The more the better? Rule growth and policy impact from a macro perspective

Do more rules improve overall policy performance? To answer this question, we look at rule growth in the area of environmental policy from an aggregate perspective. We argue that impactful growth in rules crucially depends on implementation capacities. If such capacities are limited, countries are at risk of ‘empty’ rule growth where they lack the ability to implement their ever‐growing stock of policies. Hence, rules are a necessary, yet not sufficient condition for achieving sectoral policy objectives. We underpin our argument with an analysis of the impact of a new, encompassing measure of environmental rule growth covering 13 countries from 1980 to 2010. These findings call for ‘sustainable statehood’ where the growth in rules should not outpace the expansion in administrative capacities

A matter of style? : organizational agency in global public policy

International public administrations (IPAs) have become an essential feature of global governance, contributing to what some have described as the 'bureaucratization of world politics'. While we do know that IPAs matter for international politics, we neither know exactly to what extent nor how exactly they matter for international organizations' policy making processes and subsequent outputs. This book provides an innovative perspective on IPAs and their agency in introducing the concept of administrative styles to the study of international organizations and global public policy. It argues that the administrative bodies of international organizations can develop informal working routines that allow them to exert influence beyond their formal autonomy and mandate. The theoretical argument is tested by an encompassing comparative assessment of administrative styles and their determinants across eight IPAs providing rich empirical insight gathered in more than 100 expert interviews.-- 1. Introduction: Of Illusory Giants and Dwarfs: Do International Public Administrations Matter for Policy Making Beyond the Nation-State? -- 2. Conceptualizing and Explaining Bureaucratic Influence: Administrative Styles -- 3. Observing and Explaining Administrative Styles: From Concept to Empirical Analysis -- 4. The IMF and the UNHCR: Entrepreneurial Administrations with Different Levels of Formal Autonomy -- 5. The IOM and the FAO as Consolidators: Struggles of the Challenger and the Challenged -- 6. Advocacy at UNEP and the WHO: How Expertise and Common Beliefs Shape an Administrative Style -- 7. NATO and the ILO As Servants: The Dedicated Steward and the Saturated Dinosaur -- 8. Conclusion: Real Dwarfs, Illusory Dwarfs, or Even Giants? International Public Administrations as Actors in Global Governanc

Bureaucratic influence and administrative styles in international organizations

Published: 01 March 2018While a consensus seems to be emerging that bureaucracies of international organizations are of growing relevance for policy-making beyond the nation-state, we still do not systematically understand if and how exactly international bureaucracies seek to influence policy. Most importantly, there is a lack of concepts for a comparative assessment of bureaucratic influence across different International Organizations. This article addresses this shortcoming by offering a conceptualization of administrative styles. Depending on dominant strategic orientations shaping administrative routines, we identify four ideal types: a servant style, an advocacy style, a consolidator style, and an entrepreneurial style. We argue that the variation in administrative styles across different organizations can be explained by two factors, namely the internal and external challenges they face. The concept and theoretical explanation are illustrated in four case studies on the bureaucracies of the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Labor Organization.German Research Foundation (DFG) [KN 891/7-1

Singing together or apart? : comparing policy agenda dynamics within international organizations

First published online: 08 September 2020Are there substantial differences between the issues an IO's decision-making body agrees upon and the issues the organization's administrative body is dealing with in practice? : Or are member states and the administration singing (to) the same tune? : To tackle these questions, this article explores agenda congruence in three single-purpose organizations using methods of quantitative text analysis. The explorative empirical analysis shows that both change dynamics and agenda congruence exhibit substantial variation across the organizations. The findings suggest that agenda congruence decreases with the degree of authority delegated to the administration and the extent to which the administration tries to identify relevant policy issues from within the administration. Given that the results are well in line with what dominant theoretical accounts would predict, both concept and measurement are considered promising additions to the study of IOs and international public administrations

Perspectives on international public administration research : a rejoinder to Johan Christensen and Kutsal Yesilkagit

In a recent essay, Johan Christensen and Kutsal Yesilkagit take issue with the ongoing debate about International Public Administrations (IPAs). In their text, they engage in particular with the works of the authors of this paper. In our rejoinder, we reply to Christensen and Yesilkagit’s arguments regarding the shortcomings of our research and discuss the concepts of autonomy and style of international administrations as well as the behaviour of international bureaucrats and bureaucracies. Furthermore, we discuss Christensen and Yesilkagit’s recommendation of using the Public Service Bargains concept as a superior approach for analysing IPA. Our rejoinder aims at a respectful dialogue that highlights different epistemic positions and improves our joint understanding of the challenges and potentials of emerging research on IPAs

Avoiding disciplinary garbage cans : a pledge for a problem-driven approach to researching international public administration

First published online: 19 May 2021In this article, we distinguish two approaches to studying international public administrations (IPAs). On the one hand, there is a line of research that is grounded in traditional Public Administration (PA) and seeks to understand IPAs through established disciplinary lenses. On the other hand, scholars conceive IPAs as posing new problems and questions and are trying to integrate the standpoints of their respective disciplines into a broader research agenda. We argue that both perspectives have their merits – and limitations. However, the more IPAs are understood as phenomena heralding the emergence of transnationalized political systems, the less traditional PA toolkits appear able to capture the innovative aspects IPAs may hold. This essay thus argues for keeping IPA research as a field of study open, integrative and mixed – to encourage out of the box thinking and innovation, rather than stifle it