Determining the impact of knowledge sharing initiatives in international organizations: Case studies

IFLA Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-71
Author(s):  
Linda Stoddart

No one disputes that knowledge is the lifeblood of international organizations and especially specialized agencies of the United Nations. However, there has been little consensus on the best methods to share knowledge, leverage the extensive international expertise and make it available to the constituents and partners of these organizations. What is their strategy for managing knowledge? Do they have one? What impact does it have? What is the role of senior management in championing knowledge sharing in these international organizations? These are the questions this paper addresses through the lenses of the evaluations of current knowledge sharing practices in two institutions located in Geneva, Switzerland, both part of the United Nations system.

Author(s):  
Ronny Patz ◽  
Klaus H. Goetz

How do international organizations in the United Nations system put together their budgets? What is the role of complex principals—most notably member states—and the complex agents in the bureaucracies of international organizations in budgeting processes? And what does a focus on budgeting tell us about the changing nature of the system of international organizations? This book provides answers to these questions through a detailed examination of budgeting in the UN system. The analysis draws on both quantitative and qualitative observations for a total of twenty-two UN system organizations and detailed case studies for the United Nations, ILO, UNESCO, and WHO. The findings demonstrate the importance of three key organizational outcomes—proceduralization, routinization, and budgetary segmentation—as international organizations grapple with managing discord over priorities as a result of complex principal–agent constellations. Contrary to a common view of international bureaucracies as pathological organizations, core budget routines are mostly successfully maintained. However, principal constellations are becoming more complex, notably through the rise of voluntary contributions and non-state donors; budgetary segmentation advances (in some cases even leading to the setting up of new international organizations); and budgeting and resource mobilization have become ever more intertwined. As a consequence, the capacity of international bureaucracies to fulfill their budgeting responsibilities is stretched to the limit and beyond.


1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 543-544

First established at the International Penitentiary Congress of London in 1872, the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission was organized as it now exists by constitutional regulations adopted in 1880, confirmed in 1886, and revised in 1926, 1929, 1946 and 1948. Eleven international congresses have been convened, the last in Berlin in 1935; and the commission held its most recent meeting in Bern in August of 1949. The commission took as its terms of reference responsibility for promoting exchanges of views among expert penologists of all countries in order to develop standards and advise as to the development of progressive methods of preventing crime and treating offenders: The expenses for 1949 were estimated at 121,400 Swiss francs ($28,365), payable by the members at a ratio of 170 Swiss francs ($39.64) per one million inhabitants. By a resolution of October 16, 1948, the commission and other major international organizations concerned with the prevention of crime and treatment of offenders agreed on the various aspects of the field in which each would work and on cooperation with the United Nations. ILO, WHO, and UNESCO were among the specialized agencies which agreed to the resolution. A later resolution on cooperation with the United Nations, adopted by the commission in August 1949 was reviewed by ECOSOC which, in turn, requested the United Nations Secretary-General to coatinue consultations with IPPC with a view toward its integration in the United Nations system.


1991 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Taylor

This essay is about the response by the United Nations system to financial pressures in the 1980s and early 1990s. These pressures resulted from two developments: the decision of the main contributing states to adopt a policy of zero growth in real terms in the budgets of the organizations; and the additional withholdings by the United States which resulted from the Kassebaum Amendment to the Senate Foreign Relations Act of August 1985. This required a 20 per cent underpayment by the United States of its assessed financial contributions until a range of reforms in budgetary procedures, judged acceptable by the US Administration, had been introduced. The impact of the resulting financial squeeze is considered with particular reference to three Specialized Agencies: the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document