Mexico | Between fragility and adaptability

In this blog, I will briefly analyse how the political context has significantly influenced the scope and nature of the work carried out by Mexican think tanks. Based on the analysis of the results from the 2024 State of Think Tanks Report (hereinafter, the Report), I will point out some possible causes for the decrease in spaces and conditions for influence and policy change. Although the analysis focuses on the case of Mexico, readers from other Latin American countries may assess the extent to which the observations align with their own national realities. 

While think tanks have historically been sensitive to political transformations and the quality of dialogue with decision-makers, there is a general perception that the political situation has adversely impacted them in recent years. Additionally, the Report indicates that 83% of the Mexican think tanks in the sample foresee that the political context will continue to impact them in the near future negatively. 

Furthermore, 50% of respondents believe it is difficult to engage with individuals of different political affiliations, and 66% think that political divisions affect their ability to present research to policy experts across the political spectrum. These data could be explained by an increase in distrust by the government towards think tanks and the neutrality of their recommendations. 

In the Mexican case, the political context has gradually built barriers to the use of evidence and applied knowledge in decision-making. Since the so-called transition to democracy 24 years ago, we are probably experiencing the least favourable climate for the adoption of evidence-based policies in public administration. 

Certainly, the political ideology of the groups in power, as well as a weakening of science in general as a reliable source of certainties and knowledge, have influenced this process of de-rationalisation —as we witnessed with the spread of misleading information about the COVID-19 pandemic, or with the propagation of various conspiracy theories. 

However, following journalist Moisés Naim,1 there are three forces or elements of the political context (the 3 P’s) that have complicated the work of think tanks as influential actors in the political process: 1) post-truth, 2) populism, and 3) polarisation. 

1. Post-truth: Currently, there are fewer common grounds or basic agreements in the Mexican political community to sustain constructive dialogues: everyone holds their own truth, independent of facts and statistics. Relevant state actors become active agents of misinformation. In other words, there are politically interested versions of economic, social, and environmental reality that are more distinguishable during electoral periods.
2. Populism: Politically influential figures believe that the ability to “listen directly to the people,” interpret them, and speak for them makes dialogue with experts and academics unnecessary. In a context of growing populism, research centres are viewed with distrust, as their values of independence, objectivity, and adherence to evidence are seen as attitudes typical of critical actors or outright opponents of the national government.
3. Polarisation: In Mexico, we have become accustomed to seeing those who think differently as political enemies and to a very weak deliberative democracy. There is a worrying level of violence both online and offline, echo chambers, and ad hominem disqualifications based on hate speech and resentment. Polarisation affects the possibility of understanding each other based on shared facts and projecting long-term collective goals. 

Another consequence of the current political context is the growing sense of fragility among think tanks. 83% of respondents saw their funding decrease or remain the same compared to the previous year. Half of them indicate that funders typically finance projects for six months to a year, and 66% state that more than half of their income comes from a single donor. There is also some dependence on resources from international development agencies —83% of think tanks identify them as the main source of funding —and 50% state that they need to strengthen their ability to fundraise and strategic planning. 

This increase in the perceived vulnerability of think tanks is associated with a growing restriction of civic space, the suspension of projects funded by government institutions, and the increase in legal and fiscal obligations for non-profit organisations in the country. 

One outturn of this financial instability is that the research agenda of think tanks is increasingly conditioned by the priorities of donors, with greater competition and little room to sustain long-term research lines. 

Despite the adverse environment, it is noteworthy that most think tanks remain true to their raison d’être and seek to contribute to decision-making. 100% of the sample has been involved in policy-making through official engagements, advisory roles, and collaborative initiatives, while 83% have participated through informal channels, such as one-on-one conversations or influencing grassroots organisations. Additionally, 83% have policy briefs and social media content as their most common products. This continued aspiration to intervene in the policy process is partly explained by the sector’s resilience, as all the think tanks surveyed in the Report highlighted their ability to adapt to the challenges they currently face. 

Some of these aspects have specifically affected Ethos Innovation in Public Policy in recent years. The difficulty in accessing new funding sources, high competition, and the changing priorities of traditional donors have led the organisation to expand its agendas and lines of research. Political dialogue with the government has decreased, which has generated a greater number of projects in the field and work with vulnerable groups, such as indigenous peoples and women. Even with these challenges, Ethos has managed to maintain itself as a specialised actor in the fields of anti-corruption, public finance, sustainable development and inclusion, generating public policy recommendations for different levels of government, and actively promoting citizen participation. 

In conclusion, the challenges imposed by the political context on think tanks directly point to their survival as a counterbalance to governments in the democratic system. Their relevance and legitimacy will depend more than ever on their ability to uphold the principles of truth, objectivity, independence, long-term vision, and political neutrality. Maintaining the credibility of think tanks through evidence and technically supported arguments will be essential to demand accountability for government results at a time when political dialogue is at historically low levels. 

I would like to close with a personal warning: given the challenging political environment, we cannot assume that conducting good experiments and generating good evidence will be enough to automatically motivate policy change. It is necessary to develop better persuasion skills and ways of communicating that build bridges, foster trust, and allow us to present our options to “ideologised,” distrustful, or change-resistant officials. Research and evidence are just the first step in that direction.