Think tanks

‘What do people do all day?’ is the title of one of Richard Scarry’s children’s books, but also a question I ask myself with regard to certain occupations. In particular, I wonder about employees of so-called ‘think tanks’. Do they sit Rodin-style in their offices from nine to five pondering who knows what, before going home, having done their thinking for the day?

This has been on my mind since hearing an item on the BBC World Service about the recent youth riots in some of the Stockholm suburbs. The Beeb had sent their main correspondent in Germany here and he introduced an interviewee as a member of some think tank or other, without any further comment or explanation.

“Sweden is a country with ‘income compression’,” this thinker stated. Asked to clarify the term, he said there was no great difference between high and low incomes. Hmm. The BBC man was clearly unaware of the report issued only very shortly before showing that the income gap has been growing faster in Sweden than in any of the 34 OECD countries, and again made no comment. (New Zealand was said to be in the number one spot when I was there earlier in the year – both countries formerly known for their relative egalitarianism!) But if the thinking gentleman was unaware of the OECD report, he must have been shut away up in his tank for several days with no news from the outside world, or thinking such profound thoughts that nothing could penetrate the walls of his mind.

The interviewer also quoted a headline in one of the evening papers, which said in translation ‘Stockholm is not burning’, and took it as evidence that there were people in denial. Had he understood the language or had the whole article translated or summarised for him he would have known that the newspaper was criticising local media for naming the suburbs where cars were being set on fire, stones thrown at police etc, as though they were not part of the Swedish capital but somewhere else. At the other extreme, Britain and the US warned their nationals visiting Stockholm to take extra care, which was laughable as tourists would never have known what was going on in these suburbs, which are well off the tourist track, if they didn’t have access to the news and besides, what was happening was taking place at night and not in any way aimed at them.

The debate since then has ranged around the causes of the disturbances. On one side of the argument the finger is pointed at alarmingly high youth unemployment, low incomes, run-down welfare services, poor housing, overburdened schools and segregation in areas with a high concentration of immigrant families. On the other side of the fence, the emphasis is on firmer police action to prevent vandalism, on getting parents to exercise greater responsibility and control, on the media not providing a platform for the vandals and finding excuses for such criminal activity.

Where the ‘tank’ man stood on these issues is not hard to guess, even without any indication of what his agenda might be. There are after all thousands of these organisations, and although some are independent and highly respected, a large percentage are little more than pressure groups or lobbyists with a particular slant on life and society, their aim being to influence policy. Nevertheless, introducing someone simply as a member of such an organisation without specifying who or what lies behind it can seem like saying, “Here is someone you should listen to.”

It all makes you think.