Friday, September 20, 2019
KDI Ranks First among Think Tanks of Leading Asian Countries
Global Think Tank
KDI Ranks First among Think Tanks of Leading Asian Countries
  • By Michael Herh
  • February 2, 2016, 05:30
Share articles

The Think Tank and Civil Society Program (TTCSP announces general rankings of global think tanks every year.
The Think Tank and Civil Society Program (TTCSP announces general rankings of global think tanks every year.

 

The Korea Development Institute (KDI) made it to the Global Top Ten (eighth) for except for those in the U.S. and the Global Top 50 (48th) including those in the U.S. two years running according to the Think Tank and Civil Society Program (TTCSP) under the University of Pennsylvania‘s International Relation Program. 

The KDI came in first among think tanks of leading Asian countries (China, India, Japan and Korea) for three straight years from 2013 and rose to third by ten notches in the international development sector. In addition, the KDI jumped to sixth place from eighth place in government-run research institutes, 29th place from 30th place in operation, 47th place from 59th place in the effects of public policies, to 23rd place from 24th place and debuted in the domestic health policy (28th) and international economic policy (23rd) sectors. In particular, a report titled “Korea’s Participation in Global Value Chains and Political Suggestions by Jeong Seong-hun, a research fellow at the KDI took 13th place in the Best Policy Study/Report by a Think Tank Category.

The Think Tank and Civil Society Program (TTCSP), which is operated by a team led by James G. McGann, a professor of the University of Pennsylvania, has announced general rankings of global think tanks based on both recommendations by scholars, policymakers, journalists and specialists around the world and the results of online surveys and a panel of specialists. About 4,750 specialists took part in the 2015 survey which evaluated 6,846 think tanks. 

The participants evaluated researchers’ level, financial stability, networks of policymakers, social statuses reflected in media, degrees of research outcome diffusion, policy suggestion, seminars, their research’s effects on policies, quotations by media and academic journals.