Introduction

This chapter examines some of the main policy recommendations emanating from a politically diverse range of UK-based think-tanks in relation to the National Health Service (NHS). While they are by no means a new phenomenon, think-tanks have increased in prominence substantially over the past few years. The ideas and publications of thinktanks may be reported on prime-time television news, and key personnel are sometimes interviewed on pressing policy dilemmas. Moreover, the Internet now makes possible the widespread dissemination of reports, proposals and briefings, again enhancing visibility. By 1997, think-tanks were considered an ‘addictive habit for politicians’ (Wheen, 1997, cited by Denham and Garnett, 1999, p 54).

Think-tanks are defined as “independent bodies which provide information and ideas with the intention of assisting government decision makers” (Denham and Garnett, 1999, p 46). All the think-tanks described in this chapter seek to influence policy and are ‘independent’, deriving their incomes (in varying proportions) from sources such as business, trades unions, individuals, charities, government departments and others. All but one are based in London. There are also important differences among these think-tanks. Some, such as the King's Fund Institute (KFI) and the Democratic Health Network (DHN), focus exclusively on health; others, such as the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and Catalyst, develop ideas in relation to a variety of policy spheres. Some have charitable status, such as Demos and Civitas, while the Institute of Directors (IoD) is a membership body and the Centre for Public Services (CPS) describes itself as an independent, non-profit organisation. Some are very small, such as DHN with an office of two; others are substantially larger such as the IPPR and the New Economics Foundation (NEF). They vary in their philosophies and objectives. On the right, the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) describes itself as a “leading innovator of free-market policies” (www.adamsmith.org/about), while Civitas (which evolved from the Institute of Economic Affairs Health and Welfare Unit) considers its ‘special domain’ a new ‘balance’ between civil society and government. By contrast on the left of centre, Catalyst aims to promote “practical policies directed to the redistr ibution of power, wealth and opportunity” (www.catalystforum.org.uk), while the CPS seeks to promote the progressive modernisation of public services based upon the principles of public service, democracy and social justice.