Refine
Document Type
- Article (9)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Postprint (1)
Language
- English (12)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (12)
Keywords
- World Bank (3)
- COVID-19 (2)
- International Financial Institutions (2)
- bias (2)
- expertise (2)
- international organisations (2)
- Compliance (1)
- Country experience (1)
- Enforcement (1)
- Impartiality (1)
- International (1)
- International Monetary Fund (1)
- International bureaucrats (1)
- Monetary Fund (1)
- Recipient performance (1)
- Supervision (1)
- authority (1)
- comparative (1)
- crises (1)
- crisis (1)
- de facto authority (1)
- de jure authority (1)
- decision-making (1)
- delegation (1)
- environmental mainstreaming (1)
- executive head (1)
- expert authority (1)
- financial policy (1)
- geographical proximity (1)
- governance (1)
- impartiality (1)
- institutional design (1)
- institutions (1)
- international (1)
- international administration (1)
- international non-governmental organizations (1)
- international organizations (1)
- international public administration (1)
- leadership (1)
- multi-level government (1)
- organizations (1)
- policy scope (1)
- policy-making (1)
- pooling (1)
- public health (1)
- regime complexity (1)
- selection (1)
- survey experiment (1)
- world bank (1)
Institute
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.
Reputation and influence
(2022)
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.