Similar to the previous year, the 2025 State of the Sector Survey’s results found that 70% of think tanks globally, who participated, claim direct policy influence. Yet, beneath the surface of these headline stats, there’s growing unease about the narrow definitions and measurements of impact. The 2025 OTT Conference Think Tanks and Impact addressed the increasing concern of evaluating think tanks’ success through the lens of uptake: was our policy brief cited? Did a minister endorse our recommendation? Was our research adopted into legislation? Yet, in a fast-evolving global context—marked by conflict, inequality, democratic backsliding, donor fatigue, and misinformation—these traditional measures feel increasingly inadequate.
At the 2025 OTT Conference, four keynote speakers—Damien King, Sara Pantuliano, Luciana Mendes Santos Servo, and Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi—offered rich insights that help reframe the impact debate. Together, they made a compelling case for evolving not just how impact is defined, but how think tanks position themselves, collaborate, communicate, and lead. Their experiences, drawn from Jamaica, the UK, Brazil, and across Africa, reveal both shared lessons and divergent approaches. Together, they illuminate a broader theory of change for think tanks: one that moves beyond direct influence and embraces a more nuanced, ecosystemic understanding of impact.
It recognises that policy change is rarely a direct outcome of a single paper or a neatly executed advocacy campaign. It acknowledges that ideas circulate, evolve, and often resurface years after their initial publication. Also—that governments may adopt ideas for reasons other than think tank advocacy—political expediency or pressures, shifting economic tides, international trends aligning broader agendas, or even sheer timing.
Therefore, this broader, more nuanced and shared approach of impact states not only that if a think tank’s recommendation is not adopted, it doesn’t necessarily indicate failure, but also that think tanks contribute meaningfully, even when individual outputs don’t translate into government decisions. It sees think tanks as builders of a living, breathing policy ecosystem—shaping narratives, facilitating dialogue, translating knowledge, building capacity, and upholding institutional memory. The question under this lens is not simply “Did our recommendation become policy?” but “How are we helping to create the conditions in which better, more just, and more effective policies emerge?”
Moving beyond uptake: A shared departure
Each speaker rejected the notion that policy uptake is the highest or most meaningful form of impact.
Damien King, Executive Director of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CAPRI), began with a cautionary tale: a minister enthusiastically endorsed his think tank’s report—then failed to implement a single recommendation in the seven years that followed. This disconnection between public endorsement and actual change forced King to reconsider where real influence lies. Similarly, Luciana Mendes Santos Servo, President of Brazil’s Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA), brought the perspective of a government-funded think tank that operates with autonomy and deep institutional credibility described how her team used to equate thick reports with impact, only to realise that influence comes less from documents than from sustained proximity and trust with decision-makers.
Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive of ODI Global, shared the story of a transformation rooted in crisis. Faced with financial instability, she took the bold step of reducing ODI’s size, budget, and project portfolio in order to focus more deeply on influence, values, and relevance. This decision was not merely operational—it was deeply philosophical. She called out the “growth for growth’s sake” model that equated impact with activity—more staff, more projects, more outputs. For her, effectiveness meant doing fewer things better.
Finally, Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, President and CEO of the African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET), issued a rallying cry for a new kind of think tank collaboration. She framed this shift through the idea of “co-competition”: the practice of competing not for institutional dominance, but for collective influence. Mavis challenged the outdated model of African think tanks working in silos or subcontracted roles. Instead, she shared examples of think tanks deferring to each other’s strengths, co-bidding for projects, and even sharing management functions such as conference delivery and fundraising. This is more than solidarity; it is a smart, strategic rethinking of how to amplify impact.
The message was clear: reports and recommendations may be necessary, but they are not sufficient. Think tanks must look beyond moments of high-level recognition and ask deeper questions: how are we shaping systems, narratives, and relationships?
Shared Themes: The New Architecture of Influence
Despite working in vastly different contexts, the four speakers converged around several key dimensions of impact that are often undervalued but deeply consequential.
First, all emphasised the importance of engagement across the policy ecosystem. Damien King described a “Pyramid of Influence” where real change requires attention not just at the top—with ministers—but at every layer, from bureaucrats to the general public. While ministers come and go, bureaucrats remain—and they are often the ones who determine whether a policy sees the light of day. King argued that effective think tanks must engage deeply with these bureaucratic actors. He called for “bureaucratic ethnography”: a systematic effort to understand the internal dynamics, hierarchies, and incentives of government institutions. Influence, he suggested, is about more than evidence. It is about knowing how to embed ideas into structures that resist change by design.
Luciana Servo similarly emphasised that influence stems from IPEA’s embedded role within Brazil’s ministries, where trust and collaboration shape long-term policy outcomes. IPEA is embedded in Brazil’s policy machinery, with 25% of its staff seconded to ministries. It evaluates dozens of policies each year and serves as a trusted partner in shaping and executing government agendas. IPEA’s role, she explained, is not to push from the outside but to support from within—facilitating debates, advising policymakers, and preserving institutional knowledge across administrations.
For both, civil servants—not just politicians—are the true gatekeepers of implementation.
Second, communications and knowledge translation were recognised as critical to impact. Research does not speak for itself. Sara Pantuliano reduced ODI’s annual publications and expanded its use of podcasts, infographics, and videos—formats that meet audiences where they are.
Luciana Servo spoke of her role as a “knowledge translator,” ensuring IPEA’s expertise could be understood and used. Her metaphor of the “Queen of England” captures this role elegantly: not omniscient, but a symbolic and practical translator of complex ideas.
Damien King insisted that communication deserves its own strategic focus—regardless of organizational size. For him, communication is not an afterthought but central to impact. It is not enough to produce rigorous research. Think tanks must time their releases strategically, tailor their messaging to diverse audiences, and model public engagement that extends beyond elites.
Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, too, urged African think tanks to package and present their work more professionally, noting that failure to do so often allows consulting firms to repackage local research at a higher price.
Third, all speakers placed trust and relationship-building at the heart of their approach. Whether navigating donor relationships (Pantuliano), embedding researchers in ministries (Servo), working tactfully with bureaucrats (King), or building coalitions across African institutions (Owusu-Gyamfi), the message was consistent: influence flows through relationships, not just ideas. Think tanks must invest in trust, proximity, and reputation—long-term currencies that outlast any single project.
Fourth, the speakers shared a commitment to institutional integrity and mission alignment. Pantuliano emphasized the importance of saying no—to misaligned funding, to oversized projects, and to mission drift. She described ODI’s departure from a donor-driven model that rewarded output volume over substance. She emphasised that change must begin from within. This meant turning down large contracts that did not align with ODI’s mission, closing entire programmes, and reducing annual publications by more than half. The goal was not growth for its own sake, but influence grounded in equity, justice, and global solidarity. ODI, for instance, takes public positions (e.g., on Gaza), even under donor pressure, highlighting impact as moral leadership, not just policy reform.
Owusu-Gyamfi offered a similar lens, encouraging African think tanks to resist the temptation to become everything to everyone. Mendes’s account of IPEA’s refusal to support anti-science agendas under Brazil’s former government reinforced this commitment to ethical boundaries.
These shared themes form a new architecture of influence: ecosystem engagement, communication, trust, and integrity.
Contrasts in context: Local realities, different tactics
While the keynotes converged on many principles, they also highlighted important differences—shaped by context, mandate, and organizational model.
Luciana Servo’s IPEA operates from within the Brazilian government, giving it unique access but also requiring political independence and institutional discipline. Its influence is embedded and bureaucratic, based on decades of earned trust and cross-government relationships.
Sara Pantuliano’s ODI Global, by contrast, is an independent organisation navigating the pressures of a competitive donor environment. Her strategy emphasised internal reform—downsizing, focusing, and re-centring on equity and justice. The impact, in ODI’s case, was as much about changing organisational DNA as about influencing policy externally.
Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi introduced a powerful regional vision. The real challenge, she argued, is not intellectual capacity, but packaging, visibility, and trust. Her idea of “co-competition” captures a rising confidence among African think tanks, who are increasingly working together to amplify influence, including on operational collaboration. She called for greater investment in back-office capabilities and resource-sharing across the continent’s policy community.
Damien King, while also advocating for ecosystemic influence, focused more on the challenges posed by bureaucratic inertia. His concept of “bureaucratic ethnography” emphasised the need to decode institutional cultures—to understand where power resides, how decisions are made, and what incentives drive resistance. In his analysis, think tanks succeed when they speak the language of the bureaucracy, not just the minister.
Each of these perspectives adds texture to the broader theory of change. There is no one-size-fits-all model. Impact is shaped by history, geography, governance models, and funding environments. Yet, even in their differences, these voices align around a more strategic, systemic view of influence.
Impact as a coalition: The power of shared voice
Perhaps the most forward-looking idea came from Owusu-Gyamfi’s emphasis on coalitions—not just as tactical alliances, but as vehicles for legitimacy, efficiency, and scale. She urged African think tanks to see themselves not as competitors for limited resources, but as co-creators of a new policy landscape. This shift demands trust, coordination, and humility. It also means sharing infrastructure—back-office systems, media capacity, and fundraising tools—and recognising that institutional visibility must sometimes give way to a collective voice.
Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi’s vision resonates with Pantuliano’s proposal that think tanks must be honest about what they’re good at—and be willing to let go of what they’re not. She challenged the outdated model of African think tanks working in silos or subcontracted roles. Instead, she shared examples of think tanks deferring to each other’s strengths, co-bidding for projects, and even sharing management functions such as conference delivery and fundraising. This is more than solidarity; it is a thoughtful, strategic reevaluation of how to maximise impact. Mavis shared a powerful illustration with the Amplifying African Voices Initiative, which grew from 11 to 25 think tanks and successfully influenced key global policy forums, including the UK’s global liquidity proposal and the IMF’s Sovereign Debt Roundtable. By aligning messaging and coordinating engagements, the initiative provided African ministers with a unified platform and increased their visibility.
In both cases, strategic specialisation allows organisations to focus on their core strengths, rather than stretch themselves thin trying to do it all.
Coalitions are not easy. Misalignment, poor performance, and egos can strain relationships. However, with effective leadership, clear incentives, a shared purpose, and a willingness to communicate openly and work through conflicts, the rewards of collaboration far outweigh the costs. They can dramatically amplify impact, turning isolated efforts into coordinated influence.
Measuring what matters
If think tanks are evolving how they understand impact, then metrics must evolve too. Uptake can no longer be the sole measure of success. The speakers suggested new indicators which respond to the other impacts think tanks have along the process: trust among stakeholders, narrative shifts in public debate and agenda setting beyond the “hot” and funded issues, embeddedness in institutions and in messages, public trust, credibility and ethical stance, policy windows opened, or coalitions built, incubating and amplifying others, knowledge accessibility and translation (institutional memory), inclusive leadership, internal reform and operational resilience. Impact might mean resisting harmful agendas, reframing the terms of debate, or creating platforms that elevate new voices.
For all these other impacts, qualitative assessments matter. Influence becomes visible in relationships, in proximity to power, in the courage to take principled stances, and in the resilience to stay relevant across political cycles. Stories, not just statistics, help capture the depth of this work.
Toward a broader theory of change
Taken together, these keynote insights point to a broader, more up-to-date theory of impact. Think tanks are not just purveyors of evidence, but ecosystem actors. They shape policy not only through content, but through connection. They model values, build infrastructure, foster trust, and create the conditions in which good ideas can thrive.
Impact, then, is less about the solitary heroism of a well-timed report and more about the slow, deliberate cultivation of influence. It is about investing in people, institutions, and coalitions. It is about translating complexity, holding space for debate, and standing firm in moments of political compromise.
In a world where misinformation spreads faster than facts, and the policy environment becomes increasingly fragmented, this expanded view of impact is not just more accurate—it is more urgent. Think tanks must be nimble, principled, collaborative, and strategic. The next era of influence belongs to those who can hold complexity and clarity in equal measure, focusing on what they are good at and working collaboratively to amplify their impact.
Think tanks do not just shape policies. They shape the space in which policymaking becomes possible to bring changes that improve people’s lives.