tween donor assistance, independent think
tank proposals and government needs for
research. Today, the vast majority of leading
think tanks receive funding from international
foundations. To encourage non-governmen-
tal think tanks to partner with central and lo-
cal government agencies, international donors
can set up specific financial incentives for both
parties. For example, direct involvement of a
think tank into policy and decision making can
be fostered with additional funding. It would
also make sense to introduce (at least tempo-
rarily) cost sharing where international founda-
tions and donors pay for a portion of cost of
think tank products and services not covered by
government agencies. As soon as government
agencies understand the benefits of long-term
cooperation with non-governmental think tanks
and allocate more budget funding for such co-
operation, the financial participation of interna-
tional foundations and donors can be eventually
reduced or even completely eliminated.
7. Policy advocacy is very important in influ-
encing decision making. This impact will be
effective if think tanks and civil society organi-
zations join efforts and set up coalitions that
will work directly with citizens. Successful cam-
paigns of the RPR (Reanimation Package of Re-
forms) are a good example of such coalitions.
Advocacy can be further enhanced by improv-
ing relations with key stakeholders since that
will strengthen think tanks’ legitimacy in the eyes
of the government authorities. Given a slow pace
of reforms and inactive political system think
tanks should strengthen advocacy of reforms and
proposals which they are promoting among pro-
fessional groups, stakeholders, businesses and
media. When the government ignores propos-
als of independent think tanks, it is important to
increase the impact through public opinion and
active external communication.
8. Advocacy efforts of think tanks should also
focus on society. Non-governmental think tanks
should conduct strategic debates on Ukraine’s
future path. One of the tasks of think tanks is to
help citizens ask the right questions about ongo-
ing processes in the country. The political will to
reform is weak on the Ukrainian side and there-
fore it is important to build consensus within the
country for the understanding of what type of
Ukraine the citizens would like to live in. Con-
solidated consensus-based public pressure will
strengthen the political will to reform.
9. It is important to strengthen research ca-
pacity in those areas, where potential users
and customers need it the most. The biggest
demand for NGO support and expertise among
central and local government agencies is related
to public opinion polls, general analysis of society
and its development trends, decentralization, an-
ti-corruption reforms and macroeconomic issues.
Donors also recommend focusing on monitoring
implementation of the new legislation and newly
established institutions, including anti-corruption
agencies.
10. Most non-governmental think tanks are based
primarily in Kyiv and a few other cities with
strong educational institutions. However, de-
centralization processes, transfer of decision
making power to local administrations require
relevant research and analysis on a regional level
39
to address local problems. The study revealed
that policymakers and especially local gover-
nors are extremely poorly aware of regional
think tanks. Therefore, it is recommended to
invite regional think tanks to partner and
implement joint projects together with
well-recognized analytical institutions and
think tanks based in Kyiv. It is also advisable
to improve regional communication between
local administrations and regional think tanks
through, inter alia, joint public events, press
conferences or regional conferences with the
participation of local government that are or-
ganized by non-governmental think tanks with
donor assistance.
11. To get government agencies involved into
shaping the research agenda of think tanks, it
is very important to strengthen two-way
communication between government and
non-governmental think tanks. Such com-
munication should ensure that government
authorities know about any future activities of
a think tank, and the latter understands the
research topics that government agencies and
policymakers might request.
12. Think tanks should pay special attention
to political impartiality and compliance of
analytical products with practical require-
ments of government agencies. Think tanks
in Ukraine should increase innovation and ap-
plied nature of their materials. International do-
nors should consider helping non-governmental
think tanks in building analytical capacities.
Think tanks often require institutional support
for their mission, while most donors give proj-
ect funding for specific research. As a result,
non-governmental think tanks often jump from
one topic to another and have no funding to
further work within the topic of the project. Ex-
perience with implementing change shows that
successful organizational transition can take
several years. It requires sustainable funding and
predictability, which can be achieved with the
help of institutional funding. A think tank’s per-
formance depends not only on researchers but
also on good human resource management,
democratic management, effective communica-
tion, and fundraising. Therefore, it is important
to develop institutional capacity of non-govern-
mental think tanks with institutional funding for
several years subject to a clear strategic develop-
ment plan.
13. Independent think tanks should focus on
a new area of activity: work on open data
provided by the Ministry of Finance, the
Ministry of Infrastructure, the State Trea-
sury, the National Bank of Ukraine and
other institutions. These data can be used for
future research, program monitoring and de-
velopment of new draft policies. For example,
Transparency International Georgia managed to
effectively use open data to advance reforms in
Georgia.
14. The think tanks that would like to get con-
tracts from private sector, should conduct
marketing research to identify topics rel-
evant to business. Possible research areas that
were specified in the study include intellectual
property rights, agricultural business, customs
reform and development of transport infrastruc-
ture, administrative reform and governance, in-
novations and human capital.
40
Annex 1Non-governmental think tanks and government: partnership opportunities
Survey findings
Do you know about activities of non-governmental think tanks in Ukraine?
How often do you personally need research and infor-mation produced by non-governmental think tanks?
NUMBER OF EXPERTS
%
Yes, a great deal 56 35.4
Less than I would like 69 43.7
Little 25 15.8
Nothing 8 5.1
NUMBER OF EXPERTS
%
Very often 34 21.5
Fairly often 107 67.7
Almost never 5 3.2
Never 1 0.6
Don’t Know / No opinion 11 7
1.
2.
TOTAL RESPONDENTS158 EXPERTS
41
How do you learn about the activities of independent think tanks?
Who do you think is a key userof independent think tank products? (Check all that apply)
NUMBER OF EXPERTS
%
Directly from the materials developed by think tanks for us, our government agency
29 18.4
Websites of think tanks 65 41.1
Managers and researchers of the think tanks 28 17.7
Special events of think tanks (presentations, round tables, conferences)
78 49.4
Mass media 84 53.2
Information brochures of think tanks 27 17.1
E-mail updates and announcements 42 26.6
Employees, colleagues and friends 35 22.2
Other 3 1.9
КІЛЬКІСТЬЕКСПЕРТІВ
%
Media 101 64.7
Civil society organizations 86 55.1
Central government 59 37.8
Local government 35 22.4
Business associations 28 17.9
International foundations and organizations 67 42.9
Political parties and groups 76 48.7
Individuals 56 35.9
Schools and universities 18 11.5
Other (Please, specify) 3 1.9
Non-governmental think tanks do not have actual users
2 1.3
3.
4.
42
How much do you think non-governmental think tanks influence policy and decision making?
If yes, what influence techniques are being used to impact policy making? (Check all that apply)
NUMBER OF EXPERTS
%
Most of the time 2 1.3
Sometimes 75 47.8
Undecided 57 36.3
Almost never 21 13.4
Never 2 1.3
Don’t Know / No opinion 0 0
REFERENCES %
Involvement of think tanks in strategy building and decision making process in different areas
52 34.9
Involvement of individual experts in strategy building and decision making
55 36.9
Participation in public councils and other advi-sory boards to the government
56 37.6
Transition of think tank experts to govern-ment jobs
26 17.4
Impact of public opinion through mass media 85 57
Round table discussions and conferences with policymakers
58 38.9
Various forms of government pressure in partnership with other NGOs (protests, flash mobs, etc.)
28 18.8
Other 9 6
Don’t Know / No opinion 4 2.7
5.
6.
43
Do you agree that central and local governmentsshould cooperate with independentthink tanks?
Have you ever used research and informationproduced by independent think tanks?
Have you personally (or an organization where you work) cooperated with independent think tanks?
NUMBER OF EXPERTS
%
Yes, regularly 104 65.8
Yes, whenever needed 46 29.1
No, there is no need 5 3.2
Don’t Know / No opinion 3 1.9
NUMBER OF EXPERTS
%
Yes, always 34 21.5
Occasionally, sometimes 99 62.7
Never 25 15.8
NUMBER OF EXPERTS
%
Always 19 12.5
Occasionally, sometimes 93 61.2
Never 40 26.3
7.
8.
9.
44
If you need research and analysis, where would you go first of all? (Check all that apply)
What would you consider first of all when selecting a non-governmental think tank to partner with? (Choose no more than 3 answers)
REFERENCES %
State research institutions 46 29.1
Universities 24 15.2
Individual researchers 82 51.9
Non-governmental think tanks 81 51.3
Ukrainian consulting firms 9 5.7
Foreign consulting firms, if possible 19 12
Individual foreign researchers, if possible 27 17.1
Do ourselves 31 19.6
Other 5 3.2
Don’t Know / No opinion 8 5.1
REFERENCES %
Reputation, overall performance (think tank’s records, objectivity, political impartiality)
109 69
Quality of research and information produced by a think tank (in-depth study, reliable data, practical recommendations)
116 73.4
Respective experts on staff 91 57.6
Media representation 18 11.4
Influence, relations with government agencies and policymakers
10 6.3
Previous experience in working with government agencies or self-governments
32 20.3
Cooperation with Ukrainian consulting firms 8 5.1
Cooperation with foreign consulting firms 28 17.7
Think tank employees hold academic degrees, gradu-ated from prestigious universities
6 3.8
Think tanks have grants for the projects concerned 25 15.8
Other 1 0.6
10.
11.
45
What research areas can be of high demand among government authorities?
REFERENCES %
General analysis of society and its development trends 96 61.9
Constitutional Reform 43 27.7
Public opinion on various issues 90 58.1
Macroeconomic problems of the national economy 52 33.5
International economic cooperation 31 20
Donbas situation and further development forecast 38 24.5
Unity of Ukraine’s regions 50 32.3
Implementation of the Association Agreement with the European Union 40 25.8
Relations with the Russian Federation 23 14.8
Energy security of Ukraine 45 29
Reform of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, security issues 37 23.9
Ways and methods of international conflicts settlement 22 14.2
Judicial reform 56 36.1
Reform of law enforcement agencies 46 29.7
Democratization issues 53 34.2
Education reform 45 29
Healthcare reform 46 29.7
Retirement reform 38 24.5
Election law, building a multi-party system 33 21.3
Anti-corruption reforms 69 44.5
Creating a favorable business environment 55 35.5
Human rights 35 22.6
Development of civil society, civic education 46 29.7
Media development 19 12.3
Humanities (language, culture, arts) 30 19.4
National minority issues 19 12.3
Development of religions and their influence on society 12 7.7
Ecology, environment 37 23.9
Problems of rural development 30 19.4
Decentralization and local government development 82 52.9
Reform of housing and communal services 52 33.5
Other 12 7.7
12.
46
Specify five research areas from the aforementioned list, which you think are the most important
REFERENCES %
General analysis of society and its development trends 69 47.3
Constitutional Reform 27 18.5
Public opinion on various issues 45 30.8
Macroeconomic problems of the national economy 35 24
International economic cooperation 15 10.3
Donbas situation and further development forecast 28 19.2
Unity of Ukraine’s regions 28 19.2
Implementation of the Association Agreement with the European Union 23 15.8
Relations with the Russian Federation 13 8.9
Energy security of Ukraine 31 21.2
Reform of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, security issues 18 12.3
Ways and methods of international conflicts settlement 6 4.1
Judicial reform 32 21.9
Reform of law enforcement agencies 13 8.9
Democratization issues 21 14.4
Education reform 26 17.8
Healthcare reform 25 17.1
Retirement reform 14 9.6
Election law, building a multi-party system 13 8.9
Anti-corruption reforms 48 32.9
Creating a favorable business environment 25 17.1
Human rights 13 8.9
Development of civil society, civic education 20 13.7
Media development 4 2.7
Humanities (language, culture, arts) 9 6.2
National minority issues 6 4.1
Development of religions and their influence on society 2 1.4
Ecology, environment 6 4.1
Problems of rural development 16 11
Decentralization and local government development 51 34.9
Reform of housing and communal services 13 8.9
Other 4 2.7
13.
47
What type of materials do you need? What format? (Check all that apply)
What do you think are main barriers to cooperation between government and independent think tanks?
REFERENCES %
Policy briefs, including recommendations 80 51.6
Opinion poll data 84 54.2
In-depth research reports 57 36.8
Research and studies with innovative ideas and solutions proposed 99 63.9
Materials for conferences, roundtables, public debate on management decisions 37 23.9
Other 3 1.9
REFERENCES %
Low awareness of activities conducted by independent think tanks 63 39.9
Lack of appropriate political culture on policy formation and decision making 75 47.5
Low competence of government workers 27 17.1
Government agencies do not know how to work with think tanks 53 33.5
Poor quality of materials produced by independent think tanks 16 10.1
Think tank experts do not know how to work with government agencies and do not understand the particular nature of their work
31 19.6
Lack of government funding to pay for services rendered by independent think tanks
83 52.5
Government employees suffer from chronic shortage of time, some decisions have to be made quickly, often backdating
52 32.9
No local think tanks to work with 28 17.7
Other 4 2.5
Don’t Know / No opinion 3 1.9
14.
15.
48
If you have ever used research and analysis of non-governmental think tanks, what do you dislike the most?
Are central and local government agenciesready to pay for think tank services?
REFERENCES %
In general, almost everything is okay 36 25.5
Overall poor quality of analytical materials 7 5
Common knowledge facts in reports 40 28.4
Abstract with lack of specific proposals 56 39.7
Analysis detached from Ukrainian reality 30 21.3
Political bias 34 24.1
Academic nature of analysis, hard to under-stand
16 11.3
Texts are too long, poorly structured, without important things to be highlighted
17 12.1
Other (Specify, please) 6 4.3
NUMBER OF EXPERTS
%
Definitely, and quite a decent price 3 1.9
Yes, but not much 25 15.8
It would be good to share cost with a founda-tion/donor organization
43 27.2
Definitely Not 54 34.1
Don’t Know / No opinion 31 19.6
Skipped 2 1.3
16.
17.
49
What think tanks do you think are the most useful and high demand?
REFERENCES
Razumkov Centre for Economic and Political Studies 53
Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation 38
International Centre for Policy Studies (ICPS) 16
Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (CPLR) 14
Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting 12
Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research (UCIPR) 11
Kyiv Gorshenin Institute of Management 5
Center for Global Studies ‘Strategy XXI’ 4
Institute for Political Education 4
Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) 3
International Renaissance Foundation 3
SOCIS 3
CEDOS 3
Center for Political Studies and Analysis (CPSA) 3
• Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation (IEAC)
• National Institute for Strategic Studies (NISS)
• Reanimation Package of Reforms (RPR)
• Institute of Mass Information (IMI)
• NGO OPORA
• Pylyp Orlyk Institute for Democracy (Kyiv)
• Center for Educational Monitoring
• Institute of Society Transformation
• Centre for Defense and Security Policy
• Maidan of Foreign Affairs
• Penta Center for Applied Political Studies
• Civil Society Institute
• Committee of Voters of Ukraine
• Kyiv Center of the East-West Institute
• Laboratory for Legislative Initiatives
• Institute for European Integration (IEI)
• Institute of Political Information
• Network of Think Tanks in Ukraine Project
• Ukrainian Institute of Public Policy (UIPP)
• Strategic Research Agency (SRA)
• Center for European and International Studies
• Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Studies
• Social Monitoring
• VoxUkraine
• Economic Strategy Center
• CCC Creative Center
• Amnesty International Ukraine
• Regional Press Development Institute
• GfK Ukraine
• TSN
• Socis
Others mentioned:
18.
50
What not Kyiv-based think tanks would you recognize?
Where do you work?
City/town
REFERENCES
Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (University of Alberta, Canada) 4
Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation 3
Razumkov Centre for Economic and Political Studies 3
CEDOS 2
• CenterforEducationPolicy
• NationalInstituteforStrategicStudies
• UkrainianNationalInformationService(USA)
• FoundationofLocalDemocracy
• LevadaCenter
• CityDevelopmentInstitute
• NISS(governmentthinktank)
• CrimeanHumanRightsGroup
• AcademyofEconomicSciencesofUkraine
• CityInstitute
• KharkivLocalDemocracyFund
• OdessaCivilInstituteofSocialTechnologies
• LuhanskRegionAgencyforSustainableDevelopment
• LuganskOfficeoftheAssociationofUkrainianCities
• ICPS
• Fama
Others mentioned:
КІЛЬКІСТЬЗГАДОК
%
Presidential Administration 7 4.4
Cabinet of Ministers 5 3.1
Central executive authorities 15 9.4
Parliament of Ukraine 36 22.8
Local council 75 47.5
Local administration 20 12.7
КІЛЬКІСТЬЗГАДОК
%
Kyiv 101 63.9
Dnipropetrovsk 10 6.3
Lviv 10 6.3
Odessa 9 5.6
Kharkiv 16 10.1
Kramatorsk 5 3.1
Severodonetsk 7 4.4
19.
20.
21.
51
REFERENCES
Media 55
Civil society organizations 54
Central government 13
Business associations 13
Local government 22
International foundations and organizations 63
Parties and political groups 22
Individuals 19
Schools and universities 10
Other (specify, please) 0
Non-governmental think tanks do not have actual users 7
REFERENCES
Most of the time 2
Sometimes 19
Undecided 19
Almost never 41
Never 1
Don’t know / No opinion 0
Annex 2 Survey of non-governmental organizations and think tanks. Non-governmental think tanks and government: partnership opportunities
Who do you think is a key user of materials produced by independent think tanks? (Check all that apply)
How much do you think non-governmental think tanks influence public policy and decision making?
1.
2.
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 82 ЕXPERTS
52
REFERENCES
Involvement of think tanks in strategy building and decision making process in different areas 33
Involvement of individual experts in strategy building and decision making 47
Participation in public councils and other advisory boards to the government 33
Transition of think tank experts to government jobs 24
Impact of public opinion through mass media 50
Round table discussions and conferences with policymakers 36
Partnerships with international organizations, which influence Ukrainian government at their end
52
Various forms of government pressure in partnership with other NGOs (protests, flash mobs, etc.)
26
Other (Specify, please) 0
Don’t know / No opinion 3
REFERENCES
Involvement of think tanks in strategy and decision making in the areas where they have expertise and financial support
57
Think tanks provide their services to government agencies on a contract basis with proper payment
62
Involvement of think tank experts in strategy and decision making 43
Participation of think tank representatives in public councils and other advisory boards to the government
23
Transition of think tank experts to government jobs 22
Shaping public opinion through mass media 40
Round table discussions and conferences of think tanks and policymakers 28
Partnerships with international organizations, which influence Ukrainian government at their end
45
Various forms of government pressure in partnership with other NGOs (protests, flash mobs, etc.) to ensure that proper decisions are adopted
15
Other (Specify, please) 0
Don’t know / No opinion 0
If yes, what influence techniquesare being used to impact policy making? (Check all that apply)
What types of cooperation with the government do you find to be most effec-tive in the future? (Check all that apply)
3.
4.
53
REFERENCES
Yes, on a regular basis 22
Yes, whenever needed 55
No 5
REFERENCES
Our think tank 28
Government agency 2
Donors who provide funding for relevant project 8
Depends on a situation 41
Skipped 3
REFERENCES
Payment was included in the project implemented by our think tank 50
The work was done on a voluntary basis 14
Our think tank shared cost with a government agency 5
All work performed was paid for by a government agency 3
The work performed for government was paid for from other sources (business, individuals, etc.)
3
Other (Specify, please) 0
Has your think tank ever partnered with central government or local administration?
Based on your experience in partnering with government agencies, who usually initiated such cooperation?
Based on your experience in cooperating with government agencies, who usually paid for the work? (Check all that apply)
5.
6.
7.
54
REFERENCES
General analysis of society and its development trends 37
Constitutional Reform 23
Public opinion on various issues 41
Macroeconomic problems of the national economy 11
International economic cooperation 11
Donbas situation and further development forecast 31
Unity of Ukraine’s regions 31
Implementation of the Association Agreement with the European Union 38
Relations with the Russian Federation 25
Energy security of Ukraine 41
Reform of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, security issues 23
Ways and methods of international conflicts settlement 21
Judicial reform 38
Reform of law enforcement agencies 26
Democratization issues 30
Education reform 41
Healthcare reform 34
Retirement reform 27
Election law, building a multi-party system 33
Anti-corruption reforms 44
Creating a favorable business environment 34
Human rights 31
Development of civil society, civic education 41
Media development 21
Humanities (language, culture, arts) 18
National minority issues 15
Development of religions and their influence on society 7
Ecology, environment 23
Problems of rural development 28
Decentralization and local government management 51
Reform of housing and communal services 34
Other (Specify, please) 0
What research area do you think can be of high demand among government authorities? 8.
55
REFERENCES
General analysis of society and its development trends 20
Constitutional Reform 13
Public opinion on various issues 22
Macroeconomic problems of the national economy 15
International economic cooperation 9
Donbas situation and further development forecast 11
Unity of Ukraine’s regions 10
Implementation of the Association Agreement with the European Union 22
Relations with the Russian Federation 10
Energy security of Ukraine 8
Reform of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, security issues 5
Ways and methods of international conflicts settlement 8
Judicial reform 5
Reform of law enforcement agencies 7
Democratization issues 22
Education reform 13
Healthcare reform 7
Retirement reform 2
Election law, building a multi-party system 15
Anti-corruption reforms 19
Creating a favorable business environment 17
Human rights 13
Development of civil society, civic education 27
Media development 11
Humanities (language, culture, arts) 1
National minority issues 6
Development of religions and their influence on society 3
Ecology, environment 8
Problems of rural development 13
Decentralization and local government management 37
Reform of housing and communal services 14
Other (Specify, please) 0
Check the research areas listed below where your think tank can provide certain research and information9.
56
REFERENCES
Poor awareness of government agencies about the activities of independent think tanks 29
Government agencies do not know how to work with think tanks 57
Poor quality materials produced by independent think tanks, no practical application, etc.
22
Think tank experts do not know how to work with government agencies and do not understand the particular nature of their work
21
Government is looking for a ready policy decision instead of analysis 36
Lack of government funding to pay for services rendered by independent think tanks 42
Limited research topics of non-governmental think tanks 5
Government employees suffer from chronic shortage of time, some decisions have to be made quickly, often backdating
22
Government decisions do not create the best solutions to a problem but rather serve somebody’s (political or financial) interests; therefore, an objective analysis is only troublesome.
52
Government agencies simply do not want to work with think tanks 13
Other (Specify, please) 0
Don’t know / No opinion 1
REFERENCES
International donors 71
Ukrainian donors 16
Government 8
Ukrainian business 13
Foreign business 2
Individual donations 18
Other 0
What do you think are the main barriers to cooperation betweengovernment and non-governmental think tanks? (Check all that apply)
What are the main funding sources of your think tank? (Check all that apply)
10.
11.
57
REFERENCES
Economy 20
Politics 37
Education 8
Culture 4
Human rights 10
Mass media 7
Public administration reform 17
National minorities 5
Social issues (unemployment, pensions, vulnerable social groups etc.) 6
Fighting corruption 15
Civil society development 24
Environment protection 4
Healthcare 1
Drug and alcohol addiction, AIDS 2
Gender issues 5
Foreign policy 14
Other (Specify, please) 0
REFERENCES
Kyiv 51
Kramatorsk 3
Lviv 7
Lutsk 1
Izmayil 1
Odessa 8
Sumy 1
Kharkiv 1
Chernivtsi 3
Chernihiv 1
Severodonetsk 1
Other 2
Don’t know / No opinion 2
What is the area of expertise of your think tank? (Check all that apply)
Where is your think tank based?
12.
13.
58
Annex 3 Survey of think tanks and mass media: best partnership models
NUMBER OF EXPERTS
Yes, a great deal 23
Less than I would like 24
Little 6
Nothing 0
NUMBER OF EXPERTS
Very often 18
Fairly often 30
Almost never 3
Never 0
No answer 2
REFERENCES
Websites of think tanks 22
Managers and researchers of the think tanks 16
Special events of think tanks (presentations, roundtables, conferences) 22
Mass media 20
Information brochures of think tanks 4
E-mail updates and announcements 18
Employees, colleagues and friends 10
Other 1
Do you know about activities of non-governmental think tanks in Ukraine?
How often do you personally need research and information producedby non-governmental think tanks?
How do you learn about the activities of independent think tanks?(Specify main sources of information)
1.
2.
3.
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 53 ЕXPERTS
59
REFERENCES
Most of the time 0
Sometimes 18
Undecided 15
Almost never 18
Never 0
No answer 1
REFERENCES
Mass media 43
Civil society organizations 41
Central government 18
Local government 13
Business associations 16
International foundations and organizations 35
Political parties and groups 24
Individuals 15
Schools and universities 10
Non-governmental think tanks do not have actual users 0
Who do you think is a key user of independentthink tank products? (Check all that apply)
How much do you think the activities of non-governmental think tanks influence policy and decision making? 8
8 1 expert did not provide answer for this question
4.
5.
60
REFERENCES
Involvement of think tanks in strategy building and decision making process in different areas 9
Involvement of individual experts in strategy building and decision making 23
Serving in public councils and other advisory boards to the government 15
Transition of think tank experts to government jobs 16
Impacting public opinion through mass media 35
Round table discussions and conferences with policymakers 14
Cooperation with international organizations that have influence on Ukrainian government 25
Various forms of government pressure in partnership with other NGOs (protests, flash mobs, etc.)
9
Other 0
Don’t know / No opinion 6
REFERENCES
The State Institute of the Academy of Sciences where the issue is studied 7
Government research institute 4
University 3
Business research center 10
Non-governmental think tank 31
Specific individual, regardless of place of work 33
Other 2
REFERENCES
Regularly 9
Sometimes 37
Hardly ever 6
Almost never 0
Don’t know / No opinion 1
If yes, what influence techniques are used to impact policy making? (Check all that apply)
As we know, there are different research institutions in Ukraine. Where do you usually go to get information on a specific issue?
How much do you think the media uses research findingsof non-governmental think tanks?
6.
7.
8.
61
REFERENCES
Regularly 9
Sometimes 36
Hardly ever 5
Almost never 2
Don’t know / No opinion 1
REFERENCES
Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation 21
Razumkov Centre for Economic and Political Studies 16
Kyiv International Institute of Sociology 8
Committee of Voters of Ukraine 5
Civil Network OPORA 5
Reanimation Package of Reforms 5
International Centre for Policy Studies 5
Sociological Group ‘Rating’ 4
Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (CPLR) 3
Kyiv Gorshenin Institute of Management 3
Center for Applied Policy Studies ‘Penta’ 3
Other 40
How much have you personally used research findings of non-governmental think tanks in your work?
Materials of what think tanks have you used in your work?
• Laboratory for Legislative Initiatives
• Ukrainian National Center for Policy
Studies
• SOCIS
• CASE Ukraine
• Center for Political Studies and Analysis
• Civil Society Institute
• Strategic Research Agency
• DiXi Group Think Tank
• The Black Sea Center for Political and
Social Research
• Situations Modeling Agency
• State Agency of Ukraine for
Investments and Innovations
• Institute of World Economy and
International Relations of NAS of
Ukraine
• Institute for Economic Research and
Policy Consulting
• Da Vinci AG
• Maidan of Foreign Affairs
• PravdaTUT
• Energy Strategy Fund
• Center UA
• RAND Corporation
• CSISS
• VoxUkraine
• Institute of World Policy
• DESPRO
• Association of Cities of Ukraine
• R&B Group
• CEDOS
• CHESNO
• Slovo i Dilo
• Center for Global Studies ‘Strategy XXI’
• InMind
• Institute of Society Transformation
• Nestor Group
• ProMova
• Pylyp Orlyk Institute for Democracy
Other mentioned:
9.
10.
62
REFERENCES
Opinion polls 16
Policy briefs, research reports 9
Expert opinions and comments 5
Economic situation analysis 4
Press-releases 3
Other 11
Don’t know / No opinion 1
REFERENCES
Yes 33
Not regularly, but sometimes - yes 19
No, I don’t need it 1
REFERENCES
In-depth research on specific topics 20
Analysis of alternative solutions for case problems 32
Analytical briefs on relevant issues 39
Expert comments on various issues 42
Expert consultations on various issues 37
Other 0
Actually, I don’t need such materials 0
What materials?
Do you personally need regular cooperation between mass mediaand non-governmental think tanks?
What materials do you need? What format do you need? (Check all that apply)
10.1
11.
12.
63
What materials?
REFERENCES
Poor awareness of media organizations about the activities of independent think tanks 13
Media organizations do not know how to work with think tanks 23
Think tank experts do not know how to work with media and do not understand the specific nature of their work
28
Chasing after sensations instead of seeking rigorous research and analysis 27
Lack of funding to pay for services of independent think tanks 26
Limited research topics of non-governmental think tanks 8
Journalists suffer from chronic shortage of time, overwhelming schedule 27
Media is biased and tends to consult with the “right” rather than best experts 15
Media organizations simply do not need to partner with think tanks 4
Other 0
Don’t know / No opinion 1
REFERENCES
General assessment of reforms and progress 14
Analysis of Ukraine’s economy and reforms 11
Security policy of Ukraine, army, NATO partnership 10
Opinion polls 8
Law enforcement and court reforms 7
Situation in the occupied territories (Crimea, Donbas), analysis of military conflict, relations with the Russian Federation
7
Relations with EU, implementation of the Association Agreement 7
Specifics of overall social and political process 6
Energy efficiency and saving 5
Fight against corruption and government control 4
Local governance and decentralization 4
Education and healthcare 4
Analysis of media and communication with the public 4
What do you think hinders cooperation between media and non-governmental think tanks the most? (Check all that apply)
What research topics are the most relevant for you today?9
13.
14.
9 1 expert did not provide answer for this question
64
REFERENCES
Razumkov Centre for Economic and Political Studies 20
Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation 18
Committee of Voters of Ukraine 7
Civil Network OPORA 6
Kyiv International Institute of Sociology 6
Reanimation Package of Reforms 3
Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation 3
Centre for Political and Legal Reforms 2
Laboratory for Legislative Initiatives 2
Maidan of Foreign Affairs 2
Institute of World Policy 2
Center UA 2
Other 19
Don’t know / No opinion 4
КІЛЬКІСТЬ ЗГАДОК
Iryna Bekeshkina 13
Volodymyr Fesenko 6
Oleksiy Haran 5
Mykola Sunhurovskyi 4
Olga Aivazovska 4
Maria Zolkina 3
Oleksandr Sushko 3
Vadym Karasev 2
Andriy Kohut 2
Igor Koliushko 2
Mykola Melnyk 2
Other 18
Don’t know / No opinion 3
What think tanks in your opinion have the most effective cooperation with mass media?
What think tanks experts have the most effective cooperationwith mass media?
• International Renaissance Foundation
• Ukrainian Center for Independent
Political Research
• «DiXi» Group
• “Penta” Center for Applied Political
Studies
• Kyiv Gorshenin Institute of
Management
• Institute of Energy Strategies
• Center for Army Conversion and
Disarmament Studies
• Defense Express Center
• Center for Peace
• Conversion and Foreign Policy of
Ukraine
• Anti-Corruption Action Center
• Civil Society Center
• Wostok SOS
• Ukrainian Helsinki
• NGO “Telekrytyka” Center for Middle
East Studies
• CASE-Ukraine
• International Center for Policy Studies
• Association of Cities of Ukraine
• Despro
Others mentioned:
15.
16.
65
• Oleksandr Paskhaver
• Jaroslav Yurchyshyn
• Dmitro Boyarchuk
• Olexander Zholud
• Igor Burakovsky
• Yulia Tyshchenko
• Maxym Latsyba
• Iryna Sushko
• Viktor Taran
• Oleksandr Slobozhan
• Oleksiy Koshel
• Volodymyr Dubrovskyi
• Oleh Rybachuk
• Mykhailo Honchar
• Igor Semyvolos
• Olesya Jakhno
• Taras Berezovets
• Milan Lelich
• The Black Sea Center for Political and Social Research
• Da Vinci AG
• International Centre for Policy Studies
• CASE Ukraine
• Kyiv Gorshenin Institute
• Energy Strategy Fund
• Center for Army
• Conversion and Disarmament Studies
• Defense Express
• Centre UA
• VoxUkraine
• Center for Peace
• Conversion and Foreign Policy of Ukraine
• Anti-Corruption Action Center
• Ukrainian Helsinki Union
• Ukrainian Center for Independent Policy Research
• Transparency International Ukraine
• ProMova
• Despro
• Association of Cities of Ukraine
• “Europe 21” Foundation
• SOCIS
Також були названі:
Others mentioned:
REFERENCES
Razumkov Centre for Economic and Political Studies 15
Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation 13
Committee of Voters of Ukraine 7
Kyiv International Institute of Sociology 6
Reanimation Package of Reforms 5
Civil Network OPORA 4
Laboratory for Legislative Initiatives 3
Centre for Political and Legal Reforms 3
Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation 3
Institute of World Policy 2
Center for Middle Eastern Studies 2
‘DiXi Group’ 2
NGO ‘Europe Without Barriers’ 2
Sociological Group ‘Rating’ 2
Other 20
Don’t know 2
What think tanks have you personally worked with most efficiently? 17.
66
REFERENCES
Iryna Bekeshkina 7
Volodymyr Fesenko 6
Oleksiy Haran 5
Mykola Sungurovskyi 4
Maria Zolkina 3
Ihor Koliushko 3
Volodymyr Paniotto 3
Andriy Bychenko 2
Ruslan Kermach 2
Taras Berezovets 2
Mykhailo Honchar 2
Olesia Yakhno 2
Ihor Semyvolos 2
Iryna Sushko 2
Oleksandr Okhrymenko 2
Borys Kushniruk 2
REFERENCES
We are already paying 3
Yes, ready 4
Ready, if it is not very expensive 12
No, not ready 21
Think tanks should pay us for using mass media to promote their materials 0
Don’t know / No opinion 12
What experts?
Are media organizations ready to pay for think tank products and services? 10
• Andriy Novak
• Anatoliy Baronin
• Dmytro Boyarchuk
• Oleksandr Zholud
• Ihor Burakovskyi
• Natalia Lynnyk
• Olga Aivazovska
• Oleksandra Rashmedilova
• Ruslan Bortnyk
• Yevhen Magda
• Carl Volokh
• Oleksiy Golobutskyi
• Anatolyi Oktysyuk
• Vitalyi Sharlay
• Liubov Akulenko
• Yevhen Borzylo
• Oleksiy Koshel
• Mykola Melnyk
• Ihor Kohut
• Sergiy Solodkyi
• Yevhen Golovakha
• Leonid Polyakov
• Daria Kaleniuk
• Andriy Matviychuk
• Svitlana Barbelyuk
• Oleksandr Sushko
• Igor Koziy
• Dmytro Potekhin
• Sergiy Tolstov
• Alyona Getmanchuk
• Kateryna Zarembo
• Svyatoslav Pikul
• Yulia Tyshchenko
• Vadym Karasev
• Roman Nitsovych
• Natalia Byelitser
• Andriy Klymenko
• Sergiy Danylov
• Julia Kazdobina
• Yuriy Yakymenko
• Volodymyr Usatenko
• Kost Bondarenko
• Andriy Zolotarev
• Dmytro Tymchuk
• Jaroslav Hrycak
• Victoria Bryndza
• Yevhen Hlibovytsky
• Svyatoslav Pavlyuk
• Svitlana Zalishchuk
• Oleksiy Khmara
• Vadym Miskyi
• Andriy Yeremenko
• Oleksiy Shevchenko
• Nataliya Vatamanyuk
• Maryna Kozlova
• Oleg Rybachuk
Також були названі:
18.
19.
10 1 respondent did not answer this question
67
REFERENCES
Print media (newspaper, magazine) 7
TV 14
Radio 7
News websites 13
News agency 4
Non-governmental organization engaged into media and news 4
Other 4
What media do you work for? 20.
