Search

Existing research points to the presence of philanthropists in global governance as funders of programmes and partners. Through an in-depth exploration of global health governance, we highlight that philanthropic organizations now shape governance by acting as producers of knowledge. Practicing 'knowledge philanthropism', they collect, produce and assemble the data, calculations and research which is used by International Organizations (IOs) to govern problems. In addition, philanthropies craft tools of interpretation, whether concepts, vocabularies, or concrete technological devices that embed these, which are being used for the treatment of the knowledge they themselves produce. While performing such activities, they reify their own role and enable their deeper entanglement in the knowledge machinery of global governance, fashioning data-centric activities as the solution to global health problems, and themselves as the necessary partners in this resource-intensive data collection effort. The epistemic power of philanthropists produces political effects, on health interventions and modes of governing, which deeply participate to the transformation of all matters into objects of investments for financial returns. We explore these processes in relation to global health governance, with a specific focus on medical hypertension, fashioned as a top global health priority and a necessary 'investment' by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other sites of global governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Political Sociology is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

International bureaucracies can expand their activities into new domains, even when these are remote from their formal mandates. Asking how they do this, this article reveals that expansion often goes unnoticed, because international secretariats typically start new activities in a way which is informal, mundane and depoliticized. Through an examination of UNESCO's and WHO's expansion into the domain of bioethics, the article argues that international bureaucratic tactics revert to a three-fold strategy mixing technicalization, expertization and naturalization. This suggests that international bureaucracies' autonomy does not depend on their fixed characteristics, as defined by their legal-institutional mandates, capacities, or level of expertise. Expansion takes place, rather, when such resources are efficiently activated, assembled, or developed, thus shedding light on the need to examine what international bureaucracies 'do', rather than what they 'are', in order to capture their influence in global governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article asks how international secretariats can sometimes expand their authority in areas that relate neither to their mandate, nor to their sphere of expert authority. Existing explanations of mission creep assume that IOs act autonomously and expand in those areas that connect with their mandates, sense of organizational mission, and sphere of expert authority. The claim here is that entrepreneurial bureaucrats can succeed--in the absence of policy deadlock among states--in creating creep in unexpected issue domains through the mobilization of external expertise. The article examines this dynamic in the domain of bioethical standards. It shows that UNESCO acted as a first mover in the field, despite having no relevant expertise, and despite bioethics being more closely connected to the mandate of other organizations. Entrepreneurial bureaucrats within UNESCO were able to create creep in bioethics by mobilizing external experts in the field and capturing their skills. Working with external experts endowed their organization with the capacity to act, gave epistemic authority to their actions, and prevented the politicization of debates in a potentially controversial issue domain. In pointing to the strategic uses of expertise, the article challenges the commonly held view that expert knowledge acts as a means of solving problems and rationalizing global governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]