International Bureaucracy pp 123-150

Part of the Public Sector Organizations book series (PSO)

| Cite as

Changing Budgeting Administration in International Organizations: Budgetary Pressures, Complex Principals and Administrative Leadership

  • Ronny Patz
  • Klaus H. Goetz
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter combines insights from Comparative Public Administration (CPA) and International Relations (IRs) to explain change in the administrative organization and procedures of budgeting in international organizations (IOs). Such changes are typically triggered by budgetary pressures, but the form they take is decisively influenced by the constellation of principals and the reactions of administrative leaders. International public administrations (IPAs) often confront non-unified, complex principals that send ambiguous budgetary signals to the administration. Depending on whether administrative leaders are guided by budget-maximizing or bureau-shaping motivations, different adaptations in administrative structures and procedures for budgeting and resource mobilization result. We illustrate our argument with reference to three UN agencies, ILO, UNESCO and WHO.

References

  1. Ascher, C. S. (1952). Current problems in the World Health Organization’s Program. International Organization, 6(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53(4), 699–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the World. International organizations in global politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, M. W., & Ege, J. (2014). The autonomy of international bureaucracies. In S. Kim, S. Ashley, & W. H. Lambright (Eds.), Public administration in the context of global governance (pp. 63–84). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Beigbeder, Y. (1979). ‘The United States’ Withdrawal from the International Labor Organization. Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 34(2), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beigbeder, Y. (1986). La crise financière de l’O.N.U et le groupe des 18. Perspectives de réforme? Annuaire Français de Droi International, 32(1), 426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blais, A., & Dion, S. (1990). Are bureaucrats budget maximizers? The Niskanen model & its critics. Polity, 22(4), 655–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bokova, I. (2009). Irinia Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO. Mission Statement. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/BPI/EPA/images/media_services/Director-General/mission-statement-bokova.pdf (Last accessed: 23 Feb 2016).
  9. Bozeman, B., & Straussman, J. D. (1982). Shrinking budgets and the shrinkage of Budget Theory. Public Administration Review, 42(6), 509–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, D. P. (1996). Adaptive signal processing, hierarchy, and budgetary control in Federal Regulation. American Political Science Review, 90(2), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan, M. (2011). Dr Chan’s vision on WHO priorities and strategies. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/governance/dgelection/2012/CV_Chan_2011.pdf?ua=1 (Last accessed: 23 Feb 2016).
  12. Cox, R. W. (1973). ILO: Limited monarchy. In R. W. Cox & J. K. Jacobson (Eds.), The anatomy of influence. Decision making in international organization (pp. 102–138). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cox, R. W., & Jacobson, H. K. (Eds.) (1973). The anatomy of influence. Decision making in international organization. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Claude, I. L. (1963). The political framework of the United Nations’ financial problems. International Organization, 17(4), 831–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diehl, P. F., & PharoahKhan, E. (2000). Financing UN peacekeeping: A review and assessment of proposals. Review of Policy Research, 17(1), 71–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Downs, A. (1994 [1967]). Inside bureaucracy. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dufty, N. F. (1972). Organizational growth and goal structure: The case of the ILO. International Organization, 26(3), 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunleavy, P. (1985). Bureaucrats, Budgets and the growth of the state: Reconstructing an Instrumental Model. British Journal of Political Science, 15(3), 299–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elmandjra, M. (1973). The United Nations System: An analysis. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. European Union. (2013). EU Statement—United Nations 5th Committee: Proposed Programme Budget 2014–2015. EU Delegation to the United Nations New York, 28 October 2013, http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_14169_en.htm (Last accessed: 23 Feb 2016).
  22. Forrester, J. (2002). The Principal-Agent Model and Budget Theory. In A. Khan & W. B. Hildreth (Eds.), Budget theory in the public sector (pp. 123–138). Westport: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  23. Francioni, F. (2000). Multilateralism à la carte: The limits to unilateral withholding of assessed contributions to the UN budget. European Journal of International Law, 11(1), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghebali, V.-Y. (1989). The international labour organisation. A case study on the evolution of U.N. specialised agencies. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Goetz, K. H., & Patz, R. (2016). Pressured budgets and the European Commission: Towards a more centralised EU budget administration? Journal of European Public Policy, 23, 1038–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordenker, L. (1960). Policy-making and Secretariat Influence in the U.N. General Assembly: The case of public information. The American Political Science Review, 54(2), 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graham, E. R. (2011). The politics of IO performance: How the interests of donors and IO staff shape performance in the developing World. Dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  28. Graham, E. R. (2015). Money and multilateralism: how funding rules constitute IO governance. International Theory, 7(1), 162–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haas, E. (1964). Beyond the Nation-state: Functionalism and international organization. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hanrieder, T. (2015). International organization in time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hawkins, D., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D., & Tierney, M. J. (Eds.) (2006). Delegation and agency in international organizations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2014). Appendix A: Coding Authority in 72 International Governmental Organizations. http://www.unc.edu/~hooghe/assets/docs/papers/Delegation%20and%20pooling_appendix.pdf (Last accessed: 23 Feb 2016).
  33. Hüfner, K. (Ed.) (1997a). Die Vereinten Nationen und ihre Sonderorganisationen. Part 3: Finanzierung des Systems der Vereinten Nationen 1971–1995. Part 3 A: Vereinte Nationen—Friedensoperationen—Spezialorgane. Bonn: UNO-Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Hüfner, K. (1997b). Die Vereinten Nationen und ihre Sonderorganisationen. Part 3: Finanzierung des Systems der Vereinten Nationen 1971–1995. Part 3 B: Sonderorganisationen—Gesamtdarstellungen—Alternative Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten. Bonn: UNO-Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Hüfner, K. (2006). Die Finanzierung des VN-Systems, 1971–2003/2005. Bonn: UNO-Verlag.Google Scholar
  36. Hüfner, K. (2013). Wer rettet die UNESCO? Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
  37. Hüfner, K. (2015). What can save the UNESCO? Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
  38. ILO. (1974). General Instruction Concerning the Reorganisation of the International Labour Office. Report of the Director-General, GB.194/23/24.Google Scholar
  39. ILO. (1977). Measures to deal with the financial situation resulting from the withdrawal of the United States. GB.204/PFA/12/23.Google Scholar
  40. ILO. (2012). The Director-General’s Programme Guidance Letter, Programme and Budget for 2014–15.Google Scholar
  41. ILO. (2015). The Director-General’s Programme and Budget Proposal for 2016–17. GB.323/PFA/1.Google Scholar
  42. Jacobson, H. K. (1973). WHO: Medicine, regionalism, and managed politics. In R. W. Cox & H. K. Jacobson (Eds.), The anatomy of influence. Decision making in international organization (pp. 175–215). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. JIU [UN Joint Inspection Unit]. (2014). An analysis of the resource mobilization function within the United Nations System. JIU/REP/2014/1.Google Scholar
  44. JIU. (2015). Review of activities and resources devoted to address climate change in the United Nations System Organizations. JIU/REP/2015/5.Google Scholar
  45. Joyner, C. C., & Lawson, S. A. (1985/86). The United States and UNESCO: Rethinking the decision to withdraw. International Journal, 41(1), 37–71.Google Scholar
  46. Kanninen, T. (1995). Leadership and Reform. The Secretary-General and the UN Financial Crisis of the Late 1980s. The Hague, Boston and London: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  47. Kwon, G.-H. (1995). The declining role of Western Powers in international organizations: Exploring a new model of U.N. burden sharing. Journal of Public Policy, 15(1), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lyne, M. M., Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2006). Who delegates? Alternative models of principals in development aid. In D. Hawkins, D. A. Lake, D. Nielson, & M. J. Tierney (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international organizations (pp. 41–76). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Malin, P. M. (1947). The refugee: A problem for international organization. International Organization, 1(3), 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Niskanen, W. A. (1968). The peculiar economics of bureaucracy. The American Economic Review, 58(2), 293–305.Google Scholar
  51. Padelford, N. J. (1963). Financial crisis and the future of the United Nations. World Politics, 15(4), 531–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peters, B. G. (2001). The politics of bureaucracy (5th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Raudla, R., Savi, R. and Randma-Liiv, T. (2013). Literature Review on Cutback Management. COCOPS Workpage 7, Deliverable 1.Google Scholar
  54. Raudla, R., Douglas, J. W., Randma-Liiv, T., & Savi, R. (2015). The impact of fiscal crisis on decision-making processes in European Governments: Dynamics of a centralization cascade. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 842–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reinsberg, B., Michaelowa, K. and Knack, S. (2014). Which donors, which funds? The choice of multilateral funds by bilateral donors at the World Bank. Paper presented the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), University of Glasgow, Sep 3–6, 2014. http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/sites/cfd/shared/EVENTS/2015/IMFCFD_1517April/papers/Michaelowa_Katharina%20Reinsberg_Bernhard%20Knack_Stephen.pdf (Last accessed: 23 Feb 2016).
  56. Ryder, G. (2012). The ILO. A Vision Statement by Guy Ryder, Candidate for the Post of Director-General. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_norm/—relconf/documents/genericdocument/wcms_175250.pdf (Last accessed: 23 Feb 2016).
  57. Ryu, J. E., Bowling, C. J., Cho, C.-L., & Wright, D. S. (2007). Effects of administrators’ aspirations, political principals’ priorities, and interest groups’ influence on State Agency Budget requests. Public Budgeting & Finance, 27(2), 22–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schechter, M. G. (1987). Leadership in international organizations: Systemic, organizational and personality factors. Review of International Studies, 13(3), 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schick, A. (2001). The changing role of the Central Budget Office. OECD Journal on Budgeting., 1(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scorsone, E. A., & Plerhoples, C. (2010). Fiscal stress and cutback management amongst state and local governments: What have we learned and what remains to be learned? State and Local Government Review, 42(2), 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sewell, J. P. (1973). UNESCO: Pluralism rampant. In R. W. Cox & H. K. Jacobson (Eds.), The anatomy of influence. Decision making in international organization (pp. 139–174). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Singh, J. P. (2011). The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Creating Norms for a Complex World. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Taylor, P. (1991). The United Nations system under stress: financial pressures and their consequences. Review of International Studies, 17(4), 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. UNESCO. (1987). Address by Mr Federico Mayor on the occasion of his installation as Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 24 C/INF.22.Google Scholar
  65. UNESCO. (1988). Establishment of the Office for Planning, Budgeting and Evaluation. DG/Note/88/34.Google Scholar
  66. UNESCO. (1999). Address by Mr Koïchiro Matsuura on the occasion of his installation as Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 30 C/INF.50.Google Scholar
  67. UNESCO. (2010a). Preparation of the Draft Programme and Budget for 2012–2013 (36 C/5) and the related Complementary Additional Programme (36 C/5 CAP). DG/Note/10/53.Google Scholar
  68. UNESCO. (2010b). Reforming Management Practices and Organizational Design: Bureau of Financial Management (BFM) and strengthening of BSP. DG/Note/10/32.Google Scholar
  69. UNESCO. (2011). New structure of the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP). DG/Note/11/26.Google Scholar
  70. UNESCO. (2012). Financial situation of the organization and its implications for the implementation of the 35C/5. Part I. Report by the Director-General on the current situation and roadmap for the implementation of the 36 C/5. 189 EX/15 Part I Add.Google Scholar
  71. UNESCO. (2013). A practical guide to UNESCO’s extrabudgetary activities. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002201/220157e.pdf (Last accessed: 23 Feb 2016).
  72. UNESCO. (2014). New Audits by the External Auditor. Audit Report on Budgetary Methods, Tools and Processes. 195 EX/23.INF.2.Google Scholar
  73. United Nations. (2015). Letter dated 3 August 2015 from the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East addressed to the Secretary-General. Annex to A/70/272.Google Scholar
  74. US House of Representatives. (1993). Management and mismanagement at the United Nations. Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, 5 March 1993. https://ia700408.us.archive.org/20/items/managementmisman00unit/managementmisman00unit.pdf (Last accessed: 23 Feb 2016).
  75. Vaubel, R. (2006). Principal-agent problems in international organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 1(2), 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Walt, G. (1993). WHO under stress: Implications for health policy. Health Policy, 24(2), 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. WHO. (2013). Amendments to the Financial Regulations and Financial Rules. Report by the Director-General. A66/33.Google Scholar
  78. WHO. (2015a). Proposed Programme Budget 2016–17. A68/7.Google Scholar
  79. WHO. (2015b). Funding of WHO Programme Budget 2016–2017. Presentation by Hans Troedsson and Gaudenz Silberschmidt at the 2015 WHO Financing Dialogue. http://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/financing-dialogue/session1-funding-2016-17.pdf?ua=1 (Last accessed: 23 Feb 2016).
  80. WHO. (2015c). Process for developing the Proposed programme budget 2016–2017. EB136/INF./3.Google Scholar
  81. Wildavsky, A. (1974). The politics of the budgetary process (2nd ed.). Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronny Patz
    • 1
  • Klaus H. Goetz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations