Organizational focality in time: advancing a new research agenda

The article develops a conceptual framework for analyzing how International Organizations (IOs) evolve within and in relation to their respective global governance domains. Connecting theories of institutional development with research on regime complexity, the present paper advances a relational-development approach for the study of international institutions. As starting point of this agenda, the work focuses on an often discussed yet seldom elaborated concept of International Relations (IR) literature, namely organizational focality. In contrast to most scholarly expectations which see focality as a perennial IOs’ feature deriving from first mover advantages or historical path-dependency, the article suggests three alternative considerations. First, it presents focality as a nuanced rather than an absolute concept, centered around two key attributes – membership and responsiveness to governance expectations. Second, it underlines how focality undergoes continuous contestation and renegotiation from the very moment a given IO is established. Third, it shows how focal organizations themselves respond to threats undermining their centrality in a manner that is modulated on the specific characteristics of the challenge faced. To investigate how focal IOs evolve within increasingly contested policy domains, the article proposes a two-steps theoretical framework. First, the analysis presents a simple model according to which the focality of a given IO is influenced by the relative alignment of its member states’ preferences and the measure of discretion granted to it. The same model is then problematized by discussing how the gradual unfolding of three interrelated trends endangers the amount of focality previously accumulated. More precisely, the increase in the number and complexity of challenges, as well as the progressive politicization and crowding of its respective domain, make the IO subject to systemic counter-pressures which undermine its focal position. Against this scenario, the second half of the theoretical framework discusses how organizational focality is not affected by such exogenous threats in a uniform way. On the contrary, each challenge can be assessed according to a specific taxonomy which considers whether external actors target a core (periphery) activity and adopt a normatively inconsistent (consistent) approach over the suitable ways to tackle governance problems. Accordingly, the framework discusses four specific counterstrategies (cooperation, conflict, coopetition, coping) tentatively implemented by focal organizations to retain their initially undisputed centrality in the face of growingly fragmented policy domains. While mainly theoretical in scope, the paper also provides a short application of previously developed insights. To this end, it exploits a comparative case study approach to start investigating the dynamic evolution of two focal IOs – the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). By analyzing how these first-comer institutions have historically developed in relation to their respective domains, the paper highlights the need to better understand the consequences of governance complexes’ variation and promote a more comprehensive theory of their evolution.