International Bureaucracies ꟷ Bringing and Framing in Global Policy Initiatives

The internationalisation of the public sector and the development of new forms of policy processes beyond the state, despite the state’s dominance, diffused public authority over time. These developments paved the way for the emergence of international bureaucracies (IBs), creating and transferring policy-making within global governance that strengthened the IBs role in managing globalisation. IBs studies have identified explanatory factors for the increasing role of IBs in global policy. Such factors are the IBs administrative capacity developed over time, their distinctive organisational characteristics, expertise, knowledge, autonomy and will. While these elements are significant in understanding the international bureaucracies role in global policy, it has not yet been thoroughly analysed what can enhance or impede the international bureaucracies’ role on policy-making and how this differs from the state. IBs most often are established by or with the support of states and intergovernmental actors (the principals) in the effort to strengthen international cooperation and enable problem-solving initiatives. Yet, despite their common interests, these principals represent diverse interests, which the IBs have to reconcile and bridge differences in the effort to establish common policy initiatives. This paper looks into exactly this phenomenon. How IBs frame global policy so that they can ensure the support of their principles and strengthen their role in global policy. Inspired mostly by transnational social mobilisation, this paper introduces concepts as bridging, framing and combines them with international public administration organisational theories. The main argument is that although the IBs have the potential to create, promote and influence global policy, they lack some important characteristics that are mostly present in national bureaucracies, mainly to create specific policy instruments and responses to address specific problems and ensure that their effective implementation. Lack of these characteristics and since IBs do not usually, with a few exceptions, address specific problems, their role in policy-making differs than the state. Besides, IBs have to consider the diverse interests of their members as well their capacity in adapting and implementing these policies. Consequently, IBs try to bridge differences in policy interests and frame policies in a way that will ensure the support of their principals. In this process, IBs act as policy entrepreneurs and they focus on the general frameworks of policies, such as ideas, norms, orientation and direction of policies, not actual policy instruments. Consequently, the policy proposals introduce broadly normative concepts, blurring the already ill-defined scope and targets of global policy. Consequently, despite their common framework, these policies may differ when adopted by the different regional or national governments who will specify them further and define precise relevant policy instruments. However, setting the policy frame and bridging differences is already significant as it puts the basic global policy principles. Empirically, the sustainability and the SDGs exemplify the theoretical argument.