What is Edge Institute? We answer simply, instinctively, that we are a think tank with the mission of supporting the digitalization of Romania – which is quite far from clarifying what is in the DNA of the organizational model we have chosen, where we stand in the ecosystem, what we do concretely and who we are.
Hence the desire to dedicate an article exactly to this topic, at a time when we are one month away from the first year of activity of Edge Institute; a year that was marked by the solidification of its positioning in the thought leadership arena at a national level.
First of all, who are we?
We are a think tank formed by an independent group of experts, united by the common vision that Romania, through digital transformation, can become a prosperous, modern country worthy of the trust of all its citizens.
What is our mission?
We actively propose, develop and co-organize the architecture of public policies, governance and digital infrastructure to accelerate Romania’s digital transformation, by facilitating the achievement of national consensus.
1. The "bridge" role and the interstitial position
What is a think tank? A comprehensive definition might be the following:
„Un think tank este un laborator de idei și de propuneri care mobilizează competențele cercetătorilor, ale practicienilor din administrația publică, ale mediului de afaceri etc. Think tank-urile urmăresc, în special, să alimenteze dezbaterea publică, să informeze cetățenii și să sprijine factorii de decizie politică și companiile prin elaborarea de lucrări de expertiză. Ele contribuie la democratizarea dezbaterii publice, la deschiderea acesteia către un public cât mai larg, dar și la evoluția conștiinței sociale. Deontologia think tank-urilor independente este de a acționa în favoarea interesului general, dincolo de orice interes categorial. În acest sens, ele se deosebesc de grupurile de interese și de lobby, precum și de partidele politice sau de sindicate.”
A think tank is, in essence, an institution of research, analysis and engagement in public policy that generates action-oriented recommendations. We act as a bridge between expertise and policy, facilitating dialogue between researchers, decision-makers and the general public. The identity of a think tank is a liminal one; we exist at the intersection of academia, political power, the business sector and the media.
The Edge Institute Board exemplifies this dynamic, bringing together professionals from various sectors of the private sector, academics, and individuals engaged in initiatives supporting ethical and independent media. Coupled with the profile of the executive team members – with experience in either the private sector, the public sector, and academia – the configuration allows us to have a multitude of complementary perspectives, thus maintaining a balanced positioning.
Research in the field rightly emphasizes that think tanks are neither completely inside nor completely outside the political system, but are “grafted” onto it. So, while we are not politically affiliated, we collaborate directly with politicians from across the political spectrum.
Much ink has been written on the subject of think tanks’ influence globally, with the organizational model often being challenged. It is precisely this positioning in the ecosystem, which gives think tanks relevance and utility (a true “best of all worlds”), that is also a sensitive point: if not managed with the necessary care (defining red lines that maintain independence, but without jeopardizing the use of the experience of those involved in the organization for the common good), it can become a source of vulnerability and even organizational failure.
2. Juggling between autonomy and utility, between thinking and doing
Thus, there are two critical dimensions in our work, the (delicate) balance of which we must maintain:
- Autonomy: the ability to produce independent and rigorous research, without being constrained by partisan interests.
- Heteronomy: the need to remain useful and relevant to decision-makers, adapting our products to the pace and needs of the public debate.
Few think tanks resemble one another. Their approach, their way of organizing, the socio-historical and political context in which they develop, the topics they address, and the community that forms around them divide think tanks into several categories.
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
AUTONOMOUS AND INDEPENDENT
Signifiant independence from any one interest group or donor, and autonomous in its operation and funding from government
QUASI-INDEPENDENT
Autonomous from government but controlled by an interest group, donor or contracting agency that provides most of the funding and has significant influence over operations of the think tank
GOVERNMENT-AFFILIATED
A part of the formal structure of government
QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL
Funded exclusively by government grants and contracts but not a part of the formal structure of government
UNIVERSITY-AFFILIATED
A policy research center at a university
POLITICAL-PARTY AFFILIATED
Formally affiliated with a political party
CORPORATE (FOR-PROFIT)
A for-profit public policy research organization, affiliated with a corporation or merely operating on a for-profit basis
Think tank affiliation categories. Source: The Lauder Institute, Global Go To Think Tank Index Report (2020), University of Pennsylvania
Other classifications:
- “Universities without students”: Focused on long-term academic research, often without specific objectives of disseminating research to decision-makers.
- “Advocacy tanks”: Organizations that combine research with a strong promotion of specific ideas.
- “Do tanks”: Institutions that do not limit themselves to analysis and promotion but are actively involved in implementing proposed solutions.
We, at Edge Institute, aim to be closer to the “do thank” typology, because we feel that research work needs to be taken a step further to increase the chances of adopting a model in which digitalization really works. Romania clearly needs a leap in the field of digital transformation (and not only), which requires a sustained effort from all actors involved, not only from the state.
Other materials will follow in which we will talk, specifically, about the mechanisms we propose, one of which is the sandbox: a controlled environment for testing solutions, processes and regulations.
3. The difference between think tanks and other organizations in the ecosystem
a) towards the academic environment
Unlike universities, which are often seen as “ivory towers”, whose research is often criticized for seeming to be intended only for colleagues, our work is defined by utility and pragmatism. We produce what is called “savoir arrangé” (arranged knowledge), that is, materials that take into account the context, the realities of the political game and the feasibility of the proposed solutions.
b) towards lobby groups and employer organizations
It is a distinction that we consider fundamental. While lobbying is a paid action to defend a particular interest and is based on persuasion or force, we act in the name of the general interest and aim to convince through reasoning, demonstration, analysis and data.
In the same sense, while employers’ organizations have an explicit interest in representing their members and their interests, their agenda being limited to the interests of the sector, we assume the representation of the interests of citizens, which puts us in the position of criticizing, in addition to the positioning and actions of political decision-makers, including the positioning of employers’ organizations, when appropriate. We do not represent sectoral interests, we do not negotiate benefits and we collaborate with private actors and the organizations that represent them within a clearly defined framework, when private interests overlap with the general interest.
4. Credibility in the “post-truth era”
Într-o lume marcată de o scădere a încrederii în experți, reputația, transparența și independența sunt singurele noastre monede de schimb reale. Credibilitatea noastră provine din rigoarea cercetării noastre.
Edge Institute research team
Melany Pașca
She holds a BA in English and French Law from the University of Birmingham (UK) and Panthéon-Assas – Paris 2 (France) and a MA in European and International Law and Governance from Panthéon-Sorbonne (France). Melany is currently a PhD candidate in International and European Law at the Sorbonne Doctoral School of Law.
Răzvan Foncea
He holds a Master’s degree in European Affairs, Social Policies and Social Innovation from Sciences Po Paris and graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in Public Sector Leadership and Security Studies from Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca. He completed his academic training through fellowship and professionalization programs at Arizona State University, European Academy of Diplomacy and Clinton Global Initiative University.
Vlad Zaha
He received his BA in Criminology from the University of Manchester and his MA in Criminology and Criminal Justice from the University of Oxford, focusing on public policy interventions in a variety of criminological areas, including psychoactive substances, juvenile delinquency, organized crime and law enforcement.
Associate researchers
Alexandru Dănescu
He specializes in the analysis of socio-political processes in the Eastern European space. In his work, he addresses topics such as demography and migration, the citizen-state relationship and trust in institutions, with a focus on their implications for public policies and the quality of governance. Alexare holds a master’s degree in East European studies from the University of Oxford and a double bachelor’s degree in European studies, with a specialization in political science, from University College London and Sciences Po Paris.
Roland Kristo
He is a PhD candidate in Political Science at University College London, where he also completed a Masters in Data Science and Public Policy. He also teaches seminars on statistics, politics and economics at the same university. He also holds a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from King’s College London. Roland has experience in academic and applied research in various think tanks in Romania and the UK.
In a marketplace of ideas, we use the academic rigor and intellectual capital we have gathered around us to direct the attention of decision-makers towards real digital transformation, and if we have piqued your interest, we invite you to stay tuned to us in the coming period to find out how you can be part of the Edge Institute research community.
Sources:
Abelson, Donald E. Do Think Tanks Matter? Assessing the Impact of Public Policy Institutes. f.a.
Abelson, Donald E., și Christopher J. Rastrick, ed. Handbook on Think Tanks in Public Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789901849.
Brookes, Kevin. „«Les idées ont des conséquences» : la genèse internationale des think tanks néo-libéraux français”. Quaderni. Communication, technologies, pouvoir, nr. 97 (octombrie 2018): 35-55. https://doi.org/10.4000/quaderni.1277.
Comet, Catherine. „Les think tanks en France, lieu de prédilection des interdépendances entre économistes et dirigeants dans la conception de l’action publique”. Science Politique. Politix 134, nr. 2 (2021): 59-83. https://doi.org/10.3917/pox.134.0059.
Courpasson, David, și Damon Golsorkhi. „Power and Resistance : Variations on “What’s Going on Politically in and around Organizations?””. Power and Resistance 14, nr. 1 (2011).
Crewe, Emma, și John Young. Bridging Research and Policy: Context, Evidence and Links. Overseas Development Institute, 2002.
Datta, Ajoy, și Nicola Jones. Linkages between Researchers and Legislators in Developing Countries A Scoping Study. f.a.
Desmoulins, Lucile. „Profits symboliques et identité(s) : les think tanks entre affirmation et dénégation”. Quaderni. Communication, technologies, pouvoir, nr. 70 (octombrie 2009): 11-27. https://doi.org/10.4000/quaderni.503.
Geuens, Geoffrey. „Avant-propos : think tanks, experts et pouvoirs”. Quaderni. Communication, technologies, pouvoir, nr. 70 (octombrie 2009): 5-9. https://doi.org/10.4000/quaderni.502.
Geuens, Geoffrey. „Idéologies et hégémonie : la classe dirigeante au prisme des think tanks”. Quaderni. Communication, technologies, pouvoir, nr. 70 (octombrie 2009): 69-77. https://doi.org/10.4000/quaderni.510.
Ghorra-Gobin, Cynthia. „Le positionnement des think tanks dans l’espace politique américain : des lieux de recherche ou d’influence ?” Quaderni. Communication, technologies, pouvoir, nr. 70 (octombrie 2009): 57-67. https://doi.org/10.4000/quaderni.509.
Huyghe, François-Bernard. „« Think tanks », penser pour peser”. Science Politique. Médium 14, nr. 1 (2008): 27-41. https://doi.org/10.3917/mediu.014.0027.
Laux, Thomas. „How Do Think Tanks Qualify Their Expertise? Exploring the Field of Scientific Policy Advice in France”. Journal of Science Communication 18, nr. 3 (2019): A07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18030207.
Lecaussin, Nicolas. „Les « think tanks » face à la langue de bois des politiques et de l’administration”. Science Politique. Hermès, La Revue 58, nr. 3 (2010): 135-41. https://doi.org/10.3917/herm.058.0135.
McGann, James, ed. The Future of Think Tanks and Policy Advice Around the World. Springer International Publishing, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60379-3.
Medvetz, Thomas. „Les think tanks aux États-Unis:L’émergence d’un sous-espace de production des savoirs”. Science Politique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 176177, nr. 1 (2009): 82-93. https://doi.org/10.3917/arss.176.0082.
Medvetz, Thomas. Think Tanks in America. Paperback ed. Univ. of Chicago Press, 2014.
Mendizabal, Enrique. Communicating Complex Ideas. f.a.
Mendizabal, Enrique. Good News for Troubled Contexts: Lessons Learned from Case Studies on How Civil Society Organisations Influence Policy Processes –. f.a.
Patard, Marc. Les Think Tanks. Presses Universitaires de France, 2025. https://shs-cairn-info.ezpaarse.univ-paris1.fr/les-think-tanks–9782715418202.
Sirinelli, Jean-François. „Le hasard ou la nécessité ? une histoire en chantier : l’histoire des intellectuels”. Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire 9, nr. 1 (1986): 97-108. https://doi.org/10.3406/xxs.1986.1452.
Yaziji, Michael, și Jonathan Doh. NGOs and Corporations: Conflict and Collaboration. 1 ed. Cambridge University Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626708.
