Lectures International
Administration
Lecture 1
- Look at international organisations.
-> all established to tackle issues that are out there, things that states
cannot solve on their own transboundary problems.
- World politics is governed by clash of state interests (small versus big,
weak versus strong, etc)
- Try to understand IOs as organizations by themselves how do they
function and what is their influence on the outcome of global political
issues?
-> UN most well known IO out there, but a lot of other IOs out there.
-> they have an effect on outcome of global policy.
- Predominately looked at from an international relations and political
science perspective, now we look at them from a PA perspective.
-> teaching PA theories.
- Talking about politics, many issues out there on which we disagree and
clash about.
-> IOs are there to solve these issues.
Case: data manipulation within the World Bank
- Mrs. Kristalina Georgieva landed in the middle of a accusation, rightly after
she moved to the International Monetary Fund.
-> a report from a US law firm that Georgieva has actively manipulated
data in Doing Business Report during her term as CEO at World Bank.
- The IMF Board expressed confidence in Mrs Georgieva’s leadership as
report ‘did not conclusively demonstrate’ that she acted improperly
- The Doing Business Report was a very important index published by the
World Bank.
-> every year it ranked all countries in the world on basis on how well the
economy and the legal system were for businesses around the world to do
business.
- For countries this is a very important ranking because it shows how good
countries have reformed their economies and have become attractive
markets for business
-> drops in the rank are highly sensitive and are often strongly disputed by
countries who have lost position on the rank
-> Doing Business Index is powerful at influencing the decisions of
countries leading benchmark in the world, countries attract foreign
direct investments (FDI) with good ranking
- China was concerned about rank (first 85)
-> Georgieva has overseen the recalculating of a number of these indices
(Hongkong as part of China? Taiwan part of China? Some methodological
changes)
, - China’s perspective
-> high positions or improvements in DB make a country more attractive
to foreign investors (FDI)
-> economic growth gives a country more power in management WB and
IMF
-> prestige for state leaders: a drop as in China’s case would come down
very harsh, vice versa (legitimacy of Communist Party)
- World Bank’s perspective
-> sensitive negotiations over capital increase campaign (2017-2018).
-> concerns about China’s reduction of its commitments to the Bank
-> China was apprehensive about re-calculation of ownership shares in
light of increased financial commitments
-> for CEO Kristalina Georgieva China’s reduction would endanger
multilateralism
- What can we learn from this case?
-> importance of international organizations
-> power of information and data
-> politics of global governance
-> administrative politics within international organizations
-> bureaucratic autonomy of international organizations
-> role of leadership at international organizations
-> staff and civil servant influence on decision-making
-> accountability at the global level
-> organizational culture within international bureaucracies
Traditional perspectives on international organizations
Realism
- States are primary actors in the international system
- States are rational, self-interested actors
-> states act to protect their own interests
-> seek to maximize their own power and security (military, economic,
etc.)
- International organizations exist by the virtue of the states, they allow the
organizations to wield power.
-> there are actually controlled by the most powerful states (hegemony)
-> the power of an IOs is as large as states allow an IO to wield it.
-> all the bigger IOs were mostly controlled by the US (most economic and
military powerful) see UN Security Council
-> now changing: Global South, Asian Tigers, Latin-America upcoming
- Anarchy: absence of international authority
-> international rules and norms do not restrain states because there is no
world government, court of police that can enforce them on states
-> the “billiard balls” model: billiard table, where states are the balls that
clash with each other.
- International competition rather than cooperation
-> “it is a jungle out there”, “survival of the fittest”
- International organizations are the instruments of (the most powerful)
states
-> IGOs have no authority of their own
-> IGOs have no independent effect on world politics
, - International law and organizations are weak and ineffective
-> international agreements are not enforceable
-> there are international law, but no world police or world court that can
demand binding effect of those laws.
- NGOs have no power at all on the international level
- Transnational networks do not count as they lack ‘actorness’
-> have no self-interests
-> no organizational body or leadership for deciding on action
Liberalism
- Reaction to the realist perspective liberal intergovernmentalism.
- States are important, but they are not the only actors in the international
system
- State action is not only based on self-interest, but also on moral and
ethical principles.
-> states care about peace, social progress and justice.
-> working on treaties, establishing international organs, etc.
- International cooperation is possible
- International cooperation will grow over time
-> interdependence leads to cooperation leads to international peace and
justice.
- International organizations are arenas where states interact and cooperate
to solve common transboundary problems have dialogue.
- International organizations contribute to maintaining peace and order
- Power still matters, but is exercised within the framework of international
rules and institutions international law matters
- ‘Soft power’ (power of deliberations, of negotiations) more important than
‘hard power’ (power of economic and military dominance)
- NGOs and other forms of global governance play significant roles
Application to the case
, Public administration perspectives
- Existing perspectives on global governance have a blind spot for the role
of international civil servants and administrations in global policy making
- The process and outcomes of global politics cannot fully be understood by
looking only at the cooperative and competitive behaviours of national
states
- International bureaucracies have the resources, the technical expertise,
and their own interests to make a significant mark on public policymaking
in the global realm
- In contrast to:
-> realism: international organizations are not just extensions and
instruments of (powerful) states, but are serious and distinct actors in
global governance
-> liberalism: international organizations are not just sites or arenas where
states interact, but are actors with their own preferences. Liberalism pays
specific attention to assemblies and councils of IGOs, whereas PA focuses
also on secretariats
- Key elements of the perspective:
-> international organizations are key actors in the international system
-> international organizations have autonomy from member states
-> even if international organizations are created by states, they act in
way unintended and unanticipated by states autonomy.
-> international organizations are actors with their own goals
-> the processes and structures of international organizations is important
for how they act and behave in international politics and policy-making
- Example: World Bank Doing Business Index is not just there as an
instrument that other national states have given to the World Bank, but
they developed it themselves.
-> to measure international economic relations, as an internal tool.
- A typical intergovernmental organization:
Administration
Lecture 1
- Look at international organisations.
-> all established to tackle issues that are out there, things that states
cannot solve on their own transboundary problems.
- World politics is governed by clash of state interests (small versus big,
weak versus strong, etc)
- Try to understand IOs as organizations by themselves how do they
function and what is their influence on the outcome of global political
issues?
-> UN most well known IO out there, but a lot of other IOs out there.
-> they have an effect on outcome of global policy.
- Predominately looked at from an international relations and political
science perspective, now we look at them from a PA perspective.
-> teaching PA theories.
- Talking about politics, many issues out there on which we disagree and
clash about.
-> IOs are there to solve these issues.
Case: data manipulation within the World Bank
- Mrs. Kristalina Georgieva landed in the middle of a accusation, rightly after
she moved to the International Monetary Fund.
-> a report from a US law firm that Georgieva has actively manipulated
data in Doing Business Report during her term as CEO at World Bank.
- The IMF Board expressed confidence in Mrs Georgieva’s leadership as
report ‘did not conclusively demonstrate’ that she acted improperly
- The Doing Business Report was a very important index published by the
World Bank.
-> every year it ranked all countries in the world on basis on how well the
economy and the legal system were for businesses around the world to do
business.
- For countries this is a very important ranking because it shows how good
countries have reformed their economies and have become attractive
markets for business
-> drops in the rank are highly sensitive and are often strongly disputed by
countries who have lost position on the rank
-> Doing Business Index is powerful at influencing the decisions of
countries leading benchmark in the world, countries attract foreign
direct investments (FDI) with good ranking
- China was concerned about rank (first 85)
-> Georgieva has overseen the recalculating of a number of these indices
(Hongkong as part of China? Taiwan part of China? Some methodological
changes)
, - China’s perspective
-> high positions or improvements in DB make a country more attractive
to foreign investors (FDI)
-> economic growth gives a country more power in management WB and
IMF
-> prestige for state leaders: a drop as in China’s case would come down
very harsh, vice versa (legitimacy of Communist Party)
- World Bank’s perspective
-> sensitive negotiations over capital increase campaign (2017-2018).
-> concerns about China’s reduction of its commitments to the Bank
-> China was apprehensive about re-calculation of ownership shares in
light of increased financial commitments
-> for CEO Kristalina Georgieva China’s reduction would endanger
multilateralism
- What can we learn from this case?
-> importance of international organizations
-> power of information and data
-> politics of global governance
-> administrative politics within international organizations
-> bureaucratic autonomy of international organizations
-> role of leadership at international organizations
-> staff and civil servant influence on decision-making
-> accountability at the global level
-> organizational culture within international bureaucracies
Traditional perspectives on international organizations
Realism
- States are primary actors in the international system
- States are rational, self-interested actors
-> states act to protect their own interests
-> seek to maximize their own power and security (military, economic,
etc.)
- International organizations exist by the virtue of the states, they allow the
organizations to wield power.
-> there are actually controlled by the most powerful states (hegemony)
-> the power of an IOs is as large as states allow an IO to wield it.
-> all the bigger IOs were mostly controlled by the US (most economic and
military powerful) see UN Security Council
-> now changing: Global South, Asian Tigers, Latin-America upcoming
- Anarchy: absence of international authority
-> international rules and norms do not restrain states because there is no
world government, court of police that can enforce them on states
-> the “billiard balls” model: billiard table, where states are the balls that
clash with each other.
- International competition rather than cooperation
-> “it is a jungle out there”, “survival of the fittest”
- International organizations are the instruments of (the most powerful)
states
-> IGOs have no authority of their own
-> IGOs have no independent effect on world politics
, - International law and organizations are weak and ineffective
-> international agreements are not enforceable
-> there are international law, but no world police or world court that can
demand binding effect of those laws.
- NGOs have no power at all on the international level
- Transnational networks do not count as they lack ‘actorness’
-> have no self-interests
-> no organizational body or leadership for deciding on action
Liberalism
- Reaction to the realist perspective liberal intergovernmentalism.
- States are important, but they are not the only actors in the international
system
- State action is not only based on self-interest, but also on moral and
ethical principles.
-> states care about peace, social progress and justice.
-> working on treaties, establishing international organs, etc.
- International cooperation is possible
- International cooperation will grow over time
-> interdependence leads to cooperation leads to international peace and
justice.
- International organizations are arenas where states interact and cooperate
to solve common transboundary problems have dialogue.
- International organizations contribute to maintaining peace and order
- Power still matters, but is exercised within the framework of international
rules and institutions international law matters
- ‘Soft power’ (power of deliberations, of negotiations) more important than
‘hard power’ (power of economic and military dominance)
- NGOs and other forms of global governance play significant roles
Application to the case
, Public administration perspectives
- Existing perspectives on global governance have a blind spot for the role
of international civil servants and administrations in global policy making
- The process and outcomes of global politics cannot fully be understood by
looking only at the cooperative and competitive behaviours of national
states
- International bureaucracies have the resources, the technical expertise,
and their own interests to make a significant mark on public policymaking
in the global realm
- In contrast to:
-> realism: international organizations are not just extensions and
instruments of (powerful) states, but are serious and distinct actors in
global governance
-> liberalism: international organizations are not just sites or arenas where
states interact, but are actors with their own preferences. Liberalism pays
specific attention to assemblies and councils of IGOs, whereas PA focuses
also on secretariats
- Key elements of the perspective:
-> international organizations are key actors in the international system
-> international organizations have autonomy from member states
-> even if international organizations are created by states, they act in
way unintended and unanticipated by states autonomy.
-> international organizations are actors with their own goals
-> the processes and structures of international organizations is important
for how they act and behave in international politics and policy-making
- Example: World Bank Doing Business Index is not just there as an
instrument that other national states have given to the World Bank, but
they developed it themselves.
-> to measure international economic relations, as an internal tool.
- A typical intergovernmental organization:
