This direct state funding of what are ideological think-tanks has no precedents in the UK. Those think-tanks which came to be seen as the intellectual powerhouses behind Thatcherism — the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Adam Smith Institute, the Centre for Policy Studies — received no public money. Indeed, those bodies have made a virtue of the fact that they are not reliant on state funding. The outgoing director of the IEA, John Blundell, has always been at pains to point out that this is a major difference between them and the universities — they are not reliant on the state for funding and thus are not constrained in their output by political or ideological fashions.
The pro-market think-tanks have always been and remain reliant upon voluntary donations by companies, foundations and private individuals. This reliance on voluntary donations has been used as a basis for attacks upon them, with some on the Left arguing that they are merely mouthpieces for big business. In fact, direct corporate donations from publicly listed companies are a declining element of think-tank funding. In most cases, where such donations continue they are at a very modest level. Much more important today are donations from individuals, privately owned firms or foundations. This move away from support by publicly listed firms can also be seen in donations to the Conservative Party. It is difficult to find any donations from FTSE 100 companies to the party on the Electoral Commission's register of donations.
A more solid basis for criticism of some pro-market think-tanks is that a few — not those already mentioned — have become too reliant on support from one or two large American companies. The best example of this is the largesse of US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, whose influence on some of those it supports can be seen in the endless stream of publications on the importance of intellectual property and the evils of generic medicines. But in general this type of criticism is overplayed. Environmental campaigns including Friends of the Earth (the recipients of £153,994 of taxpayers' money in 2007-2008) have long demonised Exxon for allegedly funding "global warming denial". The reality is that the main UK think-tank pushing a sceptical agenda on climate change, Julian Morris's International Policy Network, has had to close down its global warming programme due to lack of funding.
It would also be wrong to argue that none of the market-oriented think-tanks have got into the game of trying to get the taxpayer to subsidise them. Policy Exchange has differentiated itself from the older right-wing think-tanks by announcing that it would be happy to accept government funding, although it does not appear to have had any success in this endeavour.
