@incollection{KriegerLiese2023,
  author    = {Krieger, Heike and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Conclusion},
  series = {Tracing value change in the international legal order},
  booktitle = {Tracing value change in the international legal order},
  editor    = {Krieger, Heike and Liese, Andrea},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  isbn      = {978-0-19-285583-1},
  doi       = {10.1093/oso/9780192855831.003.0018},
  pages     = {319 -- C18N113},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Based on the previous findings in this book, Chapter 18 by Heike Krieger and Andrea Liese discusses the general dynamics of change or metamorphosis in the international legal order. They discern a mixed picture of an international order between metamorphosis—that is, a more fundamental transformation—of international law, norm change, turbulences, and robustness. They explain drivers of change and highlight factors such as national interests during the war on terror, changing long-term foreign policy beliefs, and the rise in populism and autocracy, before discussing the most common strategies the actors involved use. Other relevant factors include changes in the political environment, such as shocks and power shifts or the ambiguous role of fragmentation. Moreover, they identify factors that make legal norms robust, including the vital role of norm defenders and legal and institutional structures as stabilizing elements. Krieger and Liese conclude by cautioning that if the attacks on the international order continue at the current frequency and magnitude, a metamorphosis of international law will likely be unstoppable.},
  language  = {en}
}
@incollection{KriegerLiese2023,
  author    = {Krieger, Heike and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Introduction},
  series = {Tracing value change in the international legal order},
  booktitle = {Tracing value change in the international legal order},
  editor    = {Krieger, Heike and Liese, Andrea},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  isbn      = {978-0-19-285583-1},
  doi       = {10.1093/oso/9780192855831.003.0001},
  pages     = {1 -- 22},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Can a metamorphosis of international law be identified while it is still underway? In Chapter 1, the Introduction, Krieger and Liese set the stage for the interdisciplinary assessment of the effects of the current crisis of the international legal order. They offer fundamental common values as a reference point and yardstick to systematically evaluate and analyse normative changes in international law. After explaining the benefits of interdisciplinary exchange and clarifying the basic concepts from the respective disciplinary perspectives, they develop the book's conceptual framework for assessing and explaining value change in the international legal order. The Introduction also elaborates on the book's research design and case selection and summarizes the aims and key contributions of each conceptual and empirical chapter.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Liese2022,
  author    = {Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Rezension zu: The power of global performance indicators / Hrsg.: Judith G. Kelley ; Beth A. Simmons. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. - 450 p.},
  series = {Perspectives on politics / American Political Science Association},
  volume    = {20},
  journal   = {Perspectives on politics / American Political Science Association},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  isbn      = {978-1-108-48720-7},
  issn      = {1537-5927},
  doi       = {10.1017/S1537592721003716},
  pages     = {380 -- 382},
  year      = {2022},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HolzscheiterGholiaghaLiese2022,
  author    = {Holzscheiter, Anna and Gholiagha, Sassan and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Advocacy coalition constellations and norm collisions},
  series = {Global society : journal of interdisciplinary international relations},
  volume    = {36},
  journal   = {Global society : journal of interdisciplinary international relations},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1360-0826},
  doi       = {10.1080/13600826.2021.1885352},
  pages     = {25 -- 48},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {To date, there has been little research on how advocacy coalitions influence the dynamic relationships between norms. Addressing norm collisions as a particular type of norm dynamics, we ask if and how advocacy coalitions and the constellations between them bring such norm collisions to the fore. Norm collisions surface in situations in which actors claim that two or more norms are incompatible with each other, promoting different, even opposing, behavioural choices. We examine the effect of advocacy coalition constellations (ACC) on the activation and varying evolution of norm collisions in three issue areas: international drug control, human trafficking, and child labour. These areas have a legally codified prohibitive regime in common. At the same time, they differ with regard to the specific ACC present. Exploiting this variation, we generate insights into how power asymmetries and other characteristics of ACC affect norm collisions across our three issue areas.},
  language  = {en}
}
@incollection{LieseHeinzel2022,
  author    = {Liese, Andrea and Heinzel, Mirko Noa},
  title     = {Reputation and influence},
  series = {International public administrations in global public policy},
  booktitle = {International public administrations in global public policy},
  editor    = {Knill, Christoph and Steinebach, Yves},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {London},
  isbn      = {978-1-032-34673-1},
  doi       = {10.4324/9781003323297-5},
  pages     = {52 -- 81},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {International public administrations (IPAs) are collective bodies within international organizations (IOs) made up of international civil servants that support the intergovernmental bodies and member states. Over the last decade, research on these bodies has "gained substantial momentum". Comparative assessments of IPAs reputation among stakeholders are rare. The literature on the sociological legitimacy of IOs is most advanced in this respect. A comparative agenda on IPAs reputation for expertise or neutrality is still in its infancy. Research has shown that different stakeholders view the same IPA quite differently. Reputation is a crucial concept in political science and IR research and has been widely used to predict states' future behavior, notably regarding cooperation and conflict. IPAs seem to vary substantially in their reputation for expertise among critical interlocutors. In financial policy, several prominent IPAs are seen as experts, including the European Central Bank and the IMF.},
  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{LieseHeroldFeiletal.2021,
  author    = {Liese, Andrea and Herold, Jana and Feil, Hauke and Busch, Per-Olof},
  title     = {The heart of bureaucratic power},
  series = {Review of international studies : RIS},
  volume    = {47},
  journal   = {Review of international studies : RIS},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {0260-2105},
  doi       = {10.1017/S026021052100005X},
  pages     = {353 -- 376},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Expert authority is regarded as the heart of international bureaucracies' power. To measure whether international bureaucracies' expert authority is indeed recognised and deferred to, we draw on novel data from a survey of a key audience: officials in the policy units of national ministries in 121 countries. Respondents were asked to what extent they recognised the expert authority of nine international bureaucracies in various thematic areas of agricultural and financial policy. The results show wide variance. To explain this variation, we test well-established assumptions on the sources of de facto expert authority. Specifically, we look at ministry officials' perceptions of these sources and, thus, focus on a less-studied aspect of the authority relationship. We examine the role of international bureaucracies' perceived impartiality, objectivity, global impact, and the role of knowledge asymmetries. Contrary to common assumptions, we find that de facto expert authority does not rest on impartiality perceptions, and that perceived objectivity plays the smallest role of all factors considered. We find some indications that knowledge asymmetries are associated with more expert authority. Still, and robust to various alternative specifications, the perception that international bureaucracies are effectively addressing global challenges is the most important factor.},
  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{HeroldLieseBuschetal.2021,
  author    = {Herold, Jana and Liese, Andrea and Busch, Per-Olof and Feil, Hauke},
  title     = {Why national ministries consider the policy advice of international bureaucracies},
  series = {International studies quarterly : the journal of the International Studies Association},
  volume    = {65},
  journal   = {International studies quarterly : the journal of the International Studies Association},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0020-8833},
  doi       = {10.1093/isq/sqab044},
  pages     = {669 -- 682},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Scholars of international relations and public administration widely assume that international bureaucracies, in their role as policy advisors, directly influence countries' domestic policies. Yet, this is not true across the board. Why do some countries closely consider the advice of international bureaucracies while others do not? This article argues that international bureaucracies' standing as sources of expertise is crucial. We tested this argument using data from a unique survey that measured prevalent practices of advice utilization in thematically specialized policy units of national ministries in a representative sample of more than a hundred countries. Our findings show that ministries' perceptions of international bureaucracies' expertise, that is, specialized and reliable knowledge, are the key factor. International bureaucracies influence national ministries directly and without the support of other actors that may also have an interest in the international bureaucracies' policy advice. Our analysis also demonstrates that the effects of alternative means of influence, such as third-party pressure and coercion, are themselves partly dependent on international bureaucracies' reputation as experts. The findings presented in this article reinforce the emphasis on expertise as a source of international bureaucracies' influence, and provide a crucial test of its importance.},
  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}
}