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

Abstract

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.

Overlapping regionalism around the world: Introducing the overlapping regionalism dataset

“…Studying overlaps is crucial as it has important implications for the effectiveness of governance beyond the nation-state, the legitimacy of IOs in situations of regime complexity, and the future of the liberal order and contestations thereof. First, the performance of IOs has gained scholarly attention in recent years (Gutner and Thompson, 2010; Lall, 2017; Panke et al, 2022a,b). Researching overlapping regionalism and its potential negative consequences for their effectiveness also allows for valuable insights into the causes and consequences of regime complexity on the international level.…”