IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rripxx/v29y2022i2p453-476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exclusive expertise: the boundary work of international organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Kranke

Abstract

Scholars of global governance tend to agree that international organizations (IOs) enjoy expert authority because they provide applicable specialist knowledge for policymaking. This view implies that IOs’ expert status rests more on the contents than the presentation of their knowledge. Integrating the sociological concept of ‘boundary work’ into a Goffmanian symbolic-dramaturgical perspective, this article articulates a competing interpretation that recovers the relational and performative aspects of expert authority. I argue that, in settings where spheres of authority overlap, boundary work by IOs serves two loosely coupled functions: demarcation and cooperation. While IOs demarcate their jurisdictions on the ‘frontstage’ to craft perceptions of exclusive expertise, they closely cooperate on the ‘backstage’ to mitigate internal resource constraints. I illustrate this argument by examining the relationship between the International Monetary Fund (IMF or Fund) and the World Bank (or Bank) around the joint Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP). Based on elite interviews and relevant documents, the analysis shows that the IMF’s frontstage boundary work entailed promoting FSAP reforms and launching a new surveillance initiative without the World Bank. Yet while demarcation can augment an IO’s expertise, it risks poisoning inter-organizational relationships.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Kranke, 2022. "Exclusive expertise: the boundary work of international organizations," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 453-476, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rripxx:v:29:y:2022:i:2:p:453-476
    DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2020.1784774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09692290.2020.1784774
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09692290.2020.1784774?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rripxx:v:29:y:2022:i:2:p:453-476. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rrip20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.