Who has a say? Extent, Variation and Determinants of Expert Authority of International Public Administrations

国际关系学者越来越多地注意到，政府间组织享有专家权威，因而掌握着某种形式的权力。这一观察结果提出了一个问题，即作为独特的组织实体嵌入政府间组织并履行重要职能的国际公共行政在多大程度上也享有专家权威，从而能够确定国际政治行为者的偏好、战略和政策的方向。从这个基本问题出发，我们将注意力转向IPAs的专家权威，这是他们最有可能享有的权威。因此，采用IR视角，我们在研究单元的第一阶段致力于以下问题的研究：在何种程度和何种条件下，IPAs享有专家权威？他们的专家权威是如何变化的，为什么？在这样做的过程中，我们解决了在IPAs研究中的一个研究缺口，其中（专家）权威迄今为止一直被忽视，并旨在推进对政府间组织和IPAs的研究概念，理论和方法。从概念上讲，我们通过认真对待权威概念来做到这一点。权威概念迄今为止主导了政府间组织的研究，植根于政治哲学和社会学，并将权威理解为一种基于认可的合法权力形式。因此，我们将专家权威定义为一种特定形式的合法权力，它体现在一种关系中，在这种关系中，一个行为者通过传达基于知识的政策主张来主张专家权威，而其他行为者认识到这些主张，并认为有必要考虑和遵循这些主张，作为进一步行动和决策的基本前提，因为它们来自该行为者。从理论上讲，我们从当代国际关系理论的不同流派（理性主义、社会学和批判建构主义流派）检验专家权威的解释。在方法上，我们寻求通过采用比较和定量研究策略来促进现有的研究。一方面，我们比较了“人类安全”政策领域内和跨四个问题领域的11个IPAs的专家权威：难民保护、减少灾害风险、预防流行病威胁和粮食安全。另一方面，我们通过对80个州的320名部长级官僚机构官员的调查，收集了有关专家权威及其一些决定因素的数据，并使用描述性和推断性统计分析了这些数据。总之，我们的最终目标是提高对IPAs专家权威及其决定因素的认识，并阐明IPAs在何种程度上和在何种条件下可以在国际政治中行使权力。

Scholars in International Relations (IR) increasingly observe that intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) enjoy expert authority and thus command a form of power. This observation raises the question to what extent international public administrations (IPAs), which are embedded in IGOs as distinct organizational entity and fulfil important functions, enjoy expert authority, too, and as result are able to orient the preferences, strategies, and policies of actors in international politics. Starting from this basic question, we direct the attention to the expert authority of IPAs, which is the author-ity that they are most likely to enjoy. Adopting an IR perspective, we therefore devote our research in the first phase of the research unit to the following questions:1. To what extent and under what conditions do IPAs enjoy expert authority?2. How does their expert authority vary and why?In so doing, we address a research gap in the study of IPAs, in which (expert) authority has been neglected so far, and aim to advance the research on IGOs and IPAs conceptually, theoretically, and methodologically. Conceptually, we do so by taking seriously the concept of authority that has so far dominated the study of IGOs, is rooted in political philosophy and sociology, and under-stands authority as a form of legitimate power, which is based on recognition. Hence, we define expert authority as a specific form of legitimate power, which manifests itself in a relationship, in which one actor claims expert authority by communicating knowledge-based policy claims and other actors recognize these and feel the need to consider and follow these as a basic premise for further actions and decisions specifically because they originate from that actor. Theoretically, we test explanations of expert authority from different strands in contemporary IR theories: rationalist, sociological, and critical constructivist strands. Methodologically, we seek to contribute to existing research by adopting a comparative and quantitative research strategy. On the one hand, we com-pare the expert authority of eleven IPAs within and across four issue areas in the policy field of “human security”: refugee protection, disaster risk reduction, pandemic threat prevention, and food security. On the other hand, we collect data on expert authority and some of its determinants by means of a survey of 320 officials in ministerial bureaucracies in 80 states and analyze this data using descriptive and inferential statistics. In sum, we thereby ultimately aim to improve the knowl-edge of IPAs’ expert authority and its determinants and to elucidate to what extent and under what conditions IPAs can exercise power in international politics.