Creating Space for Public Administration in International Organization Studies

• Author: Kim Moloney,David H. Rosenbloom
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074019888498
• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Date: 01 April 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019888498

American Review of Public Administration

2020, Vol. 50(3) 227 –243

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0275074019888498

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Article

Despite a world with more than 800 active international and

regional organizations (Union of International Associations

[UIA], 2013), public administration scholars infrequently

engage international organizations (IO) and their administra-

tive life as a research topic. In 1926, Leonard White wrote

that the modern state (and its growth) “accorded administra-

tion a new importance” (Moynihan, 2009, p. 814; White,

1926, p. 9). Likewise, the proliferation of international and

regional organizations accords transnational administration a

new importance (Stone & Ladi, 2015; Stone & Moloney,

2019). This should encourage our public administration dis-

cipline to deepen engagement with IOs and international

civil servant studies (Bauer et al., 2017; Eckhard & Ege,

2016; Trondal, 2016). In doing so, scholars should hedge

against haphazard applications of heretofore domestic (sov-

ereign-level) administrative theories to international and

regional organizations.

International and regional organizations operate in diverse

sector and policy areas. They are increasingly institutional-

ized actors that engage deep within a member-state’s admin-

istration. This engagement is not limited to diplomacy. Two

U.S.-based and two non-U.S. examples illustrate administra-

tive reach. The former includes the World Trade Organization’s

(WTO) phytosanitary agreements requiring cooperation with

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration while internet

domain issues (via Internet Corporation of Assigned Names

and Numbers) interact with the U.S. Department of

Commerce. Non-U.S. examples include redistributed

regional customs revenue as budget subsidies for Southern

African Customs Union member-states or a 2009

International Monetary Fund (IMF) observation that

Jamaica’s cash accounting system was deficient. In the lat-

ter case, the IMF worked with the Finance Ministry to find

government bank accounts, access balances, alter

Accountant-General duties, and encourage expenditure

accountability legislation. Each action reaches deep into

sovereign-level administration.

Typical public administration research is grounded in an

ordered sovereign-level system with balanced or separated

powers. In contrast, our emergent global administrative order

has no equivalent governance structure or separation of pow-

ers. The line-blurring between sovereign states and IOs

requires public administration scholars to consider the impact

of nonstate global actors on domestic administration. This is

especially important as IO accountability, legitimacy, and

representativeness may not replicate sovereign-level assump-

tions and behavior.

This article contributes to studies of an emergent global

administrative order in four ways. First, by utilizing IO data

largely overlooked by public administration, we find IO

888498ARPXXX10.1177/0275074019888498The American Review of Public AdministrationMoloney and Rosenbloom

research-article2019

1Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

2American University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kim Moloney, Senior Lecturer in Global Public Administration and Public

Policy, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Perth, Western Australia

6150, Australia.

Email: k.moloney@murdoch.edu.au

Creating Space for Public Administration

in International Organization Studies

Kim Moloney1 and David H. Rosenbloom2

Abstract

The emergent global administrative order includes more than 800 international and regional organizations. Just as the rise of

the modern state placed greater importance on the study of public administration, the growth of multistate organizations,

their agendas, and personnel require research that draws upon contemporary and classical public administrative thought.

This article employs multiple lenses to explore the utility of public administrative theory and empirically based knowledge

in analyzing the behavior of international and regional organizations. Specifically, while remaining cognizant of differences

between international organizations and sovereign states, we consider the utility of the politics–administration dichotomy,

representative bureaucracy, individual and employee due process and other rights, and broader questions of accountability

in understanding the administrative life and influence of international organizations in global governance.

Keywords

international organizations, legal-administrative, international civil servants, due process

228 American Review of Public Administration 50(3)

proliferation alongside a public administration discipline

largely unengaged with IO diversity, depth, and the impor-

tance of international civil servants. Second, we review

international relations’ constructivist effort to examine the

internal dynamics of IOs to explain organizational behav-

ior. In lieu of public administration’s disciplinary engage-

ment, constructivism has become a dominant approach for

“looking inside” IOs for international relations and, with an

organizational sociology modification, many Europe-based

international public administration (IPA) scholars. Public

administration’s historical disengagement from IO studies

has slowed the application of our disciplinary ideas to inter-

national organization studies & even if the tide is turning

(e.g., Bauer & Ege, 2016, 2017; Patz & Goetz, 2019; Xu &

Weller, 2019).

Third, we argue that if IO studies are to utilize public

administration concepts, there are important caveats for

administrative scholars researching IOs. To engage the cau-

tions and opportunities for the discipline of public adminis-

tration, we use the three-perspective model of management,

politics/policy, and law (Rosenbloom, 1983, 2013). This

leads to two tensions within administrative study (politics–

administrative dichotomy, bureaucratic representativeness),

questions about relations between administrative and legal

values, differing notions of justice (Aoki, 2015; Zalmanovitch,

2014), and queries about due process, employee rights, and

broader accountability questions (Knowles & Riccucci,

2001). Fourth, the three-perspective model shows where IO

study may offer opportunities to deepen and broaden domes-

tic administrative scholarship. We conclude with discussions

of how public administration scholarship might further

engage IO administrative studies.

International Organization Proliferation

IOs are important actors influencing contemporary global-

ization. Today’s global system contains one federation of

IOs, 36 universal membership and 35 intercontinental mem-

bership organizations, and 182 regionally defined member-

ship organizations. These 254 IOs complement another 549

IOs with a “special form” (see Table 1; UIA, 2013).

The majority of academic attention is devoted to just a

few IOs: United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), World

Bank, IMF, and the WTO. The UIA’s (2013) “special form”

category is especially understudied. Building upon global

administrative law scholarship, Table 1 lists four “special

form” organizational categories (Kingsbury, 2005, p. 20).1 In

addition, and despite such categorization efforts, IO catego-

ries need not be mutually exclusive. For example, the

International Development Association (IDA) is one of five

IOs within the World Bank Group. IDA is also universal

organization with nearly all states as members.

IOs also have different sector foci. Examples include the

International Atomic and Energy Agency or the WTO. There

are IOs focused on an agricultural product (Asian and Pacific

Coconut Community), technical cooperation (International

Telecommunications Union), or public functions (Interpol;

World Health Organization). IOs may adjudicate international

laws and investment disputes (International Court of Justice

[ICJ]; International Centre for Settlement of Investment

Table 1. Types of International Organizations.

Category Global organization type Example

I. International Governmental Organizations (IOs)

Ia Federation of IOs United Nations System

Ib IO Groupings World Bank Group (five IOs in group)

Ic Universal Membership Organizations United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Id Multilateral Development Banks Asian Development Bank; Caribbean Development Bank

Ie Intercontinental Membership Organizations Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

(OPEC); Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

If Regional Organizations African Union; Union of South American Nations

(UNASUR)

Ig Sub-Regional Organizations Arctic Council; Southern African Customs Union (SACU)

II-V. “Special Form” Organizations

II National Regulatory Officials with Cooperative Agreements Bank of International Settlements (BIS)

III Distributed Administration by sovereign-level civil servants

who implement a “treaty, networks, or other cooperative

regimes”

Sovereign-level civil servants administering Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

compliance

IV Administration by “hybrid intergovernmental-private

arrangements”

Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers

(ICANN)

V Administration by “private institutions with regulatory

functions”

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

Source. Author modification of Kingsbury (2005), p. 20; UIA (2013). Some may prefer to label the UN System a “meta organization” instead of using UIA’s

federation label (e.g., Ahrne & Brunsson, 2008).