Focality in Fragmented Governance: Explaining How and Why Certain IOs Become Coordination Hubs in Hybrid Regime Complexes

In the increasingly dense and fragmented architecture of global governance, why do specific International Organizations emerge as undisputed coordination hubs while others struggle for relevance? The concept of "focality" is critical for answering this question, denoting an IO’s status as a primary actor within a regime complex. Yet, the existing literature often treats focality as an intuitive metaphor rather than a rigorously defined analytical property. This study bridges this theoretical gap by developing a novel, two-dimensional framework to conceptualize, operationalize, and measure institutional focality through Social Network Analysis (SNA). I define focality as the extent to which an IO serves as a default coordination point, a status determined jointly by its functional prominence (organizational attributes) and structural embeddedness (network position). To measure this, I take Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) as cases, by complementing a new dataset covering from 1999 to 2018. Using Factor Analysis on theoretically grounded indicators, I uncover the latent structure of IO influence. The empirical analysis yields three critical findings. First, contrary to the assumption that "might makes right," functional focality is primarily driven by knowledge production and reputational visibility, rather than mere material size. Second, structural focality reveals a complex architecture based on three distinct networks: co-financing, information-sharing, and membership overlap. Third, by integrating these dimensions, I identify four distinct IO archetypes: "Pivotal Institutions" like the World Bank that dominate both dimensions; "Network Brokers" that leverage connectivity despite limited resources; "Functional Specialists" that rely on technical niche; and "Peripheral" actors. Notably, newer institutions like the AIIB exhibit surprisingly high structural focality, suggesting that strategic networking allows emerging actors to overcome the liability of newness. By offering the first systematic and quantifiable measure of focality, this study moves beyond abstract debates on IO authority and provides a practical diagnostic for governance under disruption. In a world marked by institutional complexity and geopolitical fragmentation, understanding which organizations emerge as default coordination hubs and why is essential. The focality framework illuminates how certain IOs retain steering capacity amid uncertainty, how new entrants strategically position themselves, and how orchestrators such as the G20 or BRICS identify credible intermediaries within hybrid regime complexes. More broadly, the analysis speaks to real-world debates on the design and resilience of global governance. As states increasingly rely on informal governance mechanisms to navigate systemic shocks, the ability to identify focal organizations becomes essential for effective orchestration and burden-sharing. Mapping focality across time and issue areas thus contributes to understanding how epistemic consensus concentrates, how institutional pathways evolve, and how governance systems can adapt to a rapidly changing international environment.