中国智库的规模与建设取向

麦甘及《全球智库报告》对智库的认定并不以独立性为主要标准,而将研究、分析和参与公共政策的研究机构都视为智库。这种宽泛的定义标准与中国学者的观点较为一致,也符合中国智库的现实状况。《全球智库报告》低估了中国智库的实际数量与规模,其相关结论不具权威性和公信力。当然,这并非否认该系列报告在其他方面的重要贡献。中国智库的主要问题不在其数量,而在其质量。中国智库应抓住时机,加强横向联系,努力培育一个富有竞争性的思想市场,提高智库的社会责任感,使智库政策产品经受住实践的检验,更好地服务决策和我国的现代化建设。

The Scale and Construction Orientation of Think-tanks in China

Both the Global Go To Think Tanks Index Report （hereinafter ＂Report＂） and James G. McGann, who is responsible to the Report, do not consider independence as indispensable to what constitute of a think tank, rather, they define it as ＂public policy research, analysis, and engagement organizations＂. This is a broad definition, which is in general agreement with the standpoints of Chinese scholars on think tank, and fits with the reality of majority Chinese think tanks. However, the Report has underestimated the quantity ＆ size of Chinese think tanks and therefore lacks its credibility, though contributions made by the Report to other fields should not be denied. What matters to Chinese think tanks is not the quantity but its quality. It is important for Chinese think tanks to strengthen connections with Chinese counterparts and enhance their sense of social responsibility. In addition, in order to serve policy-making and China＇s modernization drive, it is also necessary to foster a competitive market of ideas and produce quality policy-oriented research that can stand the test of practice.