Measuring Administrative Reform Activities in International Public Administrations: A Conceptual Framework

Whereas national administrative reforms have been a focus of public administration research (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011), scholars more or less neglected the reforms of international public administrations (IPAs) with only few exemptions (Bauer 2012, 2008; Bauer and Knill 2007; Kassim et al. 2013; Schön-Quinlivan 2011; Geri 2001). Whilst concentrating on the reforms in well-known IPAs (EU, FAO, OECD or UN) reforms, there is lack of a comparative measurement concept. This paper tries to fill this gap by proposing a concept on how to measure reforms of administrative systems, especially the a) frequency, b) direction and c) intensity of reforms in a comparative manner. It maps and differentiates types of reforms, which we define as intentional change and as institutional policies in different sectors of an IPA (personnel (human resources reforms), finances / budgeting reforms, organizational reforms, controlling reforms). Using qualitative analysis of annual reports, cross-checking of existing studies and expert interviews, we conclude three findings based on a set of twelve different IPAs (BIS, EU Commission, FAO, ILO, IMF, IMO, NATO, OECD, OSCE, WHO, World Bank, and WTO): first, we find that some far-reaching reforms have been initiated in the late 1990s and that a second wave of reforms can be seen about ten years later. Certain IPAs however implement reforms faster than others and seem more flexible in terms of adaptation. Second, most of these reforms aim at increasing efficiency, diversity and flexibility of IPAs – only few reforms try to reestablish a Weberian-bureaucracy style. A third finding is that the variations of frequency and directions cannot be explained by existing factors such as structural, institutional or actor-related driving forces.