The Authority of International Public Administrations

Busch, Per-Olof; Liese, Andrea

doi:10.1057/978-1-349-94977-9_5

Cited by 49 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other group of labels (de facto, sociological) grasps the sociological understanding of authority in which authority becomes manifest in behavioural ways. We use the terms de jure authority and de facto authority to distinguish these two basic understandings on how authority becomes manifest (Green 2014;Alter et al 2016;Busch and Liese 2017). De jure recognition, on the one hand, captures the contractual or formal-legal understanding of the authority relationship, where the IO or its IPA are put "in authority" (Friedman 1990) by the subordinate actors.…”

Section: Comparing De Facto and De Jure Expert Authority Of Ipasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind the Gap? Comparing De Facto and De Jure Expert Authority of International Public Administrations in Financial and Agricultural Policy

Busch

Heinzel

Kempken

et al. 2020

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many authors have argued that International Public Administration can influence policy-making through their expert authority. The article compares de jure and de facto expert authority of IPAs to evaluate their conformity. It comparatively assesses the two kinds of authority for five important IPAs (BIS, FAO, IMF, OECD and World Bank) active in agriculture or financial policy. It shows that, on average, de jure and de facto authority seem to conform. At the same time, it demonstrates that gaps between de jure and de facto authority exist at the level of the IPAs, the policy areas and the IPAs' addressees.

show abstract

Section: Comparing De Facto and De Jure Expert Authority Of Ipasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind the Gap? Comparing De Facto and De Jure Expert Authority of International Public Administrations in Financial and Agricultural Policy

Busch

Heinzel

Kempken

et al. 2020

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…research on international bureaucracies, principal-agent theory etc. ; Barnett and Finnemore 2004;Bauer and Ege 2016;Busch and Liese 2017;Hawkins et al 2006;Reinalda and Verbeek 1998;Vaubel 2006) or their role and authority in specific fields of global governance (Abbott et al 2015). In today's study of international organizations, their embeddedness in larger organizational fieldsin many cases populated by multiple international organizations, public-private institutions and a plethora of private actors and networksoccupies centre stage.…”

Section: The Discursive Intertwinement Of Metagovernance Norms Govermentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing effectively in a complex world? How metagovernance norms and changing repertoires of knowledge shape international organisation discourses on institutional order in global health

Pantzerhielm

Holzscheiter

Bahr

2019

Cambridge Review of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article approaches the field of global health governance from the vantage point of shared discourses and norms on the good governance of governance amongst multiple international organizations (IOs). Conceptually, we introduce metagovernance norms as constitutive, reflexive beliefs concerned with institutional order and IO interactions in a given governance field. We argue that such norms are entangled with causal beliefs and problem perceptions that form part of contingent, contested repertoires of knowledge. Moreover, we illustrate how IO 'expert' groups form an authoritative subject position from which truth claims about governance are advanced. Empirically, we trace metagovernance norms in discourse(s) amongst eight health IOs since the 1970s. We show how metagovernance norms have been The research presented in this article was conducted by members of the Research Group 'Governance for Global Health' which is jointly funded by WZB Berlin Social Science Center and Freie Universit€ at Berlin through the German Research Council's (DFG) Excellence Initiative. An earlier version of the manuscript was presented at the 11 th Pan-European Conference on International Relations The Politics of International Studies in an Age of Crises in Barcelona 2017. The authors wish to thank Lisbeth Zimmermann, Katharina Glaab, Alejandro Esguerra and the other participants in the 4 th European Workshops in International Studies (EWIS) workshop on The Politicisation of Expertise: Contentious Knowledge Politics in International Organizations in Cardiff 2017 for providing helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We thank our colleagues from the WZB Global Governance unit for their feedback and ideas on the larger research project in which this article's arguments are embedded. We are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which helped improve and clarify our article. Finally, we wish to thank Markus Sperl, Marleen Boschen and Martha van Bakel for their editing and research assistance.

show abstract

“…Authority is relocated from states to transnational, subnational, nonstate, and private actors, which may be better adept at addressing these issues than states (Bernstein, 2011;Cutler, Haufler, & Porter, 1999;Hall & Biersteker, 2002;Hansen & Salskov-Iversen, 2008;Scholte, 2011). In addition, IOs and their bureaucracies are seen to possess some degree of autonomy and authority in their actions (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004;Bauer & Ege, 2016;Busch & Liese, 2017;Z€ urn et al, 2012). The anticorruption regime is a good example of these trends.…”

Section: Relational Authoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

The authority of peer reviews among states in the global governance of corruption

Jongen

2018

Review of International Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article researches the instrument of peer review among states, which is widely used by international organizations to monitor state compliance with international anticorruption norms. Despite their widespread use, little is known about the conditions under which peer reviews bear significance in the global fight against corruption. This article seeks to shed light on this by considering the authority that three major, yet hitherto understudied, peer reviews carry: the OECD Working Group on Bribery, the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption, and the Implementation Review Mechanism of the UN Convention against Corruption. Authority is conceptualized as a social relation between the institution carrying authority (the peer review) and the intended audience (mostly states). Drawing upon original survey data and expert interviews, the findings reveal that the three peer reviews have different degrees of authority. The article subsequently explains the observed variation in authority, by looking at the membership sizes and compositions of the peer reviews, their institutional designs, and the types of officials that are involved in the review process.

show abstract

The Authority of International Public Administrations

Cited by 49 publications

References 24 publications

Mind the Gap? Comparing De Facto and De Jure Expert Authority of International Public Administrations in Financial and Agricultural Policy

Mind the Gap? Comparing De Facto and De Jure Expert Authority of International Public Administrations in Financial and Agricultural Policy

Governing effectively in a complex world? How metagovernance norms and changing repertoires of knowledge shape international organisation discourses on institutional order in global health

The authority of peer reviews among states in the global governance of corruption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About