Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of International Bureaucracies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Palgrave Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations in World Politics

Abstract

This chapter tries to shed light on the specific role of international bureaucracies when international intergovernmental organizations interact. It takes a holistic approach that accounts also for the role of member states and the resulting complex multilevel governance among a multitude of players networking across organizational and state boundaries when organizations interact. Studies systematically investigating the role of bureaucracies in inter-organizational affairs are extremely rare. Therefore, the goal of this chapter is to inspire research by connecting the study of inter-organizational relations more systematically with the research on international bureaucracies in general. The chapter first conceptualizes international bureaucracies. It then discusses the relevance of international bureaucracies for inter-organizational relations. Afterwards, four major theoretical perspectives on bureaucracies are screened, namely principal–agent theory, sociological institutionalism, the bureaucratic politics approach, and organization theory, in order to demonstrate how they might be employed and blended to research the role of international bureaucracies in inter-organizational relations. The conclusions offer some methodological recommendations of how to do so.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliography

  • Abbott, K. W. and Snidal D. (1998) ‘Why States Act through Formal International Organizations’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42:1, 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E. (1979) Organizations and Environments, Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. and Herker, D. (1977) ‘Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure’, The Academy of Management Review, 2:2, 217–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, G. T. (1971) Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2nd ed. 1999 with Philip Zelikow, New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, G. T. (2002) ‘Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis’, in: Ikenberry, G. J. (ed.) American Foreign Policy. Theoretical Essays, 4th ed., New York: Longman, 396–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter, C. and Hage, J. (1993) Organizations Working Together, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, C. (1993) International Organizations, 2nd ed., London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Art, R. (1973) ‘Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique’, Policy Sciences 4, 467–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. and Coleman, L. (2005) ‘Designing Police: Interpol and the Study of Change in International Organizations’, International Studies Quarterly, 49:4, 593–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (1999) ‘The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations’, International Organization, 53:4, 699–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (2004) Rules of the World: International Organizations in Global Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (2005) ‘The Power of Liberal International Organizations’, in: Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (eds.) Power in Global Governance, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, S., Biermann, F., Dingwerth, K. and Siebenhüner B. (2009) ‘Understanding International bureaucracies: Taking Stock’, in: Biermann, F. and Siebenhüner, B. (eds.) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 15 - 36.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, S. and Weinlich, S. (2011) ‘International Bureaucracies: Organizing World Politics’, in: Reinalda, B. (ed.) The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors, Farnham: Ashgate, 250–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, D. (2004) ‘The Unseen Hand in Treaty Reform Negotiations: the Role and Influence of the Council Secretariat’, Journal of European Public Policy, 11:3, 408–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendor, J. and Hammond, T. H. (1992) ‘Rethinking Allison’s Models’, American Political Science Review, 86:2, 301–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, R. (2008a) ‘Inter-Organizational Relations: An Emerging Research Program’, in: Reinalda, B. (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors, Aldershot: Ashgate 2011, 173–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, R. (2008b) ‘Rivalry among International Organizations. The Downside of Institutional Choice’, Paper prepared for the Conference ‘Internationale Beziehungen und Organisationsforschung – Stand und Perspektiven’. Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Center on Governance, Public Policy and Law, 18 September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, R. (2011) ‘Designing Inter-Organizational Cooperation. The Quest for Autonomy and the Effectiveness-Control Dilemma’, Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Montreal, 27 August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, R. (2015) ‘Designing cooperation among international organizations. Autonomy Concerns, the Dual Consensus Rule, and Cooperation Failure, Journal of International Organization Studies, 6:3, 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. and Siebenhüner, B. (eds., 2009a) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. and Siebenhüner, B. (2009b) ‘The Role and Relevance of International Bureaucracies: Setting the Stage’, in: ibid. (eds., 2009) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. and Siebenhüner, B. (2009c) ‘The Influence of International Bureaucracies in World Politics: Findings from the MANUS Research Project’, in: ibid. (eds., 2009) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 319–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Siebenhüner, B., Busch, P.-O., Campe, S., Dingwerth, K. Grothmann, T., Marschinski, R. and Tarradell, M. (2009) ‘Studying the Influence of International Bureaucracies: A Conceptual Framework’, in: Biermann, F. and Siebenhüner, B. (eds.) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 37–74.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chwieroth, J. M. (2008) ‘Normative Change From Within: The International Monetary Fund’s Approach to Capital Account Liberalization’, International Studies Quarterly 52, 129–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chwieroth, J.M. (2012) ‘“The Silent Revolution”’: How the Staff Exercise Informal Governance Over IMF Lending’, The Review of International Organizations, 8:2, 265–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortell, A.P. and Peterson, S. (2006) ‘Dutiful agents, rogue actors, or both? Staffing, voting rules, and slack in the WHO and WTO’, in: Hawkins, D.G. et al. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 255–80.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. W. and Jacobson, H. K. (1973a) ‘The Framework for Inquiry’, in: ibid. (eds.) The Anatomy of Influence. Decision Making in International Organization, New Haven und London: Yale University Press, 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. W. and Jacobson, H. K. (1973b) ‘The Anatomy of Influence’, in: ibid. (eds.) The Anatomy of Influence. Decision Making in International Organization, New Haven und London: Yale University Press, 371–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. D. V. (2002) The Administration of International Organizations. Top down and bottom up, Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, H. (2012) ‘The Influence of EU officials in European Security and Defence’, European Security, 21:3, 311–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkzeul, D. and Beigbeder, Y. (2003) Rethinking International Organizations. Pathology and Promise, New York: Berghahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingwerth, K., Kerwer, D. and Nölke, A. (2009) ‘Einleitung: Internationale Politik und Organisationen’, in: ibid. (eds.) Die Organisierte Welt. Internationale Beziehungen und Organisationsforschung, Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, J. (2007) ‘What are International Institutions?’, International Studies Quarterly, 91:1, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, D. C. (2010) ‘The Organizational Turn in International Organization Theory’, Journal of International Organization Studies, 1:1, 11–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsig, M. (2007) ‘The EU’s Choice of Regulatory Venues for Trade Negotiations: A Tale of Agency Power?’ Journal of Common Market Studies, 45:4, 927–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsig, M. (2011) ‘Principal-agent theory and the World Trade Organization: Complex agency and ‘missing delegation”, European Journal of International Relations, 17:3, 495–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordenker, L. (2005) The UN Secretary-General and the Secretariat, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, L.S. and White, P.E. (1981) ‘Interorganizational agreements’, in: Nystrom, P. C. and Starbuck, W. H. (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 471–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, E. R. (2006) ‘Delegating IMF conditionality: understanding variations in control and conformity’, in: Hawkins, D. G. et al. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 281–311.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gowan, R. (2009) ‘ESDP and the United Nations’, in: Grevi, G., Helly, D. and Keohane, D. (eds.) European Security and Defense Policy: The first ten years (1999–2009), Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, 117–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutner, T. (2005) ‘Explaining the Gaps between Mandate and Performance: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform’, Global Environmental Politics, 5:2, 10–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutner, T. and Thompson, A. (2010) ‘The politics of IO performance: a framework’, Review of International Organizations, 5:3, 227–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, E. B. (1964) Beyond the Nation-State. Functionalism and International Organizations, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, E. B. (1976) ‘Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration’, International Organization, 30:2, 173–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haftel, Y. Z. and Thompson, A. (2006) ‘The Independence of International Organizations: Concept and Applications’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50:2, 253–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, M. H. (1974) Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, M. H. and Kanter, A. (1973) Readings in American Foreign Policy. A Bureaucratic Perspective, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsch, M. F. (2015) The Power of Dependence: NATO-UN Cooperation in Crisis Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L. and Tierney, M. J. (2006) ‘Delegation under anarchy: states, international organizations, and principal-agent theory’, in: ibid. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. G. and Jacoby, W. (2006) ‘How Agents Matter’, in: Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L. and Tierney, M. J. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199–228.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Herrhausen, A. (2007) Coordination in United Nations Peacebuilding – A Theory-Guided Approach. Berlin: Social Science Research Center, Discussion Paper SPIV2007-301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, Christer (1986) ‘Interorganization Theory and International Organization’, International Studies Quarterly, 30:1, 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, C. (1993) ‘International organization and co-operation: An interorganizational perspective’, International Social Science Journal, 45:138, 463–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, J. (1998) ‘Power Politics in Foreign Policy: The Influence of Bureaucratic Minorities’, European Journal of International Relations, 4:1, 67–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karns, M. P and Mingst, K. A. (2010) International Organizations. The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1969) ‘Institutionalization in the United Nations General Assembly’, International Organization, 23:4, 859–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1975) International Organization and the Crisis of Interdependence, International Organization, 29:2, 357–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1980) ‘The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967-1977’, in: Holsti, O. R., Siverson, R. M. and George, A. E. (eds.) Change in the International System, Boulder, CO: Westview, 131–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1984) After Hegemony. Power and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. (1989) International Institutions and State Power, Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kille, K. J., and Hendrickson, R. C. (2010), ‘Secretary-General Leadership across the United Nations and NATO: Kofi Annan, Javier Solana, and Operation Allied Force’, Global Governance, 16, 505–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, J. (2009) An Introduction to International Institutional Law, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, M. (2006) Processes of Autonomization in/of International Organizations? The Case of the World Trade Organiation (WTO), Bielefeld: Institut für Weltgesellschaft (Working Paper Series).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, M. (2013) The European Union and the Council of Europe, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koops, J. A. (2012) ‘NATO’s Influence on the Evolution of the European Union as a Security Actor’, in: Joergensen, K.E. and Costa, O. (eds.), The Influence of International Institutions on the EU, Basingstoke, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 155–86.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koremnos, B., Lipson, C. and Snidal, D. (2001) ‘The Rational Design of International Institutions’, International Organization, 55:4, 761–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozak, D. C. (1988) ‘The Bureaucratic Politics Approach: The Evolution of the Paradigm’, in: Kozak, D. C. and Keagle, J. M. (eds.) Bureaucratic Politics and National Security. Theory and Practice, Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S. D. (2002) ‘Are Bureaucracies Important? (Or Allison Wonderland)’, in: Ikenberry, G. J. (ed.) American Foreign Policy. Theoretical Essays, 4th ed., New York: Longman, 441–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S. D. (1982) ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables’, International Organization, 36:3, 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, F. and Ruggie, J. G. (1986) ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’, International Organization, 40:4, 229–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liese, A. and Weinlich, S. (2006) ‘Verwaltungsstäbe internationaler Organisationen’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift (Special Edition 37), 491–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, D. (2009) ‘ESDP and the OSCE’, in: Grevi, G., Helly, D. and Keohane, D. (eds.) European Security and Defence Policy: The First Ten Years (1999–2009), Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, 139–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. M. (2006) ‘Distribution, information, and delegation to international organizations: the case of IMF conditionality’, in: Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L. and Tierney, M. J. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 140–64.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. L. and Simmons, B. A. (2001) ‘Preface’, in: ibid. (eds.) International Institutions. An International Organization Reader, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiason, J. (2007) Invisible Governance: International Secretariats in Global Politics, Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, S. (ed., 2014) NATO’s Post-Cold Bureaucracy and the Changing Provision of Security, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994/95) ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security, 19:3, 5–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: Norton & Company, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megens, I. (1998) ‘The role of NATO’s bureaucracy in shaping and widening the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’, in: Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (eds.) Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations, London: Routledge, 120–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (1997) ‘Taking Preferences Seriously. A Liberal Theory of International Politics’, International Organization, 51:4, 513–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness, G. D. and Brechin, S. R. (1988) ‘Bridging the gap: international organizations as organizations’, International Organization, 42:2, 245–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielson, D. L. and Tierney, M. J. (2003) ‘Delegation to International Organizations: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform’, International Organization, 57:2, 241–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielson, D. L., Tierney, M. J. and Weaver, C. E- (2006) ‘Bridging the rationalist-constructivist divide: re-engineering the culture of the World Bank’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 9, 107–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, I. (2004) ‘The OSCE, NATO and the EU within the “Network of Interlocking European Security Institutions”: Hierarchization, Flexibilization, Marginalization’, in: Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (ed.) OSCE Yearbook 2003, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 381–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (2003) The External Control of Organizations. A Resource Dependence Perspective, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2nd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, M. A. (1997) ‘Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community’, International Organization, 51:1, 99–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. (2009) ‘Bureaucratic Theory and Intellectual Renewal in Contemporary Organization Studies’, in: Adler, P. S. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies: Classical Foundations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinalda, B. (2013) Routledge Handbook of International Organizations, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (2004) ‘The issue of decision making within international organizations’, in: ibid. (eds.) Decision Making Within International Organizations, London and New York: Routledge, 9–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittberger, V. and Zangl, B. (2006) International Organization. Polity, Politics and Policies, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochester, J. M. (1986) ‘The rise and fall of international organization as a field of study’, International Organization, 40:4, 777–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosati, J. A. (1981) ‘Developing a Systematic Decision-Making Framework: Bureaucratic Politics in Perspective’, World Politics, 33:2, 234–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäferhoff, M. (2009) ‘Kooperation oder Konkurrenz? Zur Kooperationsbereitschaft internationaler Verwaltungsstäbe in transnationalen öffentlich-privaten Partnerschaften’, in: Dingwerth, K., Kerwer D. and Nölke A. (eds.) Die Organisierte Welt. Internationale Beziehungen und Organisationsforschung, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 211–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuermann, M. (2012) VN-EU-Beziehungen in der militärischen Friedenssicherung, Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, G. (1997) ‘Die bürokratische Politik der Außenpolitikanalyse. Das Erbe Allisons im Lichte der gegenwärtigen Forschungspraxis’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 4:1, 107–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopler, J. H. (1987) ‘Interorganizational Groups: Origins, Structure, and Outcomes’, The Academy of Management Review, 12:4, 702–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. W. (1998) Organizations. Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, C., Jacobson, H. K. and Kaplan, J. H. (1996) ‘Inertia and change in the constellation of international governmental organizations, 1981–1992’, International Organization, 50:4, 593–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, B. and Martin, L. (2002) ‘International Organizations and Institutions’, in: Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. and Simmons, B. A. (eds.) Handbook of International Relations, Los Angeles: Sage, 192–211.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tardy, T. (2009) ‘EU-UN relations in military crisis management’, Studia Diplomatica, 62:3, 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. (2006) ‘Screening Power: International Organizations as Informative Agents’, in: Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L. and Tierney, M. J. (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229–54.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trettin, F. and Junk, J. (2014) ‘Spoilers From Within: Bureaucratic Spoilers in United Nations Peace Operations’, Journal of International Organization Studies (Special Issue on Internal Dynamics and Dysfunctions of International Organizations), 5:1, 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J., Marcussen, M. and Veggeland, F. (2004) ‘International Executives: Transformative Bureaucracies or Westphalian Orders?’, European Integration Online Papers, 8:4, available at: http://econpapers.repec.org/article/erpeiopxx/p0109.htm, accessed 27 Dec. 2014.

  • Tudyka, K. P. (1998) ‘The margin beyond intergovernmentalism: The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’, in: Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (eds.) Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations, London: Routledge, 108–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L. and Scanlan, T. J. (1981) ‘Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information Transfer and Their Antecedents’, The Academy of Management Journal, 24:2, 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaubel, R. (2006) ‘Principal-agent problems in international organizations’, Review of International Organizations, 1:2, 125–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, B. (1998) ‘International organizations. The ugly duckling of international relations theory?’ in: Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (eds.) Autonomous policy making by international organizations, London: Routledge, 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, C. (2008) Hypocrisy Trap: The World Bank and the Poverty of Reform, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, C. and Leiteritz, R. J. (2005) ‘“Our Poverty is a World Full of Dreams”: Reforming the World Bank’, Global Governance, 11:3, 369–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinlich, S. (2011) Shaping Peace Operations: The Influence of the UN Secretariat, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, T. G. (1975) International Bureaucracy, Lexington, M.A.: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, D. A. (1992) ‘The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigm: Retrospect and Prospect’, International Security, 17:2, 112–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, D. A. (1998) ‘A Positive Science of Bureaucratic Politics?’ Mershon International Studies Review, 42:2, 210–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldes, J. (1998) ‘Bureaucratic Politics: A Critical Constructivist Assessment’, Mershon International Studies Review, 42:2, 216–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yost, D. S. (2007) NATO and International Organizations, Forum Paper No. 3, Rome: NATO Defense College.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vesalius College, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan, 2, Brussels, 1050, Belgium

    Rafael Biermann

Authors
  1. Rafael Biermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany

    Joachim A. Koops

  2. Vesalius College, Brussels, Belgium

    Rafael Biermann

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Biermann, R. (2017). The Role of International Bureaucracies. In: Koops, J., Biermann, R. (eds) Palgrave Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations in World Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-36039-7_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation