Signature Assignment: Measure the Global Role of Public Administration

ResourcesforAssignment8.docx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Signature Assignment: Measure the Global Role of Public Administration

Ljungholm, D. P. (2017). Global policy mechanisms, intergovernmental power politics, and democratic decision-making modes of transnational...

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/202231/viewContent/1854112/View?ou=202231

Abstract

Translate

There is an increasing body of scholarship investigating the propagation of diverse types of transnational governance congruent in a global business context and the expansion of supranational agencies and the effect of bureaucratic concerns on collaborative behavior within transnational administrative networks. This paper builds upon and further advances current research on the rise of transnational policy-making mechanisms and administrative routines, the institutional interests of public sector entities and arrangements in the development and alteration of entities of transnational governance, and the significance of bureaucratic politics for the formal architecture of supranational agencies and intergovernmental structures.

Keywords: transnational governance; public sector organization; bureaucracy

1.Introduction

Organizations are progressively required to effectively play a part in influencing the rules of society. Normative legitimacy demands the arguments why social rules, entities, or structures (Ionescu, 2016a) may be grasped as justifiable. Empirical legitimacy examines the adoption of a governing instrument by participants. Normative legitimacy focuses on the legitimacy determinants (Fisher, 2015) in advancing and perhaps putting into effect such instruments. Adoption in empirical legitimacy may be associated with normative determinants that are proposed in philosophical or political con- victions may impact empirical legitimacy ones. The concept of normative legitimacy within transnational governance is instrumental in global management. Entities within the field of transnational governance may have no legally binding (Popescu Ljungholm, 2015a) or carrying out power resembling those of governmental rule, influencing the manners of doing business either via deliberate self-binding procedures or by creating external demands on participants within their realm of influence. (Hahn and Weidtmann, 2016)

2.The Rise of Transnational Policy-making Mechanisms and Administrative Routines

Transnational administrative networks (Nica et al., 2016) in the European Union (EU) and beyond focus on transboundary policy issues and further the operation of the internal market of the EU. Functional interpretations which highlight the urgency for transnational harmonization fail to identify the function of bureaucratic politics in influencing cross-level interplays. Transnational agencies arise in a congested setting comprising diverse entities all addressing their own particular concerns, which may impact the politics of institutional design. The emergent internationalization of markets and the connection between policy matters necessitate shared policies and institutional agreements to circumvent adverse externalities and regulatory ambiguities. Domestic regulatory authorities face various political choices, institutional legacies, administrative practices, market structures (Popescu, 2016), and business cultures. To undertake such difficult tasks, several kinds of sectorspecific supervisory regimes (Popescu Ljungholm, 2015b) have been set up for integrating guidelines and procedures, and for establishing multilevel regulatory partnership. National agencies' institutional concerns may be jeopardized by harmonization in the EU multilevel setting (Kunnanatt, 2016), as supranational agencies and networks may assume responsibility for undertakings at the national level. (Bach et al., 2016)

There has been an explosion of administrative routines and mechanisms of policy-making (Bratu, 2016) and policy delivery (Nica, 2015) beyond but frequently covering established nation state policy processes. Novel formal and informal entities and participants are behind such policy processes, many a time in partnership with national public administrations. Transnational Administration (TA) designates the systematization, management and carrying out of public nature global policies by both private and public participants functioning beyond the frontiers and jurisdictions of the state (Brown, 2016), but generally in regions beneath the worldwide level. A progressively relevant locus of policy power (Buchely, 2016), decision-making mechanisms and carrying out authority functions on top of the state, being accomplished by large-scale policy participants. (Stone and Ladi, 2015)

In the novel kinds of governance/modes of regulation established by diverse networks of state and non-state participants, prerogative to govern does not belong completely to states but is held by an array of participants at distinct levels. Networking is an effective force via which participants may influence their subsequent future (Williams et al., 2016) and governance results. Power develops from, and requires, connections. A participant's relational position influences her power and assists in strategically configuring her actions. The novel power politics deals with preserving, advancing, and influencing connections (Friedman and Hertz, 2016) and with working through the latter to impact governance results. The governance of transnational matters is the outcome of power politics and not of its turning into ineffective teamwork. (Avant and Westerwinter, 2016)

3.The Effect of Bureaucratic Concerns on Collaborative Behavior within Transnational Administrative Networks

The complexity of the policy mechanisms of large-scale governance indicates that there is a coherent constraint to connect domestic notions of public administration to developing above-the-state policy mechanisms. The social, economic and political priorities that go beyond national frontiers are predictable elements of any assessment of worldwide politics: these have thoroughly reshaped the strength of state officials (Mihăilă, 2016) to perform autonomously. The relocation of policy notions between states, global entities and supranational ones is an essential component of multi-layered worldwide governance. Whereas policy transfer focuses on the mechanism by which schemes are transferred between jurisdictions (Nica, 2016), transgovernmentalism is interested in groups of government participants performing concertedly in non-state-based structures to advance shared reactions to transnational matters. Harmonizing both the policy transfer (Nica et al., 2016) and transgovernmental fabrics may assist in surmounting the domestic and global artifice. The presence and undertakings of self-governing public officials advancing policy away (Howe, 2015) from public examination in novel worldwide governance realms raises intricate issues of rightfulness and responsibility. (Legrand, 2015)

Bureaucratic entities are spurred by the aim to establish or preserve their particular standing, which is an essential starting place of power (Hurd, 2016) and which fundamentally ensures organizational durability. Reputational assessments of national agencies greatly shape their predisposition to partner. A measure of the strength of the EU as a worldwide standard setter (Popescu, 2016) is the enactment of global agreements that correspond with its governance approach on environmental and trade matters. The option of transnational participants to join forces results in the international regularization of products and services, in addition to economic and social adjustments. The decision of regulatory participants to rival with each other causes a segmentation of the world in a series of groups in which national jurisdictions carry out one of several criteria established by hegemonic worldwide regulators via regional integration mechanisms and multilateral (Popescu Ljungholm, 2016) and bilateral agreements and entities. Administrative power endeavors are frequent throughout all the institutional instances of EU supervisory networked governance. (Bach et al., 2016)

The novel power politics represents the handling of connections that enable participants to shape their future and propensities via shared mobilization. Transnational steering may be brought about by a broad diversity of participants (Popescu Ljungholm, 2015b), encompassing but not restricted to states. A situation of absolute disorder, disconcerted and rudimentary (Hurd, 2016), may be typified by a lack of governance. The latter is more or less adequate. Effectiveness implies the level to which shared steering or administration is present (Peters, 2015a), either in a system of political practice or in a particular matter area. Contrasting a situation that is thoroughly uncontrolled, in situations of inadequate governance guidelines or criteria may exist (Friedman and Hertz, 2016) but not be pursued and result in misled requirements and little shared order. (Avant and Westerwinter, 2016)

4.The Institutional Interests of Public Sector Entities and Arrangements in the Development and Alteration of Entities of Transnational Governance

The key participants of worldwide policy mechanisms and transnational administration (Howe, 2015) may be distinct from the domestic level (Kets de Vries, 2015), or they may have established expanded power beyond the state. The carrying out of large-scale policies is of certain theoretical and empirical concern, as it is not only the degree of decision-making and putting into practice (Nica, 2016) that may differ but also the geographical realm. Choices are frequently made at the worldwide level by an alliance of public, private and non-governmental participants (Leubolt, 2015) and carrying out happens at the transnational level by a diversity of participants. Transnational administrative roles generally take place in places out of reach from the offices of global entities. Theoretical agendas from domestic and EU public policy and administration may be adjusted and implemented in large-scale and transnational dynamics. (Stone and Ladi, 2015)

European network structures shape national administrative arrangements and participants, enabling them in connection with their formal structures (Ionescu, 2016b), strength and self-government. Regulatory agencies strive for their own concerns throughout all levels (Mihăilă, 2016) of transnational governance. National regulatory agencies require accomplishing self- determination and rightfulness within their domestic institutional (Lăzăroiu, 2015) and political setting. Regulatory governance entities created and enforced within the EU (Peters, 2015b) may be embraced and thus authorized by other non-EU participants. The EU may serve as a justifiable participant and as an archetypal power (Hurd, 2016) only if it can exhibit externally its strength of adequately administering its internal market (Popescu Ljungholm, 2015b) and environmental and societal matters. Bureaucratic participants aim to join forces cooperatively only if the transfer of their expertise to a superior degree of administration does not jeopardize their self-determination, standing, or rightfulness. (Bach et al., 2016)

As requirements develop clearer, mechanisms for determining distributional divergences are identified, and some degree of collective order is discernible, the performance of the governance situation advances. Remarkably operational are situations in which requirements are unequivocal (Borbone, 2016) and the capacity for shared undertaking is far-reaching. The operations a participant takes impact the assignment about to happen, that participant's connections, and subsequent likelihoods to influence governance processes. Various undertakings, bringing into play distinct sources of power, may be instrumental for subsequent likelihoods. Both the active components of networking (Devine, 2015) and the network characteristics at any precise moment impact governance. Shared ordering is not irreproachable regarding power, but the novel power politics entails more kinds of participants with diverse bases of power. (Avant and Westerwinter, 2016)

5.Conclusions

Being deficient in normative rightfulness of transnational governance, entities and their advancement processes may confine the impact of such institutions (Popescu Ljungholm, 2016) if they are not recognized as justifiable modes of governance (Benedikter, 2016) by those who are concerned. If the novel criteria or comparable endeavors of transnational governance are unsuccessful in establishing their validity, they may be particularly friable and prone to close examination, for example, by political and civil society participants. The issue of democratic legitimacy is more acute when scrutinizing the diverse actors shaping transnational governance further than the individual state. The procedures of exchanging information and decision making (Tulloch, 2016) within the advancement process in addition to the unambiguousness of the process as an activating component of responsibility are as the leading aspects of throughput legitimacy. Democratic legitimacy in deliberative processes (Peters, 2016) is accomplished via transparent communication contingent on nondiscriminatory rights of involvement. (Hahn and Weidtmann, 2016)

Sidebar

How to cite: Popescu Ljungholm, Doina (2017). "Global Policy Mechanisms, Inter-governmental Power Politics, and Democratic Decision-Making Modes of Transnational Public Administration," Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 9(2): 199-205.

Received 30 July 2017 Received in revised form 5 September 2017

Accepted 26 September 2017 Available online 16 October 2017

____________________________________________________________________________________

Rammata, M. (2017). Public administration and global governance: From national to international competency frameworks. Management Research.

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/202231/viewContent/1854113/View

Abstract

Translate

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

This paper analyzes the architecture of global governance by highlighting the fundamental role of public administrations when acting globally as well as the need to invest in the performance of public administrations when acting for international purposes. Adaptation of national administrations to International standards as a result of the globalization, entails State administrations becoming embedded in several kinds of international decision-making processes. Is highlighted the fundamental role of public administration in promoting the "International Administrative Space" and in improving the contributions of all administrations for global purposes. Decisions of International Organizations (IO) gain universal application and in this context of global architecture, public administrations are enforced to adjust their structures, procedures and human resources. The growing international activity of public administrations demands a capacity to manage the specific competencies required for this mission while using the methodology proposed by the Organizational structure theory and the Human Resources (HR) theories. For the maximization of results, an "International Capacity Model" is suggested for those public administrations that share the ambition to actively contribute to global governance.

__________________________________________________________________________

Full Text

Translate

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Headnote

Abstract

Keywords: Global governance, public administration, administrative capacity, global administrative space, competency framework, human resources

1.INTRODUCTION

The ongoing increase in the level of internationalization of public administration missions has brought into sharp relief the need to develop a more in-depth understanding of the international functioning of public administration and of the role of "international" human resource management. At the same time, public administrations need to encapsulate reforms in a broad scope of fields such as: professionalism, leadership, demographic changes, skills shortage, people rotation, job sharing, promotion freeze, flexible working practices, devolvement of human resources practices, inclusion of ICT, etc. (Shim, 2001). Recent trends and dynamics of the public sector interfering in global management, as well as developments in the equilibrium between public (internal) and international organizations have given an impetus in the nature and study of public administrations and have spread a new overview of the national competencies and accomplishments needed to become a trailblazer in the international sphere. All the above, become more concrete, if we think of the high number of International Organizations that have an active role worldwide : 332 international intergovernmental organizations - i.e., formal organizations set up by more than two governments - out of which, 69 are global, in that they have at least one member state from each of the five continents! The work of those organizations is overall formed by the International executives acting as permanent staff of the lOs, by National executives that participate in temporary meetings of the institutions and third parties (socioeconomic partners, NGOs, etc.) that are attributed with an important role in the decision making process legitimizing the whole process by their intervention.

This paper is developed in three sections; in the first, there is an introductory analysis concerning the necessity for public administrations to actively take part in the global administration as it is organized by the global governmental organizations and where the question of legitimacy of international organizations to undertake decisions with universal application is highlighted. In the second section, is described the context of international institutional architecture (regional, international and global organizations, as well as EU, international meetings, Congresses, etc.) and how it enforces public administrations to adjust their structures and human resources towards it. In the third, an analysis concentrates on the administrative activity of public administration at a national and international level to conclude that the growing international activity of public administrations demands a capacity to manage the specific competencies required for this mission.

2.The context of international missions of public administrations

Public administrations globally face the same problems and challenges from fighting environmental pollution, cutback management, terrorism and telecommunications issues, to enhancing the delivery of high quality public products and services for all end users. The best access to these issues is associated with a holistic and effective methodology that will certify that the efforts of the one State will not be hindered, but sustained, by the efforts of some other. Decisions that affect the everyday life of citizens are carried many miles away from home through joint decision making that aims to discover novel approaches to the above mentioned persistent and controversial problems. For all these subjects, international organizations have managed to gain legitimacy to pass and adopt decisions in fields where by definition only states have the supreme legitimacy to undertake initiatives. As it is stated by Newland C. (2010) "Today, the grave message of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences (IIAS) is that current challenges require disavowal of unilateralism and separationist doctrines of Nation-States' sovereignty in favor of shared transnational professional expertise on a planetary level". This traditional national power, escapes from national authorities and is transferred, to institutions of international, global or regional, organizations, such as the European Union (EU), the NAFTA, etc., which are, becoming, responsible to make decisions even though the origins of their democratic legitimacy is still being questioned.

Indeed, scholars and Academics criticize this indirect power and legitimacy of IOs to act on behalf of member states for their own purposes. As it is quoted by Koppell : "To some, the emerging network of institutions responsible for global governance suffers from a "democratic deficit" (Koppell, 2007). Indeed, Koppell and other Academics (i.e.: Archibugi H. -K., 1999, Scharpf, F., 1999, in : Koppell) claim that IOs are deprived of the necessary political authority traditionally attributed to a national democratically elected government that is only indirectly represented in lOs mostly by its designated bureaucratic agents. The IO's intergovernmental representatives acting on behalf of their governments struggle to adopt just decisions that will gain democratic approval through the institutional framework that they form and will be accountable by broadening the global partners and by applying deliberative procedures in all stages of decision making process (Bexel, M., Tallberg, J., Uhlin, A., 2010).

For sectorial policies, through the respective IOs, identical sectorial policies are applied almost uniformly to member States (e.g. the World health organization attempts to improve and harmonize the national regulation to access and control of sunbeds and ultraviolet radiation, given that research evidence has shown that it is associated with the increased number of health consequences, etc.). The above mentioned supplementary work that is added to the traditional rule-oriented role of administrative Weberian state (Hood and Lodge, 2004), creates burdens for administrations with striking disparities, and tests their degree of rigidity, responsiveness, bureaucracy and professionalism.

The international institutional framework is perceived thus, as a driving force that incites administrations to position themselves towards international challenges (regional and global) and to initiate for this cause a national discussion and research in order to elaborate, develop and finally approve their contribution that will be officially presented abroad. At the same time, the private sector in each state is encouraged to develop a more in depth analysis and to "lobby" for the promotion of its sectorial interests that could be represented abroad. As only giant socio-economic partners can be organized enough to have a say in the international arena, national NGOs and other partners try to influence the course of action of IO's at national level by organizing an open national dialogue and by trying to reinforce the participative aspect of decision making. In that way, an international (public) policy is generated, while authority is deprived by its pure national character and becomes "more informal and privatized" (Stone and Ladi, 2015). It can be argued that, the more the private sector, as well as other non public and profit organizations, interfere in the decision making process at an international organization, the more the decisions get legitimacy to direct the actions of member states. Nevertheless, this broad participation of private actors that can interfere in the decision making process is creating itself a deficit in the whole procedure as only "Big" super power states have an organized private sector capable to enable the international networking and to influence the course of action at an international level (koppell 2008). "If the most influential nations do grant a Global Governmental Organization authority, the less powerful face a stark choice" (Koppell 2008) when they face penalties if they do not obey to the rules made out of the work of IOs. P.e. "A nation out-of-compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization requirements for international air traffic, for example, would be effectively inaccessible to the world (including tourists and investors)".

3.The context of international institutional architecture and the active part of public administrations

Adaptation of national administrations to International standards as a result of the globalization entails State administrations becoming embedded in several kinds of international decision-making processes. This function of public administrations is demonstrated in various forms of the internationalization process such as:

Regional, international or global organizations: International organizations incite national representatives to work for global purposes in parallel with traditional national missions. Global organizations coexist with the fragmented presence of regional organizations and end by setting up, all together, the normative frame for various important areas that interest global and national governance. In areas where States are unable to act effectively independent from one another, the reinforcement of capacity building derives from regional or international cooperation that sets the pace for an organized approach to common challenges. Organizations such as the OECD Public Governance Committee (PGC), the European Union (seen as a sui generis form of international organization), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations, etc., have a significant impact on public administrations. States through this participation strive for balancing the various "Information Obligations" or other administrative burdens that derive from their membership to these enclaves. Even if these institutions appear as a response to the uneven distribution of power and resources globally (regional institutions that emerge in Asia around China, Brazil or India) in a way to demonstrate the need to reform the international order and/or to challenge the hegemonic role of big and strong states, and/or to better organize a collective response to common international or regional problems (e.g. environmental, health, terrorism, etc.) and/or even solving conflicts around the world, it still remains an important mission for member States to better honor their membership, to reset their role and to review this vertical interdependence in a more effective way. Some of the tools for enhancing administrative cooperation and introducing reciprocal amendments are: official documents such as meeting minutes, previous resolutions, concept papers that are circulated and discussed in various meetings, white papers in the case of the EU, etc..

Especially when it comes to consider regional organisations the EU is an example of elaborating European law at a medium hierarchical level that will thoroughly influence national procedures and will try out the elasticity of national administrations. Europeanisation develops a governance system in which national executives authorize European structures to undertake initiatives and generate European law that will deeply affect the course of national policies for the next years, if not decades to come (Ladrech, R., 1994, Rammata M. 2000). This fact results by the unanimously accepted transfer of national sovereignty to EU institutions that is regained through national delegations that are expected to actively participate in the European administrative process.

Specific consequences of the Europeanisation process are:

* The structural adjustments of public administrations seen as the highest level of influence by EU institutions (Matei and Matei, 2008). As a result, national administrations adjust their institutions, programmes, policies and people (3P's), in order to better follow the development of EU law and be administratively capable to implement it appropriately. At the same time, adjustments undergo the interest groups and other forms of consultative groups who have to reset their role, organize their network and a multiple national dialogue for the global agenda set by the IOs.

* Other soft influences concerning the human resources factor, through the development of an emulation procedure where civil servants need to contribute to the generation of EU policies by their intensive interaction with other national delegations (James, 1971).

International Congresses: During these meetings, administrative authorities, executives, experts and national counselors interact together in a more informal way. This pluralistic framework cultivates a culture of constructive dialogue on various issues, promotes research, illuminates possible paths for common understanding and disseminates actions towards a commonly accepted direction upon mutual challenges. The deliberations in this case do not result in a reinforced legislative corpus, but only prepare the ground for future agreements on similar issues. The positive side of this way of interacting is that delegations speak up more freely regarding common problems and prepare the ground for more official meetings in other instances.

When it comes to exploring and understanding the "more mature" stages of internationalization of public administration, three dimensional-processes take place:

Top-down: The international - (semi) ordered organizational structure influences the national, decentralized, regional and local administrations, leading thus to administrative global convergence. In fact, to be able to conduct an active share in global governance, public administrations had to adjust their institutions, policies, internal administrative procedures, human resources and working methodologies (Matei and Matei, 2008). Various tools are set out to promote the creation of a Global Administrative Space and a Global Administrative Culture such as the promotion of specific guides, rules and regulations adopted in the member states of IOs. The mere submission to the same administrative values by different states and the expanded participation in a dynamic procedure where administrative change is inevitable and innovative measures are indispensable, prepares the ground for an identical administrative osmosis in member states. Furthermore, organizations, such as the OECD or the World Bank, analyze and submit best practices, administrative tools that could lead to excellence in the performance of public administrations. Some of these recommendations include:

* Promotion of innovative new working methods, tools and prioritization criteria.

* Creation of accessible databases for the exchange of good practices - Comparative data and analysis.

* Benchmarking assessment tools that gain horizontal legitimacy.

* Introduction of "Toolboxes for public administration practitioners of the EU" (European Union, 2015).

* Promotion of common measurements and standards (e.g. International Labor Standards, etc.)

* Adoption of common action plans, etc..

* Preparatory reports for the submission of an official statement,

* Adoption of commonly accepted principles and norms that are, in most cases, applied identically in European states where the European Administrative space is already being formed (Ziller, 1993).

* Facilitation of transparency and peer review on strategic performance (Halachmi, 2002), administrative burdens.

* Regulatory reform, etc..

Among some of the most common objectives of OSCE member states and in the field of performance is the reforming of state by implementing the propositions included in the Al Gore report (Gore, 1993) to follow the example of a postmodern new public management reform that will generate: increased performance, accountability, better use of resources and tangible results to "reinvent a government" that works better and costs less.

At the same time, international sectorial policies set the targets in many brand new arenas in which a national State would not be efficient or it would not be advisable to legislate independently (aerospace, fighting international crime, etc.).

During this cognitive and normative procedure, States undergo the impact of international organizations that generate institutional values and norms which will be applied at their national framework. In this capacity, international enclaves create the propitious conditions for the regeneration of the forthcoming national policies.

Bottom-up: In that way the administration of international organizations acquires characteristics from all each counterpart national tradition and practices. States with a recognized efficient public administration and a strong influence are the ones that set the agendas and prioritize the fields in which action will be considered at a global level, giving serious consideration to the fields that interest their national perspective more. Smaller States with lower administrative capacity (often dubbed as "failed", "fragile" or "weak") abide by the rules and obey to the guidelines and norms set by the "Leading States" while preparing themselves for an active (at least) participation during international meetings. Overall, national administrations have a pertinent and complex influence upon the international organization's decision process as being important parts of all the decisional levels and involved in all the steps of the policy cycle.

A very important factor that increases the level of influence is when a specific State handles the Presidency of the organization and sets or can influence the working methodology applied to the elaboration-implementation of policies.

Horizontal: Administrations and forms of governance are converging, in order to harmoniously apply the same guidelines in the context of the respective international organization. The coexistence of national delegations, along with representatives from other corners of the world creates a new framework of decision making (Mayrhofer, W., Brewster, C., 1996, referring to the Perlmutter approach, 1969) in which multilateral negotiations and within them, the intercultural issues, play a key role. Further on, common understanding and reconciliation are very important and one State should bear this in mind while taking share in the multinational dialogue. As a result, it becomes obvious that the human factor turns to an important facilitator for administering global problems and without it, even the best prepared administrations would not arrive at the desired results. For the conduct of this multi dialogue, not only officials, politicians and civil servants, but also International Civil Servants (United Nations, 1994) of the respective organization, NGO representatives, stakeholders, social partners, lobby organizations are gathered together in regular reunions, in an integrated deliberative procedure that aims to produce the appropriate regulations in a specific area.

The working methodology includes both formal, informal contacts, strategies of coalition and networking outside the formally established organizational structures (with various lobbies, NGOs, etc.) that may take place even for more than a year until the final regulation is adopted. This decision making form is somewhat new for some administrations that have to learn to be efficient in a more participative way of the decision process.

In fact, when traditional public administration deals with international meetings, it has to be familiar with a novel mode of administrative action and to pass from abiding to formal modes of political steering -government approval documents, instructions and other strategies coupled to the system of accountability-, to the shape of an administrative action that comprises mostly informal meetings, negotiations at a medium hierarchical level, systematic coordination and approval methodologies with political authorities as well as communication's program to inform the public for all these actions. As it is stated by Mathiason (2007): "Leaders in international organizations have a limited ability to give orders and must rely instead on their ability to convince governments and civil society actors to follow their guidance".

This double operation of public administrations, for the goals of regional or international government bodies, as well as for national causes, turns over a fresh impulse to the missions of national administrative activities that encompass their traditionally limited role only to national purposes (Ktistaki, 2009). Even administrations that are not mature enough in terms of internationalization (or that cannot influence at a certain point the course of global affairs) have to rethink their active part in the never-ending challenges of global governance and embrace professionalism at all levels of activity.

How does the public administration react to those international assignments? How does it approach the top-down influence, the horizontal cooperation and the impact that it may have on the international procedures? Is it only the International Department of central or local administration that is affected or does the internationalization embrace the whole administration? To what extent do these International missions encumber administrations to an unprecedented scale?

4.Public administration's mission at the international level

National administrations have to perform the traditional national public governance and prepare themselves for an added extra work for administering the global public domain:

* The deep knowledge of all aspects of national guidance upon the negotiated issues abroad (technical, political, financial, diplomatic, etc.) that are usually complex, fragmented and dispersed to various subnational administrations. This prerequisite entails that national authorities will operate horizontally and will create the necessary procedures that permit the exchange of data, the interoperability, the incorporation of e-management techniques, and above all, the leadership that will show what is more important.

* The delivery of various parallel projects that demand the development of a coordinated set of activities, operations and processes that are designed to meet a pre-set objective. It comes as a great challenge for public administrations to exercise adequate control over the various assignments and to manage relationships among different levels of government that demand the appropriate alignment of resources and the exercise of accountability.

* Coordination capacity in terms of a multidimensional negotiation that usually engages representatives of national technical groups in the long run along with the politicians, executives, NGOs, stakeholders, etc. The official designated representatives have to prove to be effective in coordinating all representatives of units that share common competencies and assignments. At the same time, all the above mentioned important actors have to create a common accepted communication code that will permit them to pass important information from one level to the other. This is fundamental if we consider that all these different grades of personnel act on behalf of various layers of power and as such their differences are set apart.

* Appropriate preparation of human resources that play a pivotal role in demonstrating a solid national presence internationally: lack of human knowledge or operational methodology on international matters can be detrimental to the performance of delegations. States have to prepare their human capital for this demanding mission that will weigh high for their benefit. Moreover, for the human resources aspect, there has to be increased capacity for diversity management, negotiation and mediation skills at a multinational level in search for alignment with the positions of other partners coming from heterogeneous socio-cultural backgrounds.

* The transparency of the process: national representatives acting on behalf of the executive have full authorization to speak up and analyze the national positions. Nevertheless, it is shown that usually subjects evolve as the discussions progressively pass to issues that were not initially in the national agenda1 (Finnemore 1999). The way that control is exercised from the executive over the efficiency and effectiveness of the representatives within the working groups allows them to exceed their power. This might result in obligations being assumed that are not covered by the initial instructions and the whole result alters the indirect legitimacy of these resolutions. The output of the international work should be spread to the rest of the administrative environment and make the "Lessons learned" possible from this supranational working methodology that may lead to an institutional or legal adjustment.

As a result of all these challenges the question arises as to what would be the suggested concrete measures that state's administration would have to undertake in order to adequately fulfill their international duty and increase international performance. In that regard, each public administration has a concrete mission, to exploit inherent strengths and minimize potential weaknesses. The answer lies not only in relation to the institutions or the administrative procedures, but also in the qualified personnel of public administration that will be assigned to deal with the representation of the State's positions.

5.Managing competencies for a global public service

The international working environment has its own difficulties and challenges that are unique. As Mathiason (2007) explains: "Managing and working in an international secretariat is not like working in a national government or private business. The multinational culture, complex environment, and difficult tasks make international work a particular challenge. International organization managers cannot be judged by the same criteria used to appraise a CEO or a Prime Minister because the secretariats are not the same as other public organizations".

In this context, the Human Resources Management (HRM) represents one main strategic response to the challenges that are present in administering global governance (Pucik, 1997). Human resources are the most important components of good governance (Sparrow and Hiltrop, 1994) incarnating the standards and norms that one State puts forward applying the concept of the "model employer". Quality of global governance depends highly on the level and the quality of human resources dedicated to the international assignments (Shim, 2001). To that end, the Human Resources Departments have to reinvent their role in an attempt to sustain their credibility and build up their prestige in a rapidly changing world of work with a global dimension.

"The professionalization of public administration and especially of its human resources is one response to the challenge of globalization" as said by Farazmand, (1999) :

"Professionalization brings both institutional and moral and ethical standards to public service at the global level, exposing the fallacies of globalizing transnational elites while learning from their organizational and technical skills...A professionally sound public administration should be ready for future action".

Multinational interactions of public administrations create the perfect environment where agents are exposed and their administrative culture, responsiveness and capacity to present a solid and coordinated action is tested under the strictest standards set out by the most progressive public administrations in correlation with the ones set by the administration of the IO. If it has passed as normal, that big and recognized as powerful states get the stake of these international meetings, "smaller" or "weaker1 states should prepare themselves and try to present the best performance in each subject on the agenda.

In this context, and especially for those "smaller" states, the organizational chart, or the job analysis (Lawler, 1993) can serve only as a basis to be further evolved through the competencies. Job analysis provides an objective picture of the job, and as such, gives information to support all subsequent and related HR activities, such as recruitment, training, development, performance management and succession planning. When the human factor has to deal with complex issues such as cross-functional problems, uncertainty and ambiguity that characterize international working environments, the elaboration of competency frameworks is essential in order to increase capacity. As it is stated by Horton (2000) "The major difference between competency and traditional approaches to people management is that the former stresses inputs, including behavioral characteristics of staff, and the latter outputs and performance on the job". The competency based management and with that, the competency framework (CF) (European Union, 2015) for each job grade (group competencies) and for all staff (core competencies) of the public administration could be one complement to the more traditional aspects of personnel management and could increase public administration performance at an international level.

The international competency model (ICM) is a useful tool for improving the mediocre employees and for distinguishing good from bad employees, but moreover, it is a "guide" for the development and execution of an appropriate HR system of selection, development, performance management, management of career and planning employee succession jobs with an international dimension. The Model outlines an inventory of expected skills and behaviors that lead to excellence on the job, while it recognizes the core personnel requirements for the tasks of global organization and puts value to the international assignees that act for both internal and international missions (Hood and Lodge 2004). The competency framework must integrate the competencies that should be globally cultivated (Tim, 2017). As it is highlighted by Rodsutti, & Swierczek, (2002): "The ability to be effective in a multicultural environment is directly linked to the individual's level of cultural awareness". With the growing prevalence of multinational assignments (Morley and Heraty, 2004), there is a recognized need for information that can help improve leadership effectiveness (Rodsutti & Swierczek, 2002) as well as people's skills to participate in international activities fruitfully.

For the best preparation of public administrations for international assignments, some critical success factors are:

1) Definition of the Competency Model (CM) or International Competency Model (ICM) for public agents that are designated by the executive as formal national representatives. While the concept of "Global - expatriate-Manager" and its related competencies has been an object of analysis in the private sector for long term missions abroad (Baruch, 2002, and Dollwet, M., & Reichard, R. 2014), it has been underestimated for civil servants who temporarily work abroad and face similar challenges as the ones that face leaders of Multinational Companies (MNC).

The CM/ICM2 helps in building a pool of talents that can more effectively meet the public administration's strategic goals:

a) It promotes an organizational culture where there is a shared understanding of what effective performance means with regard to take part in international meetings as an official representative.

b) It provides a transparent focus for selection procedures and performance management processes. By both these tools the responsible HR agents in public administrations are elevating the importance of identifying the best selected by the Public administration to represent the country's interests who will afterwards be assessed for their performance by using the appropriate criteria.

c) It establishes clear and shared expectations required for each value and competency related to global missions as it provides a quick checklist of critical job qualities in which the international facet should be underlined.

d) It provides a baseline for evaluating performance of international civil servants.

e) It gives insights into the training needs of a position.

f) It is supposed to raise the performance of the personnel in use as long as it is crystal-clear for the jobholder what is expected of him/her and why.

In relation to the representatives of international and short-term assignments a clear set of competencies that are required should be developed in order for representatives to have the job well done and to be honored as national delegates. Some of these competencies that are explored should be:

* Deep technical knowledge of the subject in question.

* Flexibility.

* Intercultural awareness (Hofstede, 1980, 2001, 2002);

* Communication skills.

* Diplomatic skills.

* Negotiation skills.

* Mediation skills especially when the active role is being a President or the coordinator of meetings.

* Conflict resolution management.

* Cooperation and coordination skills.

For Matveev and Mitler the skills for international assignments that are underscored (Matveev, & Mitler, 2004) are: Cultural awareness, establishing rapport, effective communication and coordination, ensuring transparency and accountability, effective team development and selecting an appropriate conflict management strategy.

2) The formulation of a multidiscipline national delegation from all the relevant administrative units that will succeed in acting as one strong team. This assignment is one of the most significant, as fragmentation of the work of international administrations obliges to undertake the multidisciplinary factor as one of the most important in order to gain administrative effectiveness. These personnel will be dedicated to defending the designed policy and all its technical expertise will be very valuable for the work of international organizations without disregard for the significance of international organization's permanent staff.

3) The streamlining of a selection procedure for recruiting the best representatives from each sector of the administration that have the mastery of the project and merit the approval of political authorities. The implementation of an appropriate selection procedure for the recruitment of the personnel's "elite" (Androniceanu, 2014) should take into account the above mentioned competency framework and the ability of the dedicated personnel to tackle the complex tasks which administering global governance encompasses. These personnel, apart from the high-level technical skills, should conduct themselves at the highest personal and professional level and show commitment to the public values such as: common good, ethical behavior, impartiality, accountability, discretion, integrity and objectivity (Renninger, 1987).

4) The design and delivery of the appropriate training for national delegations in order to foster a solid team capable to support all national strategic aspects of the subject. The intricacies of international negotiations should put in value and be interpreted so as to lead the actions of the representatives. One other important aim of this training should be to upgrade the professionalism for global missions, cultivate objectivity, integrity, impartiality, tolerance for ambiguity and intercultural management. The trained staff should create a legacy for the rest of the administration when closing with the negotiations.

5) The continuity of the process and the elimination of the risk that stems from changing frequently the representatives "from reunion to reunion", as this practice would damage the continuity of the process and the formulation of a team spirit with colleagues from abroad.

Since most writers have distinguished the competency model for the leaders (Dalton, 2002), the international literature on the subject is limited to the models of higher civil servants that take part in those missions, whereas the success or failure of a public representation to these missions lies mostly in the work of the middle layers managers who will negotiate until late at night and prepare the details of reports to be adopted by the higher layers of hierarchy at a later stage.

Auluck and Levin (2009) refer to 13 competencies for international leaders in the public sector and those are :

1) Commitment to the principles of global public good.

2) Designing and delivering citizen-centered services.

3) Commitment to equality, inclusivity, diversity and the principles of empowerment.

4) Problem analysis and problem solving.

5) Commitment to sustainable development.

6) Managing crises and managing in crisis.

7) Institutional development and capacity building.

8) Collaborative working; cross-cultural co-operation.

9) Negotiation/listening skills/capacity to influence.

10) Cultural sensitivity.

11) Emotional intelligence/pragmatism.

12) Psycho-social stability.

13) Specific technical expertise.

In the light of the above analysis, there is an urgent need for public administrations to acquire a corps of professional public managers that will be equipped with skills adapted to the international administrative working environment. In an attempt to formulate an International Competency Framework for global managers and middle level representatives of member States, we could mention the following characteristics:

1) Deep knowledge and mastery on specific technical aspects of the subjects in the agenda.

2) High level project management skills and working with short time frames while respecting strict qualitative criteria.

3) Capability to interact and coordinate effectively with politicians blurring, thus, the division between politics and administration.

4) Ability to form, lead and take an active part in multinational networks and to cultivate openness of the administration itself. The practice of the intercultural management is a fundamental asset that should be on the top of all competencies for candidates.

5) Familiarization with earlier agreements and statements and in this way creation of an institutional memory of the topic with the relevant specialized staff.

6) Negotiation and mediation skills, specialized on international negotiations. Making a clear distinction about the intricacies of international compared to national negotiations and debates.

7) Conflict resolution skills so as to be capable to smoothly overcome any controversial matter that may affect the collegial work.

8) Decision making skills:

a) At a national level so as to be successfully transmitted to the international decision-making centers,

b) At an international level, where the questions are more complex and demand a thorough analysis that would be up to the expectations of all participants.

9) Be acquainted with flexible working methods that are more informal than the formal steering of the administration back home and have the capacity to continuously follow the procedures and submit reports on the developments while asking for approval and guidance.

10) Respect and apply ethical standards and professionalism that are embedded in an international working environment (inclusiveness, impartiality, loyalty, discretion, common good, etc.. See, e.g. The United Nations staff rules, 2014 ST/SGB/2014/1).

11) Manage diversity skills: coping with ambiguity, intercultural management, working effectively in a multinational team, etc..

If the above mentioned competencies are taken into account for the selection procedure of national representatives to the international negotiations there would be significant positive repercussions for, not only the national performance and the overall conduct of the international negotiations, but also the institutional memory and the continuity of the national performance would benefit as well. Empirical evidence proved that ad hoc representatives that do not have the authority or the expertise to represent an administration, result to poor performance when it comes to managing the overall technical and other detailed aspects of the project in question that only permanent civil servants have the deep knowledge and experience through time.

Raising professional standards for all civil servants and other representatives that handle international files whatever the subject might be is a very crucial point for all civil services that wish to upgrade their involvement in international subjects as well as to be more efficient when it comes to public expenditures on participating in international missions. To that extent there is a common goal for all public administrations to better work out ifferences and accommodate different perspectives.

https://www-tandfonline-com.proxy1.ncu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2016.1168982

Trondal, J. (2016). Advances to the study of international public administration. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 1097-1108.

Advances to the study of international public administration

Jarle Trondal

Pages 1097-1108 | Published online: 13 Apr 2016

Download citation https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1080/13501763.2016.1168982 CrossMark LogoCrossMark

In this article

ABSTRACT

Theorizing IPAs: beyond mapping

Looking ahead

Acknowledgements

Disclosure statement

Additional information

References

ABSTRACT

As an area of research, specifying crucial conditions under which international public administration (IPA) may enjoy independence from member-state governments has become an increasingly vibrant research area. This collection responds to three as yet unresolved research tasks: (1) systematically comparing IPAs by offering large-N data across cases; (2) taking organization seriously by identifying how the organizational architectures of IPAs affect decision-making processes and subsequently the pursuit of public policy-making; and (3) examining the varied consequences of the autonomization of IPAs, notably for member-state public sector governance and for the integration of transnational regulatory regimes.

KEY WORDS: Autonomyinternational public administrationorganization structuresocializationtemporal sorting

View issue table of contents

International bureaucracies constitute a distinct and increasingly important feature of both global governance studies and public administration scholarship. This collection offers one vital step in advancing these types of studies by offering a ‘public administration’ approach. This entails that the study of international governmental organizations (IGOs) become somehow ‘normalized’, i.e., that a public administration turn comes to characterize IGO studies (Trondal 2007). Recent studies have suggested that international public administration (IPA) profoundly influence global governance (Biermann and Siebenhüner 2009), transform power distributions across levels of government (Egeberg and Trondal 2009), and change the conduct of domestic public sector governance. Moreover, IPAs are called upon to cope with ever more wicked and unruly public problems. Turbulence in world politics is partly caused by turbulent political–administrative systems, partly by turbulent environments, and partly by how organizations and their environments poorly match – thus creating turbulence of scale. Together, these challenges produce complexity, uncertainty and time constraints for decision-makers. Turbulence of these kinds reveals the fragility of existing institutions and serves as test-beds for the sustainability of existing governance arrangements. IPAs may be seen as one coping mechanism in an ever more turbulent global scene (Ansell et al. forthcoming).

Yet, public administration scholarship has largely deserted the comparative study of IPAs, including its multilevel character (Benz et al. 2016). In this light, the current collection is particularly welcomed. Moreover, this lacuna reflects generic gulfs between most social science subdisciplines. For instance, despite vast scholarship on both (public sector) governance and organization theory respectively, these strands of research have been in mutual disregard. Moreover, the empirical foci of several social science subdisciplines often poorly intersect: for instance, whereas research on public sector organizations has largely focused on domestic ministerial departments and subordinate agencies (e.g., Verhoest et al. 2010), IGO scholarship has paid scant attention to their bureaucratic interior. Besides, European Union studies have primarily been preoccupied with studying the European Commission and subordinated regulatory agencies and largely neglected systematic comparative assessments (the N = 1 fallacy).

Modern governments daily formulate and execute policies with significant consequences for society. With the growing role of IPAs, one unresolved question is to what extent and under what conditions such institutions may formulate their own policies – and pursue a de facto autonomous regulatory agenda – and thereby transcend a mere intergovernmental secretarial role (Trondal et al. 2010). The leeway of IGOs is arguably to a large extent supplied by the autonomy of its bureaucratic arm; that is, by the ability of IPAs to act relatively independently of decision premises that emanate from member-state governments (Barnett and Finnemore 2004; Biermann and Siebenhüner 2009, 2013; Cox and Jacobson 1973). This collection illuminates that IPAs are indeed rule-makers and sometimes even rule-implementers. It is thus essential to know how autonomous IPAs are and how it can be explained. Scholars of various disciplines have started to explore the conditions under which IPAs are ‘truly’ independent of member-state governments, yet the findings remain inconclusive (e.g., Beyers 2010; Checkel 2007). IPAs are seen as rifted between member-state dominance, the concern for the collective good, administrative ‘siloization’ and portfolio concerns, as well as transnational regulatory institutions driven by epistemic communities of experts (Trondal et al. 2015). As a consequence, academics, politicians and IPA officials have different views on the independent role of IPAs. This collection indeed aims to connect some of the dots by offering new empirical findings.

Theorizing IPAs: beyond mapping

One necessary factor in building common political order is the establishment of common institutions, including a permanent congress independent of national governments serving the common interest (Skowronek 1982). In an international context it necessitates the rise of separate international institutions that are able to act relatively independently. IPAs might indeed be such institutions. Whilst the empirical puzzle is to what extent IPAs enjoy de facto independence, the ensuing theoretical puzzle is to specify conditions thereof (Bauer and Ege 2016). This collection offers advances to both puzzles. It is shown that the task of IPAs has become increasingly that of active and independent policy-making institutions and less that of passive technical supply instruments for IGO plenary assemblies.

The classical study of IGOs did not permit an independent role for IPAs (Knill and Bauer 2016). International-relations approaches viewed IGOs as epiphenomena to interstate relations. Regime literature similarly downplayed the organizational dimension of IGOs, and IGOs were largely seen as regime facilitators (Gehring 2003: 11). The seminal work of Cox and Jacobson (1973: 428) reflected this view by concluding that ‘international organizations facilitate the orderly management of intergovernmental relations without significantly changing the structure of power that governs these relations’. The 1960s and 1970s saw several studies of IGOs that treated them as hubs of international networks and regimes rather than as organizations and institutions in their own right. The epistemic community literature focused on IGOs as facilitators of transnational epistemic communities (Haas 1992). This literature made ‘experts’ and their ‘ways of doing things’ ever more paramount to studies of proposing, implementing and legitimizing public policy (Barnett and Finnemore 2004; Joerges et al. 1997: 7).

Concomitantly, beyond single-case studies of IPAs there was a surprising shortage of theoretically informed comparative studies of their inner life and their wider role in global governance (Claude 1956). Consequently, ‘to date, we do not really know how to conceptualize international organizations and how to deal with the organizational components’ of IPAs (Gehring 2003: 13). The research challenge targeted by this collection is to bring IPAs back into the study of global governance and the study of public administration (Eckhard and Ege 2016; Knill and Bauer 2016).

Assuming that IPAs ‘matter’ entails that we should take seriously how they are organized and how this may have consequences for decision-making processes and the subsequent pursuit of public policy-making. In the classical study of decision-making processes in organizations, organizations were seen as permitting stable expectations providing general stimuli and attention directors to actors (Olsen 2006). Yet, the way organizational structure shapes interaction, loyalty, co-operation, and information-processing are more adequately recognized in the organization theory literature than in most other social science literatures – for example the IGO literature (e.g., Cox and Jacobsen 1973), the governance literature, as well as broader political science literatures. This collection suggests that IPAs cannot be adequately understood without including organizational variables. Doing so implies bringing organizational structure and ways of organizing back into IGO studies. Organizational structure can be defined as role expectations with regard to who can and should do what, how and when. In this sense, the organization structure is a formalized, impersonal and normative structure that analytically separates structure from decision behaviour or process. The organizational structure of IPAs consists both of the structure of the administration and how this structure is embedded in the wider IGO structure.

An organizational theory approach assumes that IPAs may possess ‘own’ organizational capacities that automize the behaviour of own administrative staff. This may happen through mechanisms such as control (behavioural adaptation through hierarchical control and supervision), discipline (behavioural adaptation through incentive systems), and/or socialization (behavioural internalization through established bureaucratic cultures) (Page 1992). These mechanisms ensure that IPAs may perform their tasks relatively independently from outside pressure, but within boundaries set by the legal authority and (political) leadership of which they serve. Causal emphasis is put on the internal organizational structures of IPAs. This idea offers a picture of formal organizations as creators of ‘organizational man’ (Simon 1965) and as a stabilizing element in politics more broadly (Olsen 2010). IPAs may thus develop their own nuts and bolts quite independently of society, and concomitantly that international civil servants may act upon roles that are shaped by the IPA in which they are embedded.

How can we adequately and accurately capture autonomy? Auto nomos refers to the Ancient Greek city-state – implying some kind of self-governing. Contemporary understanding of this concept, however, varies and has been hotly debated. A working definition applied has been that ‘autonomy is about discretion, or the extent to which [an organization] can decide itself about matters that it considers important’ (Verhoest et al. 2010: 18–19). Whereas most literature on the independence of public sector organizations assesses autonomy by considering their de jure formal-legal design (e.g., Gilardi 2008; Huber and Shipan 2002), far less attention has been devoted to studying real-life autonomy of IPAs; for instance, through how IPA staff themselves perceive their autonomy (Maggetti and Verhoest 2014: 245; Trondal 2010: 147). Bauer and Ege (2016) capture autonomy by studying the capacity of the administration to develop autonomous preferences (‘autonomy of will’) and its ability to translate these preferences into action (‘autonomy of action’).

How, then, can we explain the autonomy of IPAs? This collection suggests that organizational factors may be useful. One rationale for emphasizing organizational factors is that ‘the evidence remains still quite inconclusive about the effects of formal structural–organizational factors on the autonomy of agencies’ and their employees’ autonomy perceptions (Maggetti and Verhoest 2014: 247). Organizational factors include organization structure, organizational location, organizational demography and organizational culture (Egeberg et al. 2016). This collection discusses two such variables: organizational structure and temporal sorting. This commentary would also add socialization dynamics to this discussion (see below).

Organizational structure

It is shown by this collection that the role of IPAs reflects, broadly speaking, how they are organized. Similar organizational structures may for example account for why administrative styles are rather similar across IPAs (Knill et al. 2016). Organizational capacities may also account for the strong role of Directorate-General{DG) Budget in European Union’s (EU’s) new budgetary procedure (Goetz and Patz 2016). Yet, proponents of an organizational theory approach (Egeberg et al. 2016) do not claim to provide a complete or comprehensive explanation of policy processes and policy contents. Rather, the argument is that organizational factors (independent variables) might intervene in actors’ behavioural perceptions (dependent variable) and create a systematic bias, thus making some process characteristics and outputs more likely than others (Gulick 1937; March and Olsen 1984; Simon 1965). Organizations provide frames for storing experiences, cognitive maps categorizing complex information, procedures for reducing transaction costs, regulative norms that add cues for appropriate behaviour, and physical boundaries and temporal rhythms that guide actors’ perceptions of relevance with respect to administrative behaviour. Organizations also discriminate between which conflicts should be attended to and which should be de-emphasized (Egeberg 2006). By organizing civil servants into permanent bureaucracies within IGOs, a system of ‘rule followers and role players’ is established relatively independently of the domestic branch of executive government (Barnett and Finnemore 2004; March and Olsen 1998: 952).

One can assume, for instance, that organizational affiliations would matter for the autonomy of IPAs. One initial proposition is that the supply of independent administrative capacities in IPAs represents a primary organizational structure for IPA staff, whereas their secondary structures consist of part-time (such as transnational networks) or past organizational memberships (such as previous employments). IPAs serve as the primary organizational affiliation for international civil servants, rendering them particularly sensitive to the organizational signals and selections provided by this structure. The autonomy perceptions evoked by officials may thus be expected to be primarily directed towards those administrative units that are the primary supplier of relevant decision premises. Because IPA officials spend most of their time and energy in subunits of their primary organizations, they may be expected to chiefly attend to concerns of IPA subunits and less towards IGO in their entireties (Ashforth and Johnson 2001: 36). Subsequently, IPA personnel are likely to orient their behaviour towards their present IPA units rather than to the concerns of member state governments. Administrative staff is thus expected to evoke ‘inward-looking’ behavioural patterns geared towards their ‘own’ subunits and task environments. We may expect that IPA officials evoke Weberian virtues of party-political neutrality, attaching identity towards their divisions and portfolios, and attending chiefly to administrative rules and proper procedures of their primary structure (Richards and Smith 2004).

A second assumption would be that the autonomy of IPAs is facilitated by how they are organizationally specialized. For example, administrative styles (see Knill et al. 2016) may vary systematically between organizational subunits – reflecting the departmentalization of IPAs. Organizations tend to accumulate conflicting organizational principles through horizontal and vertical specialization. When specializing formal organizations horizontally, one important principle (among several) is by major purpose served like research, health, food safety, etc. (Gulick 1937). This principle of specialization is recurrent inside IPAs. For example, the European Commission is a horizontally pillarized administration, specialized by purpose and with historically weak organizational capabilities for horizontal co-ordination at the top through administrative co-ordination and Presidential oversight. However, recent administrative reforms and enhanced presidential ambitions to ‘get the house in order’ have improved such capacities somewhat (e.g., Kassim et al. 2013). Similarly, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Devevelopment (OECD) secretariats are also specialized administrations consisting of divisions or directorates responsible for different areas of co-operation, such as agriculture, environment, development, statistics, etc. This principle of organization tends to activate administrative styles among incumbents following sectoral cleavages. For example, co-ordination and contact patterns tend to be channelled within sectoral portfolios rather than between them. Arguably, organization by ‘major purpose served’ is likely to bias decision-making dynamics inwards toward the bureaucratic organization where preferences, contact patterns, roles and loyalties are directed toward sectoral portfolios, divisions and units. This mode of horizontal specialization results in less than adequate horizontal co-ordination across departmental units and better co-ordination within units (Ansell 2004: 237). The horizontal specialization of IPAs by major purpose is thus conducive to their autonomization.

Temporal sorting

One often forgotten organizational variable in organization studies – as well as in the study of IPAs – is the temporal variable. This collection brings this variable back in (Goetz and Patz 2016). As amplified by the garbage-can approach, behaviour and change in organizations have a temporal dimension (Cohen et al. 1976). As with the garbage-can theory of organizations or the multiple streams approach to public policy, temporal complexity calls attention to the dynamic and sometimes paradoxical interaction of problems and solutions. The clash of timescales generates temporal complexity. A solution may lead a problem to change, cause new problems, or simply have trouble keeping up with the changing nature of problems. Temporal complexity should thus be one essential ingredient in our assessment of IPAs. For instance, polyrhythmic IPAs with several tempi would for example be considered more turbulent than IPAs geared towards only one tempo. Several rhythmic patterns may also concurrently coexist in a mutually competing – yet compatible – whole. When several rhythmic patterns are layered like this, the resulting temporal system inside IPAs may become complex and challenging, but at the same time unlocking possibilities for innovation and change that are embedded in each pattern. Temporal complexity should thus be one essential ingredient in our assessment of IPAs.

We may also consider that certain temporal patterns within organizations match more easily with certain temporal patterns in the environments. For example, polyrhythmic IPAs may relatively easily adapt to multiple and shifting rhythms in member states. Monorhythmic IPAs, by contrast, would face relatively more uncertainty and risk if faced with multirhythmic member states. Moreover, unsettled and weakly institutionalized IPAs with high temporal complexity might arguably adapt more easily to turbulent environments with high temporal complexity than settled and strongly institutionalized IPAs with low temporal complexity.

A second temporal variable is tempo, or speed. One might assume that with increased speed comes a tendency for repetition. During turbulent times when the tempo in IPAs increases, established governance practices might be subject to test. So, turbulence is likely to be inversely correlated with speed. High-speed governance processes are thus likely to experience a tendency to repeat past successes, or what is perceived as past successes (March 2010: 16). By repeating this way, IPAs may be victims of trained incapacity to improvize – merely owing to high speed of conduct. Taking the example of jazz as a temporally sorted activity, jazz musicians may play very fast tunes, with the likely consequence of repetition of patterns just ‘to keep the performance going’ (Weick 1998: 553). Slow-moving jazz, by contrast, would enable musicians’ larger leeway for embellishment of items. Thus, up-tempo decision-making within IPAs may reduce the likelihood of exploration or innovation. But it may also speak to the need for an enhanced diversity of governance repertoires.

Socialization dynamics

Supplementing the role of organizational structures and temporal sorting, governing IPAs may also be subject to socialization effects. A vast literature reveals that the impact of pre-socialization of actors is modified by organizational re-socialization (e.g., Checkel 2007). Arguably, IPAs with a high socialization potential would more effectively automize its staff compared to IPAs with weaker socialization potential. Officials entering IPAs for the first time are subject to an organizational ‘exposure effect’ (Johnston 2005: 1039) that may contribute to such re-socialization. Socialization is a dynamic process whereby staff is induced into the norms and rules of a given community. By this process, individuals may come to gradually internalize some shared norms and rules of the community (Checkel 2007). Socialization processes are conducive to ‘autonomization’ of the socialized, because the one socializing may educate, indoctrinate, teach, or diffuse his or her norms and ideas to the one being socialized. The socialization argument also claims that behavioural autonomy is conditioned by enduring experiences with institutions, accompanying perceptions of appropriate behaviour. The potential for socialization to occur is assumed positively related to the duration and the intensity of interaction amongst the organizational members. Chief to the neo-functionalist approach, the potential for re-socialization to occur (‘shift of loyalty toward a new center’) is assumed positively associated with the duration and the intensity of interaction among actors. Intensive in-group interaction is assumed conducive to the emergence of relative stabile social, normative, and strategic networks that provide autonomous impact on the participants’ perceptions of strategic and appropriate behaviour (Atkinson and Coleman 1992: 161). In sum, the length of stay in IPAs – or the individual seniority of incumbents – may foster socialization toward a supranational behavioural pattern. Concomitantly, behavioural and role autonomy is nurtured by the sheer quantity and quality of actor interaction inside IPAs.

Looking ahead

There has been a lack of three kinds of IPA studies which this issue responds to:

systematic comparative studies of IPAs by offering large-N data across cases;

studies that takes organization seriously analysing how the organizational architectures of IPAs may bias their everyday governance processes and subsequently the pursuit of public policy-making;

studies that examine the varied consequences of the autonomization of IPAs, notably for member-state public sector governance as well as for transnational regulatory regimes.

Departing from the latter challenge, one promising research avenue is what kind of consequences that may emanate from the autonomization of IPAs. Studies of the European Commission suggest that capacity-building inside IPAs enables them to build ever-closer administrative networks with other IPAs and to pool administrative resources among these into some kind of common administrative capacity. IPAs may, for instance, capture agendas of other actors – such as member-state government institutions. This may fuel the emergence of multilevel administrative structures which facilitate policy co-ordination across levels of authority (Benz et al. 2016). Studies suggest for instance that the rise of independent administrative capacities around the European Commission increase its ability to co-opt administrative subcentres by stealth – notably European Union agencies and domestic agencies. This enhanced ability to co-opt or capture, however, probably also reaches towards agencies within IGOs such as the WTO and the OECD – thus integrating and pooling global administrative resources. Moreover, studies suggest that compatible organizational structures among IPAs increase the likelihood of mutual integration among them. This is reflected in the development of direct links between Commission DGs and ‘their’ partner EU agencies and between Commission DGs and domestic agencies and their agency networks (Egeberg et al. 2016). Egeberg and Trondal (2009) show, for instance, that the Commission takes active part in the daily practising of EU legislation within domestic agencies, and thus that Commission DGs in practice partly co-opt domestic administrative resources. This example shows that the supply of administrative capacities inside IPAs may have profound consequences for emergence of integrated global governance infrastructure beyond direct member-state control. This collection contributes both to empirical examination of such infrastructures and inspires future research of these.

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges valuable comments from Michael W. Bauer, Stefan Gänzle, Johan P. Olsen and Jeremy Richardson.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributor

Jarle Trondal is professor of public administration at the University of Agder, Department of Political Science and Management, and professor of European studies at the University of Oslo, ARENA Centre for European Studies.

Additional information

Funding

This contribution is financially supported by the Norwegian Research Council (‘EURODIV: Integration and division: towards a segmented Europe’) and the University of Agder (‘COMPOL: the rise of common political order’).

View issue table of contents