Bureaucracies in charge: A study on the influence of international bureaucracies in the context of the international organization for migration and the global compact for migration

(1)

Bureaucracies in Charge

A STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF INTERNATIONAL BUREAUCRACIES IN

THE CONTEXT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR

MIGRATION AND THE GLOBAL COMPACT FOR MIGRATION

Andrew van Olst Leiden University

MSc Thesis

Institute of Public Administration Public Management and Leadership Thesis Supervisor: Prof. dr. A.K. Yesilkagit Second Reader: Dr. A. Afonso

(2)

(3)

List of Figures

Figure 1 Preparatory process of the GCM ... 34 Figure 2 Intergovernmental negotiations Phase GCM ... 50

List of Abbreviations

AVVR Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration

CTDC Counter-Trafficking Data Collaborative

ECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social Council

GCM Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

IMF International Monetary Fund

IO International Organization

IOM International Organization for Migration

IRIS International Recruitment Integrity System

MENA Middle East and North Africa

MICIC Migrants in Countries in Crisis Initiative

MiGOF Migration Governance Framework

OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

PA Principal-Agent

RCP Regional Consultative Process

SG Secretary-General

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

UN United Nations

(4)

Bureaucracies in Charge

1. Introduction

1.1. Questioning the influence of international bureaucracies

“The agreement is agitating parliaments, sparking protests and splintering coalitions; Belgium’s is on the verge of collapse” (The Economist, 2018). Migration has been a hot topic, a topic which has become quite politicized in recent years due to world events such as the European migration crisis. In response, the Global Compact for Migration (GCM) was first put forward on 19 September 2016, in which the Heads of State and Governments discussed issues regarding human mobility. This amounted to the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants in which “the 193 UN member states recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to human mobility” (IOM, 2019). This declaration set in motion the process of intergovernmental consultations and negotiations towards the development of the GCM. Unlike what a statement like the one above from the Economist might suggest, there has been little media attention for the two years of negotiations and deliberations of the GCM. President Donald Trump was the first to denounce the United Nations (UN)-consultation in December 2017. Even though Trump denounced the Compact, internationally, the media coverage was still meagre. For the Netherlands, it was not until Austria, which had assumed the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, formally withdrew from the GCM that the compact gained popular attention (Termote & Wassens, 2018).

When considering the GCM, most articles referred to the state-led nature of the compact or that it was a UN-compact. However, the preparatory process towards the final version of the GCM included voices, opinions and recommendations from a lot of different actors internationally. In any case, here we already start to see the state of the globalized international policymaking arena. While it may seem that nation-states are the primary and most dominant actors, a look behind the curtains reveals that they are not the only ones influencing policy. Take the other way the compact is referred to: a UN-compact. An international organization (IO) leading the charge in formulating an agreement on the traditionally state-centered policy area of migration. The UN did organize the meetings, gave recommendations and set the agenda. When we take the UN as the main subject of the GCM, questions such as ‘who is in charge of policy?’ would start to pop up. Or to ‘what extent would the bureaucrats be able to influence what is formulated in the GCM?’ Questions such as these started to interest scholars in both International Relations and Public Administration. For if an international organization can be

(7)

seen as an autonomous actor, they would be able to formulate their own priorities, interpret meanings and perhaps act upon them as well.

This thesis aims to examine the autonomous influence of these international bureaucracies. Yet, it does not aim to examine this by researching the UN’s involvement in the GCM, as, unlike the UN, United States, Belgium or the Netherlands, one actor has been crucial in the development process of the Global Compact but only received little attention in the international media. That actor is the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Behind the scenes, the IOM has been able to influence the development process of the GCM in several ways through its formal role in providing support for the preparatory process of the GCM and its role as expert on migration related matters. To examine the influence that an international bureaucracy may have, this thesis aims to answer the following main research question: ‘How do international bureaucracies influence international policymaking?’. I will answer the question in the context of the International Organization for Migration’s influence and role in the preparatory process of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The research attempts to be explanatory & qualitative in nature. Using a single case study, this thesis aims to better understand the role of international bureaucracies in policymaking.

1.2. Relevance

1.2.1. Academic Relevance

Recent studies into international organizations and international bureaucracies have suggested that these bureaucracies are able to influence and affect the global governance in a profound way. Authors such as Bauer and Ege (2016), state that international governmental organizations are increasingly becoming more involved in global governance and that the amount of research into them has increased substantially. This thesis aims to contribute to the growing literature regarding international bureaucracies and their influence on international policymaking. This idea is part of a larger debate within International Relations and Public Administration regarding the autonomous influence of international organizations. As realist conceptions on international affairs state that international organizations are the extension of nation states, they would not be able to have an autonomous influence (Gilpin, 2002). However, a constructivist approach, championed by Barnett and Finnemore (2004), states that international organizations do have autonomous influence. Barnett and Finnemore argue that by seeing international organizations as bureaucracies, we can ascribe autonomy to them. The bureaucrats are able to develop their own policy priorities, interpret their mandate and exercise authority. This thesis, thus, aims to add to this debate of international bureaucracy autonomy and influence in international policymaking.

(8)

1.2.2. Societal Relevance

As Biermann and Siebenhuner (Biermann & Siebenhüner, 2009) argue, it is important to better understand the role of international bureaucracies in policymaking to address the possibility of undemocratic decision-making at an international level. Authors such as Barnett and Finnemore (2004) state that one of the possible consequences of an increased degree of bureaucratization in policymaking leads to an undemocratic liberalism in which a technocracy is able to influence policy. Currently, there are numerous international organizations active and with the addition of each new international organization, the number of ‘unelected bodies’, in other words international bureaucracies, come into existence (Trondal, Larsson, Marcussen, & Veggeland, 2010). As the lack of media attention towards the IOM suggests, there is a lack of transparency regarding many of these international organizations. This lack of transparency and the growing importance of international organizations and their bureaucracies internationally thus raise concerns on the their accountability (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004).

In order to better understand these organizations, it is therefore necessary to conduct more research. By examining how the ‘unelected’ policymakers are able to influence policy and to what extent they are able to exercise power, we may be better equipped in answering the questions regarding the legitimacy issues connected to these organizations.

1.3. Methods

1.3.1. Method of Data Collection

In order to answer the main research question and to conduct the case study on the IOM’s influence on the preparatory process of the GCM, this study uses data mainly from two points of access. Firstly, the UN website dedicated to the Global Compact for Migration and Global Compact for Refugees was used to gather most of the data regarding the development process of the Global Compact for Migration. Secondly, this thesis uses data gathered from the IOM’s own website in order to ascertain their position on policy areas and to fill the gaps in the data received from the UN website. Both websites house relevant documents, videos and statements.

1.3.2. Methods of Analysis

With the data gathered from the UN’s website and the IOM’s website, I will use process tracing combined with document analysis in order to research the IOM’s influence on the preparatory process of the Global Compact. This study will reconstruct the three separate phases of the process to find in which aspects the IOM was able to influence the compact. In

(9)

reconstructing the development process, a two-fold approach will be used in which I examine to which extent the IOM was able to get their own priorities regarding policy implemented in the final draft of the GCM, and to what extent their formal role during the preparatory process has influenced the proceedings. After examining the IOM’s influence on the GCM, I will juxtapose my findings with expectations formulated in the theoretical chapter of this thesis. Taking together both my empirical findings and the expectations of the theory, I will then answer the main research question.

1.4. Outline of Contents

In order to answer this question, this paper will be divided into several parts. Firstly, it is necessary to establish the theoretical framework that this paper builds on. I will do this by conducting a short literature review on the topic the autonomy and influence of international bureaucracies. In doing this, this thesis identifies Barnett and Finnemore’s Rules for the world as an important publication regarding international bureaucracies. From their work I will formulate expectations relating to international bureaucracy influence. After the brief overview, this paper will then clarify the research design, methods, data collection methods and data management methods employed in this paper. Subsequently, we will then turn towards the case itself and use the process tracing methods, combined with a document analysis in order to reconstruct the preparatory process towards the Final Draft of the Global Compact. In this chapter, I will examine the process as a whole, its relevant actors and most importantly, the IOM’s influence in it. Finally, I will compare the expectations formulated in from the theoretical framework

(10)

2. Theory

The debate surrounding international organizations mostly centers in the studies of international relations and public administration. The study of international bureaucracies is slowly gaining more attention in the studies of global governance. Authors such as Jarle Trondal (2016) state that recently a public administration turn has come to characterize the study on international bureaucracies. In this chapter, I will review the debate surrounding international organizations and international bureaucracies and their relationship between member states. By examining the debate regarding international organization autonomy and influence, this chapter aims to solidify a theoretical background on how international organizations influence international policymaking. First, this chapter will look into the debate regarding the autonomy of international organizations through the realist perspective and the constructivist perspective on international affairs. After this, the literature review will turn toward more recent publications regarding the influence of international bureaucracies. In doing so, I examine Barnett and Finnemore’s influential book on the power of international organizations to formulate expectations for my main research question regarding the influence of international bureaucracies on international policymaking.

2.1 Academic debate

Recent studies have suggested that these bureaucracies or international administrations can profoundly influence global governance in different ways. This view of international organizations, being able to autonomously influence international policy making, differs from the realist and state-centric view that has been predominant in the study of international relations. To examine this, it is necessary to take a closer look into the academic debate surrounding international organizations and international bureaucracies and their possibility for autonomous action from delegating states. In addition to this, it is worthwhile to examine some of the more recent influential works on international bureaucracy influence that have set the tone of the debate. By no means does this literature review attempt to provide an exhaustive overview of the literature on international organizations and bureaucracies, yet it attempts to look at the most important lines of thought that are necessary in answering the research question.

(11)

2.1.1. International Organizations, bureaucracies and state power

To begin with, it is necessary to examine how the literature examines the concept of international bureaucracy. This term is seemingly used interchangeably with others such as international administrations, international public administrations, compound bureaucracies, international governmental organizations; and authors often simply refer to international organizations as well. In essence, we refer to the bureaucratic component of these organizations, often in the form of the permanent or semi-permanent secretariats. The distinction made by Frank Biermann and Bernd Siebenhüner (2009, p. 6-7) is quite helpful in understanding this concept. They differentiate between the international bureaucracy and international organization by defining the international bureaucracy as an autonomous actor and understand the collectivity of the member states as an international organization. The international bureaucracy is an agent that was initially set up either by governments or another public actor. They have some degree of permanence and coherence but are able to maintain autonomy and are not in control by one single national government. Their perception of the distinction between international bureaucracies and international organizations differs from authors such as Barnett and Finnemore (2004) who do not draw such a distinction and use the two terms interchangeably. The idea that the international bureaucracy is and can be an autonomous actor is crucial to the research of International Public Administrations according to Christensen and Yesilkagit (2018). Because if they were not autonomous and were simply extensions of member state preferences, it would not have been worthwhile to study them. Christensen and Yesilkagit then relate this to the seminal work of Barnett and Finnemore in which they argue that many international organizations exercise power autonomously in ways that were not originally intended at the organization’s inception.

However, the critical assertion that international organizations are able to exert power autonomously is not seen as self-evident. The realist perspective on international relations had a different idea about the autonomous action of international organizations. Important contemporary authors on the realist perspective include Edward Carr, Hans Morgenthau and Hedley Bull. While the realist perspective cannot be seen as a scientific theory, Robert Gilpin states that it can better be understood as a philosophical position. The realist perspective makes some assumptions regarding the international system. Central is that the international system is anarchic and sees states as the primary actors in the system. The most important aspect is that states have one central concern, those being its own national interests (Gilpin, 2002). However, realists do acknowledge the existence of international law and the international organizations that exist in the international system. Yet, it seems that they do not ascribe much importance to

(12)

these organizations as most realists see international organizations as an outcome or product of international politics with states at its center (Reinalda, 2013). In terms of international organization autonomy, realists assert that International Organizations are lacking of autonomous power as they are simply instruments for the advancement of state power (Held & McGrew, 2002).

Authors such as Koremenos, Lipson and Snidal in their article The Rational Design of

International Institutions are more in line with this realist perspective on the international

system. Their basic presumption is that “states use international institutions to further their own goals, and they design institutions accordingly” (Koremenos et al., 2001, p. 762). In their article, they take a broad definition of international institutions, in which they include formal international organizations and arrangements such as diplomatic immunity into consideration. In the article, their allegiance to the realist perspective of international relations becomes increasingly apparent as they do seem to agree that international cooperation is a cooperation under anarchy in which institutions help to make cooperation more likely. The core idea here is that international institutional arrangements exist as a rational design by multiple participants/ states. In their analysis, they attempt to use aspects from cooperation theory, game theory and

institutional analysis to examine these institutional arrangements and their

development/creation (Koremenos et al., 2001).

In a similar rationalist vein, the works compiled in Delegation and Agency in

International Organizations edited by Hawkins, Lake, Nielson and Tierney, use

Principal-Agent (PA) Theory to analyze the relationship between states and international organizations. Namely, to examine why states might delegate tasks to international organizations instead of simply doing it themselves in the first place. And subsequently, how do states control them? A large difference between the Rational design of international institutions and Delegation and

Agency is the acknowledgement of international organizations as an actor on its own.

Delegation and Agency acknowledges international organizations as an active participant in international affairs (Hawkins, Lake, Nielson, & Tierney, 2006). PA theory is widely used in the research surrounding international organizations. In another PA derived approach, Grigorescu (2010) looks at the determinants of bureaucratic oversight imposed by member states on intergovernmental organizations. Testing across 70 organizations, he attempted to find factors to explain the variance in bureaucratic oversight mechanisms such as inspections and staff evaluations.

With the acknowledgement of agency, the narrative slowly moves towards works acknowledging the autonomous influence of international organizations and bureaucracies. In

(13)

Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations, Reinalda and Verbeek asked the

questions to what extent and in what way international organizations are active in regional and world politics. In 1998, the year it was published, the influence of international organizations was observed more often. In their research, they saw international organization autonomy as an instance in which the outcome of international policy cannot simply be explained as a compromise between several large and influential states. Their results showed that international organizations have indeed gained autonomy in areas of policy affecting the interests of nation-states (Reinalda & Verbeek, 1998). They noticed that it was possible for international organizations to redirect technical language and knowledge to define or redefine issues. Additionally they could develop alternative solutions and develop new coalitions of international actors on a given issue (Reinalda, 2001, p. 10). In examining their research, they state that the international policy making game can no longer simply be perceived as a battle between the vital interests of individual nations as the realist perspective would lead us to believe. Nowadays, nation-states are arguably the dominant actors. However, the field of international policymaking has expanded considerably to include both actors which operate both inside and outside the nation-state level (Reinalda & Verbeek, 1998).

2.1.2. Influential works on influence

As the perspectives on international organizations seemed to shift from realist perceptions on international affairs, theories started to emerge regarding the influence of IO’s. It seems that there is a wide variety of literature examining the supposed influence of international bureaucracies. According to Eckhard and Ege (2016), the literature on influence and international bureaucracies is divided into three main distinctions. Firstly, the influence affecting decision-making within the organization itself. Secondly, influence which affects policy formulation, touching on the interplay between member states and the international bureaucracy. And thirdly, influence which crystalizes itself through the execution of international organization’s policies. For the purposes of this paper, the latter two types of influence are of most importance.

It seems, as authors such as Frank Biermann and Bernd Siebenhüner (2009) have stated, and as touched upon earlier, that most research in the field of international Organizations focus on the states as prime actors in the policy process. However, they argue that this is problematic as it would limit our understanding of world politics and provide us with misleading conclusions about it. As noted by Eckhard and Ege (2016), they have found that in the literature nowadays there is a consensus on the idea that international bureaucrats do have an influence on

(14)

policy-making. However, there is less of a consensus regarding factors such as the mechanisms and behavioral assumptions of international bureaucracies. Bauer and Ege (2013) reaffirm the consensus on the importance of international bureaucracies and link them to the interest of multi-level governance in Public Administration. They argue that PA scholars are “just beginning to explore the bureaucratic dimension of governance above the state” (p.138). As we can identify here, it seems that our knowledge of international bureaucracies is just starting to grow. In particular, there is a need for PA scholars to examine the mechanisms and assumptions behind the policy-process.

The two works regarding international bureaucracy influence brought by Barnett and Finnemore’s Rules for the World and Biermann & Siebenhüner’s Managers of Global Change

Project (MANUS) have been important recent contributions to the academic debate regarding

the influence and power of international bureaucracies. The MANUS project set out to better understand the influence of international bureaucracies in world politics. In this, the researchers focused on environmental policy in analysing influence. In all of their nine cases, they had found that international bureaucracies influenced political actors by altering their knowledge and beliefs with their research. It seems that international bureaucracies are effective in setting the global agenda and facilitating global cooperation. By doing this, international bureaucracies were able to exercise influence in three areas. Firstly, ‘cognitive influence’ denoted the ability to change another actor’s knowledge and belief systems. Secondly, ‘normative influence’ meant that international bureaucracies are able to create, support and shape the norm-building processes for international cooperation through their actions. Finally, and thirdly, international bureaucracies are able to exercise ‘executive influence’ through their direct assistance to countries in the implementation of programs and legislation. Furthermore, the researchers drew from Organizational theory and argued that the influence of international bureaucracies varied due to the differences in organizational culture, resources and functions. Suggesting that both micro level (people, and procedures) and macro level (problem structure) factors are relevant in explaining the variance of influence between international bureaucracies. These micro and macro level factors were suggested to be more important than the level of the polity, which signifies the legal, institutional and organizational framework surrounding an international bureaucracy (Biermann & Siebenhüner, 2009).

Barnett and Finnemore’s Rules for the World has been quite influential in itself, directing academic attention towards a constructivist approach of international organizations based on Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy. Barnett and Finnemore argued that international organizations do much more than simply execute international agreements between states and

(15)

that they have power as an independent actor in the field of international public policy. Essentially, this juxtaposes the realist conception of international organizations. The international bureaucracy itself is able to develop their own ideas and agenda priorities, often wandering from their original mandate and developing new avenues in which they can exercise their authority (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004). The publication was so influential, that in their systematic literature review on international bureaucracies, Eckhard and Ege (2016) found that the debate on international bureaucracies started to gain substantial momentum after 2004, after the publication of Barnett and Finnemore’s Rules for the World. According to Eckhard and Ege, whereas during the 40 years prior to this book only 22 articles and books were published, this number nearly tripled in the decade hereafter. As it can arguably be seen as a seminal book reviving the interest in international bureaucracies, while setting the tone of the importance of international bureaucracies, will the theoretical framework presented by this book hold up when tested?

In short, the literature on international bureaucracies started through the debate regarding the importance of international organizations in an international system centered on nation-states. The realist perspective on international politics led us to belief that international organizations were merely extensions of state power. Slowly international organizations were more often seen through a principal-agent relationship and one strand of literature on international organizations and bureaucracies started to use Principal Agent theory in developing theories on why states might delegate important tasks to IO’s. Moreover, the autonomous nature of these organizations seemed to become more convincing. IO’s were slowly thought to be able to have interests of their own and were able to influence international policy through various means. For instance, IO’s are seemingly able to restructure knowledge, expertise, social norms and connections to influence policy. In reviving the interest on international bureaucracy influence, the work of Barnett and Finnemore has been very influential. What exactly sparked the re-emergence of interest in international bureaucracies, and what expectations could we derive from the theoretical framework presented by these authors?

(16)

2.2. Barnett and Finnemore’s Theoretical framework

Previously, this chapter had already outlined the broad ideas behind Rules for the World. Now, we will more deeply examine the theoretical framework laid out by this book and the conclusions drawn from their three case studies. By doing this, this thesis will be able to juxtapose the empirical findings on international bureaucracy influence with the independent empirical research on the influence of international bureaucracies, presented in chapter 4 of the thesis, with the framework laid out by Barnett and Finnemore.

2.2.1. International Organizations as a bureaucracy

At the start of this chapter it became apparent that Barnett and Finnemore make no explicit distinction between international organizations and international bureaucracies. Where the MANUS project conceptualized the international bureaucracy as a part of the international organization, independent of member states, Barnett and Finnemore explicitly treat international organizations as bureaucracies in themselves (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, p.3). By doing this, they are able to ascribe authority to the international organization because a bureaucracy is an authority “in their own right” (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, p.5).

What is this bureaucracy they speak of then? We seem to set up bureaucracies to handle complex tasks. In an increasingly complex modern world, we increasingly rely on bureaucracies. Bureaucracies exhibit four main characteristics according to Barnett and Finnemore. Firstly, hierarchy exists in which labor is divided and each official has to answer to a superior. Secondly, a modern bureaucracy is characterized by continuity. Thirdly, there is a degree of impersonality involved in which rules and procedures play a large part. Fourthly, expertise is very important and well respected, each employee is selected and trained for their specific function. As noted by the authors themselves, Max Weber’s conception of modern bureaucracies stated that these qualities of the modern bureaucracy are what make it the most efficient system of organization. By breaking down the complex issues of the modern world and assigning them to experts in the organization, who work with a certain degree of routinization and rules under a chain of command, is what made bureaucracies so effective (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, p.17-18).

To explain bureaucratic behavior, Barnett and Finnemore express the importance of impersonal rules. As they explain best: “Rules are explicit or implicit norms, regulations, and expectations that define and order the social world and the behavior of actors in it” (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, p.18). Bureaucracies can be understood as being regulated by rules, but they also produce rules. Barnett and Finnemore explain four effects rules have on the power of international bureaucracies. To begin with, they argue that bureaucratic rules prescribe action

(17)

for actors both inside and outside of the organization. As noted earlier, the bureaucracy is regulated by rules and standard operating procedures. However, the rules often do not stay confined within the organization but also affects the behavior of those outside the organization. Secondly, the organization’s rules not only shapes their behavior but also shapes the way in which the organization’s bureaucrats form their view of the world. By applying rules, the bureaucrat is able to define and classify the world around him/her. A third way rules have an effect is because not only do rules order the world of the bureaucrats themselves, the bureaucrats use their rules to create or constitute the social world around them and so creates meanings and definitions for others. Barnett and Finnemore note that most often bureaucrats prefer to do this in such a way that the social world can be intervened upon by the bureaucrats themselves. Thus, in a way they attempt to create a role for themselves. Fourthly and lastly, the rules governing the organization can be an important aspect of the identity of the organization. So, the important link between rules and bureaucracy provides the expectation:

Expectation I: an international bureaucracy is governed by rules and actively tries to enforce their rules to others.

2.2.2. Authority as the foundation of power

Moreover, according to Barnett and Finnemore, IOs are powerful because they have authority. As noted earlier, bureaucracies are an authority in their own right. As, according to Barnett and Finnemore, the international organizations are the rational legal authority in their domain of action.

Authority can be seen as a social construction; it is not something that simply exists but is conferred upon the international organization by other actors. By conferring authority to an international organization, actors give the organization the right to speak and also recognize the credibility of their statements. Barnett and Finnemore argue that when international organizations are able to speak due to their authority, it is likely that other actors will alter their behavior and beliefs to reflect the statements made by the authority. However, in order to influence others, the international organization cannot simply say that others have to do what they say. To be powerful, the international organization needs to be seen in a rational-legal light in which they present themselves as neutral and impersonal. To be authoritative, the international organization should present itself as actively serving others (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, p. 20-21).

(18)

In their framework, the authors distinguish between three broad categories of authority. These three being: ‘delegated authority’, ‘moral authority’ and ‘expert authority’. Delegated authority refers to the delegated authority from states to international organizations. While this idea harkens back to the principal-agent theory in international bureaucracy autonomy, Barnett and Finnemore state that international organizations often must be autonomous to fulfill their delegated task. For instance, the mandate received from states must be interpreted, agendas have to be determined. The IO’s rules will then inevitably shape the response of the organization in making these decisions. Barnett and Finnemore state that this delegated authority is always in loan. To use it, the international organization always has to present themselves as acting in service of their principals (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, p. 22-23).

On the other hand, moral authority refers to international organizations that embody the sense of shared community interest. As Barnett and Finnemore argue: “IOs are supposed to be more moral (ergo more authoritative) in battles with governments because they represent the community against self-seekers” (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, p. 23).

Finally, expert authority shares some of the characteristics of moral authority but is still different. IOs with expert authority use their specialized knowledge to complete their task. As in moral authority, the organization has to serve the principle they professed and only offer advice or policy that is in line with their principle. Additionally, like delegated and moral authority, expert authority allows the IO to be powerful by emphasizing the ‘objective’ nature of their expertise and thereby depoliticizing the issue.

These broad lines of authority contribute to making the IOs authoritative. From these authorities, the IO can be put ‘in authority’ or be seen as ‘an authority’. In authority, in this perspective, means authority gained through institutional means. The IO could occupy a role or position that is recognized as ‘in authority’. Yet, an IO could also be ‘an authority’ if it derives its authority through its credibility gained from expertise, publications or experience. However, it is not to say that a mix of the two is not possible (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, 24-27). According to Barnett and Finnemore, “The power of IOs is produced by the authority that constitutes them” (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, p. 29). The concept of authority thus offers the following expectation:

Expectation II: The authority an international bureaucracy possesses, underpins its power and influence.

(19)

2.2.3. Soft and Hard power of International Bureaucracies

When defining power, Barnett and Finnemore state that power is the “production, in

and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their own circumstances and fate” (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, 29). In discussing the power of

international organizations, Barnett and Finnemore essentially argue for two ways or powers the international bureaucracy uses. Namely, the ‘power as constitution’ and ‘power as

domination’.

With the power as constitution, the international organization uses its authority to reconfigure social space. Essentially, the organization creates new linkages between issues, concepts and actors. This can be seen as a more soft approach to influence. And in addition, the power as constitution also allows the international bureaucracy to define new global interests and tasks. For which they, thirdly, are able to use their soft power to persuade other states and actors of the new status quo.

On the other hand, Barnett and Finnemore also argue for the more hard influence of the power as domination. In power as domination, the international bureaucracy is able to use their ability to reframe problems as a global issue to have a legitimate and justified reason to intervene in domestic and interstate policy domains. As the authors state, the characteristic of this type of power is close to what Weber defined as “authority legitimated” (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004, 163-166). These two powers in Barnett and Finnemore’s Rules of the world then provides the final two expectations for this study, which can be stated as:

Expectation III: International bureaucracies use power of constitution to influence international policy.

Expectation IV: International bureaucracies use power of domination to influence international policy.

To sum up, the theoretical framework proposed by Barnett and Finnemore regarding the power of international bureaucracies is strongly related to the concept of rules and authority of a bureaucracy. From their insights, this thesis has drawn some expectations regarding the most important factors of their conception of power and in effect the influence of international bureaucracies.

(20)

2.3. Conclusion

In conclusion, we saw that the debate regarding international bureaucracy influence in international policymaking started with the realist perspective on international affairs. Researchers slowly started to look into the principal-agent relationships between international organizations and states. In considering the question why states might delegate tasks to international organizations, researchers started to consider the autonomous behavior of these organizations. IOs might have an interest of their own and perhaps they used various means to influence the international policy field. Authors looked into the ability of international organizations to restructure norms, define issues and use their expertise to influence others. From the works regarding international bureaucracy influence, it became apparent that Barnett and Finnemore’s work has been important in reviving the interest and setting the tone for the debate.

They saw the international organization itself as a bureaucracy and from Barnett and Finnemore’s theoretical framework I was then able to draw some expectations of the international bureaucracy. Four main expectations seem to crystalize after examining the Rules

for the World. Firstly, Barnett and Finnemore argue that international organizations can be

treated as bureaucracies. In their conception of a bureaucracy, they base themselves on the Weberian conception of the bureaucracy, in which rules are an integral aspect of its functioning. From this insight, they seem to believe that rules govern the international bureaucracy. These rules define and dictate the social world of the actors in it, and so it shapes the bureaucrat’s views. However, the bureaucracy does not intend to limit their rules to the boundaries of the organization. The rules overflow into the world outside the organization and the bureaucracy then actively attempts to create or define the world for others. International bureaucracies are able to do this through their authority. A bureaucracy is a rational-legal authority in itself, and by conferring authority to the international organization, they give credibility to the organization. By presenting themselves as neutral and impersonal, the international bureaucracy is able to exercise its authority successfully and thereby influence other actors. Its authority is therefore very important for the international bureaucracy. Barnett and Finnemore argue that international organizations use their authority to exert power, claiming two ways. Power of constitution reconfigures the social world, creating and defining issues, it can be seen as a soft power. On the other hand, the power of domination uses the ability to reframe issues to legitimate and justify the intervention in domestic or interstate policy.

Through these means, the international bureaucracy is able to navigate and restructure the rules of the world to influence policy.

(21)

3. Research and Data

The literature on international organizations and its bureaucracies seems to indicate that they do indeed have an influence on international policy making. The framework presented by Barnett and Finnemore, centered on rules, authority and the power that derives from them, was a steppingstone for further research on this issue. This thesis aims to research the influence of international bureaucracies through a case study on the International Organization for Migration’s influence on the preparatory process of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. In this chapter, I will explain the research design underpinning this thesis and provide a clarification for the choices made.

3.1. Research Design & Methods 3.1.1 Research design and variables

The general research question can be formulated as: ‘How do international bureaucracies influence international policymaking?’. This research question will be answered in the context of the International Organization for Migration’s influence and role in the preparatory process of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The research attempts to be explanatory & qualitative in nature. A retrospective account will be taken in order to answer the research question. In order to research this case, we will use a small-N design. In particular, this research will focus on a single case study. This already implies that it focusses on uncovering the way that this organization was involved in the process of formulating the Compact. Our research question is a retrospective causal question as we attempt to account for events that have happened in the past. The main subject of our research is the influence that the international bureaucracy (the IOM) had on international policy making (the Global Compact for Migration). Meaning that the research is X focused, as the effect of international bureaucracy is our main point of interest. In this, the Compact can be perceived as the effect (Y) and the actions of the IOM in this light be seen as the cause (X) of the effect. Two key concepts that need to be clearly articulated and operationalized are the questions of what constitutes as an international bureaucracy and what is meant with the term influence. Firstly, we need to differentiate between international organizations and international bureaucracies. International bureaucracies can be seen as part of a larger arrangement that make up an international organization. International organizations such as the World bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) all have bureaucracies in them, the civil servants that act

(22)

within a mandate given to them by member states (Grigorescu, 2007). Biermann et al (2009) defines international organizations as “an institutional arrangement that combines a normative framework, member states, and a bureaucracy” (p.39). In defining international bureaucracies, they state it as: “agencies that have been set up by governments or other public actors with some degree of permanence and coherence and beyond formal direct control of single national governments (notwithstanding control by multilateral mechanisms through the collective of governments) and that act in the international arena to pursue a policy” (p.6). This narrow definition is useful in comparing different studies regarding international bureaucracies. However, this definition is used because it more narrowly defines what the international bureaucracy is and it differentiates the international bureaucracy from the member states of the international organization. In the case regarding the IOM, I am explicitly looking at the actions of its bureaucratic aspect. In the analysis I will focus on the actions taken by the IOM’s bureaucracy in the preparatory process of the GCM. This is due to the fact that the IOM is acting separate from the formal direct control of the member states. The member states of the IOM are part of the UN as well. And as the GCM is a UN initiative, it is necessary to see the actions of the IOM as an actor on its own.

Secondly, regarding influence, this research agrees with the idea of ‘influence’ being synonymous with having an effect on a process, as proposed by Eckhard and Ege (2016). In Barnett and Finnemore’s theoretical framework, the authority of the international organization is what underpins its power. For them, the international organizations’ authority enables them to speak up and alter the behavior and outcome for others. However, it is also important for international organizations to present themselves in a neutral and impersonal way. For this reason, this thesis will examine the underlying authority in the preparatory process of the GCM by examining the stances and proposals forwarded by the IOM and its subsequent implementation by the other relevant actors. By doing this, this study is able to examine if the IOM is able to use their authority to influence others. Finally, next to the operationalization of influence through the ability to convince others of their viewpoint, this thesis also uses the idea of power forwarded by Barnett and Finnemore. As they argued, power is the ability of actors to shape their own circumstances and fate through social relations. Thus, it is also worthwhile to examine influence by considering the IOM’s ability to alter their future circumstances by convincing other actors. In short, influence is operationalized in this thesis into the ability of the IOM to have an effect on the process. Specifically, to what extent is the IOM able to forward their own position and proposals during the process as a whole in the field of migration policy and its own future circumstances.

(23)

3.1.2. Case selection

Why would the case the IOM and the GCM be a good choice in answering our research question? And what exactly is the background of this case?

The development of the GCM has been portrayed as primarily state-led with Switzerland and Mexico acting as co-facilitators (Frouws & van Selm, 2018). Most of the media covering the GCM focused on the fact that the compact was negotiated at UN level. However, the UN member states were not the only stakeholders in the development process of the GCM. Other organizations, civil society groups and private firms were also able to voice their opinions on the matter. This state-centric view of the compact can be exemplified in an analysis by the newspaper Trouw regarding the migration pact. In this article, the author references the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), several UN bodies, Europe, individual member states and their political parties, but not once refers to other stakeholders (Boersema & Gruppen, 2018).

One such important actor during the development of the GCM was the International Organization for Migration. Its role seems to have been quite substantial yet underrepresented in the popular media. In resolution 71/280 adopted by the UNGA the role of the IOM was set in stone (General Assembly resolution 71/280, 2017). Operative clause 11 in the Modalities for the intergovernmental negotiations of the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration, reaffirmed that the UN secretariat and the IOM would ‘jointly service the negotiations’. In this, the secretariat would provide the capacity and support for the negotiations, while the IOM would provide the technical and policy expertise regarding the subject. This division of labor is further emphasized in the resolution which requests the IOM to use their expertise to identify stakeholders and in organizing thematic sessions.

The IOM’s part in the construction of the GCM only comes to light when examining more policy-focused publications. The German Development Institute published a column about the GCM on 23 July 2018. Unlike other articles surrounding the GCM, this column emphases the influence by civil society organizations and the position of the IOM in particular. Civil society has seemingly been quite successful in promoting their goals in the negotiation process. Regarding the IOM, the German Development Institute notes the common misconception of the international role of the IOM in the UN structure. In contrast to refugee policy, there was no world, UN or migration organization such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the refugees. The IOM is seen as a service agency for migration management and consultancy (Schraven & Dick, 2018). In 2016, the IOM became a UN associated organization through a new relationship agreement based on the need for

(24)

stronger international cooperation on migration. This agreement ended up as marking a starting point of increased IOM influence in the GCM. However, after this agreement the IOM still was not part of the so called ‘UN family’ and did not hold a mandate for the role of global management body for migration issues (Schraven, 2018).

While civil society and the IOM have had an important part in drafting the compact, it seems plausible that many expect that the IOM is a UN specialized agent, UN fund or programme. However, the GCM concretely represents an upgrade for the IOM in terms of international status and role in the field of migration. When the IOM was appointed as an important coordinator for the preparatory process of the GCM it was recognized by the UN (Schraven, 2018). In addition, with the implementation of the Global Compact, the UN committed to the creation of the UN network on Migration with the goal of providing effective and coordinated support to member states in regard to migration policy. The IOM takes on the role of coordinator of the network, which also emphasizes the growing influence of the IOM as internationally recognized authority on migration (IOM, 2018). The German Development Institute even proposed that the IOM should be upgraded in the UN network to a degree in which the organization adopts a policy ‘forming’ role and does not merely ‘coordinate’ policy (Schraven & Dick, 2018).

The neglected position of the IOM in the popular media and the expanding position of the IOM at an international level raises the question of how this organization might have been able to influence the Global Compact. As the organization stood to gain a lot from the compact and was seemingly able to influence the process through its coordinating function ascribed by the Modalities Resolution for the compact, one could be inclined to expect that the organization would use this opportunity for the betterment of their own interests.

Yet, it also seems that the lack of attention towards the IOM has not entirely gone unnoticed. The growth of the IOM after the new relationship with the UN and the implications of the GCM for the organization fit into a wider trend of IOM expansion. As Bradley(2017) best states: “The lack of in-depth analysis of IOM is striking, given the agency’s dramatic expansion since the 1990s: its pool of member states has grown from 67 in 1998 to 165 in 2015, while its budget increased five-fold from $242.2 million in 1998 to $1.4 billion in 2014” (p. 97) . She notes that the vast majority of IOM’s expansion can be attributed to their increasing involvement in humanitarian contexts. It is an organization that has had a history of changing objectives. As it started out in 1951 as a Belgian and US initiative to facilitate the refugee resettlement from Europe to North America. The organization then enlarged their objectives and in the turn of the millennium it developed a role internationally in order to adhere to the

(25)

principle that humane and orderly migration benefits both the migrants and society itself (Guild, Grant, & Groenendijk, 2017).

In the literature, we find that international bureaucracies are seemingly most prevalent in issues which lack a strong international agency (Biermann & Siebenhüner, 2009). Guild, Grant and Groenendijk (2017) state that one of the key weaknesses in the UN in the field of migration is the fragmentation of the work done. The field of international migration can therefore be seen a perfect example of the influence of international bureaucracies in a field which lacks a strong international agency. The reason as to why this case is best suited is therefore because the influence of the IOM in the Global Compact can be perceived as a critical case. If international bureaucracies do have a positive influence in this policy field, it is likely that it also will for other cases as well.

3.1.3. Research Methods and analysis

In order to research the influence of the IOM, the paper will employ process tracing to examine the preparatory process of the Global Compact. This study will reconstruct the three separate phases of the preparatory process in order to find in which parts the IOM was able to have an influence and what this influence amounted to. This is done in two ways. Firstly, I will take a look to which extent the IOM was able to get their own priorities regarding policy implemented in the final draft of the Global Compact for Migration. Secondly, I will investigate to which extent the IOM was able to influence the proceedings through its formal role in the preparatory process. In short, the examination of influence will be done through a two-fold approach of content analysis and the coordinative grasp of the IOM on the process itself. In order to accomplish this two-fold approach, this paper will use primary documents as the main source of information, through the use of document analysis.

After researching the case, I will juxtapose the findings of the empirical research with the expectations formulated in the theoretical chapter based on the theoretical framework proposed by Barnett and Finnemore’s Rules of the World. In doing so, this thesis is able to compare the findings of this particular case with the findings of Barnett and Finnemore’s research on their own three cases. This will give a clearer picture of how international bureaucracies influence international policymaking and will perhaps reveal aspects of their influence which were not part of Barnett and Finnemore’s original publication.

Due to this research being a qualitative case study, the internal validity of the research is quite sound. In researching this topic there will be a lot of research into the context surrounding the International Organization for Migration and the Global Compact for Safe,

(26)

Orderly and Regular Migration. By attempting to synthesize different sources ranging from letters, draft resolutions, resolutions and proceedings of the preparatory process, this study will attempt to create reliable rich and in-depth knowledge that will further the academic debate regarding the influence of international bureaucracies in politicized policy domains with little international agency. As a side benefit, this case study could serve as a first point of contact with the case of the Global Compact for Migration and the role of the IOM.

3.2. Data collection and data management

As noted earlier, this paper will use process tracing and document analysis in formulating an answer to the main research question. Due to the nature of using documents, the data is quite diverse in its type. This chapter will, firstly, explain how the data for this research was obtained. Afterwards, the method of data management will be clarified.

3.2.1. Data Collection

The documents gathered regarding the development process of the Global Compact for Migration mainly stem from the United Nations dedicated website for the Compact for

Migration and the Compact on Refugees. Specifically, the website

https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/ is of critical importance for the compilation of data necessary

for this paper. This website was set up by the United Nations in an attempt to contribute to the open, inclusive and transparent nature of the development process of the Global Compacts. The website houses the relevant documents, statements, news articles and videos pertaining to the Global Compact for Migration.

Firstly, it offers a short and succinct background overview of the global response towards migration and the need for a collective response. For this background overview, documents relating to the High level UN summit, which culminated in the New York declaration, and which in turn formed the basis of the GCM, can be found. For this, not only does the website provide documents such as the full programme, list of speakers and statements. It also provides a link to the UN WEBTV. This makes it possible for researchers to watch the entirety of the proceedings.

Secondly, the website houses tabs linking to the three separate phases of the preparatory process of the GCM. Namely, the consultation phase, stocktaking phase, and intergovernmental negotiations. For the first tab of the consultation phase, documents pertaining to the thematic sessions, regional consultations and stakeholder consultations can be found. For each of the type of consultation, the website hosts all types of relevant documents ranging from invitations,

(27)

procedural notes, organizational arrangements, summaries and written statements by participants. For the second tab for the stocktaking phase, the same type of documents can be found. Additionally, this phase also links to the UN WEBTV link of the phase, which means that it is possible to double check the findings in the documents by reviewing the video documentation. Moreover, this part of the website also holds the contributions made by member states and other stakeholders to the Report of the Secretary General ‘Making migration work for all’, in addition to the report itself. Finally, regarding the intergovernmental negotiations, the least number of sources are available. I was only able to find several revised drafts of the Global Compact, letters from the co-facilitators and sometimes even a programme of the work at each round of negotiations. Because of the lack of information. I have collected data for this phase by analyzing the differences between the subsequent versions of the Drafts of the Global Compacts. I did this by using the ‘Compare documents’ option in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC. By doing this, the program gave me a report of all changes made and differences between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ version of the Global Compact.

Next to the UN website dedicated to the GCM, I have also gathered documents from the IOM’s own website. Particularly, https://www.iom.int/gcm-development-process. Here, the IOM had created a dedicated landing page for the Development Process of the Global Compact for Migration, including a short summary of the process. More importantly, the IOM also provides ‘IOM Key documents’ at their website which could not be found at the UN dedicated website. Here, I collected the IOM’s stance on several objectives of the New York declaration through their IOM thematic papers, which were composed after the New York Declaration, and before the preparatory process actually began. Additionally, documents regarding the IOM’s activities supporting the GCM, their Actionable Commitments and input to the Secretary General’s report ‘making migration work for all’ can be found here.

In short, this paper has collected data mainly from two access points. Firstly, the UN website dedicated to the Global Compact for Migration and Global Compact for Refugees was used to gather most of the data regarding the development process of the Global Compact for Migration. Secondly, this paper uses data gathered from the IOM’s own website in order to ascertain their position on policy areas and to fill the gaps in the data received from the UN website.

(28)

3.2.2. Data Management

After collecting and downloading the relevant documents from the UN website and the IOM’s website, the files were stored through the cloud. I personally use Dropbox as my cloud storage of choice and the files pertaining to this paper have been stored in my own personal Dropbox account. By using this service, I was able to access the documents from every electronic device which is capable of browsing the internet. Though, this also means that anybody who would be able to ascertain my login information would also have had access to these files. However, I do not belief that anybody apart from myself had access to the documents and my research.

In terms of file management, I had created 5 folders in which I rearranged the collected documents. These 5 being: General Information, Key inputs IOM, Consultation Phase, Stocktaking Phase, and Intergovernmental Negotiations. As the names suggest, I used the general information folder to store files that were relevant for each phase of the preparatory process of the GCM. This includes the New York Declaration, Modalities Resolution and agreements between the IOM and UN before the preparatory process had started. The Key inputs IOM folder was used to manage the files which I had gotten through the IOM website. Then finally, the last three folders housed the files that were relevant for the phase it was named after. In each of the phase specific folders, I created new folders chronologically as to arrange the files in the right order of events. The videos found during my data collection have not been saved to this cloud service as they functioned as a supporting source and I only used them to verify statements found in the written documents.

(29)

4. Empirical Research

On 13 July 2018, the international community concluded their international negotiations on the contents of the Global Compact. The internationally negotiated and agreed outcome of the GCM compiled on 13 July 2018, was set to be adopted during the Intergovernmental Conference to adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration on 10-11 December 2018 in Marrakech. The compact was the joint effort of many international stakeholders, such as member states, international organizations, academic institutions and private sector organizations. This chapter aims to investigate the process that led up to the final text of the global compact on 13 July 2018. To do this, it is necessary to divide the process into several parts. To start, I will briefly explain the background of the compact by examining the New York Declaration of 19 September 2016, which was followed by the Modalities resolution on 6 April 2017. These documents laid the foundation of the preparatory process and are essential in understanding the overall process. After this, this chapter will examine the three phases of the process in order. Firstly, for the consultation phase we will take a look into what this phase was meant for, what it yielded, which actors had a stake and more importantly what the IOM brought to the table and what it produced. Secondly, I examine the same aspects in the second phase, the ‘stocktaking phase’. When the first two parts of the process have been examined, this paper will examine how the first two phases resulted in the third phase of ‘intergovernmental negotiations. Finally, this chapter evaluates the IOM’s influence on the three phases and the development process in general.

4.1. Need for action: High level talks commence

The Global Compact was put on the agenda against the background of large-scale movements of refugees and migrants worldwide. One of the best-known examples of this is the European migrant crisis in 2015. During the course of 2015, over one million asylum seekers and migrants moved to Europe. The continent was gripped by migration as the hot topic. The EU moved to respond to this crisis by setting up several policy reforms, such as reviewing the European asylum policy and restructuring external border management (Atanassov, Dumbrava, Mentzelopoulou, & Radjenovic, 2018). This case illustrated one thing: migration was a global phenomenon and large movements of people cannot be addressed by a single country alone. A collective approach was required.

(30)

4.1.1. New York Declaration as a starting point

Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly responded to these developments by organizing a ‘high-level plenary meeting on addressing large movements of refugees and migrants’ on 19 September 2016. Migration, a policy field traditionally state-centered would be discussed on an intergovernmental conference. This one-day summit would discuss several aspects surrounding the topic of migrants and refugees, such as the root causes of large movements, drivers of migration and the positive contributions of migration and their vulnerabilities. Finally, the summit resulted in a political declaration: the New York declaration. This declaration showed that the UN member states recognized that we are living in a time with unprecedented levels of human mobility.

In essence, the declaration has two main themes. Firstly, the human rights of all refugees and migrants should be respected as they are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Paragraph 5, General Assembly resolution 71/1, 2016). Secondly, the declaration recognizes that large movement of people have an effect on many aspects of society and constitutes as a global phenomenon. It needed global solutions and approaches to this issue, for international cooperation is essential. However, a balance must be found, as not every member state has access to the same resources and capacity to deal with the large movements (Paragraph 11, General Assembly resolution 71/1, 2016). Both these themes resulted in the commitment to launch ‘a process of intergovernmental negotiations leading to the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration’ (Paragraph 63, General Assembly resolution 71/1, 2016).

In addition to the commitment, the Annex II of the New York declaration further detailed the necessary features of the Global compact and its goals. The compact would serve several goals, such as setting out the principles and commitments among member states surrounding the topic of international migration. With the underlying goal to stimulate better international cooperation surrounding migration and ensuring a humane governance of human mobility (Annex II, General Assembly resolution 71/1, 2016).

While the high-level meeting resulting in the New York declaration marked the start of the GCM’s preparatory process, it also marked the start of a new working relationship between the International Organization for Migration and United Nations. During the opening event of the high-level meeting, the UN and IOM signed an agreement describing their new relationship. Leading up to the high-level meeting, the IOM and UN recognized the need to establish a closer relationship. Both organizations deemed a closer legal relationship necessary, proven by the IOM Council resolution number 1309 of November 2015, and in the UNGA resolution 70/263

Bureaucracies in charge: A study on the influence of international bureaucracies in the context of the international organization for migration and the global compact for migration

Bureaucracies in Charge

A STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF INTERNATIONAL BUREAUCRACIES IN

THE CONTEXT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR

MIGRATION AND THE GLOBAL COMPACT FOR MIGRATION

Table of Contents

Bureaucracies in Charge

1. Introduction

2. Theory

3. Research and Data

4. Empirical Research