@article{HeinzelRichterBuschetal.2020,
  author    = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa and Richter, Jonas and Busch, Per-Olof and Feil, Hauke and Herold, Jana and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Birds of a feather?},
  series = {Review of international political economy},
  volume    = {28},
  journal   = {Review of international political economy},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0969-2290},
  doi       = {10.1080/09692290.2020.1749711},
  pages     = {1249 -- 1273},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank ascribe to impartiality in their mandates. At the same time, scholarship indicates that their decisions are disproportionately influenced by powerful member states. Impartiality is seen as crucial in determining International Organizations' (IOs) effectiveness and legitimacy in the literature. However, we know little about whether key interlocutors in national governments perceive the International Financial Institutions as biased actors who do the bidding for powerful member states or as impartial executors of policy. In order to better understand these perceptions, we surveyed high-level civil servants who are chiefly responsible for four policy areas from more than 100 countries. We found substantial variations in impartiality perceptions. What explains these variations? By developing an argument of selective awareness, we extend rationalist and ideational perspectives on IO impartiality to explain domestic perceptions. Using novel survey data, we test whether staffing underrepresentation, voting underrepresentation, alignment to the major shareholders and overlapping economic policy paradigms are associated with impartiality perceptions. We find substantial evidence that shared economic policy paradigms influence impartiality perceptions. The findings imply that by diversifying their ideational culture, IOs can increase the likelihood that domestic stakeholders view them as impartial.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HeinzelLiese2021,
  author    = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Expert authority and support for COVID-19 measures in Germany and the UK},
  series = {West European politics},
  journal   = {West European politics},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0140-2382},
  doi       = {10.1080/01402382.2021.1873630},
  pages     = {1258 -- 1282},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {During COVID-19, various public institutions tried to shape citizens' behaviour to slow the spread of the pandemic. How did their authority affect citizens' support of public measures taken to combat the spread of COVID-19? The article makes two contributions. First, it presents a novel conceptualisation of authority as a source heuristic. Second, it analyses the authority of four types of public institutions (health ministries, universities, public health agencies, the WHO) in two countries (Germany and the UK), drawing on novel data from a survey experiment conducted in May 2020. On average, institutional endorsements seem to have mattered little. However, there is an observable polarisation effect where citizens who ascribe much expertise to public institutions support COVID-19 measures more than the control group. Furthermore, those who ascribe little expertise support them less than the control group. Finally, neither perception of biases nor exposure to institutions in public debates seems consistently to affect their authority.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DoerflerHeinzel2022,
  author    = {D{\"o}rfler, Thomas and Heinzel, Mirko Noa},
  title     = {Greening global governance},
  series = {The review of international organizations},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {The review of international organizations},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Boston},
  issn      = {1559-7431},
  doi       = {10.1007/s11558-022-09462-4},
  pages     = {117 -- 143},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The last decades have seen a remarkable expansion in the number of International Organizations (IOs) that have mainstreamed environmental issues into their policy scope—in many cases due to the pressure of civil society. We hypothesize that International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), whose headquarters are in proximity to the headquarters of IOs, are more likely to affect IOs' expansion into the environmental domain. We test this explanation by utilizing a novel dataset on the strength of environmental global civil society in proximity to the headquarters of 76 IOs between 1950 and 2017. Three findings stand out. First, the more environmental INGOs have their secretariat in proximity to the headquarter of an IO, the more likely the IO mainstreams environmental policy. Second, proximate INGOs' contribution increases when they can rely on domestically focused NGOs in member states. Third, a pathway case reveals that proximate INGOs played an essential role in inside lobbying, outside lobbying and information provision during the campaign to mainstream environmental issues at the World Bank. However, their efforts relied to a substantial extent on the work of local NGOs on the ground.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Heinzel2022,
  author    = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa},
  title     = {International bureaucrats and organizational performance},
  series = {International Studies Quarterly},
  volume    = {66},
  journal   = {International Studies Quarterly},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0020-8833},
  doi       = {10.1093/isq/sqac013},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {International organizations (IOs) try to incorporate policy-specific best practices and country-specific knowledge to increase well-informed decision-making. However, the relative contribution of the two kinds of knowledge to organizational performance is insufficiently understood. The article addresses this gap by focusing on the role of staff in World Bank performance. It posits that country-specific knowledge, sectoral knowledge, and their combination positively contribute to World Bank projects. The argument is tested drawing on a novel database on the tenure, nationality, and educational background of World Bank Task Team Leaders. Three findings stand out. First, country-specific knowledge seems to matter on average, while sectoral knowledge does not. Second, there is some evidence that staff that combine both kinds of knowledge are empowered to make more positive contributions to performance. Third, the diversity and relevance of experience, not length of tenure, are associated with more success. The findings contribute to discussions on international bureaucracies by highlighting how differences between the knowledge of individual staff shape their decision-making and performance. IOs could better tap into the existing resources in their bureaucracies to enhance their performance by rotating staff less frequently between duty stations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HeinzelLiese2021,
  author    = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Managing performance and winning trust},
  series = {The review of international organizations},
  journal   = {The review of international organizations},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Boston},
  issn      = {1559-744X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s11558-021-09414-4},
  pages     = {625 -- 653},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {World Bank evaluations show that recipient performance varies substantially between different projects. Extant research has focused on country-level variables when explaining these variations. This article goes beyond country-level explanations and highlights the role of World Bank staff. We extend established arguments in the literature on compliance with the demands of International Organizations (IOs) and hypothesize that IO staff can shape recipient performance in three ways. First, recipient performance may be influenced by the quality of IO staff monitoring and supervision. Second, the leniency and stringency with which IO staff apply the aid agreement could improve recipient performance. Third, recipient performance may depend on whether IO staff can identify and mobilize supportive interlocutors through their networks in the recipient country. We test these arguments by linking a novel database on the tenure of World Bank task team leaders to projects evaluated between 1986 and 2020. The findings are consistent with the expectation that World Bank staff play an important role, but only in investment projects. There is substantial evidence that World Bank staff supervisory ability and country experience are linked to recipient performance in those projects. Less consistent evidence indicates that leniency could matter. These findings imply that World Bank staff play an important role in facilitating implementation of investment projects.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Heinzel2022,
  author    = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa},
  title     = {Mediating power?},
  series = {The British journal of politics \& international relations : BJPIR},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {The British journal of politics \& international relations : BJPIR},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Sage},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1467-856X},
  doi       = {10.1177/1369148121992761},
  pages     = {153 -- 170},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The selection of the executive heads of international organisations represents a key decision in the politics of international organisations. However, we know little about what dynamics influence this selection. The article focuses on the nationality of selected executive heads. It argues that institutional design impacts the factors that influence leadership selection by shaping the costs and benefits of attaining the position for member states' nationals. The argument is tested with novel data on the nationality of individuals in charge of 69 international organisation bureaucracies between 1970 and 2017. Two findings stand out: first, powerful countries are more able to secure positions in international organisations in which executive heads are voted in by majority voting. Second, less consistent evidence implies that powerful countries secure more positions when bureaucracies are authoritative. The findings have implications for debates on international cooperation by illustrating how power and institutions interact in the selection of international organisation executive heads.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BuschHeinzelKempkenetal.2020,
  author    = {Busch, Per-Olof and Heinzel, Mirko Noa and Kempken, Mathies and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Mind the gap?},
  series = {Journal of comparative policy analysis : research and practice},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {Journal of comparative policy analysis : research and practice},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1387-6988},
  doi       = {10.1080/13876988.2020.1820866},
  pages     = {230 -- 253},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Many authors have argued that International Public Administration can influence policy-making through their expert authority. The article compares de jure and de facto expert authority of IPAs to evaluate their conformity. It comparatively assesses the two kinds of authority for five important IPAs (BIS, FAO, IMF, OECD and World Bank) active in agriculture or financial policy. It shows that, on average, de jure and de facto authority seem to conform. At the same time, it demonstrates that gaps between de jure and de facto authority exist at the level of the IPAs, the policy areas and the IPAs' addressees},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BuschFeilHeinzeletal.2021,
  author    = {Busch, Per-Olof and Feil, Hauke and Heinzel, Mirko Noa and Herold, Jana and Kempken, Mathies and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Policy recommendations of international bureaucracies},
  series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  volume    = {87},
  journal   = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {Los Angeles, Calif.},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/00208523211013385},
  pages     = {775 -- 793},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Many international bureaucracies give policy advice to national administrative units. Why is the advice given by some international bureaucracies more influential than the recommendations of others? We argue that targeting advice to member states through national embeddedness and country-tailored research increases the influence of policy advice. Subsequently, we test how these characteristics shape the relative influence of 15 international bureaucracies' advice in four financial policy areas through a global survey of national administrations from more than 80 countries. Our findings support arguments that global blueprints need to be adapted and translated to become meaningful for country-level work. <br /> Points for practitioners <br /> National administrations are advised by an increasing number of international bureaucracies, and they cannot listen to all of this advice. Whereas some international bureaucracies give 'one-size-fits-all' recommendations to rather diverse countries, others cater their recommendations to the national audience. Investigating financial policy recommendations, we find that national embeddedness and country-tailored advice render international bureaucracies more influential.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ForsterHeinzel2021,
  author    = {Forster, Timon and Heinzel, Mirko Noa},
  title     = {Reacting, fast and slow},
  series = {Journal of European public policy},
  volume    = {28},
  journal   = {Journal of European public policy},
  number    = {8},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1350-1763},
  doi       = {10.1080/13501763.2021.1942157},
  pages     = {1299 -- 1320},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {The COVID-19 pandemic created extraordinary challenges for governments to safeguard the well-being of their people. To what extent has leaders' reliance on scientific advice shaped government responses to the COVID-19 outbreak? We argue that leaders who tend to orient themselves on expert advice realized the extent of the crisis earlier. Consequently, these governments would adopt containment measures relatively quickly, despite the high uncertainty they faced. Over time, differences in government responses based on the use of science would dissipate due to herding effects. We test our argument on data combining 163 government responses to the pandemic with national- and individual-level characteristics. Consistent with our argument, we find that countries governed by politicians with a stronger technocratic mentality, approximated by holding a PhD, adopted restrictive containment measures faster in the early, but not in the later, stages of the crisis. This importance of expert-based leadership plausibly extends to other large-scale societal crises.},
  language  = {en}
}