Week 1: Lecture 1- Types, functions and policy-making of IOs
Gutner – Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction
IOs are actors in world politics
o Work in international issue area that states cannot easily address individually
“problems without passports”
IO’s mandates expanded over time
o Struggle to balance the many tasks and goals: have to adapt to changing global
context
IO’s criticized: critics believe IOs cause & enhance problems that they are expected to solve.
Understanding IOs
Is tied to global governance
o International actors should interact when addressing global problems that cannot be
solved by one actor alone.
Definitions of global governance:
1. Collective management of common problems at international level
2. Sum of laws, norms, policies and institutions that define, constitute and mediate
relations among citizens, society, markets and the state in the international area.
Avant, Finnemore and Sell argue that global governors should be specified.
o Governors are:
- IOs
- States
- Corporations
- Advocacy groups etc.
Who is involved in a dynamic political process, where power is exercised
across borders.
o Understanding the character of the relationship between governors and governed is
important when understanding global politics.
What is an IO?
An IO is in general: “a formal organization with members from 3 or more states that pursues
specific set of goals”.
o There are two main categories of IOs:
1. Intergovernmental organization (IGO)
Ex.: UN, NATO
2. International NGO
Ex.: Amnesty International and WWF.
Most important difference: members of traditional NGOs do not represent
states’ governments.
3. Hybrid organizations: A mix of the two former also exists.
Ex.: International Labour Organizations
Important distinction: International institution vs international organizations:
, o In book Gutner these terms are used synonymously, but in scholarly language they
are differentiated:
1. Institutions: Defined as broader sets of rules and norms that help govern world
politics
2. Organizations: Help implement those rules.
Brief history and evolution
Modern IO emerged in the mid 19th century
o In context of Napoleonic wars, Franco-Prussian war, Crimean war
Diplomacy by conference was established in the 19th century is a precursor (came before) to
modern IO, followed by the development of international law (ex. Congress of Vienna)
Both precursors to modern IO.
Concert of Europe: Great Powers meet to collaborate on issues of concern
Seen as prototype to UNSC.
Led to norms about multilateral diplomacy and negotiation
Aftermath WW1: IOs and NGOs are born to create a more peaceful world
o Ex: League of Nations (precursor to UN)
Today’s powerful IOs were born after WW2:
o Ex: UN, World Bank, IMF, GATT (now WTO) and ECSC (now EU).
Number of IOs has grown dramatically
o 260 “conventional” IOs
o 8.500 NGOs
Range of IO goals & why states create IOs
IO goals range from very narrow to very broad.
o Regional organizations come in all shapes and sizes from very large (ex. EU) to small
(ex. Asian and Pacific Coconut Community)
States create IOs to pursue a variety of common interests and serve a variety of functions
(that states cannot achieve individually).
o An IO is: a forum where states meet to accomplish goals, by bringing together
experts.
IOs coordinate global responses and the global rules, they monitor + enforce
actors’ compliance with the rules.
More about IOs
IOs provide states the ability to coordinate actions by pooling resources to accomplish
certain goals
States delegate power and authority to IOs (to carry out states’ interest)
o However, states are not keen to loose sovereignty
o States are attracted to IOs for strategic values (another way to pursue foreign policy
objectives):
Ikenberry argues:
States which won past major wars created international institutions
to “lock-in” their victory, creating a favourable post-war order.
o Important for realists and neo-realists in international politics
IOs have important symbolic value for states
, o States join IOs to show they are in favour of the IO goals (even if pursuing policies
that clash)
o Domestic political reasons make IO membership attractive to states
States use IOs as scapegoats
o For difficult policy decisions
UN often blamed by states for its interaction (to overcome decisions made by
powerful MS).
States created IOs to adjudicate disputes
o Ex.: ICJ
o Ex.: International law organizations which try individuals for war crimes vs humanity
(in form of tribunals)
States created IOs to pool sovereignty
o Ex: EU
ECJ can override member state law and create new law
ECB manages monetary policy of MS
Gutner – Chapter 2: The evolution of IO theory
Scholars study organizations from different disciplines.
o Interested in:
Why they exist
How they are designed
What influence they have
Why they succeed or fail
Why and how they change
Whether they are legitimate
1930s-1970s
o Scholarship appeared in:
1. Diplomatic history
2. International law
Inspired by Wilsonian idealism
Studies were descriptive (rather than theoretical)
o In 1940s and 1950s: IR took shape in post WW2 world
Changes sparked many new studies examining institutions
Difference with today’s literature
o Today’s literature Is explicitly social scientific and theoretical in nature
Less descriptive and policy oriented
o Behaviourism in the 60s (dominant approach in American political science) further
developed this tendency.
o In Europe: integration theory was an active strand of IO research interested in how
political processes of integration helped shape actors, interests and strategies.
Integration processes have unintended effects, which reinforce the process:
“spill-over”.
Optimisms about “spill-over” was replaced by “spillback” when
President De Gaulle opposed supra-nationality and demanded veto
power.
1970s-1990s: Realism, neorealism
o Less attention to formal IOs because gaps between major international issues and
activities of IOs appeared.
, Ex.: Vietnam War, 1973 oil crisis.
o Scholar now interested in how international institutional structures were designed
Not so much how formal organizations interacted with power politics and
capabilities.
o This resulted in: analysing regimes
Regimes are broad rules, norms and principles, which help shape
international politics
Criticism
o Susan Strange:
- Concept of regimes is “woolly”.
- Existing global structures reflect the US’ position as the hegemon.
- Example vs regime analysis: international security regime is not something
based on the UN Charter but on “the balance of power between
superpowers”.
Realists/Neo-realists
- View state as main unit of analysis in a world characterized by anarchy
- Assume states seek power in order to ensure survival
- Cooperation between states may exist, is however constrained by larger
issues of competition for security and power
- Anarchic structure of the international system is the defining feature: impacts
shaping state behaviour:
Domestic politics becomes unimportant
- IOs functions to be marginal and therefore unimportant
However, scholars attempt to show that IOs matter
Flavours of institutionalism
Neoliberal institutionalism
o In mid 80s movement to move away from pessimistic realist argument
o Keohane: functional theory of regimes.
- Regimes and IOs have a variety of functions which enable states to cooperate
Vs Realist view: IOs constrain state behaviour.
Keohane’s theory became known as neoliberal
institutionalism.
o There is a) neoliberal institutionalism, b) rationalist choice institutionalism, c)
sociological and historical institutionalism
o All share the view that institutions matter and influence politics, economics
and society.
o All differ in how they matter.
Rational choice institutionalism
- Three types:
1. New institutional economics:
a. Studies factors that influence organizational behaviour
2. Agency theory:
a. From economic field: based on assumption -> performance
problems within firms natural arise when one actor (principal)
delegates to another actor (agent) the authority to act in the
formers interest.
Different interests are inherently present
3. Public choice theory:
Gutner – Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction
IOs are actors in world politics
o Work in international issue area that states cannot easily address individually
“problems without passports”
IO’s mandates expanded over time
o Struggle to balance the many tasks and goals: have to adapt to changing global
context
IO’s criticized: critics believe IOs cause & enhance problems that they are expected to solve.
Understanding IOs
Is tied to global governance
o International actors should interact when addressing global problems that cannot be
solved by one actor alone.
Definitions of global governance:
1. Collective management of common problems at international level
2. Sum of laws, norms, policies and institutions that define, constitute and mediate
relations among citizens, society, markets and the state in the international area.
Avant, Finnemore and Sell argue that global governors should be specified.
o Governors are:
- IOs
- States
- Corporations
- Advocacy groups etc.
Who is involved in a dynamic political process, where power is exercised
across borders.
o Understanding the character of the relationship between governors and governed is
important when understanding global politics.
What is an IO?
An IO is in general: “a formal organization with members from 3 or more states that pursues
specific set of goals”.
o There are two main categories of IOs:
1. Intergovernmental organization (IGO)
Ex.: UN, NATO
2. International NGO
Ex.: Amnesty International and WWF.
Most important difference: members of traditional NGOs do not represent
states’ governments.
3. Hybrid organizations: A mix of the two former also exists.
Ex.: International Labour Organizations
Important distinction: International institution vs international organizations:
, o In book Gutner these terms are used synonymously, but in scholarly language they
are differentiated:
1. Institutions: Defined as broader sets of rules and norms that help govern world
politics
2. Organizations: Help implement those rules.
Brief history and evolution
Modern IO emerged in the mid 19th century
o In context of Napoleonic wars, Franco-Prussian war, Crimean war
Diplomacy by conference was established in the 19th century is a precursor (came before) to
modern IO, followed by the development of international law (ex. Congress of Vienna)
Both precursors to modern IO.
Concert of Europe: Great Powers meet to collaborate on issues of concern
Seen as prototype to UNSC.
Led to norms about multilateral diplomacy and negotiation
Aftermath WW1: IOs and NGOs are born to create a more peaceful world
o Ex: League of Nations (precursor to UN)
Today’s powerful IOs were born after WW2:
o Ex: UN, World Bank, IMF, GATT (now WTO) and ECSC (now EU).
Number of IOs has grown dramatically
o 260 “conventional” IOs
o 8.500 NGOs
Range of IO goals & why states create IOs
IO goals range from very narrow to very broad.
o Regional organizations come in all shapes and sizes from very large (ex. EU) to small
(ex. Asian and Pacific Coconut Community)
States create IOs to pursue a variety of common interests and serve a variety of functions
(that states cannot achieve individually).
o An IO is: a forum where states meet to accomplish goals, by bringing together
experts.
IOs coordinate global responses and the global rules, they monitor + enforce
actors’ compliance with the rules.
More about IOs
IOs provide states the ability to coordinate actions by pooling resources to accomplish
certain goals
States delegate power and authority to IOs (to carry out states’ interest)
o However, states are not keen to loose sovereignty
o States are attracted to IOs for strategic values (another way to pursue foreign policy
objectives):
Ikenberry argues:
States which won past major wars created international institutions
to “lock-in” their victory, creating a favourable post-war order.
o Important for realists and neo-realists in international politics
IOs have important symbolic value for states
, o States join IOs to show they are in favour of the IO goals (even if pursuing policies
that clash)
o Domestic political reasons make IO membership attractive to states
States use IOs as scapegoats
o For difficult policy decisions
UN often blamed by states for its interaction (to overcome decisions made by
powerful MS).
States created IOs to adjudicate disputes
o Ex.: ICJ
o Ex.: International law organizations which try individuals for war crimes vs humanity
(in form of tribunals)
States created IOs to pool sovereignty
o Ex: EU
ECJ can override member state law and create new law
ECB manages monetary policy of MS
Gutner – Chapter 2: The evolution of IO theory
Scholars study organizations from different disciplines.
o Interested in:
Why they exist
How they are designed
What influence they have
Why they succeed or fail
Why and how they change
Whether they are legitimate
1930s-1970s
o Scholarship appeared in:
1. Diplomatic history
2. International law
Inspired by Wilsonian idealism
Studies were descriptive (rather than theoretical)
o In 1940s and 1950s: IR took shape in post WW2 world
Changes sparked many new studies examining institutions
Difference with today’s literature
o Today’s literature Is explicitly social scientific and theoretical in nature
Less descriptive and policy oriented
o Behaviourism in the 60s (dominant approach in American political science) further
developed this tendency.
o In Europe: integration theory was an active strand of IO research interested in how
political processes of integration helped shape actors, interests and strategies.
Integration processes have unintended effects, which reinforce the process:
“spill-over”.
Optimisms about “spill-over” was replaced by “spillback” when
President De Gaulle opposed supra-nationality and demanded veto
power.
1970s-1990s: Realism, neorealism
o Less attention to formal IOs because gaps between major international issues and
activities of IOs appeared.
, Ex.: Vietnam War, 1973 oil crisis.
o Scholar now interested in how international institutional structures were designed
Not so much how formal organizations interacted with power politics and
capabilities.
o This resulted in: analysing regimes
Regimes are broad rules, norms and principles, which help shape
international politics
Criticism
o Susan Strange:
- Concept of regimes is “woolly”.
- Existing global structures reflect the US’ position as the hegemon.
- Example vs regime analysis: international security regime is not something
based on the UN Charter but on “the balance of power between
superpowers”.
Realists/Neo-realists
- View state as main unit of analysis in a world characterized by anarchy
- Assume states seek power in order to ensure survival
- Cooperation between states may exist, is however constrained by larger
issues of competition for security and power
- Anarchic structure of the international system is the defining feature: impacts
shaping state behaviour:
Domestic politics becomes unimportant
- IOs functions to be marginal and therefore unimportant
However, scholars attempt to show that IOs matter
Flavours of institutionalism
Neoliberal institutionalism
o In mid 80s movement to move away from pessimistic realist argument
o Keohane: functional theory of regimes.
- Regimes and IOs have a variety of functions which enable states to cooperate
Vs Realist view: IOs constrain state behaviour.
Keohane’s theory became known as neoliberal
institutionalism.
o There is a) neoliberal institutionalism, b) rationalist choice institutionalism, c)
sociological and historical institutionalism
o All share the view that institutions matter and influence politics, economics
and society.
o All differ in how they matter.
Rational choice institutionalism
- Three types:
1. New institutional economics:
a. Studies factors that influence organizational behaviour
2. Agency theory:
a. From economic field: based on assumption -> performance
problems within firms natural arise when one actor (principal)
delegates to another actor (agent) the authority to act in the
formers interest.
Different interests are inherently present
3. Public choice theory:
