The Role of International Bureaucracies

  • Rafael Biermann
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter tries to shed light on the specific role of international bureaucracies when international intergovernmental organizations interact. It takes a holistic approach that accounts also for the role of member states and the resulting complex multilevel governance among a multitude of players networking across organizational and state boundaries when organizations interact. Studies systematically investigating the role of bureaucracies in inter-organizational affairs are extremely rare. Therefore, the goal of this chapter is to inspire research by connecting the study of inter-organizational relations more systematically with the research on international bureaucracies in general. The chapter first conceptualizes international bureaucracies. It then discusses the relevance of international bureaucracies for inter-organizational relations. Afterwards, four major theoretical perspectives on bureaucracies are screened, namely principal–agent theory, sociological institutionalism, the bureaucratic politics approach, and organization theory, in order to demonstrate how they might be employed and blended to research the role of international bureaucracies in inter-organizational relations. The conclusions offer some methodological recommendations of how to do so.

Keywords

Member State United Nations Organization Theory Veto Player Boundary Spanner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Abbott, K. W. and Snidal D. (1998) ‘Why States Act through Formal International Organizations’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42:1, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H. E. (1979) Organizations and Environments, Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, H. and Herker, D. (1977) ‘Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure’, The Academy of Management Review, 2:2, 217–30.Google Scholar
  4. Allison, G. T. (1971) Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2nd ed. 1999 with Philip Zelikow, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Allison, G. T. (2002) ‘Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis’, in: Ikenberry, G. J. (ed.) American Foreign Policy. Theoretical Essays, 4th ed., New York: Longman, 396–441.Google Scholar
  6. Alter, C. and Hage, J. (1993) Organizations Working Together, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Archer, C. (1993) International Organizations, 2nd ed., London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Art, R. (1973) ‘Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique’, Policy Sciences 4, 467–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnett, M. and Coleman, L. (2005) ‘Designing Police: Interpol and the Study of Change in International Organizations’, International Studies Quarterly, 49:4, 593–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (1999) ‘The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations’, International Organization, 53:4, 699–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (2004) Rules of the World: International Organizations in Global Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (2005) ‘The Power of Liberal International Organizations’, in: Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (eds.) Power in Global Governance, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 185–204.Google Scholar
  13. Bauer, S., Biermann, F., Dingwerth, K. and Siebenhüner B. (2009) ‘Understanding International bureaucracies: Taking Stock’, in: Biermann, F. and Siebenhüner, B. (eds.) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 15 - 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bauer, S. and Weinlich, S. (2011) ‘International Bureaucracies: Organizing World Politics’, in: Reinalda, B. (ed.) The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors, Farnham: Ashgate, 250–62.Google Scholar
  15. Beach, D. (2004) ‘The Unseen Hand in Treaty Reform Negotiations: the Role and Influence of the Council Secretariat’, Journal of European Public Policy, 11:3, 408–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bendor, J. and Hammond, T. H. (1992) ‘Rethinking Allison’s Models’, American Political Science Review, 86:2, 301–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Biermann, R. (2008a) ‘Inter-Organizational Relations: An Emerging Research Program’, in: Reinalda, B. (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors, Aldershot: Ashgate 2011, 173–84.Google Scholar
  18. Biermann, R. (2008b) ‘Rivalry among International Organizations. The Downside of Institutional Choice’, Paper prepared for the Conference ‘Internationale Beziehungen und Organisationsforschung – Stand und Perspektiven’. Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Center on Governance, Public Policy and Law, 18 September.Google Scholar
  19. Biermann, R. (2011) ‘Designing Inter-Organizational Cooperation. The Quest for Autonomy and the Effectiveness-Control Dilemma’, Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Montreal, 27 August.Google Scholar
  20. Biermann, R. (2015) ‘Designing cooperation among international organizations. Autonomy Concerns, the Dual Consensus Rule, and Cooperation Failure, Journal of International Organization Studies, 6:3, 45–66. Google Scholar
  21. Biermann, F. and Siebenhüner, B. (eds., 2009a) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Biermann, F. and Siebenhüner, B. (2009b) ‘The Role and Relevance of International Bureaucracies: Setting the Stage’, in: ibid. (eds., 2009) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–14.Google Scholar
  23. Biermann, F. and Siebenhüner, B. (2009c) ‘The Influence of International Bureaucracies in World Politics: Findings from the MANUS Research Project’, in: ibid. (eds., 2009) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 319–50.Google Scholar
  24. Biermann, F., Siebenhüner, B., Busch, P.-O., Campe, S., Dingwerth, K. Grothmann, T., Marschinski, R. and Tarradell, M. (2009) ‘Studying the Influence of International Bureaucracies: A Conceptual Framework’, in: Biermann, F. and Siebenhüner, B. (eds.) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chwieroth, J. M. (2008) ‘Normative Change From Within: The International Monetary Fund’s Approach to Capital Account Liberalization’, International Studies Quarterly 52, 129–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chwieroth, J.M. (2012) ‘“The Silent Revolution”’: How the Staff Exercise Informal Governance Over IMF Lending’, The Review of International Organizations, 8:2, 265–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cortell, A.P. and Peterson, S. (2006) ‘Dutiful agents, rogue actors, or both? Staffing, voting rules, and slack in the WHO and WTO’, in: Hawkins, D.G. et al. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 255–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cox, R. W. and Jacobson, H. K. (1973a) ‘The Framework for Inquiry’, in: ibid. (eds.) The Anatomy of Influence. Decision Making in International Organization, New Haven und London: Yale University Press, 1–36.Google Scholar
  29. Cox, R. W. and Jacobson, H. K. (1973b) ‘The Anatomy of Influence’, in: ibid. (eds.) The Anatomy of Influence. Decision Making in International Organization, New Haven und London: Yale University Press, 371–430.Google Scholar
  30. Davies, M. D. V. (2002) The Administration of International Organizations. Top down and bottom up, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. Dijkstra, H. (2012) ‘The Influence of EU officials in European Security and Defence’, European Security, 21:3, 311–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dijkzeul, D. and Beigbeder, Y. (2003) Rethinking International Organizations. Pathology and Promise, New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  33. Dingwerth, K., Kerwer, D. and Nölke, A. (2009) ‘Einleitung: Internationale Politik und Organisationen’, in: ibid. (eds.) Die Organisierte Welt. Internationale Beziehungen und Organisationsforschung, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  34. Duffield, J. (2007) ‘What are International Institutions?’, International Studies Quarterly, 91:1, 1–22.Google Scholar
  35. Ellis, D. C. (2010) ‘The Organizational Turn in International Organization Theory’, Journal of International Organization Studies, 1:1, 11–28.Google Scholar
  36. Elsig, M. (2007) ‘The EU’s Choice of Regulatory Venues for Trade Negotiations: A Tale of Agency Power?’ Journal of Common Market Studies, 45:4, 927–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gordenker, L. (2005) The UN Secretary-General and the Secretariat, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Gottfredson, L.S. and White, P.E. (1981) ‘Interorganizational agreements’, in: Nystrom, P. C. and Starbuck, W. H. (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 471–86.Google Scholar
  40. Gould, E. R. (2006) ‘Delegating IMF conditionality: understanding variations in control and conformity’, in: Hawkins, D. G. et al. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 281–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gowan, R. (2009) ‘ESDP and the United Nations’, in: Grevi, G., Helly, D. and Keohane, D. (eds.) European Security and Defense Policy: The first ten years (1999–2009), Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, 117–26.Google Scholar
  42. Gutner, T. (2005) ‘Explaining the Gaps between Mandate and Performance: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform’, Global Environmental Politics, 5:2, 10–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gutner, T. and Thompson, A. (2010) ‘The politics of IO performance: a framework’, Review of International Organizations, 5:3, 227–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Haas, E. B. (1964) Beyond the Nation-State. Functionalism and International Organizations, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Haas, E. B. (1976) ‘Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration’, International Organization, 30:2, 173–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Haftel, Y. Z. and Thompson, A. (2006) ‘The Independence of International Organizations: Concept and Applications’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50:2, 253–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Halperin, M. H. (1974) Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  48. Halperin, M. H. and Kanter, A. (1973) Readings in American Foreign Policy. A Bureaucratic Perspective, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  49. Harsch, M. F. (2015) The Power of Dependence: NATO-UN Cooperation in Crisis Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L. and Tierney, M. J. (2006) ‘Delegation under anarchy: states, international organizations, and principal-agent theory’, in: ibid. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–38.Google Scholar
  51. Hawkins, D. G. and Jacoby, W. (2006) ‘How Agents Matter’, in: Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L. and Tierney, M. J. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Herrhausen, A. (2007) Coordination in United Nations Peacebuilding – A Theory-Guided Approach. Berlin: Social Science Research Center, Discussion Paper SPIV2007-301.Google Scholar
  53. Jönsson, Christer (1986) ‘Interorganization Theory and International Organization’, International Studies Quarterly, 30:1, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jönsson, C. (1993) ‘International organization and co-operation: An interorganizational perspective’, International Social Science Journal, 45:138, 463–77.Google Scholar
  55. Kaarbo, J. (1998) ‘Power Politics in Foreign Policy: The Influence of Bureaucratic Minorities’, European Journal of International Relations, 4:1, 67–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Karns, M. P and Mingst, K. A. (2010) International Organizations. The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  57. Keohane, R. O. (1969) ‘Institutionalization in the United Nations General Assembly’, International Organization, 23:4, 859–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Keohane, R. O. (1975) International Organization and the Crisis of Interdependence, International Organization, 29:2, 357–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Keohane, R. O. (1980) ‘The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967-1977’, in: Holsti, O. R., Siverson, R. M. and George, A. E. (eds.) Change in the International System, Boulder, CO: Westview, 131–62.Google Scholar
  60. Keohane, R. O. (1984) After Hegemony. Power and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Keohane, R. (1989) International Institutions and State Power, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  62. Kille, K. J., and Hendrickson, R. C. (2010), ‘Secretary-General Leadership across the United Nations and NATO: Kofi Annan, Javier Solana, and Operation Allied Force’, Global Governance, 16, 505–23.Google Scholar
  63. Klabbers, J. (2009) An Introduction to International Institutional Law, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Koch, M. (2006) Processes of Autonomization in/of International Organizations? The Case of the World Trade Organiation (WTO), Bielefeld: Institut für Weltgesellschaft (Working Paper Series).Google Scholar
  65. Kolb, M. (2013) The European Union and the Council of Europe, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Koops, J. A. (2012) ‘NATO’s Influence on the Evolution of the European Union as a Security Actor’, in: Joergensen, K.E. and Costa, O. (eds.), The Influence of International Institutions on the EU, Basingstoke, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 155–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Koremnos, B., Lipson, C. and Snidal, D. (2001) ‘The Rational Design of International Institutions’, International Organization, 55:4, 761–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kozak, D. C. (1988) ‘The Bureaucratic Politics Approach: The Evolution of the Paradigm’, in: Kozak, D. C. and Keagle, J. M. (eds.) Bureaucratic Politics and National Security. Theory and Practice, Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, 3–15.Google Scholar
  69. Krasner, S. D. (2002) ‘Are Bureaucracies Important? (Or Allison Wonderland)’, in: Ikenberry, G. J. (ed.) American Foreign Policy. Theoretical Essays, 4th ed., New York: Longman, 441–53.Google Scholar
  70. Krasner, S. D. (1982) ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables’, International Organization, 36:3, 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kratochwil, F. and Ruggie, J. G. (1986) ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’, International Organization, 40:4, 229–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Liese, A. and Weinlich, S. (2006) ‘Verwaltungsstäbe internationaler Organisationen’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift (Special Edition 37), 491–524.Google Scholar
  73. Lynch, D. (2009) ‘ESDP and the OSCE’, in: Grevi, G., Helly, D. and Keohane, D. (eds.) European Security and Defence Policy: The First Ten Years (1999–2009), Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, 139–146.Google Scholar
  74. Martin, L. M. (2006) ‘Distribution, information, and delegation to international organizations: the case of IMF conditionality’, in: Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L. and Tierney, M. J. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 140–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Martin, L. L. and Simmons, B. A. (2001) ‘Preface’, in: ibid. (eds.) International Institutions. An International Organization Reader, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001, 1–3.Google Scholar
  76. Mathiason, J. (2007) Invisible Governance: International Secretariats in Global Politics, Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  77. Mayer, S. (ed., 2014) NATO’s Post-Cold Bureaucracy and the Changing Provision of Security, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  78. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994/95) ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security, 19:3, 5–50.Google Scholar
  79. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: Norton & Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  80. Megens, I. (1998) ‘The role of NATO’s bureaucracy in shaping and widening the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’, in: Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (eds.) Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations, London: Routledge, 120–133.Google Scholar
  81. Moravcsik, A. (1997) ‘Taking Preferences Seriously. A Liberal Theory of International Politics’, International Organization, 51:4, 513–33.Google Scholar
  82. Ness, G. D. and Brechin, S. R. (1988) ‘Bridging the gap: international organizations as organizations’, International Organization, 42:2, 245–73.Google Scholar
  83. Nielson, D. L. and Tierney, M. J. (2003) ‘Delegation to International Organizations: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform’, International Organization, 57:2, 241–76.Google Scholar
  84. Nielson, D. L., Tierney, M. J. and Weaver, C. E- (2006) ‘Bridging the rationalist-constructivist divide: re-engineering the culture of the World Bank’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 9, 107–139.Google Scholar
  85. Peters, I. (2004) ‘The OSCE, NATO and the EU within the “Network of Interlocking European Security Institutions”: Hierarchization, Flexibilization, Marginalization’, in: Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (ed.) OSCE Yearbook 2003, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 381–402.Google Scholar
  86. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (2003) The External Control of Organizations. A Resource Dependence Perspective, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
  87. Pollack, M. A. (1997) ‘Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community’, International Organization, 51:1, 99–134.Google Scholar
  88. Reed, M. (2009) ‘Bureaucratic Theory and Intellectual Renewal in Contemporary Organization Studies’, in: Adler, P. S. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies: Classical Foundations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Reinalda, B. (2013) Routledge Handbook of International Organizations, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (2004) ‘The issue of decision making within international organizations’, in: ibid. (eds.) Decision Making Within International Organizations, London and New York: Routledge, 9–42.Google Scholar
  91. Rittberger, V. and Zangl, B. (2006) International Organization. Polity, Politics and Policies, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  92. Rochester, J. M. (1986) ‘The rise and fall of international organization as a field of study’, International Organization, 40:4, 777–813.Google Scholar
  93. Rosati, J. A. (1981) ‘Developing a Systematic Decision-Making Framework: Bureaucratic Politics in Perspective’, World Politics, 33:2, 234–52.Google Scholar
  94. Schäferhoff, M. (2009) ‘Kooperation oder Konkurrenz? Zur Kooperationsbereitschaft internationaler Verwaltungsstäbe in transnationalen öffentlich-privaten Partnerschaften’, in: Dingwerth, K., Kerwer D. and Nölke A. (eds.) Die Organisierte Welt. Internationale Beziehungen und Organisationsforschung, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 211–31.Google Scholar
  95. Scheuermann, M. (2012) VN-EU-Beziehungen in der militärischen Friedenssicherung, Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Schneider, G. (1997) ‘Die bürokratische Politik der Außenpolitikanalyse. Das Erbe Allisons im Lichte der gegenwärtigen Forschungspraxis’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 4:1, 107–23.Google Scholar
  97. Schopler, J. H. (1987) ‘Interorganizational Groups: Origins, Structure, and Outcomes’, The Academy of Management Review, 12:4, 702–13.Google Scholar
  98. Scott, R. W. (1998) Organizations. Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  99. Shanks, C., Jacobson, H. K. and Kaplan, J. H. (1996) ‘Inertia and change in the constellation of international governmental organizations, 1981–1992’, International Organization, 50:4, 593–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Simmons, B. and Martin, L. (2002) ‘International Organizations and Institutions’, in: Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. and Simmons, B. A. (eds.) Handbook of International Relations, Los Angeles: Sage, 192–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tardy, T. (2009) ‘EU-UN relations in military crisis management’, Studia Diplomatica, 62:3, 43–52.Google Scholar
  102. Thompson, A. (2006) ‘Screening Power: International Organizations as Informative Agents’, in: Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L. and Tierney, M. J. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Trettin, F. and Junk, J. (2014) ‘Spoilers From Within: Bureaucratic Spoilers in United Nations Peace Operations’, Journal of International Organization Studies (Special Issue on Internal Dynamics and Dysfunctions of International Organizations), 5:1, 13–27.Google Scholar
  104. Trondal, J., Marcussen, M. and Veggeland, F. (2004) ‘International Executives: Transformative Bureaucracies or Westphalian Orders?’, European Integration Online Papers, 8:4, available at: http://econpapers.repec.org/article/erpeiopxx/p0109.htm, accessed 27 Dec. 2014.
  105. Tudyka, K. P. (1998) ‘The margin beyond intergovernmentalism: The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’, in: Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (eds.) Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations, London: Routledge, 108–19.Google Scholar
  106. Tushman, M. L. and Scanlan, T. J. (1981) ‘Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information Transfer and Their Antecedents’, The Academy of Management Journal, 24:2, 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Vaubel, R. (2006) ‘Principal-agent problems in international organizations’, Review of International Organizations, 1:2, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Verbeek, B. (1998) ‘International organizations. The ugly duckling of international relations theory?’ in: Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (eds.) Autonomous policy making by international organizations, London: Routledge, 11–26.Google Scholar
  109. Weaver, C. (2008) Hypocrisy Trap: The World Bank and the Poverty of Reform, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Weaver, C. and Leiteritz, R. J. (2005) ‘“Our Poverty is a World Full of Dreams”: Reforming the World Bank’, Global Governance, 11:3, 369–88.Google Scholar
  111. Weinlich, S. (2011) Shaping Peace Operations: The Influence of the UN Secretariat, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  112. Weiss, T. G. (1975) International Bureaucracy, Lexington, M.A.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  113. Welch, D. A. (1992) ‘The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigm: Retrospect and Prospect’, International Security, 17:2, 112–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Welch, D. A. (1998) ‘A Positive Science of Bureaucratic Politics?’ Mershon International Studies Review, 42:2, 210–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Weldes, J. (1998) ‘Bureaucratic Politics: A Critical Constructivist Assessment’, Mershon International Studies Review, 42:2, 216–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Yost, D. S. (2007) NATO and International Organizations, Forum Paper No. 3, Rome: NATO Defense College.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael Biermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Vesalius CollegeVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations