Palgrave Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations in World Politics

While the relation between international relations (IR) and organization theory was long one of mutual neglect, the shift from an intra-organizational toward an inter-organizational focus made organization theory more relevant to IR scholars. Jönsson traces the varying prominence of an inter-organizational approach in different IR paradigms. Whereas network theory highlights inter-organizational links, regime theory redirects attention toward ideational factors and privileges institutions over organizations. Resource-dependency theory and the principal-agent model represent refinements of inter-organizational theory. At the same time, a ‘transnational turn’ in IR draws attention to interaction between a wider set of organizations. Any theory focusing on agency in contemporary and future IR needs to encompass interactions between organizations, be they formal or informal, public or private, specialized or multi-issue.

This chapter considers how International Relations (IR) theory and organization theory (OT) have informed each other’s development to date and discusses areas of unrealized potential for future cross-fertilization in analyzing inter-organizational cooperation and conflict as well as limits of such exchange. While IR has made limited contributions to organizational studies, the flow of ideas from organizational scholarship to IR has been more influential. Organizational theories such as transaction cost economics, agency theory, and neo-institutionalist organizational sociology have significantly influenced IR theory over the past 30 years. Network analysis is increasingly employed in IR. Complexity theory has seen some application in both IR and OT. And scholars of international organizations have recently drawn upon resource dependence theory and organization culture theory. Other organizational theories—including contingency, garbage can, and organizational ecology, theories—have the potential to illuminate new puzzles in the study of inter-organizational relations in world politics.

The rational design of international institutions has been a prominent research agenda in the field of international relations. The chapter builds on this tradition by exploring how intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) design relationships with other IGOs. Using insights from organization theory on inter-organizational relations (IORs), it proposes to distinguish between the formalization, intensity, symmetry, and standardization of interactions between IGOs. The four dimensions allow for an analytical framework that is easy to operationalize. While the rational design literature shows great promise in analyzing the interaction between IGOs, it is important to account for the political nature of life in the international arena. The design of IORs in international relations is likely to be informal, intensive outside the formal settings, symmetrical and not very standardized.

Networks have become one of the major paradigms in social sciences to illustrate all kinds of relationships between social actors. However, as manifold as social actors can be, as different are the approaches that deal with networks as a general analytic tool. This chapter presents three network approaches: heuristics, governance school, and social network analysis (SNA) and will put its emphasis on the latter. SNA, as an important theoretical approach in many neighboring social sciences, promises to be most beneficial for the study of inter-organizational relations.

This chapter aims to make resource dependence theory (RDT) more accessible for scholars of international organizations. It first outlines RDT’s origins and evolution, introduces its core assumptions, and discusses the theory’s shortcomings. RDT is currently experiencing a phase of theory revival, refinement, and empirical application. Secondly the chapter explores whether RDT can be applied to international organizations and considers works by International Relations (IR) scholars who have employed a resource dependence perspective. Increasing empirical evidence indicates that RDT has the potential to improve our understanding of cooperation among international organizations. Open questions remain about RDT’s scope and its compatibility with other organizational and IR theories. The chapter concludes by suggesting several avenues for future research.

All organizations depend on external resources. Population ecology (PE)—a classic theoretical approach of organization studies—claims that the environment as the provider of external resources selects within any group of organizations all those that best fit the environment’s requirements and/or functional needs. In this social-darwinistic approach, the environment exercises structural power over groups of organizations, so-called populations. Environments hence determine organizational survival via selection processes.With reference to this organizational concept, this chapter will lay out the basic elements of PE and introduce and explain central theoretical ideas. In the course of this chapter, these ideas will be transferred and applied to international relations (IR) in general and inter-organizational relations (IOR) in particular.PE perfectly lends itself to study a number of IOR aspects as it helps to understand why new organizations are created and established ones decease. Moreover, PE is suitable for all those approaches that try to analyze why not all populations evolve in the same direction and why every population of organizations appears to have its own genetic code.

As a variety of state and non-state organizations are involved in world politics, relations among these organizations significantly contribute to global order. In this article, we examine how inter-organizational relations can be studied by sociological approaches from the field of Organization Studies. In so doing our focus is on three accounts that have proved their merits in explaining why and under which circumstances cooperation among international organizations takes place: resource dependence, sociological neo-institutionalism, and organizational fields. These approaches see organizations as embedded in and interacting with their societal environment but have slight deficits on the level of examining all kinds of inter-organizational relations and their contribution to world order. Thus, we briefly introduce two promising alternatives: Luhmann’s systems theory and American Pragmatism.

This chapter argues that Inter-organizational relations (IORs) should be understood and analysed as a multilevel phenomenon involving a variety of different actors and players at different levels of analysis. Processes, dynamics, and outcomes of inter-organizational interaction occur and unfold during various moments of the inter-organizational life cycle and can be significantly influenced by powerful member states, individual leaders as well as bureaucratic and inter-institutional dynamics. Hence, for students, researchers and practitioners of inter-organizational relations, it is of prime importance to be aware of the different impact each level can have and how these levels interact in the wider context of cooperation or rivalry between organizations. This chapter provides a multilevel framework for analysing IORs. Section 2 introduces the multilevel analysis framework more generally and explains how it can be applied to the assessment of various aspects of IORs. Thereafter, Section 3 outlines in more detail the different levels (international system, member state, individual, bureaucratic and inter-institutional/inter-secretariat) and their significance for understanding, describing and explaining material, ideational as well as impact-related aspects of inter-organizational relations. Finally, Section 4 offers some overall conclusions and suggestions for future research.

This chapter discusses inter-organizational relations (IORs) from the perspective of the international Secretariat of an International Governmental Organization (IGO) and the organization’s Executive Head. IORs are a long-standing phenomenon that resulted from the evolution of IGOs, the increase in their numbers and the complementarity or overlap of activities and mandates. The chapter follows the evolution of IGOs and their IORs by tracing the place of Secretariats and the leadership role of Executive Heads to discern four developments of IORs in chronological order: the emergence of IGO Secretariats and some early IORs, the League of Nations specialized agency relationship and the leadership role of Executive Heads in IORs, the United Nations (UN) specialized agency relationship and the leadership role of Executive Heads in IORs within and beyond the UN System, and the emergence of so-called ‘country clubs’ (like the G20) and the impact on the previous type of IORs. The focus on Secretariats and their Executive Heads helps to trace and better illustrate IORs and the related dimensions of leadership in conjunction with member-state governments. The IORs discussed show that governments allow IGOs room for maneuver (if needed by lessening control) and permit agency slack, with Executive Heads and their staff serving as vigorous actors in favor of their organizations’ objectives, also with regard to boundary issues. Leadership qualities with regard to both the bureaucracy (mobilizing staff and expertise) and the environment (assessing power relations and acquiring support from a variety of actors) are often decisive for the outcome. The emergence of country clubs has added a new dimension to the networks of IGOs and IORs.

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 chapter assesses the explanatory power of the Principal–Agent (PA) model with regard to inter-organizational relationships in the United Nations (UN) context by focusing on the relationship between the UN and regional organizations, as framed by Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. The introduction of this model to the study of international relations and organizations comes not only with challenges, but also with important opportunities. Most importantly, bringing the members (back) into the picture, it proves to be a relevant and workable research instrument for exploring and explaining how these institutions interact. This chapter discusses the main elements of the PA model, defining and contextualizing the notions of principal, agent, delegation, representation, autonomy and control. It reviews the relevant literature and defines the model’s limits and opportunities. In addition, this chapter discusses the model’s potential transferability to the fascinating but complex world of inter-organizational relations by zooming in on the relation between regional organizations and the UN. It analyzes the intervention of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Libya in March 2011 through a PA lens, including its impact on the Syrian dossier.

How organizations relate to one another is of key interest to various perspectives within the organization studies tradition. From network theory’s emphasis on the dyad to institutional theory’s emphasis on the field of actors, the discipline is principally concerned with understanding the consequences of such connections on organizational development. The goal of this chapter is to introduce the concept of organizational fields to political scientists. To introduce organizational fields requires giving attention to this concept’s intellectual pre-cursors—organization- and action-sets. From here, the chapter focuses explicitly on the empirical and theoretical insights gained from conceiving of organizations as members of a field and concludes with a reflection on the promise this way of thinking offers political scientists.

Nested institutions comprise one particular dimension of inter-organizational relations, which examines how organizations interact when they are embedded in other broader and encompassing IOs. The core idea is that the behavior of units in any subsystem is inexorably affected by the structure of the system within which the subsystem operates. The analysis of nested relations is a necessary precondition to shed light to otherwise seemingly sub-optimal behavior, providing a more holistic and comprehensive account that highlights the interconnectedness of multiple policy and institutional arenas. Nested connections will thrive in issue-areas and cooperation schemes in regions that feature inherent spillovers and interactions. Our contribution discusses two issues: first, concerns about order and organizational hierarchy that take the form of a problematic unclear demarcation of competence zones and, more importantly, a blurry ordering of jurisdictions in cases of overlap; second, the relations between encompassing and encompassed institutions.

Non-profit non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are playing an increasing role in global politics, for example, in setting standards and monitoring their implementation or bringing about and shaping international institutions. The relations between NGOs are often considered to be crucial for either the success or the failure of the NGOs’ efforts to influence international politics. First, this chapter begins with explaining how we can conceptualize NGO–NGO relations. Given that interaction between NGOs is often conceived of in terms of networks, the chapter thereby focuses on different types of NGO networks. Second, it provides an overview of different theory-based explanations for either cooperation or competition between NGOs. Finally, it addresses some major blind spots in the literature: inter- and intra-network relations and the evolution of NGO networks.

This chapter tries to understand legitimation processes among international organizations. After conceptualizing legitimacy and legitimation in general and the legitimation of international organizations in particular, it focuses on processes of (de-)legitimation among organizations. Organizations constantly engage in activities to gain, maintain, and repair their own legitimacy. However, environmental constraints shape their legitimacy. Within their environment, struggles over legitimacy based on disputed legitimacy criteria and assessments abound. Other organizations are part of this environment. They hold resources deemed essential for task accomplishment and compete for the same mandates and tasks in dense institutional spaces. Thus, both their very activities and the cooperation with them impact an organization’s legitimacy. The chapter argues that legitimacy concerns are therefore a major factor driving the willingness to cooperate among organizations. Organizations strive to connect to legitimate others and disconnect from illegitimate others, which impacts partner selection, tie strength, and resource exchange. The chapter concludes with substantial and methodological recommendations for future research.

This chapter argues that power and power relations offer an important perspective to understand the interaction between international organizations. International organizations need power, exert power, and their relations with other organizations are both a factor that affects their power and a venue where they exercise that power. Such a power perspective has thus far been rarely used, particularly in the analysis of international organizations in the field of security policy. The chapter takes a deeper look at the reasons that have limited power analysis in inter-organizational relations, suggesting ways to overcome them. Looking at North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations (UN), and the European Union (EU) in particular, the chapter argues that understanding their power relations helps to understand the specificities of international organizations as organizations, and their current position in the international system.

How much do inter-organizational relations (IORs) matter for international organizations (IOs)? How much do they change IOs? These are key questions, if we are to compare different instances of inter-organizational interaction and understand the relevance of IORs across issue areas and regions, and along time. Nevertheless, assessing the influence of IOs on other IOs has not been a key endeavor of the literature on IORs, that has preferred to pay attention to the causes and modes of interaction. This chapter deals with the issue of inter-organizational influence by (a) clarifying the concept and distinguishing it from neighborly ones, (b) suggesting ways to measure influence, and (c) discussing the multiple domains of an IO that can be influenced by another IO, including both issues related to IOs as containers and to the contents of IOs.

Uncertainty impedes cooperation and trust reduces uncertainty. In the wider social sciences, trust is conceptualized as a way to promote cooperation where control is either not feasible to the degree needed or an inefficient instrument to prevent exploitation. More recently, scholars in International Relations (IR) also started to explore the analytical value of trust to better understand interstate relations. Until now, however, systematic research about trust in and among international organizations is extremely sparse. Our chapter presents the main conceptual foundations of trust research and discusses how to apply them to the study of inter-organizational relations in IR. Guiding ideas on this topic can be imported from management and organization science, where a rich literature discusses different antecedents and effects of trust-building between organizations. With the help of this literature, we tackle the main conceptual challenge of IR trust research: to theorize inter-organizational trust as a dynamic process across different levels of analysis. The three sub-questions that make up this challenge and hence guide our chapter are the following: First, how to conceptualize trust in a way that does not occlude its unique features when compared to other mechanisms of uncertainty reduction. The second question we address is how to make sense of trust as an inter-organizational property: How does individual trust relate to and interact with trust at the organizational level? The third question concerns the complex interactions between trust-building processes and different practices of inter-organizational cooperation: How does trust affect cooperation, and how is it in turn affected by cooperative practices? In answering these questions, we provide a conceptual foundation for further research.

This chapter explores inter-organizational relations in peacebuilding. It draws from wider organizational theory to apply the concept of action-set to the groups of international organizations engaged in peace operations. A review of the general peacebuilding literature is provided to identify the principal obstacles to effective coordination in this challenging policy area, discussing mainly organizations’ different approaches to peacebuilding, their efforts to preserve autonomy, and divergent organizational cultures. The chapter then proceeds to analyse the empirical literature on two cases—Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo—to investigate the presence of these obstacles on the ground. Finally, the chapter calls for more robust, theoretically informed and comparative research on inter-organizational coordination in peacebuilding.

As the theoretical landscape in the study of international organization (IO) interplay has brought about a number of approaches, this contribution aims at applying two prominent concepts: regime complexity and resource dependence theory (RDT). It is argued that these two concepts can complement each other because they refer to two levels of theorizing. While the former constitutes a meta-approach the latter is better suited at the mid-range level. This chapter finds that a regime complex exists in the field of international peacekeeping in Africa. In order to explore specific IO interaction within this regime complex, resource RDT is used. Empirically, the study explores two cases—Somalia and the Central African Republic (CAR). Conceptually, it is argued that five conditions are essential for resource exchange and they are actor autonomy, complementarity of resources, equitable (at least reciprocal) resource exchange, size of demand and supply of resources, and congruence of peacekeeping norms and interests.

This contribution looks at dark networks among organized crime and terrorist organizations. Both of these clandestine groups use similar organizational designs and structures, emphasizing decentralized cellular networks to attain an optimal balance between efficiency and secrecy in efforts to avoid detection and disruption by law enforcement and the military. Organized criminals and terrorists frequently collaborate to advance their respective economic and political goals. Although research is hampered by difficulties in data collection, the terror–crime nexus appears to be increasing worldwide. Some analysts speculate that transnational organizations are converging, even merging, while others express doubts about that feasibility of alliances between groups with divergent objectives. This chapter reviews recent theoretical explanations and empirical research on the terror–crime nexus and discusses some fruitful directions for future research on the problem.

This chapter comprises three basic parts. First, it provides a brief analysis of the structure of the international humanitarian relief system, including United Nations (UN) institutions, and suggests its implications for effective coordination of aid delivery to recipients. Second, the argument considers key theorizations and conceptual constructions of that environment. Finally, the chapter concludes by highlighting four concerns for future inquiry that look likely to help analysts build a still more robust understanding of the coordination challenge that accompanies humanitarian relief.

The global governance of food security provides an important policy field to study the dynamics and consequences of inter-organizational relations. However, a significant challenge for scholars and students alike is that the global governance of food security is a relatively understudied domain of inter-organizational relations. This chapter examines the diverse networks of international organizations that constitute the global governance of food security and the key issues, actors, and dynamics. Seven issue areas are identified in which there are significant clusters of international organizations interacting. Cooperation and rivalry among international organizations in the field of food security is reviewed across issue areas and over time. A review of the existing literature suggests that equal parts of inter-organizational cooperation and rivalry are characteristic of the global governance of food security, however, the causes, dynamic, and scope are shaped by wider developments in the global political economy. Special consideration is given to the transformation of inter-organizational relations following the 2008 Global Food Crisis, which prompted a major reordering of inter-organizational relations and the dynamics in the global governance of food security.

The European Union (EU), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the Council of Europe (CoE) are major actors in European democracy promotion policies. As the EU is the most powerful actor among them, their varying modes of interaction and the time and stage of their formalization are very much dependent on the EU’s approach to, and preferences regarding, inter-organizational cooperation. In the case of the EU, the OSCE, and the CoE, the nestedness of the EU within both organizations cannot be regarded as a sufficient explanatory factor in understanding their relations in the democracy promotion policies. As the chapter shows, there are substantial differences between various four policy fields of democracy promotion. One explanation is the degree of intergovernmental interest in supporting a certain policy field. Issue-specific cooperation which is rather technical or project based seems to be more likely than political cooperation at the intergovernmental level. Beyond rather rational-choice-based neo-institutionalist explanation, there is no clear pattern visible. The degree of formalization does not seem to be a sufficient explanation for International Organization (IO)–IO cooperation. However, asymmetry between funding opportunities and implementation capacities seems to be decisive as well as flexibility or room for manoeuvre of the involved IO institutions.

The cooperation between intergovernmental organizations (IGO) and civil society organizations (CSO) is increasingly becoming a highly relevant issue for the effectiveness and legitimacy of multilateral organizations and global governance as such. This chapter adds to existing research, focusing on resources, legitimacy and power implications, by extending the perspective to structural, political, and internal organizational factors. By analyzing the example of the Council of Europe (CoE), it argues, first, that the relationship between the CoE and CSOs might benefit more from informal contacts and multiple access points than from formal status questions or institutionalization. Second, it finds that the CoE serves as an example for the obstruction of civil society inclusion by IGO-inherent political trends and coalitions, which can make both CSOs and IGOs wary of too much engagement with each other. Third, it shows that CSO inclusion depends—especially in the CoE’s case of politicized fields such as human rights and democracy—also significantly on the cultural fit of both organizations.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group (WBG) have a history of coexistence, competition, and cooperation since their 1944 start. Yet their relationship has had many organizational failures and fewer clear successes. Mounting criticisms catalyzed the 2000 Meltzer Report, designed to redefine the relationship between these Bretton Woods twins to equip them to meet the new needs of the highly globalized world with new emerging powers and private source of finance. After the 2008 global financial crisis, the new Group of 20 (G20) summit restored the resources and reformed the governance of the IMF and WBG, joining them as equal partners working together in a common cause. Now they must find a way to complete their committed but uncomplied-with reforms to manage new risks in an intensely globalized world. This Handbook contribution traces the course and causes of IMF and WBG cooperation from 2000 to 2007 and from 2008 to 2014, the impact of the G20 on this cooperation, and key questions for future research.

This chapter explores inter-organizational relations in the field of global energy governance. It starts by mapping the policy field of energy governance, the existing literature, and the multilateral energy architecture. It then performs an organization-set analysis of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which is widely regarded as the most advanced multilateral energy organization. More precisely, it presents an overview of the IEA’s interactions with four other energy-related international organizations: the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries, the Energy Charter Treaty, the Group of Eight/Group of Twenty, and the International Renewable Energy Agency. It finds that these dyadic relationships have evolved quite dramatically over the years and points out some of the salient factors that drive these relationships, before suggesting some avenues for future research.

The cooperation of labor and employer associations with the European Union (EU) has evolved in several stages, leading to an increasing differentiation and variety of interaction modes and policy outputs. This chapter describes the involvement of social partner organizations as an essential part of the evolution of regulatory social policy-making in the EU since the early 1990s, opening two main perspectives of research: first, the analysis of the institutional framework, density, and interaction forms of various forms of public–private partnership at the EU level, and second, its effect on the effectiveness and legitimacy of European policies and their implementation at the Member State level. As demonstrated in the chapter, a rich literature has evolved on the subject, indicating the potential and shortcomings of social partner involvement.

This chapter focuses on relations among international governmental organizations (IGOs) involved in fighting corruption and promoting integrity in public procurement. It shows, first, why this topic is particularly relevant for understanding relations among IGOs. It then discusses the five approaches taken by approximately three dozen IGOs involved in the anti-corruption realm: adopting conventions, raising awareness, promoting domestic anti-corruption policies, investigating cases of corruption, and promoting integrity in public procurement. The chapter maps out the network of relations among IGOs combatting corruption. It concludes with a series of observations that are relevant for the broader study of relations among IGOs and offers some suggestions for future research on the topic.

Inter-organisational interaction is of great importance in the area of climate change since it is one of the most complex policy problems of our times. Coordination amongst and conflict between different organisations are crucial factors for the success and failure of global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. For this reason, an extensive body of literature on climate regime complexes, fragmentation, climate policy integration, institutional interaction and interaction management has emerged in recent years. While most of these studies focus on institutions, defined as relatively stable sets of rules and practices, this chapter applies their main concepts and findings to international organisations, the physical brick-and-mortar entities involved in international climate governance. It shows that an extensive web of interaction amongst various organisations has emerged. The depth and intensity of these inter-organisational relations, however, are relatively light and superficial. The system is loosely integrated, including unilateral climate activities, inter-organisational information exchange but also some closer cooperation in the form of joint programmes. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the hub of this system.

This chapter reviews the overall state of research in the field of inter-organizational relations, emphasizing its richness and experimental character, as well as challenges such as the risk of fragmentation and theorization in silos. More specifically, it serves three major purposes. First, we discuss the balance of review and exploration in our Handbook, pointing in particular to some of the chapters, which explore terra incognita. Second, we assess the primary rationalist and constructivist approaches and variables presented in the Handbook, debate major findings on agency and on structure in inter-organizational relations and highlight those issue areas where inter-organizational research is substantial and where it is deserving. Finally, we recommend nine future research directions.