Previous
How state-dependence hinders independent thinking
South Korea has more than 400 think tanks, ranking among the top five globally. Yet this comes with the reality that the vast majority of its think tanks are affiliated with government institutions. Over 70% of major research organisations operate under government bodies such as the National Research Council for Economics, Humanities and Social Sciences. This heavy reliance on public funding creates an environment that inhibits think tanks from producing independent, long-term policy ideas. Such ideas challenge prevailing assumptions or go beyond Korea-specific concerns.
Download the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Report 2025
Two additional factors complicate this issue:
First, in the absence of a robust non-governmental think tank network, many civil society organisations have stepped into the policy arena. While they play an important role in advocacy, they often lack the issue-specific focus, research rigour, or academic frameworks that define formal think tanks. This has diluted what the public and policymakers think of as a “think tank,” making it harder for genuinely independent, evidence-based institutions to gain visibility and support.
Second, the dominance of government-centred institutions has constrained the emergence of well-established independent think tanks rooted in civil society. While these institutions may appear neutral due to their distance from partisan politics, this detachment has come at the cost of meaningful public engagement and long-term vision. In many democratic settings, think tanks play a vital role in shaping policy platforms, facilitating informed dialogue, and cultivating future leadership. By contrast, in South Korea, government-affiliated think tanks tend to operate as project contractors for the executive branch, limiting their relevance to broader legislative or public agendas.
A core challenge in South Korea’s think tank environment is the persistent confusion between independence and neutrality. In more established policy environments, independence means the freedom to take clear, even ideologically distinctive positions, provided they are grounded in evidence and methodological rigour. In South Korea, however, the expectation of neutrality often results in cautious, ‘neutral’ outputs that avoid diverging from their funder’s interest. As political polarisation intensifies, this pressure narrows the space for impactful, long-term policy recommendations, reducing their effectiveness as policy advisors.
One revealing dimension of the 2025 State of the Sector survey focused on the impact of political polarisation on think tank operations. Respondents from South Korea, Malaysia, and Myanmar noted that polarisation directly affects their ability to collaborate or pursue research freely. This underscores how polarisation not only disrupts political discourse but also restricts the intellectual space available for evidence-based policymaking. The development of independent civilian think tanks that encourage public participation and are centred around long-term objectives will be critical to counteracting this trend. Such institutions are better positioned to foster a diverse spectrum of policy agendas and ultimately enhance the legitimacy of South Korea’s policy landscape.
Diversify funding and foster political and civil linkages
If South Korea’s think tanks are to play a more meaningful role in shaping policy, both in domestic and regional terms, two reforms are especially urgent.
The current funding model must be restructured to support independence. One option is to create a national matching fund for civil society think tanks that receives support from private foundations, international donors, or competitive project bids. Additionally, introducing multi-year thematic funding, rather than short-term project-based contracts, would allow think tanks to set their own agendas and pursue long-term, impact-driven research.
Closing the distance between political parties and think tanks must also take place, but with safeguards that preserve academic integrity. Parties should be encouraged to sponsor policy fellowships or co-develop research agendas with think tanks as structured platforms for public communication, along with the cultivation of next-generation leadership. In doing so, South Korea can build a more dynamic pipeline between research, representation, and governance.
This party–think tank integration also opens the door for deeper regional cooperation. Korean institutions can engage in co-research, co-publishing, and talent exchanges that foster mutual understanding and strengthen regional expertise. Currently, organisations such as ASEAN-Korea Centre (AKC), Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat (TCS) undertake such roles in joint research and policy engagement, but they are primarily funded by states, with little financial independence. While bilateral or multilateral organisations such as these definitely serve their purpose as a provider of necessary information to the public, they tend to produce research that generally aligns with government interests. This further highlights the need for independent civil think tank cooperation across the region, which fosters long-term networks among academics and policy experts and addresses cross-border agendas on issues such as climate adaptation, digital governance, and equitable economic development.
From policy contractors to public institutions
South Korea’s think tank sector is at a crossroads. It has grown rapidly, but without the institutional depth and diversity required to influence policy in a meaningful way. Reforms in funding and party engagement would enable independent Korean think tanks to operate with greater independence, foster public trust, and participate more actively in the regional production of policy knowledge.
To remain relevant, South Korea’s think tanks must evolve from government contractors to public institutions, ones that do not merely react to policy trends but help define them.
In conclusion
South Korea’s think tank environment remains predominantly reliant on government funding and narrowly focused on state-driven agendas. This has constrained the emergence of independent, civilian-led institutions capable of engaging the public or shaping long-term national and regional policy. Civil society organisations have stepped into this space, blurring the line between formal think tanks and advocacy groups. To overcome these structural limitations, this post proposes two key reforms: diversifying funding mechanisms to support independent civilian think tanks and fostering closer collaboration with political parties. These reforms can contribute to domestic policy development, positioning South Korea to play a more proactive role in addressing regional challenges through international think tank cooperation based on civil exchanges.
