European foreign policy and think tanks: the life of strategic autonomy in different knowledge regimes

This paper explores the role and influence of think tanks by conceptualising and mapping their place in distinct yet mutually constituted knowledge regimes – the French, German, and EU-level one. European foreign policy (EFP) think tanks, both Brussels- (e.g. CEPS, ECFR) and national capitals-based organisations (e.g. IFRI in Paris, DGAP and SWP in Berlin), have been central in shaping the ongoing and ever more expansive (re)definition of strategic autonomy as the increasingly dominant foreign policy discourse. Yet, in the literature, think tanks remain overlooked. Being definitionally non-state actors, analysing think tanks often starts from a premise that they are an optional addition to the self-contained policymaking process akin to lobbying. Instead, I argue that think tanks are better approached as part of knowledge regimes – historically- and polity-specific ways in which expertise is institutionalised and consumed - without presupposing their “outsideness”. Drawing on historical institutionalism and critical policy studies, this allows us to see that their transnational function of networking different stakeholders, “translating” national debates, and articulating strategies is integral to policymaking in the fragmented field of EFP. Empirically, this paper reconstructs currently-existing knowledge regimes in Germany, France and on the EU-level. First, I map links between top policymakers and think tanks using Social Network Analysis. I expand on the resulting skeletal image of the place of think tanks in a knowledge regime using semi-structured interviews with think-tankers and secondary literature. I then illustrate the implications for understanding the development of the strategic autonomy discourse. Approaching EFP through think tanks enables a deeper understanding of the transnational dynamics of (attempts at) realigning strategic worldviews. As a meso-level theorisation, it takes the role of ideas and contextualised agency seriously. It offers a theoretically innovative way of going beyond (but building on) intergovernmentalism/supranationalism debates and the micro-focus of practice approaches.