Advertisement

The Review of International Organizations

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 519–546 | Cite as

Self-legitimation in the face of politicization: Why international organizations centralized public communication

  • Matthias Ecker-EhrhardtEmail author
Article

Abstract

International organizations (I0) have centralized their public communication to a large extent over recent decades by undertaking a broader codification of communication tasks as well as a departmentalization of these tasks within units of IO bureaucracies. The paper provides the first systematic analysis of this important development in institutional design using a novel data set on the organization of public communication in 48 IOs between 1950 and 2015. It identifies self-legitimation as a key driver of centralization in the face of increased levels of politicization, that is, public awareness and activism directed at IOs. Empirically, the study suggests that the centralization of public communication significantly increases as transnational civil society organizes and gains access to IO decision-making. Further, politicization in terms of contentious activism and public scandals substantially accounts for varying levels of centralization across IOs.

Keywords

International organization Institutional design Communication Politicization Legitimation Transnational civil society Non-state access Political protest Political scandal 

JEL Classification

C23 D73 D83 F53 M31 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research for this article was funded by the German Research Foundation (EC 323/1-2). Essential research assistance by Manuel Hofmann, Stefan Wiechmann, Florence Wild, Minna Ålander, Roisin Cronin and Laura Jung is gratefully acknowledged. I wish to give special thanks to the three anonymous reviewers, and Axel Dreher for detailed comments and recommendations.

Supplementary material

11558_2017_9287_MOESM1_ESM.do (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DO 16 kb)
11558_2017_9287_MOESM2_ESM.docx (74 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 74 kb)

References

  1. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1), 3–32.Google Scholar
  2. Aghi, M., & McKee, N. (2000). Involving people, evolving behaviour. Penang and New York: Southbound and United Nations Children's Fund.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.Google Scholar
  4. Alleyne, M. D. (2003). Global lies? : Propaganda, the UN, and world order. In Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Altides, C. (2009). Making EU politics public. How the EU institutions develop public communication. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  6. Altman, T., & Shore, C. (2014). Paradoxes of 'public diplomacy': Ethnographic perspectives on the European Union delegations in the antipodes. [article]. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 25(3), 337–356. doi: 10.1111/taja.12102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anheier, H. K., Glasius, M., & Kaldor, M. (2001). Global civil society 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. APEC. (2014). APEC Secretariat’s communications and public affairs strategic plan: 2014–2016. Singapore: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.Google Scholar
  9. Archibugi, D. (2008). The global commonwealth of citizens: Toward cosmopolitan democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Avant, D. D., Finnemore, M., & Sell, S. K. (2010). Who governs the globe? In D. D. Avant, M. Finnemore, & S. K. Sell (Eds.), Who Governs the Globe? (pp. 1–35). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world. International organizations in global politics. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bazbauers, A. R. (2014) The wolfensohn, wolfowitz, and zoellick presidencies: Revitalising the neoliberal agenda of the world bank. In Forum for Development Studies, (Vol. 41, pp. 91–114, Vol. 1): Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Beck, U. (2004). Der kosmopolitische Blick oder: Krieg ist Frieden. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt A.M.Google Scholar
  14. Bedford, K. (2009). Developing partnerships: Gender, sexuality, and the reformed world bank. Minneapolis and London: U of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bennett, W. L., Pickard, V. W., Iozzi, D. P., Schroeder, C. L., Lagos, T., & Caswell, C. E. (2004). Managing the public sphere: Journalistic construction of the great globalization debate. The Journal of Communication, 54(3), 437–455.Google Scholar
  16. Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 17–51.Google Scholar
  17. Biegoń, D. (2013). Specifying the arena of possibilities: Post-structuralist narrative analysis and the European Commission's legitimation strategies. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(2), 194–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2012.02310.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bob, C. (2012). The global right wing and the clash of world politics (Cambridge studies in contentious politics). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Boin, A., 't Hart, P., & McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: Political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81–106.Google Scholar
  20. Boomgaarden, H. G., Schuck, A. R. T., Elenbaas, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Mapping EU attitudes: Conceptual and empirical dimensions of Euroscepticism and EU support. European Union Politics, 12(2), 241–266. doi: 10.1177/1465116510395411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Braidwood, T. (2012). CLEAR-PLOT: Automating clarify & predicted values for chart generation. http://travisbraidwood.altervista.org/dataverse.html. Accessed 15 June 2017.
  22. Brändström, A., & Kuipers, S. (2003). From ‘normal incidents’ to political crises: Understanding the selective politicization of policy Failures1. Government and Opposition, 38(3), 279–305.Google Scholar
  23. Brüggemann, M. (2008). Europäische Öffentlichkeit durch Öffentlichkeitsarbeit? Die Informationspolitik der Europäischen Kommission (1ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  24. Brühl, T. (2010). Representing the people? NGOs in international negotiations. In J. Steffek & K. Hahn (Eds.), Evaluating transnational NGOs. Legitimacy, Acountability and representation (pp. 181–199). Houndsmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  25. Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405–437.Google Scholar
  26. Cameron, C. A., & Trivedi, P. K. (1998). Regression analysis of count data (Vol. 30, economic society monographs). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Cárdenas, E. J. (2000). UN financing: Some reflections. European Journal of International Law, 11(1), 67–75.Google Scholar
  28. Coldevin, G. (2001). Participatory communication and adult learning for rural development. Journal of International Communication, 7(2), 51–69.Google Scholar
  29. de Wilde, P. (2011). How politicisation affects european integration: Contesting the EU budget in the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland. Oslo: Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  30. Defourny, V. (2003). Public information in the UNESCO: Towards a strategic role. In K. Sriramesh & D. Vercic (Eds.), The global public relations handbook. Theory, research, and practice (pp. 425–440). Mahwah: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. della Porta, D. (2007). The global justice movement: Cross-national and transnational perspectives. Boulder: Paradigm.Google Scholar
  32. Dellmuth, L. M. (2016). The knowledge gap in world politics: Assessing the sources of citizen awareness of the United Nations security council. Review of International Studies, 42(4), 673–700. doi: 10.1017/S0260210515000467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dellmuth, L. M., & Tallberg, J. (2015). The social legitimacy of international organisations: Interest representation, institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations. Review of International Studies, 41(03), 451–475.Google Scholar
  34. Dimitrov, R. (2014). Bringing communication up to agency: UNESCO reforms its visibility. Public Relations Inquiry, 3(3), 293–318. doi: 10.1177/2046147x14544396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dingwerth, K., Lehmann, I., Reichel, E., Weise, T., & Witt, A. (2015). Many Pipers, Many Tunes? Die Legitimationskommunikation internationaler Organisationen in komplexen Umwelten. In E. d. Conceição-Heldt, M. Koch, & A. Liese (Eds.), Internationale organisationen: Autonomie, politisierung, interorganisationale beziehungen und wandel (1st ed., pp. 191–217). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  36. Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., & Hwang, H. (2006). Globalization and organization: World society and organizational change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). Cosmopolitan politicization: How perceptions of interdependence foster citizens' expectations in international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 18(3), 481–508.Google Scholar
  38. Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2014). Why parties politicise international institutions: On globalisation backlash and authority contestation. Review of International Political Economy, 21(6), 1275–1312.Google Scholar
  39. Falk, R. (1995). On humane governance. Toward a new global politics. The world order models project report of the global civilization initiative. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Florini, A. (Ed.). (2007). The right to know. Transparency for an open world. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Florini, A. M., & Simmons, P. J. (2000). What the world needs now? In A. M. Florini (Ed.), The third force: The rise of transnational civil society (pp. 1–15). Tokyo and Washington, DC: Japan Center for International Change and Carnegie En- dowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  42. Furia, P. A. (2005). Global citizenship, anyone? Cosmopolitanism, privilege and public opinion. Global Society, 19(4), 331–359.Google Scholar
  43. Gibson, J. (2008). The myth of the multitude: The endogenous demise of Alter-globalist politics. Global Society, 22(2), 253–275.Google Scholar
  44. Gilson, J. (2011). Structuring accountability: Civil society and the Asia-Europe meeting. In J. A. Scholte (Ed.), Building global democracy (pp. 206–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Grigorescu, A. (2007). Transparency of intergovernmental organizations: The roles of member states, international bureaucracies and nongovernmental organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 51(3), 625–648.Google Scholar
  46. Gronau, J. (2015). Die selbstlegitimation internationaler institutionen: G8 und G20 im vergleich (staatlichkeit im wandel, vol. band 24). Campus Verlag: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  47. Gronau, J., & Schmidtke, H. (2016). The quest for legitimacy in world politics–international institutions’ legitimation strategies. Review of International Studies, 42(03), 535–557.Google Scholar
  48. Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management (communication textbook series public relations). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  50. Hahn, K., & Holzscheiter, A. (2013). The ambivalence of advocacy: Representation and contestation in global NGO advocacy for child workers and sex workers. Global Society, 27(4), 497–520. doi: 10.1080/13600826.2013.823914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, culture and society, 7(2), 237–251.Google Scholar
  52. Held, D. (2002). Law of states, law of people: Three models of sovereignty. Legal Theory, 8(1), 1–44.Google Scholar
  53. Henderson, D. (1999). The MAI affair: A story and its lessons. London: Royal Institute for International Affairs.Google Scholar
  54. Heupel, M., Hirschmann, G., & Zürn, M. (2015). Internationale Organisationen und der Schutz der Menschenrechte. In E. d. Conceição-Heldt, M. Koch, & A. Liese (Eds.), Internationale Organisationen: Autonomie, Politisierung, interorganisationale Beziehungen und Wandel (1st ed., pp. 428–456). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.Google Scholar
  55. Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics. International Organization, 53(2), 379–408.Google Scholar
  56. Joachim, J. (2003). Framing issues and seizing opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and women's rights. International Studies Quarterly, 47(2), 247–274.Google Scholar
  57. Johnson, T. (2011). Guilt by association: The link between states' influence and the legitimacy of intergovernmental organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 6(1), 57–84.Google Scholar
  58. Jowett, G. S., & O'Donnell, V. (1992). Propaganda and Persuasion. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond Borders: Transnational advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.Google Scholar
  61. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Lehmann, I. A. (1999). Peacekeeping and public information: caught in the crossfire (Cass series on peacekeeping, Vol. 5). London and Portland: F. Cass.Google Scholar
  63. Lehmann, I. A. (2011). The political and cultural dynamics of united nations media scandals: from waldheim to annan. MEDIA@ LSE electronic working papers no. 22. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  64. L'Etang, J. (2009). Public relations and diplomacy in a globalized world: An issue of public communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 607–626. doi: 10.1177/0002764209347633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Liese, A. (2010). Explaining varying degrees of openness in the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO). In C. Jönsson, & J. Tallberg (Eds.), Transnational actors in global governance (pp. 88–109). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  66. Long, S. J., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata (2ed.). College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  67. Marshall, M., Jaggers, K., & Gurr, T. (2016). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2015. INSCR. Vienna: Center for Systemic Peace.Google Scholar
  68. Mau, S., Mewes, J., & Zimmermann, A. (2008). Cosmopolitan attitudes through transnational practices? Global Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 8(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  69. Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  70. Meyer, C. O. (2009). Does European Union politics become mediatized? The case of the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(7), 1047–1064.Google Scholar
  71. Meyer, J. A., & Califano, M. G. (2006). Good intentions corrupted: The oil-for-food scandal and the threat to the UN. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  72. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1987). Ontology and rationalization in the western cultural account. In G. M. Thomas & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional structure: Constituting state, society, and the individual (pp. 12–37). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  73. Moulin, C., & Nyers, P. (2007). "We live in a country of UNHCR" - refugee protests and global political society. International Political Sociology, 1(4), 356–372.Google Scholar
  74. NATO. (2009). NATO strategic communications policy. Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization.Google Scholar
  75. Nissen, S. (2010). Kommunikation in der Krise. Entwicklung und Erfolgsbedingungen der EU-Informationspolitik. Zeitschrift für Politikberatung, 57(4), 453–473.Google Scholar
  76. Norris, P. (2000). Global Governance & Cosmopolitan Citizens. In J. S. Nye Jr. & J. D. Donahue (Eds.), Governance in a globalizing world (pp. 155–177). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  77. Nullmeier, F., Bigeon, D., Nonhoff, M., Schmidtke, H., & Schneider, S. (2010). Prekäre legitimitäten: rechtfertigung von herrschaft in der postnationalen konstellation. Campus: Frankfurt A. M.Google Scholar
  78. OAS. (1977). Executive order no. 77–1. Subject: objectives and activities of the department of public information. Washington, D.C.: Organization of American States.Google Scholar
  79. OAS. (1982). Orden ejecutiva no. 82–1. Asunto: oficina del secretario general. Washington, D.C.: Organization of American States.Google Scholar
  80. OAS. (1992). Executive order no. 92–1. Subject: creation and structure of the Department of public information. Washington, D.C.: Organization of American States.Google Scholar
  81. OAS. (1997). Executive order no. 97–4. Subject: office of external relations. Washington, D.C.: Organization of American States.Google Scholar
  82. OAS. (2006). Annual report of the secretary general 2005–2006. Washington, D.C.: Organization of American States.Google Scholar
  83. OAS (2012). Executive order no. 08–01 rev. 5. Subject: structure of the general secretariat. Washington, D.C.: Organization of American States.Google Scholar
  84. O'Brian, R., Goetz, A. M., Scholte, J. A., & Williams, M. (2000). Contesting global governance: Multilateral institutions and global social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Odell, J., & Eichengreen, B. (1998). The United States, the ITO, and the WTO: Exit options, agent slack, and presidential leadership. In A. O. Krueger (Ed.), The WTO as an international organization (pp. 181–206). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Odugbemi, S., & Lee, T. (2011). Accountability through public opinion: From inertia to public action. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  87. Pevehouse, J., Nordstrom, T., & Warnke, K. (2004). The correlates of war 2 international governmental organizations data version 2.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 21(2), 101–119.Google Scholar
  88. Pianta, M., & Zola, D. (2005). The rise of global movements, 1970-2005. Paper presented at the ACI Meeting, Paris, 30 September-1 October 2005.Google Scholar
  89. Polachek, S. W., Robst, J., & Chang, Y.-C. (1999). Liberalism and interdependence: Extending the trade-conflict model. Journal of Peace Research, 36(4), 405–422.Google Scholar
  90. Price, R. (2003). Transnational civil society and advocacy in world politics. World Politics, 55(4), 579–606.Google Scholar
  91. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organisation, 42(3), 427.Google Scholar
  92. Rauh, C. (2012). Politicisation, issue salience, and consumer policies of the European commission: does public awareness and contestation of supranational matters increase the responsiveness of Europe's central agenda-setter?. Dissertation. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  93. Raustiala, K. (1997). States, NGOs, and international environmental institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 41(4), 719–740.Google Scholar
  94. Reus-Smit, C. (2007). International crises of legitimacy. International Politics, 44(2–3), 157–174.Google Scholar
  95. Risso, L. (2014). Propaganda and intelligence in the Cold War: the NATO Information Service (studies in intelligence). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  96. Rochon, T. (1988). The politics of the peace movement in Western Europe. Princton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Rosenau, J. N. (1995). Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance, 1(1), 13–43.Google Scholar
  98. Rosenau, J. N. (2003). Distant proximities. Dynamics beyond globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Sanchez, T., & Urpelainen, J. (2014). A strategic theory of effective monitoring arrangements for international institutions. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 26(4), 599–628. doi: 10.1177/0951629813511550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Schlagheck, D. M. (2016). Corruption at the United Nations: A Nonprofit, Humanitarian Organization Confronts Ethical and Financial Misconduct. In C. Funderburk (Ed.), Political Corruption in Comparative Perspective: Sources, Status and Prospects (pp. 165–173). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  101. Schmitter, P. C. (1969). Three neo-functionalist hypotheses about international integration. International Organization, 23(1), 161–166.Google Scholar
  102. Scholl, C., & Freyberg-Inan, A. (2013). Hegemony's dirty tricks: Explaining counter-globalization's weakness in times of neoliberal crisis. Globalizations, 10(4), 619–634.Google Scholar
  103. Scholte, J. A. (2011). Global governance, accountability and civil society. In J. A. Scholte (Ed.), Building global democracy? Civil society and accountable global governance (pp. 8–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Seabrooke, L. (2007). Legitimacy gaps in the world economy: Explaining the sources of the IMF's legitimacy crisis. International Politics, 44(2), 250–268.Google Scholar
  105. Servaes, J. (2007). Harnessing the UN system into a common approach on communication for development. International Communication Gazette, 69(6), 483–507.Google Scholar
  106. Smith, C. B. (2004). The politics of US–UN reengagement: Achieving gains in a hostile environment. International Studies Perspectives, 5(2), 197–215.Google Scholar
  107. Steffek, J. (2007). Legitimacy in international relations: From state compliance to citizen consensus. In A. Hurrelmann, S. Schneider, & J. Steffek (Eds.), Legitimacy in the age of global politics (pp. 175–192). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  108. Steffek, J., Kissling, C., & Nanz, P. (Eds.). (2008). Civil society Partizipation in European and global governance. A cure for the democratic deficit? Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  109. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  110. Symons, J. (2011). The legitimation of international organisations: Examining the identity of the communities that grant legitimacy. Review of International Studies, 37(05), 2557–2583.Google Scholar
  111. Szerszynski, B., & Urry, J. (2002). Cultures of cosmopolitanism. The Sociological Review, 50(4), 461–481.Google Scholar
  112. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., & Jönsson, C. (2013). The opening up of international organizations: Transnational access in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  113. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., & Jönsson, C. (2014). Explaining the transnational Design of International Organizations. International Organization, 68(04), 741–774. doi: 10.1017/S0020818314000149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Tarrow, S. (2001). Transnational politics: Contention and institutions in international politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  115. Thompson, J. (2000). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  116. Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2003). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  117. UNGA. (1946). Resolution 13 (I). Organization of the Secretariat. A/RES/13(I). New York City: United Nations.Google Scholar
  118. Urbinati, N. (2003). Can Cosmopolitical democracy be democratic? In D. Archibugi (Ed.), Debating Cosmopolitics (pp. 67–85). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  119. Wallace, M., & Singer, D. J. (1970). Intergovernmental organization in the global system, 1815-1964: A quantitative description. International Organization, 24(02), 239–287.Google Scholar
  120. Walton, J., & Shefner, J. (1994). Latin America: Popular protest and the state. In J. Walton (Ed.), Free Markets & Food Riots (pp. 97–134). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd..Google Scholar
  121. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.Google Scholar
  122. Willetts, P. (2000). From" consultative arrangements" to" partnership": The changing status of NGOs in diplomacy at the UN. Global Governance, 6(2), 191–212.Google Scholar
  123. WorldBank. (2011). A guide to the world bank. (3rd ed. ed.). Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  124. Zaum, D. (2006). The Authority of International Administrations in international society. Review of International Studies, 32(3), 455–473.Google Scholar
  125. Zürn, M., Binder, M., & Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). International authority and its politicization. International Theory, 4(1), 69–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arbeitsstelle Transnationale Beziehungen, Außen- und SicherheitspolitikFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations