The US led international economic order has endured since the end of World War Two. China’s rapid economic ascent, along with other rising powers like Brazil and India, have raised questions as to how they will reshape the international order including specific institutions. Changing economic weights have already affected the possibility of realizing international trade agreements through the WTO. Monetarily, the shift from the G7 to the G20 was hastened by the need for economic stimulus from rising powers after the Global Financial Crisis beginning in 2007. In terms of global development, aid lending is highly contested over the need for borrowers to have greater ownership over their development while holding onto well-established principles designed to protect the environment and societies. Contesting visions are apparent between the US and China over the future of international development lending. While China has benefited from the international order and there is some recognition that it will seek to uphold it, this does not mean that China will not by its very existence, influence international institutions. How will its economic weight shape global economic and political structures? Will China’s non-democratic model of government affect how global economic decisions are made? This focus group, led by Hans Fischer Senior Fellow Prof. Susan Park and her host Prof. Eugénia da Conceição-Heldt, will map China’s role in global economic governance with an eye towards theory building regarding the role of hegemons in global economic governance and the Multilateral Development Banks in particular.
Legacies and Innovations in Global Economic Governance Since Bretton Woods
The international economic system that was established at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference became one of the historically most durable arrangements devoted to economic openness. This reserach project examines the legacies of the conference for structures of economic governance, the innovations that emerged to adapt the system to new political and economic circumstances, and what consequences these legacies and innovations have had for global economic governance. It reveals how and why the Bretton Woods system with time developed into a more variegated system of governance through changes in four dimensions of governance: membership, legalization, focality, and embeddedness. Over time the system has been characterized by expanding membership in the IMF, World Bank, and GATT/WTO, the emergence of new formal and informal institutions, a more fragmented institutional landscape in which the status of legacy organizations has been challenged, as well as shifts in the underlying principles of economic governance. But many features of Bretton Woods have also been characterized by continuity and have exhibited a great deal of adaptability and resilience. The issue features contributions that explore mixtures of change and continuity across the monetary, financial, development, and trade domains. Employing a variety of institutional analyses that span the international political economy (IPE) and international organization (IO) subfields, contributors identify lessons from past crises in and reforms to the Bretton Woods system that have implications for how to understand the latest challenges to global economic cooperation, including shifting balances of power, new economic ideas, and rising populism.
- Heldt, E. and Schmidtke, H. (2019): “Explaining coherence in international regime complexes: How the World Bank shapes the field of multilateral development finance”, Review of International Political Economy 26(6): 1160-1186, DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2019.1631205.
- Fioretos, O. and Heldt, E. (2019): “Legacies and innovations in global economic governance since Bretton Woods”, Review of International Political Economy 26(6): 1089-1111, DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2019.1635513.
Agency Slack – International Bureaucracies as “Runaway Agents”? How Organizational Structure Affects Agency Slack
Over the past decades states have delegated extensive decision-making authority to the administrative bodies of international organizations. These international bureaucracies are setting agendas, participate in decision-making processes, implement policy programs, represent states in international organizations, create new regulatory agencies, and even settle disputes among states. Their gradual process of empowerment has been accompanied by an increase in oversight mechanisms, as member states, in some cases, considered that international bureaucracies had undertaken actions contrary to their intentions and overstepped their mandates (agency slack). Accordingly, international bureaucracies are sometimes portrayed as “runaway agents” that escaped the control of their principals (member states). This prompts a key question for research on international bureaucracies in global governance: under what conditions do secretariats of international organizations engage in agency slack – deviating from their mandate and acting in a way unintended by their principals? To address this question, this project takes a Multi-Method Research approach that is suited to test and further develop principal-agent theory. We employ fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and fuzzy-set ideal type analysis for a systematic cross-case comparison and, subsequently, process-tracing for an in-depth study of selected international bureaucracies, each of which are analyzed for specific policies. We test our theoretical expectations on 27 international bureaucracies, where we gather data on four organizational characteristics: fragmentation, staffing rules, buffering, and permeability. The chosen approach will allow us to investigate necessary and sufficient conditions for the occurrence of agency slack, to identify underlying causal mechanisms, and to assess the plausibility of alternative explanations. The insights gained from the project will enable us to map different patterns of agency slack and explain under which organizational structures international bureaucracies act against their principals’ preferences. Showing how organizational structure matters by comparing different international bureaucracies will enrich principal-agent theory and help us bridge the gap between theoretical considerations and empirical work in the field.
Delegation and Empowerment of International Organizations over Time
In recent decades, there has been a steady increase in the number of international Organizations (IOs). At varying levels states have transferred some authority to IOs, giving them different levels of power. While there has been a steady extension of competences of the EU, IMF, and World Bank, in the GATT/WTO, UNESCO, and WHO the level of delegated authority has remained constant. We argue that IO empowerment (IOE) is a function of temporal dynamics, the degree of cohesion among principals, and the design of the delegation contract. On the theoretical side, the aim of this interdisciplinary project is to develop a theory of IOE that integrates a temporal dimension into the principal-agent approach. We do this by resorting to four different disciplines: political science, economics, law, and organizational sociology. On the empirical side, the main novelty of the project consists in adopting a comparative research design and a longitudinal perspective.
We analyze the empowerment of six IOs (EC/EU, GATT/WTO, IMF, UNESCO, WHO, and World Bank) over a period of 65 years (1950-2015). Given the aim and scope of this research, the project is to be regarded as theory-building and hypothesis-testing research. It is based on extensive qualitative work conducted in the archives of these six IOs as well as on elite interviews with national and international officials. With this project, we gain new insights into the following fields: consequences of power delegation to IOs; the temporal dimension of the interaction between states and IOs; the preference formation of states; the comparison of different types of IOs. This allows us to answer the broader and more general question of the conditions under which IOs can operate as independent actors in world politics and to advance theoretical insights and empirical research in International Relations.