Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- organizations (3) (remove)
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.
We elaborate on the possibilities and needs to integrate design thinking into requirements engineering, drawing from our research and project experiences. We suggest three approaches for tailoring and integrating design thinking and requirements engineering with complementary synergies and point at open challenges for research and practice.
A circulatory loop
(2023)
In the digitalization debate, gender biases in digital technologies play a significant role because of their potential for social exclusion and inequality. It is therefore remarkable that organizations as drivers of digitalization and as places for social integration have been widely overlooked so far. Simultaneously, gender biases and digitalization have structurally immanent connections to organizations. Therefore, a look at the reciprocal relationship between organizations, digitalization, and gender is needed. The article provides answers to the question of whether and how organizations (re)produce, reinforce, or diminish gender‐specific inequalities during their digital transformations. On the one hand, gender inequalities emerge when organizations use post‐bureaucratic concepts through digitalization. On the other hand, gender inequalities are reproduced when organizations either program or implement digital technologies and fail to establish control structures that prevent gender biases. This article shows that digitalization can act as a catalyst for inequality‐producing mechanisms, but also has the potential to mitigate inequalities. We argue that organizations must be considered when discussing the potential of exclusion through digitalization.