COVID-19 is a transboundary crisis that crosses political boundaries and affects critical infrastructure. Given the ongoing nature of COVID-19, it is vital to recognize the factors that impact an organization’s ability to respond to crises. In this article, we use the concept of bureaucratic autonomy discussed by Bauer and Ege (2016) to examine the response of four regional intergovernmental organizations. We find here that neoliberalism as a dominating global ideology has transformed the autonomy of action dimension into autonomy of finance, with the focus on enabling private firms through adjusting incentive structures, rather than taking direct action. Organizations that lack this autonomy become the benefactors of other dominant neoliberal financing institutions, thus furthering the entrenchment of neoliberalism and neoliberal finance.
AmayaAna B.De LombaerdePhilippe. 2021. Regional cooperation is essential to combatting health emergencies in the Global South. Global Health17 (9): 1–6.
3.
AnsellChrisBoinArjenKellerAnn. 2010. Managing transboundary crises: Identifying the building blocks of an effective response system. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management18 (4): 195–207.
BarnettMichael. 2020. COVID-19 and the sacrificial international order. International Organization74 (S1): E128–47.
7.
BartonAllen H.1969. Communities in Disaster: A Sociological Analysis of Collective Stress Situations. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
8.
BauerMichael W.EgeJorn. 2016. Bureaucratic autonomy of international organizations’ secretariats. Journal of European Public Policy23 (7): 1–19.
9.
BoinArjenMcConnelAllan. 2007. Preparing for critical infrastructure breakdowns: The limits of crisis management and the need for resilience. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management15 (1): 50–59.
10.
DebreMaria JosephaDijkstraHylke. 2021. COVID-19 and policy responses by international organizations: Crisis of liberal international order or window of opportunity?Global Policy12 (4): 443–54.
11.
DionneKim YiTurkmenFulya Felicity. 2020. The politics of pandemic othering: Putting COVID-19 in global and historical context. International Organization74 (1): 1–18.
12.
DrabekThomas E.1986. Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. New York: Springer.
13.
DynesRussell R.1970. Organized Behavior in Disaster. Lexington: D.C. Heath.
14.
EgeJornBauerMichael W.2017. How financial resources affect the autonomy of international public administrations. Global Policy8 (Suppl. 5): 75–84.
FlindersMatthewBullerJim. 2006. Depoliticisation: Principles, tactics, and tools. British Politics1 (3): 293–318.
17.
HermannCharles F.1963. Some consequences of crisis which limit the viability of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly8 (1): 61–82.
18.
JonesLeeHameiriShahar. 2021. COVID-19 and the failure of the neoliberal regulatory state. Review of International Political Economy (March): 1–25.
19.
LazonickWilliamHopkinsMatt. 2020. How “Maximizing Shareholder Value” Minimized the Strategic National Stockpile: The $5.3 Trillion Question for Pandemic Preparedness Raised by the Ventilator Fiasco. INET Working Paper no. 127. New York, NY: Institute for New Economic Thinking. Accessed at: https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP_127-Lazonick-and-Hopkins.pdf.
20.
LipscyPhillip Y.2020. COVID-19 and the politics of crisis. International Organization74 (S1): E98–127.
21.
MarshallWesley C.CorreaEugenia. 2020. The crossroads: The political economy of the pandemic. International Journal of Political Economy49 (4): 304–17.
OrihuelaJosé CarlosMendietaArturoPérezCarlosRamírezTania. 2021. From paper institutions to bureaucratic autonomy: Institutional change as a resource curse remedy. World Development143: 105463.
24.
PanageotouSteven. 2017. Disciplining Greece: Crisis management and its discontents. Review of Radical Political Economics49 (1): 358–74.
25.
ParkSusan. 2018. International Organizations and Global Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
RitchieHannahMathieuEduardRodes-GuiraoLucasAppelCameronGiattinoCharlieOrtiz-OspinaEstebanHasellJoeMacdonaldBobbieBeltekianDianaRoserMax. 2021. Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19). Oxford, United Kingdom: Our World in Data. Accessed at: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus.
27.
RosenthalUrielBoinArjenComfortLouise K.2001. The changing world of crisis management. In Managing Crises: Threats, Dilemmas, Opportunities, eds. RosenthalUrielBoinArjenComfortLouise K., 5–27. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
’t HartPaul. 1993. Symbols, rituals, and power: The lost dimensions of crisis management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management1 (1): 36–50.
30.
van HeckeStevenFuhrHaraldWolfsWouter. 2021. The politics of crisis management by regional and international organizations in fighting against a global pandemic: The member states at a crossroads. International Review of Administrative Sciences87 (3): 672–90.
31.
VernengoMatiasNabar-BhaduriSuranjana. 2020. The economic consequences of COVID-19: The great shutdown and the rethinking of economic policy. International Journal of Political Economy49 (4): 265–77.
32.
WilsonJames Q.1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.
