Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (24) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (24) (remove)
Language
- English (24) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (24)
Keywords
- Bureaucracy (1)
- Civil Service Reform (1)
- Coordination (1)
- Expertenautorität (1)
- Friedenssicherung (1)
- Geschichte 1999-2009 (1)
- Governance (1)
- Haiti (1)
- Indonesien (1)
- Institutionelle Komplexität (1)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (24) (remove)
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.
Ministerial administrations are pivotal in the process of defining problems and developing policy solutions due to their technocratic expertise, particularly when this process is applied to climate policy. This innovative book explores how and why policies are changed or continued by employing in-depth studies from a diverse range of EU countries.
Climate Policy in Denmark, Germany, Estonia and Poland works to narrow the research gap surrounding administrative institutions within the field of climate policy change by integrating ideas, discourses and institutions to provide a better understanding of both climate policy and policy change. Differences in approach to democratization and Europeanization between Western and Central Eastern European countries provide rich empirical material for the study of policy formulation. This timely book demonstrates how the substance and formation of policies are shaped by their political and administrative institutional contexts.
Analytical and accessible, this discerning book will be of value to scholars and students of climate policy, public policy and public administration alike. Providing lessons on institutional reform in climate and energy policy, this explorative book will also be of interest to practitioners and policy-makers.
On a small scale
(2018)
This study argues that micro relations matter in peacekeeping. Asking what makes the implementation of peacekeeping interventions complex and how complexity is resolved, I find that formal, contractual mechanisms only rarely effectively reduce complexity – and that micro relations fill this gap. Micro relations are personal relationships resulting from frequent face-to-face interaction in professional and – equally importantly – social contexts.
This study offers an explanation as to why micro relations are important for coping with complexity, in the form of a causal mechanism. For this purpose, I bring together theoretical and empirical knowledge: I draw upon the current debate on ‘institutional complexity’ (Greenwood et al. 2011) in organizational institutionalism as well as original empirical evidence from a within-case study of the peacekeeping intervention in Haiti, gained in ten weeks of field research. In this study, scholarship on institutional complexity serves to identify theoretical causal channels which guide empirical analysis. An additional, secondary aim is pursued with this mechanism-centered approach: testing the utility of Beach and Pedersen’s (2013) theory-testing process tracing.
Regarding the first research question – what makes the implementation of peacekeeping interventions complex –, the central finding is that complexity manifests itself in the dual role of organizations as cooperation partners and competitors for (scarce) resources, turf and influence. UN organizations, donor agencies and international NGOs implementing peacekeeping activities in post-conflict environments have chronic difficulty mastering both roles because they entail contradictory demands: effective cooperation requires information exchange, resource and responsibility-sharing as well as external scrutiny, whereas prevailing over competitors demands that organizations conceal information, guard resources, increase relative turf and influence, as well as shield themselves from scrutiny. Competition fuels organizational distrust and friction – and impedes cooperation.
How is this complexity resolved? The answer to this second research question is that deep-seated organizational competition is routinely mediated – and cooperation motivated – in micro relations and micro interaction. Regular, frequent face-to-face interaction between individual organizational members generates social resources that help to transcend organizational distrust and conflict, most importantly familiarity with each other, personal trust and belief in reciprocity. Furthermore, informal conflict mediation and control mechanisms – namely, open discussion, mutual monitoring in direct interaction and social exclusion – enhance solidarity and mutual support.
Through IOs' Eyes
(2018)
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.
The background of civil service reform in Indonesia reveals the emergence of the reformation movement in 1998, following the fall of the authoritarian New Order regime. The reformation movement has seen the introduction of reforms in Indonesia's various governmental institutions, including the civil service. The civil service reforms were marked by the revision of Act 8/ 74 with Act 43 of 1999 on Civil Service Administration. The implementation of the civil service reform program, which was carried out by both central and local governments, required cooperation between the actors (in particular, Ministries, agencies and local governments), known as coordination.
Currently, the coordination that occurs between actors tends to be rigid and hierarchical. As a result, targets are not efficiently and effectively met. Hierarchical coordination, without a strong public sector infrastructure, tends to have a negative impact on achieving the desired outcomes of the civil service reform program. As an intrinsic part of the New Order regime, hierarchical coordination resulted in inefficiency and lack of efficacy. Despite these inefficiencies, the administration and the political environment have changed significantly as a result of the reform process.
Obvious examples of the reforms are changes in recruitment patterns, placement and remuneration policies. However, in the case of Indonesia, it appears that every state institution has its own policy. Thus, it appears that there has not been policy coherence in the civil service reform program, resulting in the lack of a sustainable program. The important thing to examine is how the coordination mechanisms of the civil service reform program in the central government have developed during the reform era in Indonesia
The purpose of this study is to analyse the linkages between coordination mechanisms and the actual implementation of civil service reform programs. This is undertaken as a basis for intervention based on the structures and patterns of coordination mechanisms in the implementation of civil service reform programs. The next step is to formulate the development coordination mechanisms, particularly to create structures and patterns of civil service reforms which are more sustainable to the specific characteristics of public sector organisations in Indonesia.
The benefits of this research are a stronger understanding of the linkages between the mechanisms of coordination and implementation of civil service reform programs. Through this analysis, the findings can then be applied as a basic consideration in planning a sustainable civil service reform program. In the basis of theoretical issues concerning the linkages between coordination mechanisms and implementation of civil service reform program sustainability, this book explores the type of coordination, which is needed to test the proportional and sustainable concept of the intended civil service reform program in Indonesia.
Research conducted through studies, surveys and donors has shown that poor coordination is the major hindrance to the civil service program reform in Indonesia. This research employs a qualitative approach. In this study, the coordination mechanisms and implementations of civil service reform programs are demonstrated by means of case studies of the State Ministry for Administrative Reform, the National Civil Service Agency and the National Public Administration Institute. The coordination mechanisms in these Ministries and agencies were analysed using indicators of effective and efficient coordination. The analysis of the coordination mechanisms shows a tendency towards rigid hierarchical coordination. This raises concerns about fragmentation among departments and agencies at the central government level and calls for integrated civil service reform both at central and local governmental levels. In the context of implementation programs, a hierarchical mechanism of coordination leverages on various aspects, such as the program formulation, implementation flow of the program, the impact of policies, and achievement targets. In particular, there was a shift process of the mainstream civil service reform in the Ministries and agencies which are marked by the emergence of sectoral interest and inefficiencies in the civil service reform program. The primary result of successful civil service reform is increased professionalism in the civil service.
The findings on hierarchical mechanisms and the prescriptions which will follow show that the professionalism of Indonesia’s civil service is at stake. The implementation of the program through coordination mechanisms in Ministries and agencies is measured in various dimensions: the centre of coordination, integration of coordination, sustainability of coordination and multidimensionality of coordination.
The results of this analysis show that coordination mechanisms and the implementation of civil service reform are more successful when they are integration rather than hierarchical mechanisms. For a successful implementation of the reform program, it is crucial to intervene and change the type of coordination at the central government through the integration approach (hierarchy, market, and network). Furthermore, in order to move towards the integration type mechanism of coordination the separation of the administration and politics in the practice of good governance needs to be carried out immediately and simultaneously. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that the integration type mechanism of coordination is a suitable for Indonesia for a sustainable civil service reform program. Finally, to achieve coherent civil service reforms, national policies developed according to the central government's priorities are indispensable, establishing a coordination mechanism that can be adhered to throughout all reform sectors.
Over the past decade, an increasing number of public organizations involved in fisheries and marine environmental management in Europe have changed their formal coordination structures. Similar reorganizations of formal coordination structures can be observed for organizations at different administrative levels of governance with different mandates across the policy cycle.
Against the backdrop of this phenomenon, this PhD thesis is interested in exploring how these similar organizational reforms can be explained and why the formal coordination structures for fisheries and marine environmental management have been reorganized in the cases of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the Directorate-General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission (DG FISH), the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR) and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM). Accordingly, the objective is to shed light on how public organizations actually “behave” or “tick” in the face of increasingly complex coordination challenges in fisheries and marine environmental management.
To address these questions, the thesis draws on different theoretical perspectives in organization theory, namely an instrumental and an institutional perspective. These theoretical perspectives provide different explanations for how organizations deal with issues of formal organizational structure and coordination. In order to evaluate the explanatory relevance of these theoretical perspectives in the cases of ICES, DG FISH, the IMR and the SwAM, a case study approach based on congruence analysis is applied. The case studies are based on document analysis, the analysis of organizational charts and their change over time, as well as expert interviews. The aim of the thesis is to contribute to the coordination debate in the marine policy and governance literature from a hitherto omitted public administration and organization theory perspective, as well as explaining coordination efforts at the organizational level with an organization theory approach.
The findings indicate that the formal coordination structures of the organizations studied have not only changed to solve coordination problems in fisheries and marine environmental management efficiently and effectively, but also to follow modern management paradigms in marine governance and to ensure the legitimacy of these organizations. Moreover, it was found that in the cases of ICES, DG FISH, the IMR and the SwAM, the organizational changes were strongly influenced by external pressures and interactions with other organizations in the organizational field of fisheries and marine environmental management in Europe. Driven by forces of isomorphism, a gradual convergence of the formal horizontal coordination structures for fisheries and marine environmental management of the organizations studied can be observed. However, the findings also indicate that although the organizational changes observed may convey a reaction to changing environments, they do not necessarily reflect actual policy change and the implementation of new management concepts.
Bisherige Studien zur Demokratieförderung analysierten „erfolgreiche“ Beispiele. Das ist teilweise eine Reflektion der politischen Ökonomie von Demokratieförderung, in der sie Beispielen im Inland erzeugter demokratischer Durchbrüche folgt. Dennoch kann eine wissenschaftliche Analyse externer Einflüsse auf interne Veränderungen sich nicht nur auf Fälle erfolgreicher Demokratieentwicklung beziehen, sondern muss Beispiele von Regimeveränderungen, die nicht in einer Demokratie resultierten, berücksichtigen, um Selektionsvorurteile zu vermeiden und die kausalen Mechanismen zu isolieren, die für einen demokratischen Wandel notwendig sind, neben dem Zusammenbruch eines autoritären Regimes und einer Liberalisierung.
In dieser Studie dienen Marokko und Tunesien als Fallbeispiele, Länder, die nach langjähriger Diktaturerfahrung versuchen demokratische Strukturen aufzubauen und sich anderen Herausforderungen stellen müssen als sich demokratisierende Regime, die über einen relativ effektiven Staat verfügen.
Da es wenig Austausch zwischen Analysten von demokratischen Übergängen, Konsolidierung und Post-Konflikt Staatenbildung gab, überrascht, dass diese radikal unterschiedliche Situation von demokratischem Wandel und variierenden Rollen externer Akteure in jeder Kategorie bisher nicht differenziert wurde. Die Studie widmet sich den hieraus resultierenden Kernfragen: „Wie, Warum und durch Was wird Demokratieförderung durch externe Akteure funktionieren?“
Die Frage nach dem „Wie“ ist hier die schwierigste, es ist eine Frage nach den Methoden und Strategien des Demokratisierungsprozesses sowie der Unterstützung, die sorgfältig durchdachte Techniken und ihre breite Akzeptanz durch eine Vielzahl von Partner erfordert. Antwort auf die Frage nach dem „Was“ und „Warum“ hingegen findet sich in der Grundlage schlechter Regierungsarbeit und schlechter Wirtschaftsleistung, die zu Aufständen der Bevölkerung führen. Die Resultate der Studie tragen zum Fortschritt in der Demokratieförderung bei.
In the debate on how to govern sustainable development, a central question concerns the interaction between knowledge about sustainability and policy developments. The discourse on what constitutes sustainable development conflict on some of the most basic issues, including the proper definitions, instruments and indicators of what should be ‘developed’ or ‘sustained’. Whereas earlier research on the role of (scientific) knowledge in policy adopted a rationalist-positivist view of knowledge as the basis for ‘evidence-based policy making’, recent literature on knowledge creation and transfer processes has instead pointed towards aspects of knowledge-policy ‘co-production’ (Jasanoff 2004). It is highlighted that knowledge utilisation is not just a matter of the quality of the knowledge as such, but a question of which knowledge fits with the institutional context and dominant power structures. Just as knowledge supports and justifies certain policy, policy can produce and stabilise certain knowledge. Moreover, rather than viewing knowledge-policy interaction as a linear and uni-directional model, this conceptualization is based on an assumption of the policy process as being more anarchic and unpredictable, something Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) has famously termed the ‘garbage-can model’.
The present dissertation focuses on the interplay between knowledge and policy in sustainability governance. It takes stock with the practice of ‘Management by Objectives and Results’ (MBOR: Lundqvist 2004) whereby policy actors define sustainable development goals (based on certain knowledge) and are expected to let these definitions guide policy developments as well as evaluate whether sustainability improves or not. As such a knowledge-policy instrument, Sustainability Indicators (SI:s) help both (subjectively) construct ‘social meaning’ about sustainability and (objectively) influence policy and measure its success. The different articles in this cumulative dissertation analyse the development, implementation and policy support (personal and institutional) of Sustainability Indicators as an instrument for MBOR in a variety of settings. More specifically, the articles centre on the question of how sustainability definitions and measurement tools on the one hand (knowledge) and policy instruments and political power structures on the other, are co-produced.
A first article examines the normative foundations of popular international SI:s and country rankings. Combining theoretical (constructivist) analysis with factor analysis, it analyses how the input variable structure of SI:s are related to different sustainability paradigms, producing a different output in terms of which countries (developed versus developing) are most highly ranked. Such a theoretical input-output analysis points towards a potential problem of SI:s becoming a sort of ‘circular argumentation constructs’. The article thus, highlights on a quantitative basis what others have noted qualitatively – that different definitions and interpretations of sustainability influence indicator output to the point of contradiction. The normative aspects of SI:s does thereby not merely concern the question of which indicators to use for what purposes, but also the more fundamental question of how normative and political bias are intrinsically a part of the measurement instrument as such. The study argues that, although no indicator can be expected to tell the sustainability ‘truth-out-there’, a theoretical localization of indicators – and of the input variable structure – may help facilitate interpretation of SI output and the choice of which indicators to use for what (policy or academic) purpose.
A second article examines the co-production of knowledge and policy in German sustainability governance. It focuses on the German sustainability strategy ‘Perspektiven für Deutschland’ (2002), a strategy that stands out both in an international comparison of national sustainability strategies as well as among German government policy strategies because of its relative stability over five consecutive government constellations, its rather high status and increasingly coercive nature. The study analyses what impact the sustainability strategy has had on the policy process between 2002 and 2015, in terms of defining problems and shaping policy processes. Contrasting rationalist and constructivist perspectives on the role of knowledge in policy, two factors, namely the level of (scientific and political) consensus about policy goals and the ‘contextual fit’ of problem definitions, are found to be main factors explaining how different aspects of the strategy is used. Moreover, the study argues that SI:s are part of a continuous process of ‘structuring’ in which indicator, user and context factors together help structure the sustainability challenge in such a way that it becomes more manageable for government policy.
A third article examines how 31 European countries have built supportive institutions of MBOR between 1992 and 2012. In particular during the 1990s and early 2000s much hope was put into the institutionalisation of Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) as a way to overcome sectoral thinking in sustainability policy making and integrate issues of environmental sustainability into all government policy. However, despite high political backing (FN, EU, OECD), implementation of EPI seems to differ widely among countries. The study is a quantitative longitudinal cross-country comparison of how countries’ ‘EPI architectures’ have developed over time. Moreover, it asks which ‘EPI architectures’ seem to be more effective in producing more ‘stringent’ sustainability policy.