1 McGann, James G., “Academics to Ideologues: A Brief History of the Public Policy Research Industry,” PS: Political Science and Politics 25 (1992), 733Google Scholar.

2 A comprehensive directory of Canadian think tanks has yet to be produced, although some have speculated that there are approximately 100 private and university-based policy institutes in Canada.

3 Less than 4 per cent of the estimated 1,200 think tanks in the United States have budgets in excess of $10 million, a select pool which includes the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). In fact, less than 16 per cent of all American think tanks have budgets exceeding $1 million. See Hellebust, Lynn, ed., Think Tank Directory: A Guide to Nonprofit Public Policy Research Organizations (Topeka, Kan.: Government Research Service, 1996)Google Scholar. For comparative data on the institutional resources available to think tanks in the United States and the United Kingdom, see Stone, Diane, Capturing the Political Imagination (London: Frank Cass, 1996)Google Scholar; and Stone, Diane, Denham, Andrew and Garnett, Mark, Think Tanks across Nations: A Comparative Approach (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998)Google Scholar. On Australian think tanks see Marsh, Ian, Globalisation and Australian Think Tanks: An Evaluation of Their Role and Contribution to Governance, CEDA Information Paper No. 34 (Melbourne and Sydney: CEDA, 1991)Google Scholar; and Marsh, Ian, An Australian Think Tank?: Lessons Australia Can Learn from Independent Public Policy Research (Kensington: University of New South Wales Press, 1980)Google Scholar.

4 See Stone, Capturing the Political Imagination; Wallace, William, “Between Two Worlds: Think-Tanks and Foreign Policy,” in Hill, Christopher and Beshoff, Pamela, eds., Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners and the Trade in Ideas (London: Routledge, 1994)Google Scholar; Smith, James A., The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite (New York: Free Press, 1991)Google Scholar; and Ricci, David M., The Transformation of American Politics: The New Washington and the Rise of Think Tanks (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

5 See Abelson, Donald E., American Think-Tanks and Their Role in U.S. Foreign Policy (London and New York: Macmillan and St. Martin's Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Smith, The Idea Brokers.

6 Assessing the influence of think tanks on policy debates remains a formidable methodological obstacle. While it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent to which think tanks have been responsible for influencing public policy, it is possible to assess their relative degree of visibility in the political arena. By relying on specific indicators such as media citations, parliamentary testimony, size of membership and distribution of publications, some preliminary observations about their degree of involvement in, or detachment from, the political process could be made. See Abelson, Donald E., “Surveying the Think Tank Landscape in Canada,” in Westmacott, Martin and Mellon, Hugh, eds., Public Administration and Policy: Governing in Challenging Times (Toronto: Prentice-Hall, forthcoming)Google Scholar; and Abelson, Donald E. and Lindquist, Evert, “Think Tanks in North America,” in McGann, James G. and Weaver, R. Kent, eds., Think Tanks: Catalysts for Ideas and Action (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution and the World Bank, forthcoming)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 An important example of Canadian think tanks playing a decisive role in the policy-making process is the work of the Ottawa-based Caledon Institute and its president, Ken Battle (formerly of the National Council on Welfare), on developing social policy affecting child and seniors benefits. According to Kent Weaver of the Brookings Institution, these two major policy innovations have earned the Caledon Institute the nickname, “the godfather of Canadian social policy”(remark made by Weaver at a session on think tanks, annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, 1997)Google Scholar. Although a detailed case study on how the Caledon Institute influenced social policy has yet to be written, Lindquist has written a detailed examination of how and to what extent Canadian policy institutes sought to influence three key domestic policy debates: energy policy, pension policy and tax policy. See Lindquist, Evert, “Behind the Myth of Think-Tanks: The Organization and Relevance of Canadian Policy Institutes” (doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1989)Google Scholar.

8 See Campbell, Murray, “Wonks,” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), 12 2, 1995, Dl–2Google Scholar.

9 To receive tax-exempt status under the Income Tax Act in Canada and under the IRS Code in the US, think tanks must remain nonpartisan. While think tanks in both countries publicly claim that they do not endorse the political positions of any party and therefore are nonpartisan, many have openly acknowledged and indeed promoted their own political mandate. See Chisolm, Laura Brown, “Sinking the Think-Tanks Upstream: The Use and Misuse of Tax Exemption Law to Address the Use and Misuse of Tax-Exempt Organizations,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 51 (1990), 577–5640Google Scholar.

10 For more on think tanks and the media, see Abelson, Donald E., “A New Channel of Influence: American Think Tanks and the News Media,” Queen's Quarterly 99 (1992), 849–872Google Scholar; and Abelson, Donald E., “Public Visibility and Policy Relevance: Measuring the Impact and Influence of Canadian Policy Institutes,”paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, 1998Google Scholar.

11 For a discussion on how US and Canadian think tanks exercise public and private influence, see Abelson, Donald E., “Think Tanks in the United States,” in Stone, et al. , eds., Think Tanks Across NationsGoogle Scholar; and Abelson, “Surveying the Think Tank Landscape in Canada.”

12 Smith, The Idea Brokers. Hellebust provides a brief history of hundreds of think tanks (Think Tank Directory).

13 Weaver, R. Kent, “The Changing World of Think Tanks,” PS: Political Science and Politics 22 (1989), 563–578Google Scholar. Several other classifications or typologies of think tanks have been constructed. See McGann, James G., The Competition for Dollars, Scholars and Influence in the Public Policy Research Industry (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1995)Google Scholar. For a classification of the functions of think tanks, see Wallace, “Between Two Worlds.”

14 Lindquist uses the term “club” to describe the goals and functions of many Canadian policy institutes (Lindquist, Evert, “Think Tanks or Clubs? Assessing the Influence and Roles of Canadian Policy Institutes,” Canadian Public Administration 36 [1993], 547–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

15 For more on the CIIA see Manny, Carter, “The CIIA, 1928–1939” (B.A. Thesis, Harvard University, 1971)Google Scholar; Osendarp, J. E., A Decade of Transition: The CIIA, 1928–1939 (M.A. Thesis, York University, 1983)Google Scholar; Holmes, John, “The CIIA: A Canadian Institution,” Bout de Papier 7, 4 (1990), 9–10Google Scholar; “A Brief History of the CIIA” (CIIA publication, 1995)Google Scholar; and Greathead, E. D., “The Antecedents and Origins of the CIIA,” in Dyck, Harvey L. and Krosby, Peter, eds., Empire and Nations: Essays in Honour of Frederic H. Soward (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

16 Several other institutes, including the Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Defense Analyses, advise the US government on defence issues. In recent years, RAND has expanded its research to include health care reform. RAND also offers a joint graduate programme with the University of California at Los Angeles. For a detailed analysis of RAND, see Kaplan, Fred, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985)Google Scholar.

17 The Hudson Institute was founded by Herman Kahn and some of his former colleagues at RAND in 1961. Originally based in Westchester County, N.Y., Hudson moved to Indianapolis following Kahn's death in 1984. It also maintains an office in Washington, D.C. The Hudson Institute's major clients include the departments of Defense, Labor, State and Commerce. Dan Quayle, former vice president, and Elliot Abrams, former assistant secretary of state for human rights, took up residence at Hudson after leaving public office. The Urban Institute, created in 1968 at the request of President Lyndon Johnson and his domestic policy advisers, was originally conceived as the domestic policy equivalent of RAND. The Urban Institute has relied extensively on government contracts from the departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Transportation and several other state and federal departments and agencies. It also receives financial support from various private donors and philanthropic foundations.

18 The Economic Council and the Science Council were disbanded by the 1992 federal budget. Others cut included the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and the Law Reform Commission. See De La Mothe, J., “A Dollar Short and a Day Late: A Note on the Demise of the Science Council of Canada,” Queen's Quarterly 99 (1992), 873–886Google Scholar.

19 Lindquist, “Think Tanks or Clubs?” 564.

20 Some have argued that the decision of Brian Mulroney's government to close CUPS had less to do with economics than with the nature of its policy recommendations, at times at odds with the policy of the Conservative government. Others have suggested that consulting firms and nonprofit organizations were in a position to offer advice on international affairs, and CUPS was not necessary. See Pearson, Geoffrey and Gordon, Nancy, “Shooting Oneself in the Head: The Demise of CUPS,” in Hampson, Fen Osier and Maule, Christopher J., eds., Canada among Nations, 1993–1994: Global Jeopardy (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1993), 57–81Google Scholar. For more on the creation of CUPS see, Grondin, Gilles, “The Origins of the CUPS,” Background Paper 6, CUPS, 08 1986Google Scholar; Naidu, M. V., “From an Idea to an Institution: The CUPS,” Peace Research 16, 3 (1984), 2–27Google Scholar; and Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 04 17, 1984, 3117–3161Google Scholar; April 18, 1984, 3189–210; May 11, 1984, 3643–57; and June 28, 1984, 5223–29.

21 Ibid., April 18, 1984, 3192. Approximately 12 institutes receive between $50,000–100,000 per year to conduct their operations. The Military and Strategic Studies Program, created by the federal cabinet in September 1967, has been renewed approximately every five years.

22 See Abelson, Donald E., “From Policy Research to Political Advocacy: The Changing Role of Think Tanks in American Politics,” Canadian Review of American Studies 25 (1995), 93–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 McCombs, Phil, “Building a Heritage in the War of Ideas,” The Washington Post, 10 3, 1983Google Scholar.

24 Linden, Patricia, “Powerhouses of Policy,” Town and Country, 01 1987, 103Google Scholar.

25 See Abelson, “Public Visibility and Policy Relevance.”

26 The IRPP was inspired by the Ritchie Report of 1969. Ronald Ritchie was commissioned by the federal government to determine if it was feasible for the federal government to create “an institute where long-term research and thinking can be carried out into governmental matters of all kinds” (see Ritchie, Ronald, An Institute for Research on Public Policy [Ottawa: Information Canada, 1969]Google Scholar). For more on the report's impact on the development of IRPP and other think tanks, see Lindquist, “Behind the Myth of Think Tanks,” esp. 363–69.

27 The C. D. Howe Institute, not unlike the American Enterprise Institute, is an example of a think tank that could be characterized both as a policy research institute and as an advocacy tank. It maintains an extensive research programme and takes advantage of various channels to market its ideas. For a discussion of C. D. Howe as an advocacy organization, see Ernst, Alan, “From Liberal Continentalism to Neoconservatism: North American Free Trade and the Politics of the C. D. Howe Institute,” Studies in Political Economy 39 (1992), 109–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 The term vanity think tank was coined by Landers, Robert K. in, “Think-Tanks: The New Partisans?” Editorial Research Reports, Congressional Quarterly, 06 20, 1986, 455–472Google Scholar.

29 For information on Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center, see Troester, Rod, Jimmy Carter as Peacemaker: A Post-Presidential Biography (New York: Praeger, 1996)Google Scholar; and Brinkley, Douglas, “Jimmy Carter's Modest Quest for Global Peace,” Foreign Affairs 74:6 (1995), 90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 See Gellner, Winand, “Political Think-Tanks and Their Markets in the U.S.—Institutional Setting,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 25 (1995), 497–510Google Scholar.

31 See Chisolm, “Sinking the Think Tanks Upstream.”

32 Dole pulled the plug as a result of a controversy over the legality of creating an organization which allegedly could be used to circumvent campaign finance laws. For more see Melton, R. H., “Closing of Dole's Think Tank Raises Questions about Fund-Raising,” The Washington Post, 06 18, 1995Google Scholar.

33 Ian Marsh considers a related theme in An Australian Think Tank? His goal is to determine what lessons Australian think tanks may learn from the experiences of think tanks in the US, Canada and Britain. He concludes that Australian think tanks will attain success only if the policy process itself undergoes changes, particularly with regard to the acceptance of “external influence.”

34 Truman, David, The Governmental Process (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951)Google Scholar; Richardson, Jeremy, ed., Pressure Croups (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; and Pross, A. P., “Pressure Groups: Talking Chameleons” in Whittington, M. S. and Williams, G., eds., Canadian Politics in the 1990s (Scarborough: Nelson, 1990), 285–309Google Scholar.

35 March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life,” American Political Science Review 78 (1984), 734–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 For instance, the Heritage Foundation maintains a liaison office with both houses of Congress and the executive branch to monitor closely political developments. Heritage also holds seminars to educate newly elected members of Congress. In addition, the Center for Strategic and International Studies has organized transition projects to assist new administrations in their transition. For more on how the decentralized, fragmented nature of the US political system facilitates the access of think tanks, see Weaver, , “The Changing World of Think Tanks” Carol H. Weiss, Organizations for Policy Advice: Helping Government Think (Newbury Park: Sage, 1992)Google Scholar; and Stone, Capturing the Political Imagination, chap. 3.

37 Weaver, “The Changing World of Think Tanks,” 570.

38 However, this formal arrangement does not preclude the existence of “access points” outside cabinet. For example, public servants develop policy for ministry use. This point is explored below.

39 Strong party unity is not a feature of all parliamentary systems. However, most, including those in Canada, Australia and Great Britain, tend to have parlies that are more centralized than those in presidential systems. On the determinants of party organization and centralization see Harmel, Robert and Janda, Kenneth, Parties and Their Environments: Limits to Reform? (New York: Longman, 1982), esp. chap. 5Google Scholar.

40 Little research has been conducted on the activities of official, party-based research institutes. For some information, see Pelletier, Rejean, Bundock, Francois and Sarra-Bournet, Michel, “The Structure of Canadian Political Parties: How They Operate,” in Bakvis, Herman, ed., Canadian Political Parties: Leaders, Candidates and Organization (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991), 265–311, esp. 285–90Google Scholar.

41 Stone, Diane, “Old Guards Versus New Partisans,” Australian Journal of Political Science 26 (1991), 197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Thorburn, H. G., Interest Groups in the Canadian Federal System (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 3–15Google Scholar; and Pross, A. P., Group Politics and Public Policy (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

43 This point is also made by Marsh, An Australian Think Tank?

44 We would like to thank a Journal reviewer for drawing our attention to this point.

45 Hodgetts, J. E. provides early insight into this research topic (“The Civil Service and Policy Formation,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 24 [1957], 467–479)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For more contemporary work, see Peters, B. Guy and Savoie, Donald, eds., Governance in a Changing Environment (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; and Deveaux, James A., Lindquist, Evert and Toner, Glen, “Organizing for Policy Innovation in Public Bureaucracy: AIDS, Energy and Environmental Policy in Canada,” this Journal 27 (1994), 493–528Google Scholar.

46 For case studies on the Canadian bureaucracy and recent policy development, see Deveaux et al., “Organizing for Policy Innovation in Public Bureaucracy.”

47 Lindquist, Evert, “Public Managers and Policy Communities: Learning to Meet New Challenges,” Canadian Public Administration 35 (1992), 127–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Stone, Capturing the Political Imagination, 44.

49 For more on Thatcher and the CPS, see James, Simon, “The Idea Brokers: The Impact of Think Tanks on British Government,” Public Administration 71 (1993), 491–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Desai, Radhika, “Second Hand Dealers in Ideas: Think Tanks and Thatcherite Hegemony,” The New Left Review 203 (1994), 27–64Google Scholar; and Denham, Andrew, Think-Tanks of the New Right (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996), esp. 39–60Google Scholar. On think tanks in Britain generally, see Butler, Daniel, “Radicals without Reins,” Accountancy 116, 1224 (1995), 36–38Google Scholar; Cockett, Richard, Thinking the Unthinkable: Think Tanks and the Economic Counter-revolution, 1931–1983 (London: HarperCollins, 1994)Google Scholar; and Stone, Diane, “From the Margins of Politics: The Influence of Think-Tanks in Britain,” West European Politics 19 (1996), 675–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 “The Apostles of Modernity,” The Economist, October 25, 1997, 62–63. On think tanks and the Labour government, see Milne, Kirsty, “Shedding New Light on Labour,” New Statesman and Society, 06 29, 1994, 23–24Google Scholar; and Daniel, Caroline, “Thinker's Corner,” New Statesman, 12 20, 1996, 28Google Scholar. On Demos and its founding, see Smyth, Gareth, “Marxism Yesterday,” New Statesman and Society, 08 5, 1994, 24–25Google Scholar; and Taylor, Laurie, “Spring Chickens,” New Statesman and Society, 04 2, 1993, 13Google Scholar.

51 Bakvis, Herman, “Advising the Executive: Think Tanks, Consultants, Political Staff and Kitchen Cabinets,” in Weller, Patrick, Bakvis, Heman and Rhodes, R. A. W., eds., The Hollow Crown: Countervailing Trends in Core Executives (London: Macmillan, 1997), 84–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Canadian political parties may make alliances with particular think tanks. For example, it has been widely suggested that the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute has indirectly provided some ideological reinforcement for many policy issues of the Reform party (Lorinc, John, “Hold the Fries and the Social Programmes,” Saturday Night 109, 2 [1994], 11–12, 15–16 and 61Google Scholar). At the provincial level, the Ontario government under Premier Bob Rae maintained a close association with the CCPA, a left-of-centre think tank in Ottawa (Abelson, Donald E., “Environmental Lobbying and Political Posturing: The Role of Environmental Groups in Ontario's Debate over NAFTA,” Canadian Public Administration 38 [1995], 352–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

53 Kingdon, John W., Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (New York: Harper Collins, 1984), 129Google Scholar.

54 Ibid., 130.

55 Harrison, Kathryn and Hoberg, George, “Setting the Environmental Agenda in Canada and the United States: The Cases of Dioxin and Radon,” this Journal 24 (1991), 3–27Google Scholar.

56 For more on theories of entrepreneurship, see Schneider, Mark and Teske, Paul, “Toward a Theory of the Political Entrepreneur: Evidence from Local Government,” American Political Science Review 86 (1992), 737–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the role of institutional structures in influencing policy entrepreneurship, see Checkel, Jeffrey T., Ideas and International Political Change (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

57 For more on the origins of the Fraser Institute, see Lindquist, Behind the Myth of Think Tanks, esp. 377–80.

58 Drawing on their extensive service in the public sector, Kirby and Pitfield played an important role in recognizing the need for policy makers to draw on policy expertise both inside and outside government. After many years of government service, Pitfield served as deputy secretary (Plans) to the cabinet and deputy clerk, in the Privy Council Office (1969–1973). He also served as clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to cabinet (1975–1979). Kirby was assistant secretary to the prime minister in the Prime Minister's Office (1974–1976), secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations (1980–1982) and deputy clerk of the Privy Council Office (1981–1982). On the contribution of senior civil servants to think-tank development, see Lindquist, “Behind the Myth of Think Tanks.”

59 Gray, Colin S., “Think Tanks and Public Policy,” International Journal 33 (1978), 177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Lipset, Seymour Martin, “Canada and the US: The Cultural Dimension,” in Doran, Charles F. and Sigler, John H., eds., Canada and the United States (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1985), 110Google Scholar. For other treatments of US and Canadian comparisons, see Presthus, Robert, ed., Cross-National Perspectives (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977)Google Scholar; and Merelman, R. M., Partial Visions (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

61 Lipset, Seymour Martin, Continental Divide (New York: Routledge, 1990), 136Google Scholar.

62 For more, see Bremner, Robert H., American Philanthropy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Whitaker, Ben, The Foundations: An Anatomy of Philanthropy and Society (London: Eyre Methuen, 1974)Google Scholar; and O'Connell, Brian, ed., America's Voluntary Spirit (New York: The Foundation Center, 1983)Google Scholar.

63 Lipset, Continental Divide, 142–49.

64 For more comparison of the sources of funding for Canadian and American think tanks, see Abelson and Lindquist, “Think Tanks in North America.”

65 Hellebust, Think Tank Directory. Several studies have documented the relationship between philanthropic foundations and various American policy institutes. For example, see Berman, Edward H., The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy (New York: State University of New York Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Nielsen, Waldemar A., The Golden Donors: A New Anatomy of the Great Foundations (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1989)Google Scholar. On the stormy relationship between the American Enterprise Institute and several philanthropic foundations, see Blumenthal, Sidney, “Think Tank Adrift in the Center,” The Washington Post, 06 26, 1986Google Scholar; and Hallow, Ralph Z., “Baroody Removed as Chief of Financially Strained AEI,” The Washington Times, 06 27, 1986Google Scholar.

66 On the extent of philanthropic funding for Canadian think tanks, see Rau, Krishna, “A Million for Your Thoughts,” Canadian Forum, 06/08 1996, 11–17Google Scholar. For more general information on funding sources for social science research centres in Canada, see The Directory of Social Science Research Centres and Institutes at Canadian Universities (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

67 Associations Canada (Toronto: Canadian Almanac & Directory, 1996)Google Scholar; and van der Woerd, Nicoline, World Survey of Strategic Studies Centres (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1992)Google Scholar.

68 Lindquist, Evert, “Confronting Globalization and Governance Challenges: Canadian Think Tanks and the Asia-Pacific Region,” in Langford, J. W. and Brownsey, K. L., eds., Think Tanks and Governance in the Asia-Pacific Region (Halifax: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1991), 190Google Scholar.

69 Registering a Charity for Income Tax Purposes (Ottawa: Revenue Canada, 1995), 8Google Scholar. Some Canadian think tanks, including the CCPA, have been refused tax-exempt status by Revenue Canada. For more on this, see Lindquist, “Behind the Myth of Think Tanks,” 62–63.

70 “Congress Plans to Investigate Audits of Tax-Exempt Groups,” New York Times, March 25, 1997, A11.

71 For instance, the Heritage Foundation has frequently relied on high-profile politicians such as Speaker Gingrich to sponsor its fund-raising activities (Abelson, American Think Tanks and Their Role in U.S. Foreign Policy, chap. 1).

72 As a result of controversy surrounding Gingrich's use of tax-exempt organizations to sponsor his re-election bid, the IRS is looking more closely at the political activities of several Washington-based think tanks. For more on this, see “Politics and the IRS,” Wall Street Journal, January 9, 1997, A10; Stevenson, “Congress Plans to Investigate Audits” and Hunt, Albert, “The Gingrich Cloud Hangs over the House,” Wall Street Journal, 01 9, 1997, A11Google Scholar. On the extent to which think tanks have violated the spirit and letter of the law, see Chisolm, “Sinking the Think Tanks Upstream.” On charities in Canada, see Speirs, Rosemary, “Who Defines Charity?” The Guardian (Manchester), 01 27, 1996, A6Google Scholar.

73 The Task Force on Strengthening the Policy Capacity of the Federal Government dealt with this topic. See its report, “Strengthening Our Policy Capacity,” April 3, 1995. For a review of the task force's work, see Anderson, George, “The New Focus on the Policy Capacity of the Federal Government,” Canadian Public Administration 39 (1996), 469–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For suggestions for improvement of policy capacity in public service, see Lindquist, Evert and Deveaux, James, Recruitment and Policy Capacity in Government (Ottawa: Public Management Research Centre/Public Policy Forum, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

74 On links between federal departments and think tanks, see Umbrella Group on Policy Management, Sub-Group on Relations with the External Policy Research Community (Ottawa: Department of Finance, 1997)Google Scholar.

75 This has included questions about the legitimacy of the research conducted by these institutes. For more, see Tupper, Allan, “Think Tanks, Public Debt and the Politics of Expertise in Canada,” Canadian Public Administration 36 (1993), 530–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Anderson, “The New Focus.”

77 Lindquist, “Behind the Myth of Think Tanks.”

78 This observation is made by Lindquist throughout his study, “Behind the Myth of Think Tanks.”