Trading Control: National Chiefdoms within International Organizations
AbstractAccording to Principal-Agent theory, states (the principal) delegate the implementation of a legalized agreement to an international organization (the agent). The conventional wisdom about states’ capacity to control international organizations is that differences among the member states impede control and consequently enhance the agent’s autonomy, whereas agreement allows for effective control and limited autonomy. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, this article argues that conflicts among states need not impede effective control. On the contrary: it harbors gains from the exchange of informal control over an organization’s divisions. As a result, international organizations exhibit informal spheres of influence, or national chiefdoms. The article demonstrated the theory’s plausibility using the example of the EU. It has implications for the literature on delegation and informal governance.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by European Institute, LSE in its series LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series with number 59.
Date of creation: Mar 2013
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Pollack, Mark A., 1997. "Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(01), pages 99-134, December.
- Michelmann, Hans J., 1978. "Multinational staffing and organizational functioning in the Commission of the European Communities," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(02), pages 477-496, March.
- Garrett, Geoffrey & Tsebelis, George, 1996. "An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(02), pages 269-299, March.
- Weingast, Barry R & Marshall, William J, 1988. "The Industrial Organization of Congress; or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(1), pages 132-63, February.
- Garrett, Geoffrey & Tsebelis, George, 1996. "An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism: erratum," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(03), pages 539-539, June.
- Jean Siotis, 1964. "Some Problems Of European Secretariats," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(3), pages 222-250, 03.
- Morten Egeberg & Andreas Heskestad, 2010. "The Denationalization of "Cabinets" in the European Commission," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 775-786, 09.
- Gordon Tullock, 1981. "Why so much stability," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 189-204, January.
- Martin, Lisa L. & Simmons, Beth A., 1998. "Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(04), pages 729-757, September.
- George Ross, 1994. "Inside The Delors Cabinet," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 499-523, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Katjana Gattermann).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.