JOHN DEBOER

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

[關(guān)鍵詞] 智庫(kù)；決策；有益

[中圖分類(lèi)號(hào)] C932 [文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識(shí)碼] A [文章編號(hào)] 1002-8129（2016）08-0086-07

In a thought-provoking conversation at the United Nations University in Tokyo with Rohinton Medhora， the President of the Centre for International Governance Innovation（CIGI）， I asked the question，“What Are Think Tanks Good For？”His answer was to the point， “influence peddling， in the best sense of the term.” He went on to stress that while one could question the tactics and motivations behind how and who Think Tanks influence， the bottom line was that they are in the business of pushing for change through ideas and networks. The litmus test of a good Think Tank， according to Medhora， was not whether it was “right， left， liberal or not， but whether it was proposing evidence-based discussion.”

在一次與東京聯(lián)合國(guó)大學(xué)國(guó)際治理創(chuàng)新中心（CIGI）主席羅欣頓·麥德拉德的深談中，我問(wèn)道：“智庫(kù)到底有什么好處？”他簡(jiǎn)潔明確地回答：“智庫(kù)的影響力本身就是最好的解釋?！比缓笏^續(xù)強(qiáng)調(diào)，雖然人們可以質(zhì)疑智庫(kù)影響力背后的策略和動(dòng)機(jī)，但最重要的是， 智庫(kù)促使了觀念和網(wǎng)絡(luò)的改變。麥德拉德認(rèn)為，檢驗(yàn)好的智庫(kù)最立竿見(jiàn)影的方法，就是看其是否會(huì)激起基于證據(jù)的討論，而非爭(zhēng)論到底是偏左翼、偏右翼或是自由派。

Medhoras view is widely held. The dominant understanding is that Think Tanks exist to mobilize expertise and ideas to influence the policy making process. The raison dêtre for most Think Tanks is to serve as important catalysts for ideas and action. In a world facing many pressing problems that include extreme poverty， inequality， climate change， rapid urbanization， the spread of infectious disease， armed conflict， international terrorism， organized crime， and the proliferation of nuclear weapons， good ideas that can be acted upon are essential. At their best， Think Tanks possess the ability to capture the political imagination by brokering ideas， stimulating public debate， and offering creative yet practical solutions to tackle the worlds most pressing problems.

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

Think Tanks have made these kinds of contributions in the past. For example， Leo Pasvolsky， a Brookings Institution expert， was instrumental in helping to rebuild Europe after World War II by putting forward concrete recommendations that helped shape the Marshall Plan. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace， led by its then president Raphael Lemkin， played a pivotal role in promoting the passage of the UN anti-Genocide Convention by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948， spurred on by the need to prevent another Holocaust. In the midst of the 2008 financial crisis，CIGIs proposals for innovation in the G8 system helped lead to the creation of the G20 leaders group. This development helped to establish the G20 as the premier forum for international economic cooperation in troubled economic times. Another example of a breakthrough spearheaded by a Think Tank was the idea of Advanced Market Commitments for Vaccines championed by a Center for Global Development Working Group. The result was a mechanism that provided guarantees to increase private investment in R&D; for vaccine development for diseases that primarily affected developing countries. In 2005， theG-7 Finance Ministers endorsed this idea and six donors committed US $1.5 billion to the initiative. These ideas were often not developed in isolation but were part of an iterative process of discovery， learning， and adaptation sometimes through failure. In each case， timing proved to be critical.

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

Serving as a catalyst for ideas is only one aspect of the role that the best Think Tanks play. Another essential role is in helping to set the policy agenda. Yet， getting on the policy agenda is a complicated task. Even the best Think Tanks miss key opportunities to translate a persuasive idea into reality. John Kingdons work on this subject is instructive because it underscores the inherent unpredictability of the policy process. According to Kingdon， getting an idea on the governmental agenda requires persistence， expertise， cultivating the right connections， and above all， good timing. As he put it in his book Agendas， Alternatives， and Public Policies， “being heard in the policy process is often more a matter of being positioned to take advantage of opportunities when they arise， than it is doing a set of things fully under ones control.”

作為想法迸發(fā)的催化劑，僅是智庫(kù)所應(yīng)扮演角色的一個(gè)方面。智庫(kù)的另一個(gè)重要角色就是幫助設(shè)定政策議程。政策執(zhí)行過(guò)程是一件非常復(fù)雜的事情。甚至最好的智庫(kù)也會(huì)錯(cuò)失將有說(shuō)服力的想法轉(zhuǎn)化為現(xiàn)實(shí)的關(guān)鍵時(shí)機(jī)。約翰·金登對(duì)于這一問(wèn)題的研究頗具指導(dǎo)意義，因?yàn)樗麖?qiáng)調(diào)了政策制定過(guò)程中固有的不可預(yù)見(jiàn)性。根據(jù)金登的觀點(diǎn)，把一個(gè)想法提上政府的議事日程需要不懈的堅(jiān)持、專(zhuān)業(yè)的知識(shí)、創(chuàng)造正確的聯(lián)系，以及最為重要的就是好的時(shí)機(jī)。正如他在《議程、備選方案與公共政策》一書(shū)中所言，“在政策過(guò)程中陳詞不僅僅是在別人完全控制下所做的事情，而更應(yīng)該是在機(jī)會(huì)來(lái)臨時(shí)把握好機(jī)會(huì)”。

Successful Think Tanks keep their proposals at the ready and when a problem emerges to which their proposals can be the solution， they jump into action. Having good ideas is not enough. As Kingdon stressed， “ideas do not drive policy changes by themselves， they must be coupled with more conventional political forces.”To be successful， Think Tanks need to have sufficient resources and persistence to continuously cultivate an idea as they wait for the right moment to mobilize an alliance of supporters around it.

成功的智庫(kù)隨時(shí)都準(zhǔn)備著提案，當(dāng)問(wèn)題一出現(xiàn)，這些提案就會(huì)變成解決方法，并且可以立馬付諸實(shí)施。然而，單單有好的想法是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠的。正如金登所言，“想法本身是無(wú)法驅(qū)使政治有所變化的，他們必須與更為常見(jiàn)的政治因素相結(jié)合才會(huì)帶來(lái)政治變化”。當(dāng)智庫(kù)在等待合適的時(shí)機(jī)去組建支持者的聯(lián)盟時(shí)，為了獲取成功，它需要足夠的資源和毅力堅(jiān)持去持續(xù)地培育理念。

There is a flip-side to the inherent unpredictability of the policy process， which is that good ideas do not always win out. Unfortunately， there have been instances when ideologically driven Think Tanks supported misguided ideas that shaped how governments understood the world， assessed their options， and acted to great detriment. We saw this in the run up to the 2003 Iraq War when the terrorist attacks of 9/11 gave proponents of regime change in Iraq （among them the Project for the New American Century PNAC） the cover to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein in the name of spreading democracy and winning the war on terror. PNAC and other proponents of regime change were so effective at shaping the policy preferences of George W. Bush and his administration that persuasive evidence to the contrary was ignored and discounted， leading to a costly war.

政策過(guò)程中固有的不可預(yù)測(cè)性會(huì)產(chǎn)生負(fù)面作用，即好主意并不總是獲得成功。遺憾的是，經(jīng)常會(huì)有受意識(shí)形態(tài)主導(dǎo)的智庫(kù)支持錯(cuò)誤理念的例子出現(xiàn)，這些理念限制了政府對(duì)這個(gè)世界的理解，錯(cuò)誤評(píng)定他們的選擇，并造成巨大的傷害。我們?cè)?003年的伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中已經(jīng)見(jiàn)識(shí)過(guò)，當(dāng)時(shí)911恐怖襲擊事件給予伊拉克政變支持者們（這是PNAC——新美國(guó)世紀(jì)計(jì)劃的一部分）借口入侵伊拉克，并以傳播民主和贏取反恐戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的名義鏟除薩達(dá)姆·侯賽因。PNAC和其他政變支持者的意見(jiàn)在喬治·W·布什政策選擇和管理的形成方面具有極高的有效性，而反面性的具有說(shuō)服力的證據(jù)已被忽略，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致了一場(chǎng)代價(jià)昂貴的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。

As former Canadian Senator Hugh Segal has suggested， Think Tanks are at their worst when they are narrowly ideological and consistently generate predictable findings on any question despite evidence to the contrary. Think Tanks that demonstrate such behavior should be discounted. However， as the seminal study by Robert Jervis on Perception and Misperception in International Politics demonstrated， experts and policy makers can be susceptible to actively avoiding and ignoring information that contradicts their beliefs. More recently， the 2015 World Development Report on Mind， Society and Behavior from the World Bank explained how policy makers and even experts can be prone to “thinking automatically”.As the WDR 2015 underscored， discussions among people who share similar views can lead them to become more extreme in their positions. In fact， the report clearly demonstrated how a failure to confront the concerns of individuals with differing views can lead to “consistently biased decision making.”Research has shown that it is critical for policy makers to become aware of their own biases in order to avoid selecting and filtering evidence in a way that confirms their views.

正如前加拿大參議員休西格爾所指出的，當(dāng)智庫(kù)的意識(shí)形態(tài)狹隘，對(duì)任何問(wèn)題忽略其反面跡象并不斷做出預(yù)測(cè)性結(jié)論時(shí)，正是其最差的工作狀態(tài)。而當(dāng)智庫(kù)出現(xiàn)這種情況時(shí)，其效率常常會(huì)大打折扣。但是，羅伯特杰維斯在《國(guó)際政治中的知覺(jué)和錯(cuò)誤知覺(jué)》中做出的開(kāi)創(chuàng)性研究顯示，專(zhuān)家和政策制定者在主觀上很容易回避或忽略與他們觀點(diǎn)相反的信息。最近，世界銀行發(fā)表的《2015年世界發(fā)展報(bào)告：思維、社會(huì)與行為》指出政策制定者甚至專(zhuān)家易于產(chǎn)生機(jī)械化的思維。隨著這份報(bào)告的關(guān)注度越來(lái)越高，持有同樣觀點(diǎn)的人之間的討論會(huì)使他們?cè)谠械牧?chǎng)上變得更加極端。事實(shí)上，這份報(bào)告已經(jīng)明確指出，如果在處理不同個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)時(shí)失敗，就會(huì)造成“持續(xù)性的偏頗的政策制定”。研究指出，對(duì)于政策制定者，認(rèn)清自己的偏見(jiàn)，在發(fā)表觀點(diǎn)過(guò)程中避免證據(jù)選擇和過(guò)濾的情況出現(xiàn)是十分重要的。

One of the best ways to avoid confirmation bias， according to the WDR 2015， is to expose people to opposing views and invite them to defend their own. The best Think Tanks do just that. They create social and intellectual settings that force people to argue and become aware of their own biases. They provide a platform to introduce new ideas and provoke public debate on the critical issues of the day and in so doing expand the scope of the debate.

根據(jù)《2015年世界發(fā)展報(bào)告》，避免確認(rèn)性偏見(jiàn)的最好方法就是讓人們直面相左意見(jiàn)并讓他們?yōu)樽约旱挠^點(diǎn)進(jìn)行辯護(hù)。而最好的智庫(kù)正是這樣做的。它創(chuàng)造出社會(huì)型和智慧型的環(huán)境，激發(fā)人們進(jìn)行討論，從而了解到自己的偏見(jiàn)所在。它提供一個(gè)平臺(tái)用于引入全新的理念，并就當(dāng)下的關(guān)鍵話題激發(fā)公共探討，以此來(lái)擴(kuò)大討論的范圍。

In developing country contexts with relatively recent democratic traditions，Think Tanks are increasingly taking on this function. For example， the Institute of Economic Affairs in Ghana played a pivotal role in helping to strengthen democracy in a context of political instability by organizing workshops， voter education forums， and presidential and vice-presidential debates. The Think Tank Initiative （funded by Canadas International Development Research Centre，the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation，the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation，UK Aid，the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands， and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation）， is just one example of a program that is helping to strengthen the role of Think Tanks in the Global South to provoke public debate on important public policy issues of the day.

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

2015 will be a pivotal year for the world. With a large number of very important policy processes underway， the UN Secretary General has declared that “2015 can and must be a time for global action”. These policy processes will culminate with important decisions that will shape the course of action on issues ranging from international peace and security， to climate change， and global development and Think Tanks need to play a constructive role.

對(duì)世界來(lái)說(shuō)，2015年將是關(guān)鍵性的一年。一大批非常重要的政策過(guò)程正在進(jìn)行，聯(lián)合國(guó)秘書(shū)長(zhǎng)已聲明，“2015將是也必須是全球性行動(dòng)的一年”。從國(guó)際和平和安全、氣候變化到全球發(fā)展，重要的決策將為這些問(wèn)題形成行動(dòng)方針，政策過(guò)程將達(dá)到高潮，智庫(kù)需要發(fā)揮建設(shè)性的作用。

In terms of international peace and security， the United Nations is currently undertaking two important independent reviews. The first is on peace operations， where the Secretary General has appointed a High Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations to assess how UN-led peace operations need to change in order to remain effective in a world confronting increasingly complex and volatile security environments. Another important policy process that will have an impact on war-torn societies is the expert review panel on the UNs Peacebuilding Architecture.

在國(guó)際和平與安全這個(gè)問(wèn)題上，聯(lián)合國(guó)目前正著手進(jìn)行兩項(xiàng)重要的獨(dú)立審議。第一項(xiàng)審議針對(duì)維和行動(dòng)，就此，聯(lián)合國(guó)秘書(shū)長(zhǎng)全權(quán)委派高級(jí)別維和行動(dòng)獨(dú)立委員會(huì)，分析評(píng)估在當(dāng)今這個(gè)復(fù)雜、不穩(wěn)定的國(guó)際環(huán)境中，聯(lián)合國(guó)主導(dǎo)的維和行動(dòng)應(yīng)該做出怎樣的調(diào)整，才能保證行動(dòng)的切實(shí)有效。另外，還有一項(xiàng)政策過(guò)程將對(duì)飽受戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)蹂躪的國(guó)家產(chǎn)生重要影響，即是對(duì)聯(lián)合國(guó)建設(shè)和平住房建議計(jì)劃的評(píng)審。

Negotiations leading up to the Special Summit on Sustainable Development （15-28 September）， also represent a critical policy process. At this Summit， UN Member States will debate and ultimately approve the Sustainable Development Goals that will set the global development agenda for the next fifteen years. The challenge， as UNU Rector David M. Malone put it in arecent article， is to craft a sharp and compelling post-2015 framework that could stand the test of time and relevancy over a 15-year period. The complex negotiation process involving many diverging national interests， however， will make this outcome difficult to achieve. Yet， as I stressed in a recent article， it is imperative that the world sets realistic goals that build on success to date and commit to promoting human dignity， equality， and equity.

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

Finally， another critical period will be between 30 November and 11 December when Paris will play host to the 21st Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change. At this conference， 190 parties will try to arrive at an agreement on greenhouse gas emission targets to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

最后，另一段關(guān)鍵時(shí)期是11月30日到12月11日，在此期間，巴黎將主辦聯(lián)合國(guó)氣候變化框架公約第21次締約方會(huì)議。此次大會(huì)上，190個(gè)與會(huì)方將努力就溫室氣體的排放標(biāo)準(zhǔn)達(dá)成新的共識(shí)，以取代過(guò)去京都議定書(shū)中的有關(guān)規(guī)定。

To put it bluntly， policy makers are struggling to develop effective responses to many of the key issues that will be debated in these policy processes and Think Tanks can play a constructive role by bringing practical and feasible options that tackle these issues to the negotiating table. Think Tanks， including the United Nations Universitys Centre for Policy Research， are already playing an important role in contributing evidence based assessments （see for instance UNU-CPRs paper for the High Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations）. Yet， more ideas are needed so that these processes generate effective recommendations and solutions.

坦白的說(shuō)，政策制定者正努力對(duì)政策過(guò)程中會(huì)討論到的關(guān)鍵事項(xiàng)做出有效的回復(fù)，而智庫(kù)針對(duì)這些事項(xiàng)，在會(huì)談中通過(guò)提供給各方與這些事項(xiàng)相關(guān)的切實(shí)可行的選擇，從而發(fā)揮建設(shè)性作用。包含聯(lián)合國(guó)大學(xué)政策研究中心在內(nèi)，智庫(kù)在貢獻(xiàn)基于證據(jù)的評(píng)估方面已經(jīng)發(fā)揮了重要作用（示例可見(jiàn)聯(lián)合國(guó)大學(xué)政策研究中心有關(guān)維和行動(dòng)事項(xiàng)高級(jí)別獨(dú)立委員會(huì)的相關(guān)報(bào)告）。但政策過(guò)程仍需要更多的觀點(diǎn)來(lái)形成有效的建議及其解決措施。

This ultimately， brings me back to my conversation with Rohinton Medhora. To succeed， Think Tanks need at least four elements. They need good ideas， a coalition of actors to support those ideas， the institutional capacity （including resources） to nurture and shepherd those ideas in a dynamic context， and the ability to seize the moment when the timing is right. What they need is the means to champion good ideas when the world needs them most. In other words， Think Tanks need to do what they are good at， influence peddling in the best sense of the term.

最后，回到我與羅欣頓·麥德拉德之間的談話。我認(rèn)為，智庫(kù)的成功至少需要四個(gè)因素的支持。他們需要好的想法，需要一個(gè)支持這些想法行動(dòng)者的聯(lián)合體，需要制度化并可以（包括資源）在一個(gè)動(dòng)態(tài)的環(huán)境中去培養(yǎng)、引導(dǎo)這些想法的能力，以及在時(shí)機(jī)成熟之時(shí)當(dāng)機(jī)立斷的能力。他們需要的是，當(dāng)全世界急需優(yōu)秀想法時(shí)能夠真正支持這些想法的方法。換句話說(shuō)，智庫(kù)需要專(zhuān)注于自己的長(zhǎng)處，堅(jiān)信智庫(kù)的影響力本身，就是對(duì)所有疑問(wèn)最好的解釋。

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

think-tanks-good）

[責(zé)任編輯：馬昌運(yùn)，王麗瓊]