Why do international organizations (IOs) adopt different arrangements for cooperation? Drawing on the theory of institutional context and the rational theory of international design, I argue that a prior thick institution between IOs, which involves the adjustment of organizational mandates and/or activities, facilitates a decentralized arrangement for their current cooperation by fostering mutual expectations and reducing uncertainty. If the prior institution merely assumes direct combinations of resources and expertise, a centralized arrangement is needed to reduce uncertainty regarding the counterpart IO’s cooperative motive. With archival analysis and extensive interviews with IO staff members, this argument is tested against two empirical cases of inter-organizational cooperation undertaken by the United Nations Environment Program under the Minamata Convention on Mercury. The in-depth analysis reveals how IOs cope with demands and obstacles for inter-organizational cooperation on the ground, which has been largely unexplored in the literature.
AbbottK. W.FaudeB. (2022). Hybrid institutional complexes in global governance. The Review of International Organizations, 17 (2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-021-09431-3
2.
AbbottK. W.GenschelP.SnidalD.ZanglB. (Eds.) (2015). International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139979696
3.
AbbottK. W.SnidalD. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002798042001001
4.
AggarwalV. K. (1998). Institutional designs for a complex world: Bargaining, linkages, and nesting. Cornell University Press.
5.
AxelrodR. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books.
6.
BalasA. (2011). Creating global synergies: Inter-organizational cooperation in peace operations. [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL.
7.
BiermanF.SiebenhünerB. (2009). “The influence of international bureaucrats in world politics: Findings from the MANUS research program”. In BiermanF.SiebenhünerB. (Eds.), Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucrats (pp. 319–350). The MIT Press.
8.
BiermannR. (2008). Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking. The Review of International Organizations, 3(2), 151-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-007-9027-9
9.
BiermannR. (2015). Designing cooperation among international organizations: The quest for autonomy, the dual-consensus rule, and cooperation failure. Journal of International Organizations Studies, 6(2), 45–66.
10.
BiermannR. (2017). The role of international bureaucracies. In KoopsJ. A.BiermannR. (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of inter-organizational relations in world politics. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-36039-7_2
11.
ClarkR. (2021). Pool or duel? Cooperation and competition among international organizations. International Organization, 74 (4) 1133-1153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818321000229
12.
ClarkR.DolanL. (2021). Pleasing the principal: US influence in World Bank policymaking. American Journal of Political Science, 65(1), 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12531
CopelovitchM. S. (2010). Master or servant? Common agency and the political economy of IMF lending. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 49-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00577.x
15.
CopelovitchM. S.PutnamT. L. (2014). Design in context: Existing international agreements and new cooperation. International Organization, 68(2), 471-493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000441
16.
Eilstrup-SangiovanniM. (2022). Ordering global governance complexes: The evolution of the governance complex for international civil aviation. The Review of International Organizations, 17(2), 293-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-020-09411-z
17.
Eilstrup-SangiovanniM.WesterwinterO. (2022). The global governance complexity cube: Varieties of institutional complexity in global governance. The Review of International Organizations, 17(2), 233-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-021-09449-7
GehringT.FaudeB. (2013). The dynamics of regime complexes: Microfoundations and systemic effects. Global Governance, 19(1), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01901010
22.
GehringT.FaudeB. (2014). A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor. The Review of International Organizations, 9(4), 471-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-014-9197-1
23.
GestN.GrigorescuA. (2010). Interactions among intergovernmental organizations in the anti-corruption realm. The Review of International Organizations, 5(1), 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-009-9070-9
24.
GrahamE. R. (2017). The promise and pitfalls of assembled institutions: Lessons from the global environment facility and UNAIDS. Global Policy, 8(1), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12359
25.
GrahamE. R.ThompsonA. (2015). “Efficient orchestration? The global environment facility in the governance of climate adaptation”. In AbbottK. W.GenschelP.SnidalD., et al. (Eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 114-138). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139979696.007
26.
HanriedarT. (2015). “WHO orchestrates? Coping with competitors in global health”. In AbbottK. W.GenschelP.SnidalD., et al. (Eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 191–213). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139979696.011
27.
HenningC. R. (2017). Tangled governance: International regime complexity, the troika, and the euro crisis. Cambridge University Press.
28.
HoogheL. (2005). Several roads lead to international norms, but few via international socialization: A case study of the European Commission. International Organization, 59(4), 861-898. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818305050307
29.
HuigensJ. C. (2015). Conditions for changing inter-organisational relations: The G8 summit and the European Union. International Relations, 29(4), 455-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814565525
JohnsonT. (2014). Organizational progeny: Why governments are losing control over the proliferating structures of global governance. UK: OUP Oxford. Transformations in Governance.
32.
JohnsonT.UrpelainenJ. (2012). A strategic theory of regime integration and separation. International Organization, 66(4), 645-677. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818312000264
33.
JönssonChrister. (2017). IR paradigms and inter-organizational theory: Situating the research program within the discipline. In KoopsJ. A.BiermannR. (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of inter-organizational relations in world politics. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-36039-7_2
34.
JupilleJ.CaporasoJ. A.CheckelJ. T. (2003). Integrating institutions: Rationalism, constructivism, and the study of the European Union. Comparative political studies, 36(1-2), 7-40.
35.
JupilleJ.MattliW.SnidalD. (2017). Dynamics of institutional choice. In FioretosO. (Ed.), International politics and institutions in time (pp. 117–143). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744023.003.0006
KoremenosB.LipsonC.SnidalD. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761-799. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081801317193592
OrsiniA.MorinJ.-F.YoungO. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom, or a boost for global governance?Global Governance, 19(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01901003
RaustialaK. (2012). Institutional proliferation and the international legal order. UCLA School of Law Research, Paper no. 12–21.
44.
ReinsbergB.WesterwinterO. (2021). The global governance of international development: Documenting the rise of multi-stakeholder partnerships and identifying underlying theoretical explanations. Review of International Organizations, 16(1), 59-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09362-0
45.
SnidalD. (1985). ‘Coordination versus prisoners’ dilemma: Implications for international cooperation and regimes. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 923-942. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956241
46.
StoneR. W. (2011). Controlling institutions: International organizations and the global economy. Cambridge University Press.
47.
UjiA. (2019). Institutional diffusion for the Minamata convention on Mercury. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19(2), 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09432-z
Van der LugtC.DingwerthK. (2015). “Governing where focality is low: UNEP and the principles for responsible investment.” In AbbottK. W.GenschelP.SnidalD., et al. (Eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 114-138). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139979696.007
50.
Van de VenA. H. (1976). On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relations among organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1(4), 24-36. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1976.4396447
