Research and Analysis Centers: Increasing influence at reducing opportunities

Summary

The forecasts for the year 2018 provided in the latest review generally materialized. The financial situation of most research centers has deteriorated or remained the same; there has been a concentration of resources among strong players and a weakening of the rest.

Interaction with stakeholders as a whole remained at the same level, having gained some bright moments which, however, give the impression of a PR strategy rather than deepening of trust.

The total number of studies carried out in the sector has decreased. With a few exceptions, most centers can produce only 1–3 serious studies per year.

Trends:

• Deterioration of the financial situation of the sector and, as a result – a decrease in the number of studies;
• Targeted contacts at the highest level of government, which, however, do not have a visible impact on the relations of the sector with the state as a whole;
• Increasing the importance of Internet presence, expanding cooperation with the media.

International context

At the beginning of 2019, the 2018 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report of the University of Pennsylvania1 was released, which noted that research centers both in the global context and in Belarus:

• need not only scientists, but also managers;
• should not only produce qualitative research, but also justify their need;
• compete not only with each other, but also with consulting and law firms, as well as companies engaged in the processing of electronic data sets;
• should actively communicate and “sell” the results, adapting the presentation to donors, policy makers and the general public.

The list of considered research centers from Belarus has increased by 1: 22 research centers (previously – 21) are included in the rating. Unfortunately, the report does not indicate which centers.

None of the Belarusian centers (out of the twenty-two included) is included in the top 90 research centers of Central and Eastern Europe, or in the thematic sub-ratings.

Possible explanations for this state of affairs can be summarized as follows:

1. the “flourishing” of research centers arises at a certain level of economic development, for poor economies it is a “luxury”;
2. research centers suffer from the same restrictions as other NGOs in Belarus, as well as from a bad institutional environment.

Key players and research

In general, in 2018 the sector was less noticeable than a year earlier. The more significant events stood out against this background. First of all, the Belarusian President visited the forum “Minsk Dialogue” organized by the expert initiative of the same name. In addition to the President, other high-ranking politicians, diplomats and officials, including Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei, were present and spoke at the forum. The Minsk Dialogue Forum gathered about 500 participants from 50 countries in three days (23–25 May 2018).

During the year, the initiative “Minsk Dialogue”, conducted other expert activities produced analytical notes and comments, including regular monitoring of foreign policy and security “Minsk Barometer”.

The Research Center of the Institute of Privatization and Management published working materials and analytical notes on various topics in the field of economics. Many works are based on sociological field research, which makes them especially valuable. Thus, in 2018, the Center published the results of surveys on the development of small and medium-sized enterprises and the values of the population of Belarus.

The research center also provides information about questions in the public domain, allowing them to be analyzed by everyone. Based on the business survey, the Index of competitiveness of regions was created – a visual tool for comparing regions with each other, assessing the separation of regions from the center, as well as the institutional environment in the country as a whole.

The BEROC center traditionally produced a lot of economic analysis (main topics: macroeconomics, crises, foreign trade, gender in economy, the relationship of education and production, corporate governance), quarterly economic reviews. A significant number of documents are available in English only. The center participated in international research, held the 8^th International Conference on Economics and Finance, accompanied by a Conference of young scientists in this field, continued its active educational activities. A separate cycle of research and activities is devoted to the “green economy”.

The expert community “Our opinion” continued to publish 22–25 analytical materials per month, covering various topics – political processes, security, public administration, international relations, economy, social, cultural and other policies. Independent studies of the share of national content in television broadcasting, of the institute of citizens’ appeal to state agencies, and several joint studies with the Belarusian analytical workshop (Warsaw) were conducted. Once again, the Belarusian Yearbook dedicated to the results of 2017 was published. Together with the Press Club it held monthly meetings of the expert analytical club.

The Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies (BISS) officially got a new Director (on 12 March 2018 at the general meeting of founders Pyotr Rudkovsky was appointed Director), announced the restart and addressed the topics of identity policy, value transformations, education and stability of regimes, held a number of events.

Belarus Security Blog published monthly reviews of the national and economic security of Belarus and the Eurasian security digest, comments and analytics, video reviews, continued to produce the radio program “Varta” and conduct expert discussions.

Ostrogorski Center presented research on education and international relations, analytics and comments, an overview of key events in Belarus Digest in English and Russian. The journal of Belarusian studies was not published, but was included in the SCOPUS database. The center held a competition of research works on the reform of Belarusian higher education. The conference which was held on 27 December, 2018 was dedicated to the same topic.

CASE Belarus (a member of the CASE research network) published an analytical report named “Effective urban development: the concept of a compact city for Belarus”, a macroeconomic review of 2017, several significant works on social policy with infographics (mainly in English).

The Center for European Transformation published a report on the results of a comprehensive study of civil society in Belarus for the period 2015–2017, a study of STEM-approach in education, regularly released analytics and comments.

BIPART research center (at SYMPA School) continued to produce research in the field of public administration: proposals for amendments and additions to the Law On public service in the Republic of Belarus; a pilot study of the openness of the state budget of Belarus 2017 (Open Budget Survey and Open Budget Index); an assessment of the statehood and the effectiveness of state institutions in Belarus and Ukraine; and a study of the interaction of civil society and the state at the local level. The center also organized open lectures and educational programs, held a conference “Public administration in Belarus: innovations and/or stability?”

The Center for Analytical Initiatives at the Liberal Club prepared a study on consultative and advisory structures in Belarus, produced analytics, held round tables and discussions.

The Center for Strategic and Foreign Policy Studies published mainly analytics and comments. Their website does not contain any “heavy” studies or reports for 2018.

The Institute of political studies “Political Sphere” held a conference titled “National Sovereignty (1918–2018): Ideas and Political Practice” and published a study on cooperation between government agencies and NGOs. The International Congress of Researchers of Belarus, which was to be held in Minsk, did not take place.

EAST Center (Eurasian States in Transition Research Center, registered in Poland) has been working since 2016, focused on the study of the post-Soviet and Eastern European space. In 2018, the center published a study on migration between Poland and Belarus, comments, and organized the forum “Media Management & IT” in Minsk.

The “Strategy” research center and the Mises Center worked on the evaluation of performance of the National business platform of Belarus of previous years and a new platform, held a summer school for experts, published analytics and comments.

The Public Bologna Committee published their second White Book on the detailed analysis of Belarusian implementation of Bologna commitments in comparison with other countries, as well as studies on the employment of young professionals and voluntary work.

The Center For New Ideas published their forecast “Index of the Future of Belarus”2 for the next five years. According to the authors, Belarus will face stagnation in the economy and a decrease in research potential. The center also published comments, infographics, videos and podcasts.

“ACT”, though not a pure research center, however, regularly publishes its own researches. Thus, the Association annually prepares and publishes the NGO sustainability Index (together with USAID), in 2018 published an analysis of the norms of Belarusian legislation in the field of charity.

Similarly, the Office of European Expertise and Communications, as an educational organization, periodically organizes surveys and publishes their results: in 2018, the Office presented the results of the study of the Internet audience “Awareness and involvement in the activities of public organizations and informal initiatives in Belarus” (together with the Baltic Internet Policy Initiative).

The public research sector, as before, served the function of decision-making within the state apparatus and put out very little material in the public domain. Often the results of their research are published in academic or departmental journals, but not online. So while in theory this research is public, in practice people are unable to find it.

The voice of the independent research centers with a pro-government position (platform “Imhoclub” and project “Citadel”), that became weaker in 2017 after the REGNUM case, did not manage to gain importance.

An interesting overview of the government think tanks3 was released by the Ostrogorski Centre (authored by Olga Grinyuk). It covers the main state “factories of thought” in the field of international relations, economics, sociology, state security. The advantages of state analytical centers include state funding and institutional support, the ability to legally work with commercial organizations, while the disadvantages are bureaucratization, insufficient funding, reducing the competence of researchers, and isolation both at the national and international level.

Influence on policy making and relations with stakeholders

The State

2018 was the year of symbolic recognition of the research sector by the state: several representatives of the sector were invited to a “Big conversation” with the President. As part of the “conversation”, the President demonstrated some awareness of the ideas and proposals of the research sector. The controversy with Yaroslav Romanchuk even gave rise to numerous memes on the Internet, united by the appeal “Isn’t it, Yaroslav?” As mentioned above, the most significant participation of the state representative in the event organized by the independent research center was the visit of Alexander Lukashenko to the “Minsk Dialogue”.

In November, the Kastrychnitsky Economic Forum (KEF) took place, organized annually since 2013 by the IPM Research center in cooperation with the BEROC center for economic research and the Belarusian center for social and economic research CASE. Last year the conference was held under the title “Belarus in the Brave New World” and was opened by Alexander Turchin, first Deputy Prime Minister. In addition to the Central KEF, similar conferences are held in the regions for the second year. This time they were united by the topic “From the recovery of growth to the development of competitiveness”.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is perhaps the only example of a forum co-organized by business (hoster.by) with the support of state bodies (in particular the EAC and the Ministry of Communications) and international organizations, in partnership with non-governmental organization Human Constanta. The latter is not a research center, but the IGF format is close to what analytical centers usually do to discuss an industry, sector or policy.

Think tanks also participated in the public discussions that expanded in 2018. The number of such discussions organized by Belarusian ministries more than doubled (from 51 cases in 2017 to 108 in 2018).4

Media

Media and research centers continue to cooperate: the media seek comments and analytics, and research centers place their materials, columns, research results in the media. Moreover, the columns and articles of independent experts can be seen in state publications, in the departmental press, there are independent experts in some programs and talk shows on television.

It is interesting to note the presence of media projects, such as RFRM, which, without claiming the status of a research center, produce quite in-depth materials on reforms, assessment of the situation in the country – in the form of interviews or reviews.

Political parties and movements

Political parties and movements, which usually turn to research centers to create or update their programs, did not do so in 2018. And in general, as the study “Civil society of Belarus: the current state and conditions of development (2015–2017)” accurately notes, there is practically no order for political analysis in Belarus due to the lack of representation of real political actors.

This applies not only to political analysts. Due to the fact that different (potential) customers either survive or, in the case of the public sector, are isolated, many research centers form their agenda based on their own ideas about what needs to be investigated.

Conclusion

The research sector will produce the same or fewer studies due to its difficult financial situation. A few strong independent players will also take leadership positions in working with government agencies.

The demand for political analytics will increase due to the 2019 election year. There will be a relatively high demand for analytics in the field of economy, international relations and security. In other areas, interaction with stakeholders will remain approximately at the current level. It is likely that the growing “grassroots” activism will also be able to become (maybe not during 2019 but later) a stakeholder in this field.