This project examines the thesis: How does consensual- and adversarial think tanks apply strategies in practice and how are they different. The theoretical foundation are based on Binderkrantz’ et al’s studies on strategic behavior of interest groups and Jesper Dahl Kelstrups typology based on think tanks differences in strategy. The analysis examines think tanks use of strategies by looking at their access to three political arenas: the public administration, the parliament and the media. Furthermore, the analysis contains an understanding of how the arenas overlap in different ways. The analysis is based on qualitative data from interviews with four different think tanks in Denmark, who were placed in the typology as either consensual or adversarial in their strategic orientation. We found that the consensual- and adversarial think tanks segregates in how they prioritises interaction with the parliament and public administration. This conclusion disrupts our theoretical founded expectations, which contributes with new perspectives for the academic literature about thinks tanks in Denmark.
|Uddannelser||Politik og Administration, (Bachelor/kandidatuddannelse) Bachelor|
|Vejledere||Jesper Dahl Kelstrup|