Just stick to what you know, alright?

Franklin Cudjoe, Founding President and chief executive officer of IMANI Centre for Policy and Education.

Think tanks serve various purposes, primarily focused on generating research, analysis, and recommendations to tackle specific policy issues or societal challenges. The contribution of IMANI Africa to addressing national concerns and initiating change in Ghana is undeniable. However, recent developments suggest that Franklin Cudjoe, the president of the think tank, may be inadvertently veering off course from the organization’s mission, expertise and strategic focus to assume expertise in all national issues. No think tank can excel as a jack of all trades, so it is imperative that this trend be addressed promptly. It is crucial to shed light on the repercussions if a think tank must involve itself in all national issues.

Whether a think tank should engage in all national issues depends on its mission, resources, expertise and strategic focus. However, the consequences of such broad engagement are significant. Engaging in all national issues can dilute a think tank’s expertise and impact. By spreading resources thinly across diverse topics, the think tank risks lacking depth in specific areas, resulting in less influential research and recommendations. For example, a think tank specializing in environmental policy may lose credibility by venturing into healthcare or foreign affairs without sufficient expertise.

Moreover, broad engagement may lead to a loss of relevance and focus. Think tanks gain influence by becoming known as experts in particular policy domains. Without a clear focus, they risk being perceived as superficial or lacking depth. For instance, a think tank renowned for its economic policy expertise might lose relevance if it starts commenting on social issues without a strong evidence base.

Resource misallocation is another concern. Think tanks have limited resources, including time, funding and human capital. Engaging in all national issues may divert resources from areas where the think tank could have the most impact. For instance, dedicating significant resources to researching topics outside its core competencies could neglect areas where its expertise could make a meaningful difference.

Furthermore, broad engagement increases the potential for bias and ideological alignment. Attempting to cover all issues may result in aligning with specific ideologies or interest groups, undermining credibility and independence. Without a principled approach, the think tank may adopt positions catering to political agendas rather than presenting objective analysis.

Building coalitions and partnerships also becomes challenging. Specialized organizations and interest groups may hesitate to collaborate with a think tank lacking a clear focus or competing across a broad spectrum of issues. This difficulty in forming alliances limits the think tank’s ability to influence policy outcomes effectively.

In essence, while it is essential for think tanks to address national concerns, they must do so within their areas of expertise and strategic focus to maintain credibility, relevance and impact. Broad engagement across all issues risks diluting expertise, misallocating resources, introducing bias, and hindering coalition-building efforts. Therefore, it is crucial for think tanks to prioritize and specialize in areas where they can make the most significant contributions.