From Institutional Designs to Peacebuilding Outcomes

  • Steffen Eckhard
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Reviewing theory and research on public administration, the chapter develops an analytical framework for the analysis of institutional designs and their impact on mission performance and police reform outcomes. It first argues that institutional designs in public organizations cannot only be assessed from a functionalist perspective as they also need to reconcile the needs of politicians to exert control. Second, although implementation research has extensively addressed questions of institutional designs, findings about institutional designs’ impact on policy outcomes remained inconclusive. On international organization, only little previous research exists. Overall, this demonstrates the need for conceptualization and inductive research. Third, the chapter introduces the framework developed for this research project, which focuses on the analytical triad between institutional designs, process performance, and policy outcomes. Last, the chapter introduces methodology and data sources (109 expert interviews) and elaborates on the case selection.

Keywords

Public Choice Process Performance Public Administration Institutional Design Policy Outcome 
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.

References

  1. Andrews, K. R. (1980). The concept of corporate strategy (Rev. ed.). Homewood: R. D. Irwin.Google Scholar
  2. Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance, 3(2), 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53(4), 699–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barzelay, M., & Füchtner, N. (2003). Explaining public management policy change: Germany in comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 5(1), 7–27.Google Scholar
  8. Bauer, M. W. (2008). Introduction: Organizational change, management reform and EU policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5), 627–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bauer, M. W. (2012). Tolerant, if personal goals remain unharmed: Explaining supranational bureaucrats’ attitudes to organisational change. Governance, 25(3), 485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bea, F. X., & Haas, J. (2009). Strategisches management. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
  11. Behn, R. D. (1998). What right do public managers have to lead? Public Administration Review, 58(3), 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bendix, D., & Stanley, R. (2008). Deconstructing local ownership of security sector reform: A review of the literature. African Security Review, 17(2), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Benner, T., Mergenthaler, S., & Rotmann, P. (2011). The new world of UN peace operations: Learning to build peace? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blau, P. M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bogumil, J., Grohs, S., & Kuhlmann, S. (2006). Ergebnisse und Wirkungen kommunaler Verwaltungsmodernisierung in Deutschland—Eine Evaluation nach zehn Jahren Praxiserfahrung. Politische Vierteljahreszeitschrift, Special Issue, 37, 151–184.Google Scholar
  16. Boin, A. (2005). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Börzel, T., & Risse, T. (2011). From Europeanization to diffusion: Introduction. West European Politics, 35(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Breakey, H., & Dekker, S. (2014). Weak links in the chain of authority: The challenges of intervention decisions to protect civilians. International Peacekeeping, 21(3), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Budäus, D., & Grüning, G. (1998). New public management—Entwicklung und Grundlagen einer »Revolution« des öffentlichen Sektors. Zeitschrift Führung + Organisation (zfo), 67(1), 4–9.Google Scholar
  20. Church, C., & Rogers, M. M. (2006). Designing for results: Integrating monitoring and evaluation in conflict transformation programs. Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground.Google Scholar
  21. Clarke, A., & Dawson, R. (1999). Evaluation research. An introduction to principles, methods and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Coombes, D. L. (1998). The place of public management in the modern European state. In T. Verheijen & D. L. Coombes (Eds.), Innovations in public management: Perspectives from East and West Europe (pp. 8–38). Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  23. da Costa, D. F., & Karlsrud, J. (2013). ‘Bending the rules’: The space between HQ policy and local action in UN civilian peacekeeping. Journal of International Peacekeeping, 17(3–4), 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Coning, C. (2009). Planning for success. In C. Clement & A. C. Smith (Eds.), Managing complexity: Political and managerial challenges in United Nations peace operations (pp. 24–27). New York: International Peace Institute.Google Scholar
  25. deLeon, P. (1999). The missing link revisited: Contemporary implementation research. Policy Studies Review, 16(3–4), 311.Google Scholar
  26. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dobbin, F. (1994). Cultural models of organization: The social construction of rational organizing principles. In D. Crane (Ed.), The sociology of culture (pp. 117–153). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Dobbins, J., Jones, S. G., Crane, K., Rathmell, A., Steele, B., Teltschik, R., et al. (2005). The UN’s role in nation-building: From the Congo to Iraq. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  29. Donais, T. (Ed.). (2008). Local ownership and security sector reform. Münster: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Doyle, M. W., & Sambanis, N. (2006). Making war and building peace: United Nations peace operations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Drucker, P. F. (1974). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  32. Dunleavy, P. (1991). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice economic explanations in political science (1. publ. ed.). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  33. Dursun-Ozkanca, O., & Crossley-Frolick, K. (2012). Security sector reform in Kosovo: The complex division of labor between the EU and other multilateral institutions in building Kosovo’s police force. European Security, 4, 1–21.Google Scholar
  34. Easton, D. (1967). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Eckhard, S. (2014a). Bureaucratic representation and ethnic bureaucratic drift: A case study of United Nations Minority Policy Implementation in Kosovo. American Review of Public Administration, 44(5), 600–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ege, J., & Bauer, M. W. (2013). International bureaucracies from a public administration and international relations perspective. In B. Reinalda (Ed.), Routledge handbook of international organization (pp. 135–148). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Egeberg, M. (2003). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 116–126). London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fayol, H. (1929). Allgemeine und industrielle Verwaltung. München/Berlin: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  39. Fortna, V. P. (2008). Does peacekeeping work? Shaping belligerents’ Choices after civil war. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Galtung, J. (1985). Twenty-five years of peace research: Ten challenges and some responses. Journal of Peace Research, 22(2), 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Geri, L. R. (2001). New public management and the reform of international organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67(3), 445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gerring, J. (2005). Causation. A unified framework for the social science. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17(2), 163–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gerring, J. (2007a). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Gerring, J. (2007b). Case study research: Principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Glueck, W. F. (1980). Strategic management and business policy. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  47. Goodin, R. E. (1996). The theory of institutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. With special reference to government. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  50. Gutner, T., & Thompson, A. (2010). The politics of IO performance: A framework. Review of International Organizations, 5(3), 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Haas, E. B. (1964). Beyond the nation-state: Functionalism and international organization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hammond, T. H. (1986). Agenda control, organizational structure and bureaumetric politics. American Journal of Political Science, 30(3), 379–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hammond, T. H. (1993). Toward a general theory of hierarchy: Books, bureaucrats, basketball tournaments, and the administrative structure of the nation-state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(1), 120–145.Google Scholar
  55. Heinrich, C. J. (2012). Measuring public sector performance and effectiveness. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 32–49). London/Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hill, H. (1997). Strategische Erfolgsfaktoren in der öffentlichen Verwaltung. In H. Hill & H. Klages (Eds.), Qualitäts- und erfolgsorientiertes Verwaltungsmanagement (Vol. 2, pp. 19–38). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  57. Honig, D. (2014). Navigation by judgment: Organizational autonomy in the delivery of foreign aid (Dissertation project). Camebridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  58. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles & policy subsystems (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. IPI. (2012). The management handbook for UN field missions. New York: International Peace Institute.Google Scholar
  60. Jones, B. D. (2002). The challenges of strategic coordination. In S. J. Stedman, D. S. Rothchild, & E. M. Cousens (Eds.), Ending civil wars: The implementation of peace agreements (pp. 89–116). Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  61. Junk, J. (2012). Function follows form: The organizational design of peace operations. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 6(3), 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kam, C. (2000). Not just parliamentary “ Cowboys and Indians”: Ministerial responsibility and bureaucratic drift. Governance-an International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(3), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Karlsrud, J. (2013). Special representatives of the Secretary-General as norm arbitrators? Understanding bottom-up authority in UN peacekeeping. Global Governance, 19(4), 525.Google Scholar
  64. Kaufman, H. (1960). The forest ranger, a study in administrative behavior. Baltimore: Published for Resources for the Future by Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  65. Kaufman, H. (1981). Fear of bureaucracy: A raging pandemic (Vol. 41, pp. 1–9). Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.Google Scholar
  66. Kickert, W. (Ed.). (2008). The study of public management in Europe and the US: A comparative analysis of national distinctiveness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Kingsley, J. D. (1944). Representative bureaucracy: An interpretation of the British civil service. Yellow Springs: The Antioch Press.Google Scholar
  68. Knill, C., & Balint, T. (2008). Explaining variation in organizational change: The reform of human resource management in the European Commission and the OECD. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5), 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Knill, C., Eckhard, S., & Grohs, S. (2016). Administrative styles in the European Commission and the OSCE-Secretariat: Striking similarities despite different organisational settings. Journal of European Public Policy.Google Scholar
  70. Krems, B. (2012). Online-Verwaltungslexikon olev.de [Management-Ebenen: Operativ—taktisch—strategisch]. Retrieved January 01, 2012, from http://www.olev.de/o/operativ_usw.htm
  71. Kuhlmann, S., & Wollmann, H. (2013). Verwaltung und Verwaltungsreformen in Europa: Einführung in die vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft (Vol. 51). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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. Patterns, explanations and implications (pp. 88–108). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65, 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  76. Lynn, L. E. (1996). The new public management as an international phenomenon: A skeptical view. International Public Management Journal, 1(3).Google Scholar
  77. Martin, L. L., & Simmons, B. A. (1998). Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International Organization, 52(4), 729–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 5(2), 145–174.Google Scholar
  79. Mayntz, R. (2002). Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen. In R. Mayntz (Ed.), Akteure-Mechanismen-Modelle. Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen (pp. 7–43). Frankfurt/Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  80. Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mayntz, R., & Derlien, H.-U. (1989). Party patronage and politicization of the West German Administrative Elite 1970–1987. Toward hybridization? Governance, 2(4), 384–404.Google Scholar
  82. McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3, 243–277.Google Scholar
  83. Meharg, S. J. (2009). Measuring what matters in peace operations and crisis management. Kingston: Queen‘s University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure (Rev. and enl. ed.). Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  85. Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Momani, B. (2007). IMF staff: Missing link in fund reform proposals. The Review of International Organizations, 2(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Narten, J. (2008). Post-conflict peacebuilding and local ownership: Dynamics of external-local interaction in Kosovo under United Nations Administration. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2(3), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Natsios, A. (2010). The clash of the counter-bureaucracy and development. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.Google Scholar
  89. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government (1. publ. ed.). Chicago: Aldine Atherton.Google Scholar
  90. Niven, P. R. (2003). Balanced scorecard step-by-step for government and nonprofit agencies. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  91. OECD-DAC. (2008). Guidance on evaluating conflict prevention and peacebuilding activities: Working draft. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  92. OECD-DAC. (2010). Supporting statebuilding in situations of conflict and fragility: Policy guidance. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  93. OSCE. (2007). OSCE handbook. Vienna: Press and Public Information Section, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.Google Scholar
  94. Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1971). Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration. Public Administration Review, 31(2), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Paffenholz, T., & Reychler, L. (2007). Aid for peace. A guide to planning and evaluation for conflict zones. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  96. Page, E. C. (1985). Political authority and bureaucratic power: A comparative analysis. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  97. Parkinson, C. N. (1957). Parkinson’s law, and other studies in administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  98. Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  99. Poister, T. H., Pitts, D. W., & Hamilton, E. L. (2010). Strategic management research in the public sector: A review, synthesis, and future directions. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(5), 522–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the public services: The Anglo-American experience. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  101. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform. A comparative analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, Why it's amazing that Federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  103. Proeller, I., & Siegel, J. P. (2009). Performance Management in der deutschen verwaltung—Eine explorative Einschätzung. Dms—der moderne staat—Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 2(2009), 455–474.Google Scholar
  104. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  105. Reinalda, B. (2009). Routledge history of international organizations: from 1815 to the present day. London [u.a.]: Routledge.Google Scholar
  106. Rittberger, V., Zangl, B., & Kruck, A. (2012). International organization (2nd ed.). London: Pallgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  107. Rosenbloom, D. H., Kravchuck, R., & Clerkin, R. M. (2015). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  108. Rubin, M. (1988). Sagas, ventures quests and parlays: A typology of strategies in the public sector. In J. Bryson & R. Einsweiler (Eds.), Strategic planning (pp. 84–105). Chicago: Planners Press.Google Scholar
  109. Schimmelfennig, F. (2012). Europeanization beyond Europe. Living Reviews in European Governance, 7(1).Google Scholar
  110. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2007). Qualitative comparative analysis und fuzzy sets—Ein Lehrbuch für Anwender und jene, die es werden wollen. Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbera Budrich.Google Scholar
  111. Schori, P. (2009). Leadership on the line: Managing field complexity. In C. Clement & A. C. Smith (Eds.), Managing complexity: Political and managerial challenges in United Nations peace operations (pp. 28–31). New York: International Peace Institute.Google Scholar
  112. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan Co.Google Scholar
  113. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., & Lundgren, M. (2015). The performance of international organizations: An output-based approach. Paper presented at the general conference of the ECPR, 26–29 August 2015, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  114. Thom, N., & Ritz, A. (2006). Public management. Innovative Konzepte zur Führung im öffentlichen Sektor (Vol. 3). Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  115. Trondal, J. (2010). Unpacking international organisations: The dynamics of compound bureaucracies. Manchester: Manchester Universty Press.Google Scholar
  116. Vreeland, J. R. (2003). The IMF and economic development. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Weaver, C. (2008). Hypocrisy trap: The world bank and the poverty of reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wildavsky, A. B. (1972). The self-evaluating organization. Public Administration Review, 32(5), 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Wildavsky, A. B. (1979). Speaking truth to power. The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston/Torronto: Little.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Eckhard
    • 1
  1. 1.Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations