@phdthesis{Reiners2017,
  author    = {Reiners, Nina},
  title     = {Transnational lawmaking coalitions for human rights},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {221, VI},
  year      = {2017},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Malmedie2021,
  author    = {Malmedie, Lydia},
  title     = {Translating and organzing a wicked problem},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2021},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Herold2019,
  author    = {Herold, Jana},
  title     = {International Bureaucracies as Governance Actors},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {233},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {This study assesses and explains international bureaucracies' performance and role as policy advisors and as expert authorities from the perspective of domestic stakeholders. International bureaucracies are the secretariats of international organizations that carry out their work including generating knowledge, providing policy advice and implementing policy programs and projects. Scholars increasingly regard them as governance actors that are able to influence global and domestic policy making. In order to explain this influence, research has mainly focused on international bureaucracies' formal features and/or staff characteristics. The way in which they are actually perceived by their domestic stakeholders, in particular by national bureaucrats, has not been systematically studied. Yet, this is equally important, given that they represent international bureaucracies' addressees and are actors that (potentially) make use of international bureaucracies' policy advice, which can be seen as an indicator for international bureaucracies' influence. Accordingly, I argue that domestic stakeholders' assessments can likewise contribute to explaining international bureaucracies' influence. The overarching research questions the study addresses are what are national stakeholders' perspectives on international bureaucracies and under which conditions do they consider international bureaucracies' policy advice? In answering these questions, I focus on three specific organizational features that the literature has considered important for international bureaucracies' independent influence, namely international bureaucracies' performance and their role as policy advisors and as expert authorities. These three features are studied separately in three independent articles, which are presented in Part II of this article-based dissertation. To answer the research questions, I draw on novel data from a global survey among ministry officials of 121 countries. The survey captures ministry officials' assessments of international bureaucracies' features and their behavior with respect to international bureaucracies' policy advice. The overall sample comprises the bureaucracies of nine global and nine regional international organizations in eight thematic areas in the policy fields of agriculture and finance. The overall finding of this study is that international bureaucracies' performance and their role as policy advisors and expert authorities as perceived by ministry officials are highly context-specific and relational. These features vary not only across international bureaucracies but much more intra-organizationally across the different thematic areas that an international bureaucracy addresses, i.e. across different thematic contexts. As far as to the relational nature of international bureaucracies' features, the study generally finds strong variation across the assessments by ministry officials from different countries and across thematic areas. Hence, the findings highlight that it is likewise important to study international bureaucracies via the perspective of their stakeholders and to take account of the different thematic areas and contexts in which international bureaucracies operate. The study contributes to current research on international bureaucracies in various ways. First, it directly surveys one important type of domestic stakeholders, namely national ministry officials, as to how they evaluate certain aspects of international bureaucracies instead of deriving them from their structural features, policy documents or assessments by their staff. Furthermore, the study empirically tests a range of theoretical hypotheses derived from the literature on international bureaucracies' influence, as well as related literature. Second, the study advances methods of assessing international bureaucracies through a large-N, cross-national expert survey among ministry officials. A survey of this type of stakeholder and of this scope is - to my knowledge - unprecedented. Yet, as argued above, their perspectives are equally important for assessing and explaining international bureaucracies' influence. Third, the study adapts common theories of international bureaucracies' policy influence and expert authority to the assessments by ministry officials. In so doing, it tests hypotheses that are rooted in both rationalist and constructivist accounts and combines perspectives on international bureaucracies from both International Relations and Public Administration. Empirically supporting and challenging these hypotheses further complements the theoretical understanding of the determinants of international bureaucracies' influence among national bureaucracies from both rationalist and constructivist perspectives. Overall, this study advances our understanding of international bureaucracies by systematically taking into account ministry officials' perspectives in order to determine under which conditions international bureaucracies are perceived to perform well and are able to have an effect as policy advisors and expert authorities among national bureaucracies. Thereby, the study helps to specify to what extent international bureaucracies - as global governance actors - are able to permeate domestic governance via ministry officials and, thus, contribute to the question of why some international bureaucracies play a greater role and are ultimately able to have more influence than others.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Heucher2018,
  author    = {Heucher, Angela},
  title     = {Through IOs' Eyes},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {323},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Is global governance characterized by overlap and fragmentation, or by coordination and harmonization? There are two rather different narratives about the worlds in which international organizations (IOs) live. One way or another, IOs are part of a broader environment and engage in relations with other actors in it. Rather than being detached from their environment, IOs are shaped by and respond to developments taking place within it (e.g., overlap). Thus, the general research interest of this dissertation lies in organizational responses to such environmental developments. Therein, the emphasis is placed on IO positionality, meaning the position of an IO within a "web" of interorganizational relations, or, more precisely, an IO's position within an organizational field as a specification of the IO environment. Against this background, the dissertation poses the following research question: How does an IO's position within an organizational field shape its responses to developments of the field? In that, three subquestions are advanced: Which position does an IO occupy within the organizational field? How does an IO perceive the organizational field? How does an IO respond to developments and features of the field? Theoretically, the dissertation combines an open system perspective on IOs with two variants of field theory inspired by Bourdieu and by DiMaggio and Powell. Building on the central concept of the organizational field, the dissertation understands IOs as actors with agency. Empirically, the dissertation consists of a qualitative, comparative study and analyzes two IOs located within the organizational field of global food security governance. I select IOs that occupy different positions within the field of food security governance, namely an IO at the core of the field (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO) and an IO at the periphery of the field (the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, or UNIDO). I compare and analyze their respective perceptions of the field of food security governance, including their own role and their understandings of food security, and their responses over time. To investigate these IOs' perceptions and responses over time, the method of choice consists of a qualitative content analysis of a wide range of organizational documents (e.g., governing bodies' reports). The main argument this dissertation advances is as follows: The position that an IO occupies within an organizational field influences how the organization perceives its environment—in particular, features of and developments within this environment. Against this background, the main findings of this dissertation are as follows: Overall, FAO and UNIDO both perceive proliferation, overlap, and duplication as relevant developments of the organizational field of global food security governance over time. While both IOs see developments in the field of food security governance (e.g., overlap and duplication) as problematic given their detrimental effects for food security governance, FAO and UNIDO differ in decisive regards. Whereas FAO holds a narrative that other actors were responsible for this state of affairs, and thus responsible for reducing or even eliminating overlap and duplication, UNIDO perceives these developments differently. UNIDO acknowledges its own role in the development of overlap and duplication, and therefore also sees a role for itself in addressing these developments. The two IOs thus differ in what they understand to be the causes and historical priors of field-specific developments. Furthermore, while both FAO and UNIDO attempt to demonstrate that they are constructive players within the UN development system, the two IOs differ in their responses: While FAO engages in balancing by voicing its commitment to UN processes and to coordination, yet early on making different reservations, UNIDO, in contrast, engages in UN processes without similar reservations. Accordingly, the two IOs also differ on the responses they employ to field-level harmonization demands. The dissertation makes several contributions. Theoretically, I contribute an innovative argument on the influence of perceptions for organizational responses to developments in the IOs' environment. This argument may help us to better understand how IOs as actors embedded within an organizational field deal with changes evolving within these fields. Empirically, I scrutinize developments in food security governance, such as proliferation and overlap, through the eyes of IOs in the field. While proliferation, overlap, and duplication are often referred to in academic debates on food security governance, we do not yet actually understand these phenomena very well. To this, I contribute a study that analyzes IO perceptions of these developments in the field, thus resulting in a more in-depth and nuanced picture of how IOs perceive these developments as a central type of actor in food security governance. Next, to this emphasis on the IO perspective, I also inductively develop a spectrum of IO responses to field developments, ranging from expanding scope to defending turf. Finally, I also make a methodological-conceptual contribution: While concepts such as "position" are well-known, they are sometimes drawn on without developing a clear foundation of how to assess different positions. I thus add an approach for bringing this concept of position to life by developing a range of criteria that can be used to approximate an IO's position within an organizational field, depending on different types of capital.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Heinzel2021,
  author    = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa},
  title     = {World Bank staff and project implementation},
  year      = {2021},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Feil,
  author    = {Feil, Hauke},
  title     = {God, bad, or ugly: Does it really matter?},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {XII, 224},
  abstract  = {Each year, donor countries spend billions of Euros on development cooperation. Not surprisingly, a large strand of research has emerged which examines the impact of development cooperation. A sub-discipline within this strand of the literature deals with the question of whether the impact or effectiveness of development cooperation depends on the quality of the recipient country's policy and institutional environment. Over hundreds of studies have assessed this question at the macro level. In so doing, most of these studies test whether a potential effect of aid on the growth of a recipient country's gross domestic product (GDP) is conditional on the country's policy and institutional environment. However, even after decades of research and hundreds of studies, no conclusive result has been found. One of the main reasons for the inconclusive state of the literature is that most macro-level studies have to deal with a high risk of endogeneity, treat aid as nothing but a pure income transfer, and rely on low-quality GDP data. To solve these three methodical issues, some authors have started to change the analytical focus from the macro to the micro level. Thus, these authors assess the determinants for the performance of individual development projects instead of the determinants for an effect of aid on GDP. Yet, even though the number of studies focusing on the micro level has increased steadily over the last few years, the state of the literature on the determinants for the performance of development projects still contains multiple highly relevant research gaps. The present thesis seeks to address three of these research gaps. The first research gap addressed by this thesis is related to the specific type of development cooperation. So far, nearly all existing studies focus on projects by Multilateral Development Banks. Research on the determinants for the performance of bilateral development projects is still rare. Thus, even though donors pledge to implement effective development projects, there are hardly any micro-level studies on bilateral projects. So far, only three studies use a sample which includes bilateral projects. Yet, none of the three studies assess the determinants for the performance of bilateral technical development projects. The first paper in the present thesis (GIZ paper) seeks to address this research gap by assessing the determinants for the performance of projects by the Deutsche Gesellschaft f{\"u}r Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), a bilateral state-owned aid agency active in the area of technical cooperation. The results of the paper indicate that some but not all of the existing theoretical arguments can be extended to bilateral technical projects as well.. For example, the level of market interventions in the recipient county only affects the performance of financial development projects, while the recipient country's government capacity affects both technical and financial development projects. The paper also indicates that effects of determinants may vary among project sectors. The paper also highlights a dilemma of technical development cooperation. The countries with low government capacity are usually the ones most in need of technical cooperation projects. But, at the same time, they are also the countries in which these projects have the poorest performance The second research gap addressed by this thesis is related to one specific factor in the policy and institutional environment of recipient countries, namely corruption. This determinant is often cited as essential for project performance but has gained surprisingly little coverage in empirical studies. The few existing studies on the effect of corruption on project performance are inconclusive. Some find a statistically significant correlation, while others do not. Furthermore, so far, all existing studies use corruption perception indices as a measurement for corruption, despite the fact that these indices have well-known deficits when it comes to this research topic. One of these deficits is that such indices do not distinguish between different forms of corruption, even though it is likely that the effect of corruption will vary depending on the type of development project and form of corruption. The second paper in this thesis (Corruption paper) seeks to address this inconclusive state of the research while focusing on one specific form of corruption, namely bribery between private firms and public officials. The paper finds a small but statistically significant correlation between the corruption level and the performance of World Bank projects. The systematic effect of corruption on project performance confirms the need to consider the risk of corruption in the design and during the implementation of projects. Nonetheless, the relatively small effect of corruption and the low pseudo R-squareds advise not to overestimate the relevance of corruption for project performance. At least for the project level, the paper finds no indication that corruption is a primary obstacle to aid effectiveness. The third research gap addressed by this thesis is related to one specific sample, namely recipient countries of the International Development Association (IDA). The question of whether the policy and institutional environment affects project performance is of particular relevance for these countries, given that the World Bank's ratings on a country's policy and institutional environment decide how much IDA resources it receives. One core justification of such an allocation system is that it helps to steer more resources to places where they are most effective. However, so far, there is no conclusive empirical evidence for this statement. The only study specifically focusing on this topic, a study by the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank from 2010, has essential methodological limitations. The third paper of this thesis (CPR paper) seeks to address this research gap by testing whether a more refined analysis confirms the assumption of previous studies that the policy and institutional environment of IDA-recipient countries, measured by the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment ratings, has an effect on the performance of World Bank projects. Overall, neither the main regression models nor any of the robustness tests indicate a substantial correlation between the policy and institutional environment and project performance. Only for Investments Loans is the coefficient large enough to assume some effect. The overall results not only contradict the results of previous studies, but also raise strong doubts around one of the core justifications for the allocation system of the IDA. All three papers rely on a statistical large-N analysis of the performance ratings of individual development projects. These ratings are usually assigned based on the final evaluation of a project and indicate the merit or worth of an activity. The merit or worth of an activity itself is measured by criteria like relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. In the case of the two papers on World Bank projects, the needed data stem from different databases of the World Bank. The relevant data for the GIZ paper are gathered from internal evaluation reports of the GIZ. Logistic regressions are applied as the main analytical tool. Overall, the three papers show that the policy and institutional environment of recipient countries matters for project performance, but only to a small degree and under certain circumstances. This result highlights that many researchers and practitioners tend to overestimate the role that the policy and institutional environment of recipient countries plays in project performance. Furthermore, the thesis shows that authors of future studies should consider possible interactions between project- and country-level determinants whenever possible, both in their theoretical arguments and statistical models. Otherwise, the debate on the determinants for project performance is at risk of degenerating into a statistics tournament without any connection to reality.},
  language  = {en}
}