Funding the UN system

Voluntary contributions -often earmarked for specific purposes -have become an indispensable source of revenue for international organizations (IOs) and the UN organizations in particular. While the reasons for this trend are regularly studied, its effects on the internal functioning of the organization (especially on the 'international public administration' (IPA) as the organization's secretariat) remain unclear. Given this gap, we study the consequences of increasing financial dependence for the autonomy of IPA staff. Using financial and personnel data of 15 UN agencies over time, our results are in line with the intuitive expectation that more financial resources in the form of voluntary contributions increase the number of staff. We also find evidence, however, that the more an organization depends on voluntary resources (within its broader financial portfolio), the more it reduces the ratio of permanent staff among its total workforce in the subsequent years. The underlying adaption of IPAs' recruitment and career structures to growing financial insecurities has important implications for the autonomy of international bureaucrats and needs to be considered also in terms of its long-term impact on administrative professionalism and organizational performance. Policy Implications• The UN organizations are generally responsive to changes in their fiscal environment. The increasing dependence on voluntary funding leads them to adjust their staffing practices by reducing 'long-term liabilities' in the form of permanent staff.• The observed trend has potentially negative consequences for IPAs' ability to fulfill their mandate because the institutional memory and policy expertise of staff suffers.• Changing staffing patterns may also impair the performance of IPAs as it becomes more difficult for them to attract qualified personnel and keep their current staff motivated.

Section: Staff Autonomy In Times Of Contested Financial Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Financial Resources Affect the Autonomy of International Public Administrations

Ege

Bauer

2017

“…In the UN development system, this influence has been driven through a substantial increase in non‐core funding, designated by donors for specific purposes in accordance with their bilateral interests (Reinsberg et al. , Weinlich ). As Figure shows, non‐core development assistance through the UN grew by 237 per cent over a 15‐year period, during which core funding stagnated.…”

Section: Funding Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vertical Funds: New Forms of Multilateralism

Browne

2017

The United Nations and other multilateral organizations have always been prominent in the health field. UN agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO), however, have come increasingly under the influence of major individual donors which provide earmarked funding. Since 2000, two major vertical funds in the health field -the Global Fund and the GAVI Allianceprovide new models of multilateralism and their funding patterns, together with those of WHO, are examined in some detail. We review the extent to which the two new funds and WHO conform to traditional definitions of multilateralism by reference to several test areas: degrees of concentration of funding sources; the influence of individual funders; sustainability; and transparency. We also draw lessons from the analysis for the UN development organizations. Policy Implications• Patterns of funding in international organizations are a principal determinant of multilateralism.• The earmarking of donor funding in international organizations undermines multilateral principles.• New funding mechanisms in the health field compete with the operational roles of UN organisations, but can provide lessons for the UN's operational role.

“…Channeling resources to favored locales, belligerents, or target audiences is an easier sell to parliaments than unrestricted grants. For instance, United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) core budget is approaching 15 per cent and the UN's own development activities 30 per cent, a mirror image of 20 years earlier when noncore resources were at those levels (Weinlich, ).…”

Section: Politicizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Quandaries in War Zones, When Mass Atrocity Prevention Fails

Weiss

2016

Humanitarians are no longer necessarily viewed as selfless angels in war zones. Their motivations and mastery, their principles and products are questioned from inside and outside of the community of aid and protection agencies. Like the poor, war victims will always be with us. Coming to their rescue requires understanding of the ongoing transformations to contemporary humanitarian action in wars and the evolution of humanitarian culture – its values, language and behavior. An agreed culture of cooperation has given way to a contested one of competition resulting from militarization, politicization and marketization. Preventing mass atrocities is preferable to halting them; but the record of preventing them has been dismal. And even with sufficient political will to act or react, the history of postintervention results also has been abysmal. When mass atrocity prevention fails, a ‘learning culture’ is required: more responsible reflection and less rapid reaction. Traditional principles are unhelpful; guidance to effective action does not require strict adherence to humanitarian ideology but rather to considered calculations about least worst options.