Resourcing International Organizations: Resource Diversification, Organizational Differentiation, and Administrative Governance
| Author | Klaus H. Goetz,Ronny Patz |
| Date | 01 August 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12468 |
| Published date | 01 August 2017 |
Resourcing International Organizations:
Resource Diversification, Organizational
Differentiation, and Administrative Governance
Klaus H. Goetz and Ronny Patz
LMU Munich
Abstract
This article introduces, summarizes and contextualizes the key questions and findings of a special issue of Global Policy on
the resourcing of international organizations (IOs). The article sets out trends in the financial resources available to IOs; dis-
cusses their organizational consequences; and highlights analytical implications for the study of IOs. We discuss resource diver-
sification associated with growing complexity of the origins and types of funding available to IOs; the importance of non-state
actors in IO funding; and contestation over the classification of resources. Resource diversification encourages organizational
differentiation, manifested in major shifts in resource-related actor constellations and their impact on the autonomy of IOs;
adjustments to budgeting procedures; and functional differentiation within IOs and the emergence of new types of IOs that
are partly driven by resourcing. These observations invite an analytical perspective in the study of IOs that pays systematic
attention to the administrative governance dimension of IOs; the entrepreneurial character of many IOs; and organizational
fields as a focus of analysis. Read together, the 11 contributions to the special issue underline that paying attention to their
resourcing can advance our understanding of IOs.
At a time when newly elected US President Donald Trump
announces severe budget cuts to the United Nations sys-
tem, the relevance of resourcing for the functioning of inter-
national organizations (IOs) can be in no doubt. It has long
been recognized that access to financial and other resources
is critical to the evolution of IOs and to the realization of
their global policy ambitions (Wright, 1957). Complaints
from the leadership of IOs about inadequate resources also
have a long tradition, and the mismatch between IO man-
dates, as set by member states, and available resources to
carry out those mandates effectively is a recurrent concern
(see Annan, 1993, for the UN). Some IOs, such as the African
Union (Engel, 2015) or UNRWA (Bocco, 2010) appear to suf-
fer from chronic underfunding. Others have a long history
of repeated funding ‘crises’, typically brought about by
either the unexpected partial withholding of member state
contributions (for the United Nations see Claude, 1964; Tay-
lor, 1991; for UNESCO see H€
ufner, 2017; Eckhard et al.,
2016). In other cases, resource mismatch has been the result
of unforeseen demands on IO budgets, as in the case of
refugee crises or natural or man-made disasters (McDermott,
2000). In view of these challenges, the need to reform UN
financing and resource politics has been recognized and
many proposals have been put forward over the years (see
Muttukumaru, 2016 for a present-day reform proposal).
A central finding of this special issue is that there are sev-
eral critical issues that matter when studying the resourcing
of IOs, beyond the overall levels of funding available and
the details of resource allocation. Among these issues are:
(1) the mix of sources of funding, namely, who provides the
finances of IOs; (2) the types of funding, notably the distinc-
tion between mandatory and voluntary funding and
between core (or general-purpose) funding and contribu-
tions that are in some way earmarked by contributors; (3)
the stability and predictability of IO funding streams; and (4)
whether funds can be accessed ‘in time’when the need
arises.
So far, neither the quality of data on IO resourcing nor
scholarly attention to the processes and outcome of IO
resourcing match their practical importance. It is often sur-
prisingly difficult to gain reliable budgetary information on
individual IOs. Some, like ASEAN, do not have dedicated
budget websites, and others, like the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), only publish financial statements instead
of their full budgets. Where data exists, the variety of cate-
gorizations used and the notoriously patchy landscape of
information sources make it very difficult to produce reliable
studies that cover both individual IOs’finances as well as
the overall population of IOs, for example, those that make
up the UN Development System (UNDS) (see Dag Ham-
marskj€
old Foundation, 2015; Jenks and Topping, 2016). In
the UN system alone, there are over a dozen terms used to
describe core and non-core contributions and types of bud-
gets (see Muttukumaru, 2016).
There is also a variety of ways in which budgets are
defined and put together. Some UN organizations such as
UNHCR have budgets that are partially financed by the UN’s
regular budget, but have separate budgets and funds for
Global Policy (2017) 8:Suppl.5 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12468 ©2017 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 8 . Supplement 5 . August 2017 5
Special Issue Introduction
To continue reading
Request your trial