Advertisement

Organizational reform and the rise of trust funds: Lessons from the World Bank

Abstract

Over the past two decades, earmarked funding to international development organizations through special-purpose trust funds has increased greatly. This paper studies the incentives for trust funds from the perspective of multilateral agencies, notably the World Bank. A theoretically intriguing type of funds are so-called “pass-on funds,” in which one unit hosts the fund, then passes on its resources to another type of unit for implementation. Each unit has different preferences for the specific types of activities to be supported by the fund. Interviews with World Bank staff and complementary documents demonstrate the rationale for pass-on funds and the associated division of labor between fundraising network units and implementing regional units. While pass-on funds reflect an efficient division of labor between functionally specialized units, they increase the misalignment between sector-specific global priorities and country-specific needs. Organizational reform drove the sudden explosion of pass-on funds around the millennium turn, facilitated by growing availability of donor monies for specific sectors and by lenient internal regulation. Organizational reform undermined budget autonomy of sector units, causing those units to seek new funds in their areas of expertise. A number of reform features also reduced administrative budgets of country units, increasing their demand for pass-on funding grants. The results contribute to the emerging literature on earmarked funding and highlight the need to consider international organizations as heterogeneous actors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Web Appendix is available on the Review of International Organizations’ website.

  2. 2.

    See http://mptf.undp.org/overview/funds (accessed August 15, 2016).

  3. 3.

    Despite some overlap, the terms are not interchangeable. All current global funds are pass-on funds, but not all pass-on funds are global (but sometimes regional). Moreover, my definition of pass-on funds also excludes financial intermediary funds because the pass-on logic does not apply to the Bank but across international organizations.

  4. 4.

    For a disaggregated presentation of host-user relations at the level of individual units, see Web Appendix B3.

  5. 5.

    Note that Fig. 2 only refers to IBRD/IDA trust funds, trust funds administered by the World Bank that benefit its own programs. For introductions to World Bank trust funds, see World Bank (2013a2013b).

  6. 6.

    Technically speaking, the International Development Association (IDA), also created in 1960, was the first trust fund. However, because of its broad mandate and its nearly universal membership, IDA is not considered a trust fund in the common sense of funding earmarked for special purposes.

  7. 7.

    I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the idea of functional differentiation.

  8. 8.

    The case may be different for preference divergence on recipient countries. Such divergence may lead to more country-specific funds. Note however that a minority of trust funds have a prespecified target country.

  9. 9.

    An anonymized list of all 80 interviews is available from the author upon request.

  10. 10.

    Trust funds for global public goods reach new beneficiary countries because these countries often have no need for development assistance on national public goods, but they supply global public goods most efficiently (see also, Bagchi, Castro, and Michaelowa 2016).

  11. 11.

    Interview with Social Development Specialist (August 24, 2014).

  12. 12.

    Sometimes units may still accept pass-on funds for poorly aligned research studies because some (not all) SMU staff get prestige and psychic benefits from getting published. The testable empirical implication would be that these staff members should be less sensitive to misalignment.

  13. 13.

    Interview with Operations Officer from a Central Unit (August 12, 2013).

  14. 14.

    Interview with Trust Fund Coordinator (August 14, 2013).

  15. 15.

    In reality, however, CMU staff may still have lower transaction costs from dealing with pass-on fund staff than external donor staff. I thank Stephen Knack for highlighting this point.

  16. 16.

    Co-benefits are reflected in the Bank-executed funding items within pass-on trust funds and are quite significant (own calculations, based on World Bank 2013c).

  17. 17.

    I am grateful to Stephen Knack for mentioning these three issues.

  18. 18.

    Interview with Trust Fund Coordinator from a network unit (July 23, 2013).

  19. 19.

    Interview with Senior Operations Officer (August 28, 2013).

  20. 20.

    Interviews with Trust Fund Manager (July 26, 2013), Coordinator (July 26, 2013), and Senior Program Coordinator (August 19, 2013).

  21. 21.

    Interview with Program Officer (August 9, 2013).

  22. 22.

    Interview with Operations Officer (July 30, 2013).

  23. 23.

    Interview with Trust Fund Coordinator (August 23, 2013).

  24. 24.

    Interview with Social Development Specialist (August 24, 2014).

  25. 25.

    Interview with Trust Fund Coordinator from a regional unit (August 2, 2013).

  26. 26.

    For EU aid through trust funds, see also, Michaelowa et al. (2016).

  27. 27.

    The similarity of the pass-on funding context at the United Nations indeed is striking. In its inter-agency pooled funds, donor contributions are not a priori earmarked for a specific implementing agency, and decisions on program allocations are made by an administrator, usually the United Nations Development Program, “taking into account the programmatic purpose and results framework of the fund” (UNDG 2015: 4). Implementing agencies face an incentive to obtain additional resources, even at the risk that proposed activities do not match country priorities.

References

  1. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1), 3–32.

  2. Bagchi, C., Castro, P., & Michaelowa, K. (2016). Donor accountability reconsidered: Aid allocation in the age of global public goods. Presented at Swiss Political Science Conference, Basel, January 28–29.

  3. Barakat, S., Rzeszut, K., & Martin, N. (2012). What is the track record of multi-donor trust funds in improving aid effectiveness. DFID and EPPI-Centre, University of London.

  4. Barnett, M., & Coleman, L. (2005). Designing police: Interpol and the study of change in international organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 49(4), 593–620.

  5. Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53(4), 699–732.

  6. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  7. Bauer, M. W., & Ege, J. (2016). Bureaucratic autonomy of international organizations’ secretariats. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 1019–1037.

  8. Bayer, P., Marcoux, C., & Urpelainen, J. (2014). Choosing international organizations: When do states and the World Bank collaborate on environmental projects?. Review of International Organizations, 9(4), 413–440.

  9. Bayram, B., & Graham, E. (2016). Financing Global Governance: Explaining Donor Funding Patterns at International Organizations, Drexel University, mimeo.

  10. Brechin, S. R., & Ness, G. D. (2013). Looking back at the gap: international organizations as organizations twenty-five years later. Journal of International Organizations Studies, 4, 14–39.

  11. Breton, A., & Wintrobe, R. (1982). Logic of Bureaucratic Conduct: An Economic Analysis of Competition, Exchange, and Efficiency in Private and Public Organization. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  12. Brown, R. L. (2010). Measuring delegation. Review of International Organizations, 5(2), 141–175.

  13. Browne, S., & Weiss, T. G. (2014). The future UN development agenda: contrasting visions, contrasting operations. Third World Quarterly, 35(7), 1326–1340.

  14. Bryner, G. C. (1987). Bureaucratic discretion. New York: Pergamon Press.

  15. Caughey, D., Chatfield, S., & Cohon, A. (2009). Defining, mapping, and measuring bureaucratic autonomy, Presented at Midwest Political Science Conference, April 2-5.

  16. Conceição-Heldt, E. (2013). Do agents “run amok”? A comparison of agency slack in the EU and US trade policy in the Doha Round. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 15(1), 21–36.

  17. Cortell, A. P., & Peterson, S. (2006). Delegation and Agency in International Organizations In Hawkins, D., & et al. (Eds.), Dutiful agents, rogue actors, or both? Staffing, voting rules, and slack in the WHO and WTO. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  18. Danaher, K. (Ed.) (1994). 50 years is enough: the case against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. New York: South End Press.

  19. Dijkstra, H. (2015). Shadow bureaucracies and the unilateral control of international secretariats: Insights from UN peacekeeping. Review of International Organizations, 10(1), 23–41.

  20. Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.

  21. Dunleavy, P. (1991). Bureaucracy, democracy and public choice. Hemel Hemsted: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

  22. Eichenauer, V., & Hug, S. (2015). The politics of special purpose trust funds, Paper presented at the PEIO Conference, February 12-14, Berlin.

  23. Eichenauer, V., & Reinsberg, B. (2017). What determines earmarked funding to international development organizations? Evidence from the new multi-bi aid data. Review of International Organizations, doi: 10.1007/s11558-017-9267-2.

  24. Elsig, M. (2011). Principal–agent theory and the World Trade Organization: Complex agency and ‘missing delegation’. European Journal of International Relations, 17(3), 495–517.

  25. Fiorina, M. P., & Noll, R. G. (1979). Majority rule models and legislative elections. The Journal of Politics, 41(04), 1081–1104.

  26. Frey, B. S. (1984). The public choice view of international political economy. International Organization, 38(1), 199–223.

  27. Gehring, T. (2009). Die Autonomie Internationaler Organisationen. Lehren aus der systemtheoretischen Organisationstheorie. In Dingwerth, K. et al. (Eds.) Die Organisierte Welt. Internationale Beziehungen und Organisationsforschung (pp 60–95).

  28. Goetz, K. H., & Patz, R. (2016). Pressured budgets and the European Commission: towards a more centralized EU budget administration?. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 1038–1056.

  29. Graham, E. R. (2013). International organizations as collective agents: Fragmentation and the limits of principal control at the World Health Organization. European Journal of International Relations, 1, 1–25.

  30. Graham, E. R. (2015). Money and multilateralism: how funding rules constitute IO governance. International Theory, 7(1), 162–194.

  31. Graham, E. R. (2016). The institutional design of funding rules at international organizations: Explaining the transformation in financing the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations. doi:10.1177/1354066116648755.

  32. Haas, E. B. (1964). Beyond the Nation-state: Functionalism and International Organization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  33. Hawkins, D. G., & Jacoby, W. (2006) In Hawkins, D., & et al. (Eds.), How agents matter, (pp. 199–227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  34. Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (Eds.) (2006). Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  35. Heimans, J. (2004). Multiactor global funds: New tools to address urgent global problems, WIDER Research Paper No. 2004/47. Helsinki: World Institute for Development Economics Research.

  36. Honig, D. (2015). Navigating by Judgment: Organizational Structure, Autonomy, and Country Context in Delivering Foreign Aid, Presented at the Political Economy of International Organizations conference, Berlin, Feburary 12-14.

  37. IEG. (2011). Trust fund support for development: an evaluation of the World Bank’s trust fund portfolio, Independent Evaluation Group. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

  38. IEG. (2014). Learning and Results in World Bank Operations: How the Bank Learns – Evaluation 1. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

  39. Jolly, R. (2014). UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund): Global Governance that Works. London: Routledge.

  40. Johnson, T. (2014). Organizational progeny: Why governments are losing control over the proliferating structures of global governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  41. Johnson, T., & Urpelainen, J. (2014). International bureaucrats and the formation of intergovernmental organizations: institutional design discretion sweetens the pot. International Organization, 68(1), 177–209.

  42. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.

  43. Lake, D. A., & McCubbins, M. D. (2006). The logic of delegation to international organizations. In Delegation and agency in international organizations (pp. 341–368).

  44. Linn, J. F. (1998). Unfunded mandates: a difficult juggling act. In World Bank Staff Association Newsletter. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

  45. Lyne, M. M., Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2006). Who delegates? Alternative models of principals in development aid. In In Hawkins, D.G., Lake, D.A., Nielson, D.L., & Tierney, M.J. (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international organizations, (pp. 41–76): Cambridge University Press.

  46. Mahn, T. (2012). The financing of development cooperation at the United Nations: Why more means less. Bonn: DIE Briefing Paper 8/2012, German Development Institute.

  47. Michaelowa, A., & Michaelowa, K. (2011). Climate business for poverty reduction? The role of the World Bank. Review of International Organizations, 6(3-4), 259–286.

  48. Michaelowa, K., Reinsberg, B., & Schneider, C. (2016). Multi-bi aid in european development assistance: the role of capacity constraints and member state politics. Development Policy Review. doi:10.1111/dpr.12193.

  49. Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2003). Delegation to international organizations: Agency theory and World Bank environmental reform. International Organization, 57(2), 241–276.

  50. Niskanen, W. A. (1973). Bureaucracy – servant or master?: Lessons from America. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

  51. OECD. (2011). Multilateral aid report. organization for economic co-operation and development. Paris: DCD/DAC(2011)21/FINAL.

  52. Parízek, M. (2016). Control, soft information, and the politics of international organizations staffing. Review of International Organizations 10.1007/s11558-016-9252-1.

  53. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence approach. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

  54. PHRD (2012). PHRD Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2012. In The World Bank and Government of Japan. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

  55. Posner, E. (2009). Making rules for global finance: transatlantic regulatory cooperation at the turn of the millennium. International Organization, 63(4), 665–699.

  56. Reinalda, B., & Verbeek, B. (Eds.) (2004). Decision making within international organisations. London: Routledge.

  57. Reinsberg, B. (2016). The implications of multi-bi financing on multilateral agencies: The example of the World Bank. In Mahn, T., Negre, M., Klingebiel, S. (Eds.) The fragmentation of aid: concepts, measurements and implications for development cooperation (185–198). Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.

  58. Reinsberg, B., Michaelowa, K., & Eichenauer, V. (2015). The rise of multi-bi aid and the proliferation of trust funds. In Arvin, M., Lew, B. (Eds.) Handbook on the Economics of Foreign Aid. Northampton: Edward Elgar.

  59. Reinsberg, B., Michaelowa, K., & Knack, S. (2016). Which donors, Which funds? The Choice of Multilateral Funds by Bilateral Donors at the World Bank. International Organization (forthcoming).

  60. Smyth, S. (2011). Collective action for development finance. University of Pennsylvania. Journal of International Law, 32, 961–1054.

  61. Sridhar, D., & Woods, N. (2013). Trojan multilateralism: global cooperation in health. Global Policy, 4(4), 325–335.

  62. Stoiljkovic, N., & Hansen, K. (2014). Breaking Down Barriers to Sharing Knowledge. Published on Voices, http://blogs.worldbank.org/voices (Accessed July 30, 2016).

  63. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

  64. Thibodeau, J. (1996). The World Bank’s procurement myth. Washington D.C.: Cato Institute.

  65. Trondal, J. (2012). On bureaucratic centre formation in government institutions: lessons from the European Commission. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(3), 425–446.

  66. Trondal, J. (2013). International bureaucracies: organizational structure and behavioural implications. In Reinalda, B. (Ed.) Routledge handbook of international organization. London: Routledge.

  67. UN (2012). Analysis of funding of operational activities for development of the United Nations system for the year 2010. Report of the Secretary General. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York.

  68. UNDG (2015). UNDG Guidance on Establishing, Managing and Closing Multi-Donor Trust Funds. Available at https://undg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/MDTF-Guidance-Final-version-UNDG-approved-26.10.15.docx (Accessed August 18, 2016).

  69. Vaubel, R. (1986). A public choice approach to international organization. Public Choice, 51(1), 39–57.

  70. Vaubel, R. (2006). Principal-agent problems in international organizations. Review of International Organizations, 1(2), 125–138.

  71. Vaubel, R., Dreher, A., & Soylu, U. (2007). Staff growth in international organizations: A principal-agent problem? An empirical analysis. Public Choice, 133 (3-4), 275–295.

  72. Wapenhans, W. (1992). Effective implementation: Key to development impact: Report of the World Bank’s portfolio management task force. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

  73. Weaver, C. (2007). The World’s Bank and the bank’s world. Global Governance, 13(4), 493–512.

  74. Weaver, C. (2008). Hypocrisy trap: The World Bank and the poverty of reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  75. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.

  76. World Bank (2001). Assessment of the Strategic Compact. Available at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/09/04/000012009_20030904134425/Rendered/PDF/265180Scode0901of0Strategic0Compact.pdf (Accessed January 10, 2015).

  77. World Bank. (2005a). 2004 Trust fund annual report. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2005/01/5678607/world-bank-group-2004-trust-funds-annual-report-year-ended-june-30-2004 (Accessed November 1, 2015).

  78. World Bank (2005b). The World Bank’s Budget: Trends and Recommendations for FY06. In Strategy and Resource Management Vice Presidency. May 25. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

  79. World Bank (2007). The World Bank’s Budget: Trends and Recommendations. In Concessional Finance and Partnerships Vice Presidency. May 16. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

  80. World Bank (2012). The Matrix System at Work: An Evaluation of the World Bank’s Organizational Effectiveness. doi:10.1596/9780821397152_App-A (accessed August 4, 2016).

  81. World Bank (2013a). 2012 Trust Fund annual report. Concessional finance and partnerships vice presidency. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

  82. World Bank (2013b). 2013 Trust fund annual report. Concessional finance and partnerships Vice Presidency. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

  83. World Bank (2013c). Trust fund databases: Disbursements. In Concessional Finance and Partnerships Vice Presidency. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

  84. World Bank (2013d). Trust fund databases: Main trustees. In Concessional Finance and Partnerships Vice Presidency. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Bernhard Reinsberg.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(ZIP 343 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reinsberg, B. Organizational reform and the rise of trust funds: Lessons from the World Bank. Rev Int Organ 12, 199–226 (2017) doi:10.1007/s11558-017-9268-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Trust funds
  • Multilateral agencies
  • Bureaucratic politics
  • Collective agents

JEL Classification

  • D73
  • F13
  • O19