The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise
Abstract
While the number of think tanks active in American politics has more than quadrupled since the 1970s, their influence has not expanded proportionally. Instead, the known ideological proclivities of many, especially newer think tanks with their aggressive efforts to obtain high profiles, have come to undermine the credibility with which experts and expertise are generally viewed by public officials. This book explains this paradox. The analysis is based on 135 in-depth interviews with officials at think tanks and those in the policy making and funding organizations that draw upon and support their work. The book reports on results from a survey of congressional staff and journalists and detailed case studies of the role of experts in health care and telecommunications reform debates in the 1990s and tax reduction in 2001.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
The Science of “Muddling Through”
Lindblom, C. E. (1959) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.2307/973677 · Cited by 8,513
Agendas and instability in American politics
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-0574 · Cited by 5,981
Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas
Stone, D. A. (1989) · Political Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2151585 · Cited by 1,939
Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920
Skowronek, S. (1982) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665080 · Cited by 1,611
The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations
Hall, P. A. (1989) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9780691221380 · Cited by 1,213
The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class
Gouldner, A. W. (1979) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-16083-9 · Cited by 978
Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements
Walker, J. (1991) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.12845 · Cited by 837
An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups
Salisbury, R. H. (1969) · Midwest Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110212 · Cited by 822
Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science
Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (1998) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400822485 · Cited by 776
Cited by
Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse
Schmidt, V. A. (2008) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342 · Cited by 3,388
Stakeholder and public involvement in risk governance
Renn, O. (2015) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Science · doi:10.1007/s13753-015-0037-6 · Cited by 157
Metadata
- Authors
- Rich, A.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2004-04-05
- OpenAlex
- W4210965210
- Cited by
- 499
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 11.34
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511509889
- The paper
- Rich, A. (2004). Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise. Cambridge University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511509889
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.