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

谁有发言权？

• 批准号: 239763971
• 负责人: Professorin Dr. Andrea Liese
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Lehrstuhl für Internationale Organisationen und Politikfelder
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Units
• 财政年份: 2014
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2013-12-31 至 2017-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/239763971?language=en
• 关键词: Who; say; Extent; Variation; Determinants

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.

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，因此拥有某种形式的权力。这一意见提出了这样一个问题：作为独立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机构在多大程度上也享有专家权威，从而能够指导国际政治行为者的偏好、战略和政策。从这个基本问题出发，我们将注意力转向投资促进机构的专家权威，这是他们最有可能享有的作者身份。因此，我们从投资者关系的角度，在研究单元的第一阶段致力于以下问题：1.投资促进机构享有专家权威的程度和条件？2.他们的专家权威是如何变化的，为什么？通过这样做，我们解决了投资促进机构研究中(专家)权威迄今被忽视的一个研究空白，旨在从概念、理论和方法上推进对政府间组织和投资促进机构的研究。在概念上，我们认真对待迄今为止主导政府间组织研究的权威概念，它植根于政治哲学和社会学，并将权威理解为一种建立在承认基础上的合法权力形式。因此，我们将专家权威定义为合法权力的一种具体形式，它表现在一种关系中，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声称专家权威，而其他行为者承认这些并认为有必要考虑和遵循这些作为进一步行动和决定的基本前提，特别是因为这些行为者源自该行为者。理论上，我们测试了当代国际关系理论中对专家权威的不同解释：理性主义、社会学和批判性建构主义。在方法上，我们试图通过采用比较和定量的研究策略来为现有的研究做出贡献。一方面，我们比较了11个IPA在“人的安全”政策领域内和在四个问题领域的专家权威：难民保护、减少灾害风险、大流行威胁预防和粮食安全。另一方面，我们通过对80个州部级机构的320名官员的调查，收集了关于专家权威及其一些决定因素的数据，并使用描述性和推论统计对这些数据进行了分析。总而言之，我们的最终目标是提高投资促进机构专家权威及其决定因素的知识水平，并阐明投资促进机构在何种程度和条件下可以在国际政治中行使权力。