Designing international organizations for debate? A factor analysis

Panke, Diana; Hohlstein, Franziska; Polat, Gurur

doi:10.1057/s41311-021-00284-6

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Applying these criteria to the IO yearbook and Correlates of War (COW) database, a total of 114 IOs remained (c.f. Panke et al, 2019; Panke et al, 2021b). 4 In a second step, a representative subsample of these IOs was selected according to size, policy fields covered, as well as regional vs. global reach.…”

Section: Conceptualizing and Measuring Two Components Of Io Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Who performs better? A comparative analysis of problem-solving effectiveness and legitimacy attributions to international organizations

Panke¹,

Polat²,

Hohlstein³

2022

Cooperation and Conflict

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of individual international organizations (IOs) has received considerable scholarly attention, not in the least because their importance for global governance. This paper adds to this body of work by adopting genuine comparative lenses. Based on a novel survey, it assesses the attributed performance of 49 IOs over two important dimensions: problem-solving effectiveness and legitimacy of outputs. This reveals variation between IOs with respect to both components. We derive hypotheses from international cooperation and IO design. The quantitative analysis reveals that except deliberative diplomatic practices many factors increasing attributed legitimacy differ from the ones increasing the attributed problem-solving effectiveness. Most notably, autonomous secretariats increase the problem-solving effectiveness attributed to IOs. Legitimacy attributions increase when IOs are regional instead of global in nature and when non-state actors have access to IO decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualizing and Measuring Two Components Of Io Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Who performs better? A comparative analysis of problem-solving effectiveness and legitimacy attributions to international organizations

Panke¹,

Polat²,

Hohlstein³

2022

Cooperation and Conflict

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Why International Organizations Differ in Their Output Productivity: A Comparative Study

Panke

Hohlstein

Polat

2022

International Studies Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analyzing the performance of international organizations (IOs) in a comparative manner is of high importance. Yet IOs differ remarkably, which renders comparisons difficult. This article examines IO output productivity as an important precondition for IOs to have effects on their members (outcome) and on the ground (impact). We distinguish between the number and volume of IO policy outputs and measure both productivity components for ninety-eight IOs. Drawing on Easton's system theory, we derive several hypotheses on how input, throughput, and feedback loop factors impact output productivity and examine them with quantitative methods. This reveals that input matters as IOs with more member states are likely to have broader meeting agendas and a higher number of items on the negotiation agenda, which furthers the output productivity of IOs. Throughput matters as well as. Whereas IOs with high meeting frequencies give delegates more opportunities to negotiate and pass policies, which increases the number and volume of outputs, the access of non-state actors to negotiations slows down the decision-making process, which reduces IO output productivity. Finally, with respect to the feedback loop, this article shows that transparent decision-making exerts an accountability pressure on delegates, which has a positive effect on IO output productivity.

show abstract

What Are UN General Assembly Resolutions for? Four Views on Parliamentary Diplomacy

Mesquita

Pires

2022

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has passed over eighteen thousand resolutions since its foundation. It is a very heterogeneous collection, containing at once landmark documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and scores of less important and even controversial pieces. Hence, scholarship for the past 75 years has been divided on the actual relevance of UNGA resolutions and on member states’ motivations in engaging with their drafting. We propose a novel theoretical typology to organize prevailing views on the role of UNGA resolutions. Relying on the dimensions of effect and consensus, that is, whether or not resolutions are deemed to have a real-world impact and to what extent they represent world opinion, we sort the literature into four ideal types: resolutions can be regarded as the fruit of deliberation, dispute, diversion, or drama. We discuss the rationale of each view and indicate proposals within the UNGA that exemplify these perspectives. Our typology contributes to scholarship by both tidying previous debates and highlighting unnoticed commonalities between the UNGA and topics from the political representation literature.

show abstract

Designing international organizations for debate? A factor analysis

Cited by 3 publications

References 33 publications

Who performs better? A comparative analysis of problem-solving effectiveness and legitimacy attributions to international organizations

Who performs better? A comparative analysis of problem-solving effectiveness and legitimacy attributions to international organizations

Why International Organizations Differ in Their Output Productivity: A Comparative Study

What Are UN General Assembly Resolutions for? Four Views on Parliamentary Diplomacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About