@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.
Points for practitioners
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 = {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{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{GholiaghaHolzscheiterLiese2020,
author = {Gholiagha, Sassan and Holzscheiter, Anna and Liese, Andrea},
title = {Activating norm collisions},
series = {Global constitutionalism},
volume = {9},
journal = {Global constitutionalism},
number = {2},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
address = {Cambridge},
issn = {2045-3817},
doi = {10.1017/S2045381719000388},
pages = {290 -- 317},
year = {2020},
abstract = {This article puts forward a constructivist-interpretivist approach to interface conflicts that emphasises how international actors articulate and problematise norm collisions in discursive and social interactions. Our approach is decidedly agency-oriented and follows the Special Issue's interest in how interface conflicts play out at the micro-level. The article advances several theoretical and methodological propositions on how to identify norm collisions and the conditions under which they become the subject of international debate. Our argument on norm collisions, understood as situations in which actors perceive two norms as incompatible with each other, is threefold. First, we claim that agency matters to the analysis of the emergence, dynamics, management, and effects of norm collisions in international politics. Second, we propose to differentiate between dormant (subjectively perceived) and open norm collisions (intersubjectively shared). Third, we contend that the transition from dormant to open - which we term activation - depends on the existence of certain scope conditions concerning norm quality as well as changes in power structures and actor constellations. Empirically, we study norm collisions in the area of international drug control, presenting the field as one that contains several cases of dormant and open norm collisions, including those that constitute interface conflicts. For our in-depth analysis we have chosen the international discourse on coca leaf chewing. With this case, we not only seek to demonstrate the usefulness of our constructivist-interpretivist approach but also aim to explain under which conditions dormant norm collisions evolve into open collisions and even into interface conflicts.},
language = {en}
}
@article{Liese2020,
author = {Liese, Andrea},
title = {Autorit{\"a}t in den internationalen Beziehungen},
series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r internationale Beziehungen},
volume = {27},
journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r internationale Beziehungen},
number = {1},
publisher = {Nomos},
address = {Baden-Baden},
issn = {0946-7165},
doi = {10.5771/0946-7165-2020-1-97},
pages = {97 -- 109},
year = {2020},
abstract = {Der Beitrag setzt sich w{\"u}rdigend und kritisch mit Michael Z{\"u}rns Arbeiten zur internationalen Autorit{\"a}t auseinander. Dessen potenziell autoritatives Autorit{\"a}tskonzept weist mehrere Vorz{\"u}ge auf: Erstens bietet es eine Erkl{\"a}rung f{\"u}r ein Paradox. Warum sollten souver{\"a}ne Staaten die Kompetenz Externer anerkennen, ihnen Ratschl{\"a}ge zu geben bzw. Forderungen an sie zu richten, und zudem noch bereit sein, diesen zu folgen? Zweitens konkretisiert es die u.a. bei Hannah Arendt angelegte Idee der fraglosen Anerkennung, indem es Autorit{\"a}tsadressaten zugesteht, bestimmte Qualit{\"a}ten der Autorit{\"a}t zu pr{\"u}fen. Drittens entkoppelt es Legitimit{\"a}t und Autorit{\"a}t, ohne die Legitimationsbed{\"u}rftigkeit von Autorit{\"a}t zu opfern. Dies anerkennend pl{\"a}diert der Beitrag aber daf{\"u}r, die Legitimationsbed{\"u}rftigkeit internationaler Autorit{\"a}t nicht auf formal institutionalisierte Beziehungen zu reduzieren, sondern diese auch weiterhin auf informellere, d.h. der Praxis entstammende, Anerkennung und Folgebereitschaft innerhalb von Autorit{\"a}tsbeziehungen zu beziehen. Die {\"u}berzeugende begr{\"u}ndungstheoretische Fundierung von Autorit{\"a}t sollte zudem nicht dazu verf{\"u}hren, Sozialisationsprozesse in Autorit{\"a}tsbeziehungen zu {\"u}bersehen, zumal deren Legitimit{\"a}t kritisch hinterfragbar ist.},
language = {de}
}
@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{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{BuschLiese2016,
author = {Busch, Per-Olof and Liese, Andrea},
title = {The authority of international public administrations},
series = {International Bureaucracy: Challenges and Lessons for Public Administration Research},
journal = {International Bureaucracy: Challenges and Lessons for Public Administration Research},
publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan, London},
address = {Basingstoke},
isbn = {978-1-349-94977-9},
doi = {10.1057/978-1-349-94977-9_5},
pages = {97 -- 122},
year = {2016},
abstract = {This chapter takes stock with the research on the authority of international organizations (IOs) and international public administrations (IPAs) in the fields of International Relations (IR) and Public Administration (PA). It combines arguments from conceptual and theoretical debates with empirical findings to explore under which conditions IPAs are likely to enjoy authority. Based on a review of the literature and on conceptual clarifications, we define authority as a social relationship between holders and granters of authority. We distinguish two types of authority, namely, political and expert authority, and two forms of recognition, namely, in practice (de facto) and by formal delegation (de jure). Given that the de facto expert authority of IPAs has received least attention in the literature, while the PA literature reminds us that knowledge lies at the heart of bureaucratic power, we develop propositions on how de facto expert authority could be measured and how the anticipated variation of expert authority among IPAs could be explained. We illustrate our argument with reference to empirical findings in the IR and PA literature. We conclude by highlighting the implications of our discussion for future research on the authority of national and IPAs.},
language = {en}
}