Exclusive expertise: the boundary work of international organizations

37Citations
Citations of this article
54Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

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.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kranke, M. (2022). Exclusive expertise: the boundary work of international organizations. Review of International Political Economy, 29(2), 453–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1784774

Readers over time

‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2505101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 19

79%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

13%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 22

88%

Business, Management and Accounting 1

4%

Arts and Humanities 1

4%

Psychology 1

4%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 4

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0