A COUPLE of years ago, I wrote a Charlemagne column asking what was to me an obvious question: why are think-tanks in Brussels so much less impressive and influential than those in Washington? Few pieces have provoked such a furious response, at least within the tiny anthill that is the Brussels Euro-bubble.

I stand by pretty much every word of it, two years on. With some honourable exceptions, most think-tanks in Brussels are just not very good. Here are some reasons why:

Too many of their analysts are not real researchers or academics, but former journalists. There is nothing wrong per se with being a former journalist, but the danger is that when such people produce reports on the G20 summit or what Europe expects from Obama etc. they end up reading like long pieces of journalism. Whereas for me, the real value of a think-tank should be to promote new and interesting ideas, or to harness special expertise to bring some really crunchy facts and data to Brussels policy debates. Champions at this include Bruegel, an economics-focussed think-tank whose authors include some high powered economists with strong backgrounds in academia and policy-making. The European Council on Foreign Relations, a newcomer on the scene, employs its fair share of ex or quasi-hacks. But it also has the knack of producing the right paper at the right time, which really grabs people's attention with some new or counter-intuitive insight. Classic examples include a report by Nick Witney, a former head of the EU's defence procurement agency, pointing out that the problem with the EU is not that its member countries spend small sums on defence. Instead, he explained that actually European governments spend quite large sums on defence, they just spend it on the wrong things, notably on bloated payrolls, so that the bulk of their uniformed personnel are dentists, cooks, lorry drivers or paunchy clerks in camouflage, rather than combat troops. Then there was a paper by Pierre Noel, which got a huge amount of attention in the new year by pointing out that the conventional wisdom on tackling European dependency on Russian gas was all wrong.

American think-tanks also enjoy a big advantage over those in Europe, linked to the system of political appointments for so many posts in the American government. They basically act as parking places for all manner of senior figures who are waiting to get back into government, or as incubators for bright newcomers who are waiting to enter an administration for the first time. During the Bush era, places like Heritage or the AEI were hothouses for political appointees. When Democrats went into the ascendant, people started listening to experts from Brookings.

That does not happen in the EU, where people who leave the civil service or government rarely go back in again.

Finally, and this is where we get to the word "dodgy" in my headline, the Brussels think-tanks suffer from a desperate lack of money. In America, tax laws make it rather tax effective for an ideologically minded plutocrat to donate money to a think tank. In Brussels, to simplify, too many think-tanks get too much of their money from the EU institutions to do research projects that lack real intellectual independence. Then there comes a whole tranche of corporate sponsored activity that teeters on the brink of lobbying: conferences with senior EU officials as speakers, but which are organised on behalf of big sponsors who send executives to mingle and meet the right contacts.

To his credit, Siim Kallas, the EU commissioner in charge of fighting fraud, has long made a habit of pointing out the blurry lines between lobbying and NGOs and think-tanks. His latest push is to prod Brussels think-tanks into signing up to a voluntary register for lobbyists and those who work to influence legislation in Brussels. Here is a strikingly tough passage from a speech he gave today, singling out the think-tank Friends of Europe:

Originally, think tanks were conceived as “universities without teaching,” But they also differ on other points: they have no students, and they are not subjected to the system of peer review that academia uses to promote diversity of thought and scientific rigor. "Normal" academic institutions are expected to conduct their research first and draw their conclusions second. Some would argue that policy-driven US think tanks have reversed this process: "conclude, then justify." In the US, think tanks have dramatically grown in size and influence during the past 100 years. Their numbers increased from 8 in 1910 to over 1,000 today! Today, modern think tanks are tax-exempt, political idea factories, with huge budgets. In the US, the top 20 conservative think tanks now spend more money than all of the "soft money" contributions to the Republican Party. In fact, by being outside the scope of US lobby regulation, US think tanks may be enjoying an unfair comparative advantage. But perhaps European think tanks are different, still? They're obviously fewer and smaller in size. But is their role that different? "Friends of Europe", for example, claims on their web-site that membership offers an opportunity to contribute to the events programme and to gain visibility through Friends of Europe. Indeed, later this month, Friends of Europe, co-organises an "international summit" on "investing in Africa's growth and health". This is obviously a very serious event, but with 2 senior representatives on the panels, it is also a lobbying opportunity for the company "Total", the corporate co-organiser of the event, putting it in touch with the EU Development Commissioner, high EU officials, MEPs, etc. To their credit, "Total" is completely transparent about its interest representation, having joined our register. But "Friends of Europe", like other think tanks, should register, thereby giving credibility to their claim that "Friends of Europe is an independent think tank for EU policy analysis and debate"

Mr Kallas is right.