Türkiye’s think tank ecosystem needs growth—here’s why

Türkiye’s geopolitical significance necessitates a well-established network of think tanks to provide strategic analysis and policy recommendations. However, the country’s strategic hub ecosystem lags behind its Western counterparts in both quantity and quality. While Türkiye has only 27 active think tanks, Germany has 266, France 275, and the U.K. 515. This disparity highlights Türkiye’s underutilization of its intellectual potential on the global stage.

Several factors contribute to the sector’s struggles, including financial constraints, difficulties in recruiting and maintaining qualified personnel, inefficiencies in management, and structural limitations. Furthermore, the lack of substantial budget allocations and the perception that working in a think tank is not a full-time profession in Türkiye create additional hurdles for institutional sustainability.

Shaping Türkiye’s policy

Think tanks play a crucial role in foreign diplomatic missions and international media operating in the country. Those centers serve as alternative sources of expert analysis beyond official government channels, offering insights into domestic and regional developments.

Ismail Numan Telci, a Middle East affairs expert and associate professor at Sakarya and Sultan Qaboos University, emphasizes the significance of these institutions in fostering a local talent pool in policy research. “The presence of these institutions also supports the growth of a local talent pool in policy research. Some Turkish experts who have emerged from this ecosystem have gone on to contribute to global think tanks,” he states. However, he highlights Türkiye’s limited representation on international platforms. “For a country aspiring to be a global power, Türkiye’s representation within international policy forums, summits, and diplomatic engagements remains limited. Greater visibility and strategic engagement in these arenas would enhance Türkiye’s influence on the global stage.”

Telci also notes the disparity between Türkiye’s technological advancements and the stagnation in its think tank sector. “Despite Türkiye’s advancements in the last decades, particularly following the rise of the AK Party—progress in the think tank sector has not kept pace. While Türkiye has achieved global recognition in high-tech industries like the defense sector, its think tank ecosystem has yet to reach a comparable level. Given Türkiye’s strong human capital and financial resources, a more expansive and influential think tank network could be expected.”

Structural limitations

Despite an estimated 50 think tanks on paper, the actual number functioning effectively in Türkiye is significantly lower. The resources available to these institutions remain insufficient, preventing them from competing with mid-sized American bodies. For instance, the Brookings Institution operates on an annual budget of approximately $100 million—surpassing the budget of some Turkish government ministries. In contrast, the number of professionals engaged in the sector in Türkiye is minuscule compared to the 50,000 think tank employees in the United States.

Türkiye’s platforms, which gained momentum in the last two decades, struggle primarily with financial difficulties. Limited funding results in reduced research output, a decline in the number of researchers, and waning interest in the field. Unlike in the United States, where private sector initiatives drive think tank development, most Turkish think tanks are state-sponsored. This reflects a fundamental difference in the relationship between political decision-making and expert consultation in both countries.

One of the key factors distinguishing Turkish networks from their Western counterparts is the absence of a strong culture of philanthropic contributions. In the United States, private donations play a crucial role in sustaining independent think tanks. Conversely, in Türkiye, such institutions rarely survive on individual donations. Without a robust tradition of private sector funding or endowments, most Turkish think tanks remain dependent on state resources, which can lead to political influence and limit their autonomy.

A classification

Türkiye’s think tanks generally fall into four categories. One is government-affiliated organizations, such as the Center for Strategic Research (SAM) under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which aim to provide policy analysis but often lack institutional continuity. Examples include the now-defunct Strategic Research and Study Center (SAREM) and other military-affiliated institutions that were closed in 2012.

University-based centers focus on strategic foreign relations and economic policy. Institutions like Sakarya University’s Middle East Center operate within academic settings but remain limited in scale compared to similar research centers in Europe.

Some think tanks, such as the Eurasian Strategic Research Center (ASAM), have both ideological and government advisory roles. Their research often aligns with state policies or military interests.

Organizations like the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) and the Social, Economic and Political Research Foundation (TESAV) aim to bridge the gap between academic research and policymaking. These institutions engage with academics, business leaders, journalists and bureaucrats to influence decision-making processes.

Decision-making process and think tank’s contribution

Several Turkish think tanks have established strong global networks, produce high-quality research, and maintain teams of skilled analysts. These institutions frequently engage in international collaborations and serve as key counterparts for global think tanks.

Telci highlights some of the prominent institutions in the sector: “Among Türkiye’s leading think tanks is the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA), known for its comprehensive studies on governance, security, and foreign policy. The Center for Middle Eastern Studies (ORSAM) specializes in regional dynamics through fieldwork and international engagement. Other influential institutions include the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Türkiye (TEPAV), the Foreign Policy Institute, the Africa Foundation, the Center for Iranian Studies, and EDAM.”

Comparing Türkiye’s think tank influence with that of Western nations, Telci acknowledges that these institutions play a vital role in shaping governmental decision-making.

“In Western nations, particularly the U.S. and the U.K., think tanks play a vital role in shaping governmental decision-making. While the level of influence varies across countries, the fundamental dynamic remains the same: policymakers often rely on independent research institutions for expert insights and evidence-based policy recommendations.”

However, he notes that Türkiye’s think tanks still struggle to establish visibility in decision-making processes. “In Türkiye, think tanks do contribute to the policy-making process, though their influence is less publicly visible. Like their global counterparts, they provide valuable research that informs political leaders. However, further institutionalization and integration into decision-making mechanisms could enhance their role. A more structured relationship between think tanks and policymakers would help address areas where government agencies may lack capacity or expertise, ultimately leading to more informed and strategic policy decisions.”

The expert also points out how foreign governments leverage think tanks for influence. “In some cases, foreign governments actively collaborate with think tanks based in other countries, and some even establish their own think tanks abroad as lobbying instruments. In the U.S., for instance, numerous foreign governments and non-state actors operate think tanks to influence policy discussions.”

Academia’s role

Independent think tanks can be viewed as private-sector equivalents of academic research institutions. While their methodologies and objectives may differ, they often produce similar outputs. University-affiliated research centers typically target academic audiences, whereas independent think tanks focus on policy-makers and the general public. However, this distinction has become increasingly blurred, with university-based institutes now publishing policy-oriented reports, analyses, and op-eds alongside traditional academic studies. This hybrid model helps disseminate high-quality research to a broader audience, enhancing public understanding of key policy issues.

Once deputy director of one of them, Telci highlights the importance of academic institutions in the think tank ecosystem. “In Türkiye, Sakarya University’s Middle East Institute (ORMER), established in 2014, stands out as a pioneering example. The center focuses on regional studies, offering graduate programs that help cultivate Türkiye’s next generation of Middle East experts. The institute provides its researchers with fieldwork opportunities and language training in key regional languages, addressing a critical gap in Türkiye’s foreign policy research capabilities.”

He further underlines the contribution of ORMER to Türkiye’s academic and policy landscape. “Since its inception, as a university institution, ORMER has produced numerous graduates who have secured positions in government agencies, international organizations, and think tanks. This model exemplifies the need for more academic-based think tanks in Türkiye, particularly those specializing in foreign policy, defense, security, migration, energy, and environmental issues. Additionally, the establishment of research centers focusing on Africa, South Asia, Latin America, and East Asia would be a strategic step toward strengthening Türkiye’s policy-making ecosystem.”

To achieve its ambitions as a global player, Telci asserts that Türkiye must prioritize its think tank sector. “Investing in independent research institutions and fostering a robust think tank culture will be critical for enhancing Türkiye’s influence in international affairs.”

Barriers to development

Türkiye’s relatively late emergence in the think tank sector has led to persistent challenges. Financial stability, retention of expert staff, organizational efficiency, and access to reliable information remain key concerns. Unlike in other countries, think tank work is not recognized as a full-time career path in Türkiye. The absence of well-defined roles such as “strategist,” “policy analyst,” or “foreign policy researcher” prevents the institutionalization of these professions.

Another significant challenge is the overemphasis on foreign policy research. The majority of Turkish think tanks focus on international relations, leaving gaps in areas such as economy, security, technology and social policy. In contrast, think tanks in the United States conduct research across a broad range of subjects, including environmental issues, health policy, and education.

Need for sustainable growth

Independent think tanks serve as intellectual research hubs that generate innovative policy solutions. However, in Türkiye, most think tanks operate under government influence, limiting their ability to provide unbiased and critical analysis. In contrast, independent institutions in the West are often supported by diverse funding sources, allowing them to pursue long-term strategic research without political constraints.

Moreover, Türkiye lacks research institutions focused on critical global issues such as disarmament, peacebuilding, and conflict resolution. While thousands of think tanks in Western countries address these topics, Türkiye has yet to establish specialized research centers dedicated to such fields.

Addressing future of the sector

The sustainability of Türkiye’s think tank sector remains a significant concern. While the number of research institutions is gradually increasing, their longevity and institutional stability remain uncertain. Many think tank directors acknowledge the challenges in securing long-term funding and emphasize the need for alternative financial models. The sector requires policy adjustments to encourage investment in independent research institutions and reduce financial dependency on government funding.

To strengthen its position globally, Türkiye’s think tank sector needs enhanced support from private industry, stronger collaboration with universities, engagement in international projects, and recognition by policymakers as a strategic asset. Sustainable institutional backing and long-term investment would be key to achieving this goal.

The analysts argue that Türkiye’s think-tank sector must adapt to global standards to remain competitive. “To strengthen its position globally, Türkiye’s think tank sector needs enhanced support from private industry, stronger collaboration with universities, engagement in international projects, and recognition by policymakers as a strategic asset. Sustainable institutional backing and long-term investment would be key to achieving this goal.”

He also highlights the contrast between funding models in Türkiye and other countries. “In contrast to its Turkish counterparts, think tanks in other countries benefit from diverse funding sources, including private sector backing, government funding, and public institutions.

For example, in the U.S., many think tanks openly disclose their funding sources, which often include both domestic and international contributions. In the U.K., some think tanks operate under royal patronage, while others rely on private donors. In Scandinavia, think tanks receive funding from foreign ministries, public institutions, and universities. Meanwhile, Germany has political party-affiliated think tanks, and in the Gulf region, these institutions often operate under direct government sponsorship.”

More solidly, a potential government help on targeted financial incentives, covering administrative and operational expenses during their initial years would let many in the sector flourish. Diversifying research areas beyond foreign policy—incorporating topics like trade, technology, climate change, and public health—would enhance their relevance and societal impact. Legislative reforms, including tax benefits for think tank donations and a dedicated legal framework, could foster institutional growth and independence. 

Addressing public skepticism through transparency initiatives and active engagement would help counter conspiracy theories surrounding foreign-funded research. Forming strategic alliances with global research networks must be an essential part to elevate the credibility of Turkish institutions while unlocking new funding opportunities and knowledge-sharing platforms.

Addressing these challenges requires a combination of financial investment, legal reforms, and a shift in public perception. By fostering a more diverse and independent think tank ecosystem, Türkiye can enhance its strategic policy research capabilities and strengthen its influence in global discussions.