Open or closed international organizations: Conditions for policy change by contestation

开放或封闭的国际组织：通过争论改变政策的条件

• 批准号: 421440357
• 负责人: Professorin Dr. Lisbeth Zimmermann
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Forschungszentrum Normative Ordnungen
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Grants
• 财政年份: 2019
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2018-12-31 至 2023-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/421440357?language=en
• 关键词: Open; closed; international; organizations; Conditions

Under what conditions do international organizations change their policies when these are contested by the assumed beneficiaries of those policies?One widespread assumption is that international organizations are bureaucratic containers. External influences are filtered by a hierarchical culture and a rigid organizational structure. Civil society protest often leads to rhetorical and procedural changes in international organizations but seldom to substantial policy change – international organizations are "closed organizations".To what extent does this assumption still hold true? Current research describes international organizations as "open organizations". Organizational cultures and structures are increasingly fluid and formal organizational boundaries play less of a role, largely due to New Public Management reforms. We observe transnational professional networks which fight over control over certain issue areas. These networks shape the behavior of international organizations. In this framework, civil society protest does not fail because of rigid IO cultures and pathologies. Instead, contesting groups can use access to professional networks, which are assumed to be more open to innovation, to affect IO policies.The project combines these two contrasting variations of constructivist IO studies in one research design: an open organizational culture and structure should promote policy change in IOs as reaction to contestation by assumed beneficiaries; a closed organizational culture and structure should hinder change. The project also analyzes the effects of alternative conditions: of powerful states and of different protest strategies. We compare reactions of ILO, UNICEF, UNODC and WHO to contestation by assumed beneficiaries in different issue areas: drug use and trafficking, child labor, human trafficking and female genital mutilation. The project combines a hypothesis-testing case comparison with process tracing. It uses expert interview, qualitative content analysis as well as network analysis.

在哪些情况下，国际组织在政策的假定受益者对这些政策提出质疑时会改变这些政策？一个普遍的假设是，国际组织是官僚主义的容器。外部影响被等级文化和僵化的组织结构过滤。民间社会的抗议往往导致国际组织在措辞和程序上的变化，但很少导致实质性的政策变化-国际组织是“封闭的组织”。目前的研究将国际组织描述为“开放组织”。组织文化和结构越来越不稳定，正式的组织边界发挥的作用越来越小，这主要是由于新公共管理改革。我们观察到跨国专业网络争夺对某些问题领域的控制权。这些网络塑造了国际组织的行为。在这个框架内，民间社会的抗议不会因为僵化的IO文化和病态而失败。相反，竞争的群体可以使用访问专业网络，这被认为是更开放的创新，影响IO policy.The项目结合了这两个对比的变化，建构主义IO研究在一个研究设计：一个开放的组织文化和结构，应促进政策变化的IO作为反应，假定受益人，封闭的组织文化和结构应该阻碍变化。该项目还分析了其他条件的影响：强大的国家和不同的抗议策略。我们比较了国际劳工组织、联合国儿童基金会、联合国毒品和犯罪问题办公室和世界卫生组织对不同问题领域的假定受益人的反应：毒品使用和贩运、童工、人口贩运和切割女性生殖器官。该项目结合了假设测试的情况下，与过程跟踪比较。采用专家访谈法、定性内容分析法和网络分析法。