Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4)
Year of publication
- 2020 (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Impartiality (1)
- International (1)
- International Financial Institutions (1)
- Monetary Fund (1)
- World Bank (1)
- agency (1)
- bias (1)
- comparative (1)
- contestation (1)
- de facto authority (1)
Institute
Der Beitrag setzt sich würdigend und kritisch mit Michael Zürns Arbeiten zur internationalen Autorität auseinander. Dessen potenziell autoritatives Autoritätskonzept weist mehrere Vorzüge auf: Erstens bietet es eine Erklärung für ein Paradox. Warum sollten souveräne Staaten die Kompetenz Externer anerkennen, ihnen Ratschläge 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 Autoritätsadressaten zugesteht, bestimmte Qualitäten der Autorität zu prüfen. Drittens entkoppelt es Legitimität und Autorität, ohne die Legitimationsbedürftigkeit von Autorität zu opfern. Dies anerkennend plädiert der Beitrag aber dafür, die Legitimationsbedürftigkeit internationaler Autorität nicht auf formal institutionalisierte Beziehungen zu reduzieren, sondern diese auch weiterhin auf informellere, d.h. der Praxis entstammende, Anerkennung und Folgebereitschaft innerhalb von Autoritätsbeziehungen zu beziehen. Die überzeugende begründungstheoretische Fundierung von Autorität sollte zudem nicht dazu verführen, Sozialisationsprozesse in Autoritätsbeziehungen zu übersehen, zumal deren Legitimität kritisch hinterfragbar ist.
Activating norm collisions
(2020)
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.
Mind the gap?
(2020)
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
Birds of a feather?
(2020)
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.