[ALL WEEK 12 LECTURES]
Bureaucracies in Supranational/International Organizations
Readings for the week
Trondal, J. et al. 2010. Unpacking International Organisations: the dynamics of compound bureaucracies.
Manchester: Manchester University Press. Chapter 1, pages 3-19. VULA
Dijkstra, G. 2007. Supranational Governance and the Challenge of Democracy: the IMF and the World
Bank. In Bekkers, V. et al (eds.) Governance and the Democratic Deficit: Assessing the Democratic Legitimacy of
Governance Practices. Aldershot: Ashgate. VULA
Wilson, D.E. 1994. Bureaucracy in International Organizations: building capacity and credibility in a newly
interdependent world. In Farazmand, A (ed.) Handbook of Bureaucracy. New York: Marcel Dekker. VULA
® International bureaucracies (IBs) have become increasingly active in global politics, however it
has been a neglected area in the comparative study of bureaucracy.
® International organizations (such as the IMF, UN, NATO, AU, etc.) have grown bureaucratic
structures to provide secretarial support and expert assistance to the political leadership of
these bodies.
® The same ‘formal’ versus ‘informal’ behavioral actions permeate the study of IBs as it does for
the study of nation-state bureaucracies.
The Emergence of IBs:
® The increasing internationalization of politics – particularly after the first world war – sowed the
seeds for the emergence of IBs (e.g. the creation of the UN, WTO, IMF and more after WW2)
® After periods of war, there were strong demands for international bodies that would foster peace
and security, ensure diplomatic international relations and encourage poverty reduction &
development.
[Intellectual Property of Ayanda Sadek]
, [ALL WEEK 12 LECTURES]
® After international institutions/organizations are created, they quickly become increasingly
bureaucratized and autonomous from political leadership
What Makes IBs Different from Nation-State Bureaucracies:
® IBs are staffed by international civil servants who account to designated political leadership.
® Within these institutions, there are a variety of member states from various nations who are part
of the organization.
® Therefore, there are two levels of political oversight in IBS:
1. Internal political leadership
2. Political heads of member state governments
- This tends to complicate the relationship between civil servants and their political
leadership, because the political leadership is quite diverse and complex.
® Political heads of member state governments sometimes use international organizations and
their bureaucracies to enhance their domestic support at home.
® It is argued that IBs are more prone to creating unnecessary rules and procedures than nation-
state bureaucracies.
- This becomes an issue because international organizations are funded by their members
states, who pour billions of money into the working of IBs.
- IBs have been criticized for being wasteful and “gobbling up” the money of its member
states while yielding little results
[Intellectual Property of Ayanda Sadek]
Bureaucracies in Supranational/International Organizations
Readings for the week
Trondal, J. et al. 2010. Unpacking International Organisations: the dynamics of compound bureaucracies.
Manchester: Manchester University Press. Chapter 1, pages 3-19. VULA
Dijkstra, G. 2007. Supranational Governance and the Challenge of Democracy: the IMF and the World
Bank. In Bekkers, V. et al (eds.) Governance and the Democratic Deficit: Assessing the Democratic Legitimacy of
Governance Practices. Aldershot: Ashgate. VULA
Wilson, D.E. 1994. Bureaucracy in International Organizations: building capacity and credibility in a newly
interdependent world. In Farazmand, A (ed.) Handbook of Bureaucracy. New York: Marcel Dekker. VULA
® International bureaucracies (IBs) have become increasingly active in global politics, however it
has been a neglected area in the comparative study of bureaucracy.
® International organizations (such as the IMF, UN, NATO, AU, etc.) have grown bureaucratic
structures to provide secretarial support and expert assistance to the political leadership of
these bodies.
® The same ‘formal’ versus ‘informal’ behavioral actions permeate the study of IBs as it does for
the study of nation-state bureaucracies.
The Emergence of IBs:
® The increasing internationalization of politics – particularly after the first world war – sowed the
seeds for the emergence of IBs (e.g. the creation of the UN, WTO, IMF and more after WW2)
® After periods of war, there were strong demands for international bodies that would foster peace
and security, ensure diplomatic international relations and encourage poverty reduction &
development.
[Intellectual Property of Ayanda Sadek]
, [ALL WEEK 12 LECTURES]
® After international institutions/organizations are created, they quickly become increasingly
bureaucratized and autonomous from political leadership
What Makes IBs Different from Nation-State Bureaucracies:
® IBs are staffed by international civil servants who account to designated political leadership.
® Within these institutions, there are a variety of member states from various nations who are part
of the organization.
® Therefore, there are two levels of political oversight in IBS:
1. Internal political leadership
2. Political heads of member state governments
- This tends to complicate the relationship between civil servants and their political
leadership, because the political leadership is quite diverse and complex.
® Political heads of member state governments sometimes use international organizations and
their bureaucracies to enhance their domestic support at home.
® It is argued that IBs are more prone to creating unnecessary rules and procedures than nation-
state bureaucracies.
- This becomes an issue because international organizations are funded by their members
states, who pour billions of money into the working of IBs.
- IBs have been criticized for being wasteful and “gobbling up” the money of its member
states while yielding little results
[Intellectual Property of Ayanda Sadek]
