Identifying Formal Intergovernmental Organizations

Abstract

Scholarship on intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) has mushroomed, especially studies involving quantitative analyses of state involvement in IGOs and the effects of IGOs on the behavior of state members. Yet, little of that literature enumerates IGOs using conceptually based definitions of what are formal intergovernmental organizations. Here, the authors develop a new database on IGOs, based on a definition focusing on three dimensions: formal organizations that demonstrate ongoing decisionmaking and oversight by states; evidence bureaucratic organization; and demonstrate organizational autonomy. The authors conceptualize these organizations as FIGOs. Using these dimensions, they identify the population of FIGOs at three points in time: 1975, 1989, and 2004. In addition, they generate data on state membership in FIGOs, offering not only a simple frequency of number of organizations in which a state participates, but also another measure of state involvement through the creation of a denominator of `opportunity', allowing for an analysis of the number of organizations joined versus the number of organizations a state is capable of joining. Finally, the authors compare the results from their efforts with the IGO COW database and suggest some advantages to using their data for a number of theoretical questions.

Declassification: a clouded environment

“…1 They are established by an agreement, preferably by a treaty, between states or other IGOs. The agreement acts as a charter defining the institution.…”

The regionalization of intergovernmental organization networks: A non-linear process

“…The lower the entropy, the more the given classification captures the latent divisions in the system. If IGOs were classified by function, we would measure entropy as the extent to which communities clustered 6 Many researchers have attempted to identify and classify IGOs using criteria based on autonomy, membership, and organizational structure (Volgy et al, 2008;Wallace and Singer, 1970;Martin and Simmons, 1998;Crawford and Ostrom, 1995). As a result, IGOs have been categorized in multiple ways.…”

“…The most widely cited repository of IGO information is the Yearbook of International Organizations, produced by the Union of International Associations, which classifies IGOs by function and region of operation. Volgy et al (2008) creates a geographical typology that divides IGOs into four tiers: global IGOs; interregional IGOs made up of IGOs whose memberships are transnationally linked by a common language or culture (e.g., Commonwealth of Nations, La Francophone); regional IGOs that restrict membership to states in one region (e.g., the European Union, ASEAN); and sub-regional IGOs with membership restricted to a specific area within a larger region (e.g., Lake Chad Basin Commission, Organization of Coordination for the Control of Endemic Diseases in Central Africa). 7 The choice of log2 is an arbitrary, but traditional, basis on which to calculate entropy.…”

Mapping the Architecture of the New World Order: Continuity and Change in the Constellation of Post‐Cold War Formal Intergovernmental Organizations *

“…Using this formulation, we have in a previous effort (Volgy et al, 2008) differentiated between IGOs and FIGOs across the Cold War and afterwards. Once an organization meets all 11 criteria (noted in the following illustration), it is further classified as belonging to one of four types.…”

“…Second, our conceptual approach to FIGOs leads us to use a new database that focuses explicitly on formal intergovernmental organizations (Volgy et al, 2008). Third, we supplement our research design with network analysis, a method increasingly used in the study of IGOs (e.g., HafnerBurton and Montgomery, 2006;Ingram et al, 2005) but one that has not been utilized previously in mapping their constellations.…”