foundation or a university. Moreover, a think tank may be structured as a permanent body or [59] as an entity operating on an ad hoc basis88. Consequently, scholars widely differ in their understanding and definition as to what constitutes a think tank. This is manifested in the whole bunch of terminologies and labels such as research institutes, intelligence agencies, knowledge actors, research centers, academic institutes and policy analysis institutes that circulate. For the sake of clarification, the McGann’s definition is shared by the author:
“[P]ublic-policy research analysis and engagement organizations that generate policy-oriented research, analysis, and advice on domestic and international issues, thereby enabling policymakers and the public to make informed decisions about public policy“ (2012, p. 8).
The key objectives of (foreign policy) think tanks are regarded as follows: to inform and advice government bodies (on matters of foreign and security policy), corporations or the civil society on complex political issues in an understandable and reliable manner. In this vein, think tank discourses are anticipated to differ from political and other discourses. That said, regardless of its direct affiliation to party or government bodies, think tanks are generally presumed to occupy a more (scientifically) reflected, critical (within certain boundaries), blunt instead of symbolic, and at times visionary position than political discourses. Politicians must weigh every word and behave in a more pragmatic, reactionary and diplomatic manner, not least due to the necessity to legitimize their actions. Likewise, official speeches frequently adopt, particularly in China, a very diplomatic language instead of providing notable insights into the perceptions and individual assessments of the speaker in question. In contrast, think tank discourses presumably contain a higher level of pluralism of opinions compared to political discourses. At the same time, very similar to political discourses, think tank discourses are capable of initiating, steering and dominating certain discourses and narratives89 and thereby influencing foreign policy agendas and preferences to a certain degree90. As a result, a close analysis of think tank discourses is deemed a reasonable and feasible approach in consideration of the project’s core objective of tracing and examining discursive manifestations of disrespect and respect expectations beyond the symbolic and/or instrumental level.
[60] 2.4.1 Chinese FPTTs: Characteristics
Generally speaking, the most prestigious Chinese FPTTs are directly affiliated to, and to a significant extent funded by governmental and/or CPC party bodies. Therefore, these institutions and most of their staff rely on official bodies in terms of funding, patronage, attention of senior level decision-makers and licenses to operate. As Chen Kaimin, a CICIR scholar himself, admits, “chasing funds has become a major obstacle for Chinese think tanks in their global move” (2014, p. 93). To be sure, such close affiliation and reliance is a double-edged sword from a researcher’s perspective. On the one hand, party oversight and governmental budget control may hamper the articulation and quantity of viewpoints91 deviating from the official party line, at least with respect to more sensitive issues such as the status of Taiwan, China’s legal claims in the South China Sea or the East China Sea, or related topics. On the other hand, strong ties and interaction between think tanks and government/CPC branches provide the researcher with a good opportunity to gain valuable insights into foreign policy debates in China and prevailing perception patterns, point of views and clues about “China’s future path” (Chen Kaimin, 2014, p. 100). These common characteristics of Chinese FPTTs are underscored by Zhu Feng, also a think tank scholar, yet turned into a point of criticism:
“Currently, Chinese think tanks only have one [influence] –that is to take instructions from government. But actually they should have three. The first is to take instructions from government and seek official information and guidance in the form of government reports and advice. The second influence is society. US think tanks occupy a space in society according to their political leanings, and are influenced by social forces and community voices. The third one is international; that is they need to work globally, and exchange ideas” (2016, pp. 16).
In terms of overall political influence, Chinese and non-Chinese scholars commonly distinguish between different sources, levels of political influence and structural access points of Chinese FPTTs. According to Morrisson, FPTTs obtain their influence through three sources of access to foreign policy [61] decision-making in China, being their “bureaucratic position, personal connections, and issue-specific knowledge or experience” (2012, p. 80). Further examples of the direct relationship between think tanks and the Chinese administration involve existing patterns of revolving-door mechanisms, denoting the (temporary or permanent) staff exchange between members of think tanks, government bodies and university research institutes (Li, 2009, 2017). In addition, Zhu Xufeng, a well-known expert on think tanks in China, recognizes two further dimensions on which FPTTs can exert its policy influence, apart from its direct influence on decision-makers and political bodies; these are “social elite influence, and public influence” (2009, p. 336). Furthermore, numerous other scholars also draw attention to the special role, history and significance of Chinese think tanks:
“With improved knowledge, Chinese scholars have attained an influential position in foreign policy debates. While transmitting their views through publications and the media, scholars and think-tank researchers participate in policy consultation with Chinese policymakers, they lead training courses for officials, and they sponsor public forums to extend their influence and lead public opinion” (Wu Baiyi, 2010, pp. 173–174).
“Unlike other research institutions, think tanks are political in nature; and they are responsible for policy research, training skills in political analysis and having political influence. When a think tank has political influence it means that it has influence in academic circles, the society, and the world” (Zhao Minghao, 2016, pp. 36–37).
“During imperial China, the emperor had his own ‘think tanks’ and ‘brain trusts’, which have often been overlooked because they did not look like modern-day think tanks in the west. They also practiced both top-down and bottom-up consultations and suggestions. Even today, government officials often set up a temporary consultation group on major issues, because it is a part of Chinese traditional culture” (Yuan Peng, 2016b, p. 23).
As a result, given its special role and the sources of access derived, FPTTs represent vital foreign policy actors (Jakobson & Knox, 2010) deeply rooted in Chinese culture, capable of shaping predominant patterns of perception and framing the scope of Chinese foreign policy behavior and strategy in a certain issue area. Briefly, they perform a whole range of roles and tasks. Its traditional role (decision-maker influence) is the publication of (written) content, particularly on issues of interest to the PRC government. Such content includes reports, books and journals as well as other formats. While these different types greatly differ in terms of their level of distribution, the frequency of publication, the language of publication, topical focus as well as accessibility92 [62] and circle of recipients93, they naturally serve a number of different objectives ranging from scientific advice and policy briefings, engaging with public opinion in China, to joining the international debate or informing certain international audiences of foreign policy experts about issues of Chinese foreign policy. In addition to publication and written analysis and commentary, FPTTs conduct and present scientific advice and consulting activities with government officials on a direct and personal level (in both institutionalized and ad-hoc frameworks) (Mc Gann, 2012). In this vein, particularly with respect to ad-hoc frameworks, personal ties between scholars and high-ranking government officials are crucial for FPTT staff when decision-making influence is concerned. Furthermore, the enhancement of academic exchange is another core objective. Thus, FPTTs maintain close ties to scientists and policy experts abroad, for instance by attending and organizing international conferences or establishing institutionalized cooperation frameworks with external bodies (abroad and domestic). The most prestigious think tanks94 in China with a (special) focus on international politics include:
- China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) (affiliated
