Search

In this article, we distinguish two approaches to studying international public administrations (IPAs). On the one hand, there is a line of research that is grounded in traditional Public Administration (PA) and seeks to understand IPAs through established disciplinary lenses. On the other hand, scholars conceive IPAs as posing new problems and questions and are trying to integrate the standpoints of their respective disciplines into a broader research agenda. We argue that both perspectives have their merits – and limitations. However, the more IPAs are understood as phenomena heralding the emergence of transnationalized political systems, the less traditional PA toolkits appear able to capture the innovative aspects IPAs may hold. This essay thus argues for keeping IPA research as a field of study open, integrative and mixed – to encourage out of the box thinking and innovation, rather than stifle it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are there substantial differences between the issues an IO's decision-making body agrees upon and the issues the organization's administrative body is dealing with in practice? Or are member states and the administration singing (to) the same tune? To tackle these questions, this article explores agenda congruence in three single-purpose organizations using methods of quantitative text analysis. The explorative empirical analysis shows that both change dynamics and agenda congruence exhibit substantial variation across the organizations. The findings suggest that agenda congruence decreases with the degree of authority delegated to the administration and the extent to which the administration tries to identify relevant policy issues from within the administration. Given that the results are well in line with what dominant theoretical accounts would predict, both concept and measurement are considered promising additions to the study of IOs and international public administrations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do more rules improve overall policy performance? To answer this question, we look at rule growth in the area of environmental policy from an aggregate perspective. We argue that impactful growth in rules crucially depends on implementation capacities. If such capacities are limited, countries are at risk of 'empty' rule growth where they lack the ability to implement their ever‐growing stock of policies. Hence, rules are a necessary, yet not sufficient condition for achieving sectoral policy objectives. We underpin our argument with an analysis of the impact of a new, encompassing measure of environmental rule growth covering 13 countries from 1980 to 2010. These findings call for 'sustainable statehood' where the growth in rules should not outpace the expansion in administrative capacities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]