British think-tanks 'less transparent about sources of funding'

British think-tanks are less transparent about their sources of funding than their European counterparts, with famous names such as Chatham House rated as less open than a research organisation in Bulgaria, according to new research.

Transparify, a US-based not-for-profit organisation which conducted the study, called for "a national debate" in the UK about the importance of financial transparency in policy research.

Since Transparify, funded by George Soros's Open Society Foundations, released its first rating of almost 170 think-tanks worldwide in 2013, the organisations had "begun embracing transparency in ever-increasing numbers", it said.

Almost 50 think-tanks were now rated as transparent of which 31 were deemed "highly transparent", meaning that they disclosed the precise sum that each donor provided.

The issue of links between research and funders has been highlighted by Senator Elizabeth Warren, potential Democrat nominee for the US presidency, who has called on US financial institutions to disclose which think-tanks they fund.

Hans Gutbrod, executive director of Transparify, said highly transparent think-tanks could be found in 18 countries worldwide, in places as diverse as Ecuador, Pakistan and Montenegro. Their funding came from large national and international donors, including foundations, corporations, trade unions and public bodies.

Insisting that concerns by some think-tanks that full disclosure might drive away donors had not been substantiated, Mr Gutbrod said: "Clearly none of these donors have any objections to being named and honoured for financially supporting good policy research."

In European Union countries, think-tanks moved towards greater transparency in 2014, albeit at a slower pace than in other regions, says Transparify.

<

The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.

The average ranking for the British institutions is two stars out of a possible five, an assessment that means they list "all or many donors" but "little or no financial information".

Only one of 11 British think-tanks assessed, the Institute for Public Policy Research, was rated as transparent.

Chatham House, the venerable foreign policy think-tank, and Civitas, which studies civil society, are praised for moving towards greater transparency in the past year. Each has been allotted three stars by Transparify, meaning that all or most donors are listed in two or three broad financial contribution brackets.

However, the Overseas Development Institute, which describes itself as "the UK's leading independent think-tank on international development" comes in for criticism after falling from five stars to two stars. Transparify said this was "the steepest decline registered worldwide".

Of seven European think-tanks categorised as "highly opaque" three are in the UK. They are the Institute of Economic Affairs, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and LSE IDEAS. The first two have zero stars, meaning they provide "no relevant or up-to-date information" about funding, according to the Transparify rating system.

<>The Institute of Economic Affairs said it did "not place a list of our donors in the public domain. It is a matter for individual donors whether they wish their donation to be public or private - we leave that entirely to their discretion".

However it emphasised that it did not accept funding from "the UK or any other government" nor "earmarked money for commissioned research work from any company".

The London School of Economics said it was "extremely surprising" that Transparify had chosen to give LSE IDEAS a one star rating.

Its latest financial report "was available online as well as in hard copy and can easily be found on the LSE IDEAS homepage". The funding for each programme was clearly stated in each section in the report, it added.

The Overseas Development Institute also disputed its alleged lack of openness. Karl Askew, finance director, said it published audited accounts on its website on an annual basis and filed these with its regulators, the Charity Commission and Companies House.

Mr Askew added: "These accounts are also publicly available through the Charity Commission website and contain a significant amount of information on our strategy, activities, financial performance and major donors."

IISS did not respond to requests for comment by the deadline given by the Financial Times.

© The Financial Times Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation