Satisfied or not? Exploring the interplay of individual, country and international organization characteristics for negotiation success

Abstract

International norms and rules are created in international negotiations. A comprehensive survey shows that the satisfaction with negotiation outcomes varies between delegates, states and International Organizations (IOs), which is important as it has potential ramifications for state compliance and the effectiveness of the international rules and norms. This paper investigates which role individual, country and IO features and their interactions play for satisfaction with international negotiation outcomes. Drawing on approaches of international negotiation and cooperation, hypotheses on individual, country and IO features are specified and examined empirically with a multilevel analysis. This reveals that especially individual and IO level features impact outcome satisfaction. Outcome satisfaction increases if delegates put in much work in negotiations and can conduct them flexibly and if IOs are small in size, and have institutional designs that seek to foster debates. The paper also shows that there are cross-level interaction effects. Most notably, the positive effect of flexibility on high outcome satisfaction is less pronounced when negotiations are more strongly characterized by bargaining dynamics. Vice-versa, when IOs are prone to arguing dynamics all actors become more satisfied.

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

“…However, we contend that no such strong relationship is present in our survey as the correlation between the perceived individual negotiation success (c.f. Panke et al, 2021a) and the evaluation of the two aspects of IO performance are not correlated highly (0.34 for problem-solving effectiveness and 0.32 for legitimacy).…”

The bureaucratic politics of WTO priorities: Where officials sit influences where they stand

“…17 Around 800 responses were received for most of the questions, including from officials, academics, staff of IOs and representatives of non-governmental organizations. Results reflect the individual subjective views on the relative priority attached to an issue, not whether these views correlate with the positions of their governments, or even a respondent's perception of the national position (Panke, Polat and Hohlstein, 2021). 18 All missions accredited to the WTO, including those without an office in Geneva, received the questionnaire.…”

“…Positions taken in Geneva (perspectives held) will differ depending on the degree of de facto autonomy of ambassadors. The degree of autonomy from capitals will vary across countries but we expect it to be greater when trade policy capacity in the capital is limited, or when a matter tabled in a WTO body does not affect national interests (Odell, 2005;Panke, Polat and Hohlstein, 2021).…”