International Organizations and Institutions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
13 International Organizations and Institutions Lisa Martin and Beth Simmons International organizations (IOs) and institu- another for many years to come (Neumann tions (IIs) have become an increasingly and Sending 2010). We offer some sugges- common phenomenon of international life. tions on research strategies that might con- The proliferation of IOs, the growth in treaty tribute to a better empirical base from which arrangements among states, and the deepen- to judge theoretical claims. ing of regional integration efforts in Europe The chapter proceeds as follows. The first and in other parts of the world all represent section provides a brief intellectual history of formal expressions of the extent to which modern research on IIs and IOs from the post– international politics has become more insti- World War II years to the “regimes movement” tutionalized over time (MacKenzie 2010; of the 1980s, and defines terms. We distinguish Reinalda 2009; Green 2008). international organizations, understood as The scholarship on IOs and IIs has bur- entities, from international institutions, under- geoned in response. In the past decade, theo- stood as rules. The second section sketches ries devoted to understanding why these three general clusters of theorizing and charac- phenomena exist, how they function, and terizes how each views the questions of organ- what effects they have on world politics and izational and institutional creation, decisions other outcomes of concern have become about membership and design, change and increasingly refined. The methods employed evolution, and institutional and organizational in empirical work have also become more effects. We do not offer these approaches as sophisticated. The purpose of this chapter is either exhaustive or mutually exclusive, but to draw together this divergent literature, to rather as representative, semipermeable frame- offer observations on the development of its works that share certain assumptions and various theoretical strands, and to examine diverge elsewhere. Increasingly, a number of progress on the empirical front. We predict scholars straddle or draw selectively from that a broad range of theoretical traditions – more than one approach. realist, rational functionalist, constructivist – The third section is devoted to an examina- will exist alongside and in dialogue with one tion of the empirical literature on the effects 55769-Carlsnaes_13.indd769-Carlsnaes_13.indd 332626 55/3/2012/3/2012 33:46:12:46:12 PPMM INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS 327 of IIs and IOs. Empirical research has devel- law and organizations who made little explicit oped significantly over the past decade as effort to link their analyses to theories of scholars have turned from the question of state behavior (see the chapter by Simmons why such arrangements exist to whether and in this volume). how they significantly impact behavior and The best of the early work in this genre outcomes. We examine these questions with looked at the interplay between formal IOs, respect to international cooperation, rule rules and norms, domestic politics, and gov- compliance, and distributional outcomes. We ernmental decision making – themes we note, too, the growing number of studies that would recognize today as being near the cut- have looked for broader effects associated ting edge of international institutional with IIs and IOs, some of which have been research. However, the initial effect of the undesired and even unanticipated. behavioral revolution on studies of IOs and The final section delineates some recent IIs was to further remove their study from developments and directions for future the central problems of world politics, espe- research. As IOs and IIs have increased in cially during the Cold War. The most clearly number and complexity, research has turned identifiable research program in this respect to the question of how to multiple entities was that devoted to voting patterns and and layers of rules relate to one another, as office seeking in the UN General Assembly well as how they accommodate and some- (Alker and Russett 1965; Keohane 1966). times even privilege particular actors at the This literature choose to focus on difficult- domestic and international levels. to-interpret behavior (what did these coali- tions signify, anyway?) and imported methods uncritically from American studies of legislative behavior. Studies of the UN BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS that focused on bureaucratic politics with links to transnational actors made more Background progress, since they opened up a research program that would ultimately lead to more The term international institution has been systematic reflection on nongovernmental used over the course of the last few decades actors (Keohane and Nye 1977; Cox and to refer to a broad range of phenomena. In Jacobson 1973). the early postwar years, these words almost The centrality of formal IOs and formal always referred to formal IOs, usually to international legal agreements to the study of organs or branches of the United Nations international relations has waxed and waned. system. This is hardly surprising. Such The major international conflict for a rising organizations were the most ‘studiable’ (if generation of scholars – the Vietnam War – not necessarily the most crucial) manifesta- raged beyond the formal declarations of the tions of what was ‘new’ about postwar inter- United Nations. Two decades of predictable national relations (see Martin and Simmons monetary relations under the purview of the 1998). The postwar research was largely IMF were shattered by a unilateral decision descriptive and focused almost exclusively of the United States in 1971 to close the gold on formal international legal agreements, window and later to float the dollar. OPEC such as the Charter of the United Nations, was hardly constrained by long-standing Security Council resolutions and treaties legal constraints or multilateral forums when relating to trade and alliances. A divide it quadrupled oil prices in the 1970s. It seemed to have opened up between students became apparent that much of the earlier of international relations – who were tremen- focus on formal structures and multilateral dously influenced by realists such as treaty-based agreements, especially the UN, Morgenthau – and scholars of international had been overdrawn (Strange 1978). 55769-Carlsnaes_13.indd769-Carlsnaes_13.indd 332727 55/3/2012/3/2012 33:46:13:46:13 PPMM 328 HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS The events of the 1970s encouraged stipulate the ways in which states should thoughtful scholars to theorize international cooperate and compete with each other’ governance more broadly. The study of (Mearsheimer 1994–95). ‘international regimes,’ defined as rules, This definition has several advantages. norms, principles, and procedures that focus First, it eliminates the moving parts that lent expectations regarding international behavior so much confusion to regimes analysis. (Krasner 1983) demoted the study of IOs as Underlying principles, while perhaps of ana- actors and began instead to focus on rules or lytical interest, are not included in the defini- even ‘understandings’ thought to influence tion of an institution itself. Rules and governmental behavior. Research in this vein decision-making procedures, referring defined regimes for specific issue-areas, for respectively to substance and process, are which this approach has been criticized both simply ‘rules’ in this conception. This (Hurrell 1993; Kingsbury 1998), and viewed definition allows for the analysis of both regimes as focal points around which actors’ formal and informal sets of rules, although expectations converge. Principles and norms the difficulty of operationalizing informal provide the normative framework for regimes, rules is unavoidable. while rules and decision-making procedures A second advantage of this definition is provide more specific injunctions for appro- that it separates the definition of an institu- priate behavior.1 tion from behavioral outcomes that ought to The definition led to some debates that be explained. Regularized patterns of behav- were of questionable utility, such as what ior – frequently observed in international exactly counted as a “norm” or a “rule.” The relations for reasons that have nothing to do consensus definition of “regime” offered by with rules – are excluded. The narrow defini- Krasner and his colleagues was roundly criti- tion strips institutions from posited effects cized as imprecise and even tendentious and allows us to ask whether rules influence (Strange 1982; De Senarclens 1993). But behavior. Contrast this approach with other overall, the regimes concept was an impor- well-accepted definitions. Robert Keohane tant effort to make the study of international (1989) defines institutions as ‘persistent and institutions (very broadly understood) more connected sets of rules (formal and informal) relevant to international politics. that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations’, which makes it impossible to test for the impact of Definitions institutions on activities and expectations. Similarly, Volker Rittberger has argued that The regimes literature engendered such defi- an arrangement should only be considered a nitional confusion that scholars in the 1990s regime if the actors are persistently guided sought a simpler conception as well as a new by its norms and rules (Rittberger and Zürn label. The word “institution” has now