Opinion & Commentary
Why Think-Tanks Are Here to Stay
Pamela Bone's backhanded compliment to the success of The Centre for Independent Studies and the power of its ideas ("Why think tanks are full of bias", The Age, October 12) is inaccurate and unfair in a number of respects.
She makes a number of insinuations, including that we are coy about our funding and beholden to big business; that we are biased and our research finds what we want it to find; that one of our major research programs, Taking Children Seriously, is largely about attacking single mothers; and that it would be better for business to give its money to universities rather than the CIS.
Taking the last point first, the truth is some of our supporters are so disillusioned with the universities that they welcome the opportunity to support research and inquiry that makes recommendations for policy that are supported by sound data. There are problems in the universities, and competition from new institutions such as think tanks is a healthy development.
'On the question of facts, Bone fails to challenge our findings'
We are not beholden to business big or small, or to any other group. We get our funds from corporations, foundations and trusts and thousands of private individuals, and the diversity of sources means none could, even in the unlikely event they wished to, make threats that could compromise our independence.
Our accounts are public and always have been, and occasionally some of our donors to specific programs are listed. Indeed, Pamela Bone was able to mention some of them, because we published the names of those who were happy for us to do so. In the end, though, the relationship between any organisation and its supporters is a private one and that should be respected.
We make no promises. We decide what we think it is important to find out and then try to raise the funds, either as general support for the organisation (about 90 per cent of our income), or occasionally for particular programs such as our work on children.
More often than not, we are unsuccessful. If we were only interested in getting money, we wouldn't have to struggle to keep going as much as we do. The people who support us do so because they agree with our principles, which are clear and explicit.
On the question of facts, Bone fails to challenge our findings other than to list a few things she clearly doesn't agree with, and then tries to smear the work without presenting an argument.
The so-called attack on single mothers is a gross distortion of a research program comprising dozens of publications dealing with families and children's wellbeing. Issues covered include education, unemployment, suicide, family failure, crime, family taxation and so on.
One consistent finding, among hundreds, which Bone nowhere disputes, is that, on average, children in sole-parent families are disadvantaged in many ways compared to children in intact families. This is simply true, and serious researchers throughout the world have reached the same, regrettable, conclusion.
None of this is to stigmatise every single parent, because the great majority do their best under often extremely difficult conditions. This is not a finding that we wanted to make because it suits us. We deplore it, but what are we supposed to do? Is Bone suggesting we should ignore this disturbing fact about the wellbeing of children to avoid offending the sensitivities of those who fail to see the reality of what is before their eyes? I hope not.
'CIS receives support simply because enough Australians agree with us'
The CIS receives support simply because enough Australians agree with us that a prosperous economy must be market-based within a sensible regulatory environment; that individual liberty is a critical component of a forward-looking open society; that a strong and stable society needs strong and stable families and a wide range of autonomous voluntary institutions; that civil society is the nursery of moral integrity; and that good government recognises and respects such things.
These interests naturally influence the research topics we choose. If Bone believes this stance is biased, so be it; but it certainly does not follow that our research is not scholarly and well-argued.
Yes, we are trying to influence public opinion. We do enter public debates on issues of national importance, but we can do so only on the basis of good work and good people. We let our ideas stand in the public arena for adjudication and if they hold up, people will change their minds. That's the way it has been with this organisation for the nearly 25 years of its existence, and any examination of intellectual and policy trends shows that time and again we have been successful.
Plainly, Pamela Bone does not like that.
Oh, as a footnote, it's not so surprising that three of Australia's major papers, including The Age, should run extracts from our annual John Bonython Lecture given in Melbourne last week. After all, Professor Anne Krueger is one of the world's most distinguished economists. Perhaps what she had to say was important.
About the Author:
Greg Lindsay is Executive Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, which he founded in 1976. This article was written in response to an article published in The Age by Pamela Bone, which disputed CIS' credentials and autonomy as an independent research organisation.
