International and Public Relations

International and Public Relations

1. What is the principal thesis of each article?

The article’s thesis statement is to establish a constructivist approach rooted in sociological institutionalism to explore IOs’ powers and dysfunctional (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). Empirically, its principal thesis statement is detailed and elaborate. The thesis statement communicates a possible threat to International Organizations (IOs), namely objective drifting, since they misuse autonomous or bureaucratic power granted to them by their states after their formation (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). Additionally, the thesis statement appraises the importance of sociological institutionalism in studying IOs’ power sources, i.e. bureaucratic and autonomous. According to sociological institutionalism, IOs’ bureaucracy and autonomous powers are granted by the embodied states legal they represent and they executives’ technical competence-information (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). Notably, the article’s thesis statements earn its authors’ recognition, as they unveil theories explaining the International Organization’s creation and evaluate them against achieving their primary political objective: fostering harmonious relations with other nations.

2. What are the strengths of the arguments made in the article?

First, the paper provides empirical evidence that international organizations have bureaucratic and independent powers. Bureaucratic authority enables IOs to make autonomous decisions that facilitate state cooperation (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). On the other hand, autonomous powers enable IOs to continue developing programs, policies, or regulations that assist their states in overcoming market failures and collective action challenges issues (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). The paper also highlights that international organizations’ bureaucratic and autonomous capabilities are derived from the embodied states legal they represent and they executives’ technical competence-information (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). For instance, the article notes that the bureaucratic authority of the World Bank derives from 183 countries. Using its bureaucratic authority, the World Bank implements development initiatives that benefit the member states. Similarly, the World Bank’s autonomous power arises from its team’s technical skills and information that inspires global countries’ confidence in its ability to shape international policies that benefit the world. Max Weber, a scholar of sociological institutionalism, supports the authors’ claim that international organizations possess bureaucratic and independent authority.

Second, the paper scientifically reveals the tendency of international organizations to be dysfunctional. IOs deviate from pursuing their intended political objective by committing an irrationality of rationalization error (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). Instead of designing the most appropriate rules for their goals, IOs misuse their bureaucratic power by creating illogical regulations. In one instance, the essay describes how the World Bank made an irrational rationalization error. Instead of utilizing the most up-to-date facts to conceptualize a development objective, the World Bank proceeded to rely on out-of-date data to conjecture a suitable development objective (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). In addition, the paper states that IOs stray from their political objectives due to bureaucratic universalism errors. IOs commit the error of bureaucratic universalism when they presume that policies designed to combat a particular problem in a particular place are applicable in other religions (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). For instance, the paper illuminated how IOs commit the error of bureaucratic universalism. In one instance, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Asia improperly implemented a typical formula utilized in Latin America to counteract a rapid currency depreciation without recognizing the local causes of this devaluation (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). Negatively, the IMF’s decision subsequently worsened the situation.

3. What are the weaknesses of the arguments made in the article?
4. Information bias

Most studies and researches make informational bias mistake. It occurs when a study or research fails to choose a broader range of study variables (Ma & Xiong, 2021). Similarly, the article argues that International Organization’s dysfunction makes information biased. As seen, the authors emphasize IOs as policy makers creating room for pinpointing that they’re dysfunctional. As a result, the failure to unveil IOs’ dysfunction while pursuing their secondary functions such as recruitment, educational agents, and socialization shows the article’s argument is weak.

1. Lack of scientific facts represented by mathematical models

Worse, the article’s arguments lack scientific facts for justification. As seen, the article leverages sociological institutionalism theories such as Max Weber’s bureaucratic theory to support its argument that International Organization’s central powers are bureaucratic and autonomous. However, it would be more empirical to use mathematical logic to justify the claim that IOs’ central powers are bureaucratic and autonomous. Additionally, the article using other studies justifies that irrationality of rationality and bureaucratic universalism are the significant causes behind IOs’ dysfunction. However, the article authors should have used statistical tools such as regression and correlation coefficient to justify that IOs drift away from pursuing political goals due to irrational rationality and bureaucratic universalism threats.

4. How would you rate the value of this work?

Out of 100%, I would rate the value of this work as 90%. As seen, the article has a clear and detailed thesis statement, namely to create a constructivist approach originating from sociological institutionalism to explore IOs’ powers and dysfunctional. Besides a strong thesis statement, the article has well-constructed paragraphs discussing IOs’ roles rooted in political regulations, powers, namely bureaucratic and autonomy, and various causes of their dysfunctional irrationality of rationality and universalism. Additionally, the article leverages theories, such as sociological institutionalism, to justify its arguments. Lastly, the article has utilized other scholars’ findings to create strong arguments justifying IOs’ powers and dysfunctional.

5. Does the article leave significant unanswered questions?

Yes, the article has not defined recommendations for addressing the causes of IOs’ dysfunction, i.e. irrationality of rationality and bureaucratic universalism. Failure of the article to include the recommendation part, I have rated the work 90% instead of a higher rating of 95%. Recommendations are highly appraised as they prove the reality of the findings.

References

Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. The international organization, 53(4), 699-732. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/politics-power-and-pathologies-of-international-organizations/8D7D4BACDF573D26E3A40682A6195F89

Ma, S., & Xiong, Y. (2021). Information bias in the proxy advisory market. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 10(1), 82-135. https://academic.oup.com/rcfs/article-abstract/10/1/82/5828943