Reframing knowledge: A comparison of OECD and World Bank discourse on public governance reform

Abstract

As knowledge producers and transfer agents, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank (WB) rely on their own research infrastructures to promote the dissemination public governance reform. To enhance their authority and legitimacy, they frame their economic knowledge through prominent documents that set the agenda for policy advisory activities and practices. This paper suggests that the influence of epistemic communities on the extent of change in these international organisations' agenda-setting depends on their institutional determinants, namely mandate, knowledge production processes and knowledge validation procedures. Both IOs strategically select their preferred sources of expert knowledge. The OECD refers to technical expertise to enhance its new public management agenda through adjustments. The WB is attuned to economic expertise, resulting in transformations of knowledge frames.

International donors as enablers of institutional change in turbulent times?

“…In this vein, local reactions were carefully explored (Adhikari et al, 2012;Dollery and Graves, 2009;Sharma and Lawrence, 2009). Some studies recognized IFIs' capacity for strategic and analytical thinking in changing public institutions (Harrison, 2005;Francesco and Guaschino, 2020), but relatively less in known about how IFIs interact with local actors while implementing NPM reforms (for exception see Adhikari et al, 2013). The paper aims to contribute to the debate by focusing on the role of agency in the complex process of public sector transformation, which seems to be neglected due to a prevailing choice of traditional neo-institutional theoretical lenses (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983;Meyer and Rowan, 1977) for studying IFIs influence on reforms in developing countries.…”

“…In this regard, rationales used by institutional entrepreneurs to 'theorize intuitional change by specifying problems associated with existing practices and justifying new ones as a solution' (Hardy and Maguire, 2017, p. 271) are framed by 'culture, institutions, and social relations [… that] influence actors' cognition and actions' (Battilana et al, 2009, p. 73). IFIs are powerful global change agents and to expand their influence, IFIs act as strategic institutions by producing, selecting and mobilizing knowledge (Francesco and Guaschino, 2020). However, the content of knowledge produced and shared by experts is framed by 'cognitive frames', i.e., IFIs' mandates (Francesco and Guaschino, 2020).…”

“…IFIs are powerful global change agents and to expand their influence, IFIs act as strategic institutions by producing, selecting and mobilizing knowledge (Francesco and Guaschino, 2020). However, the content of knowledge produced and shared by experts is framed by 'cognitive frames', i.e., IFIs' mandates (Francesco and Guaschino, 2020). Thus, public sector reforms ideas spread by IFIs under NPM reform agenda were embedded into economic ideologies of advanced countries (Halliday, 2012), more specifically 'the Western-centric private-sector management repertoire' ( van Helden and Uddin, 2016, p. 44), to which international donors adhere.…”

“…The economic crisis and lack of knowledge caused significant uncertainties for local actors, yet had a stimulating effect, since Ukrainian government realized the need for external support. Institutional entrepreneurs were strategically using arguments, which supported their global NPM reform agenda and followed a 'best practice' approach (Francesco and Guaschino, 2020), to address local uncertainties. Specifically, the experts gave examples of similar reforms and positioned it as a solution to the existing crisis.…”

Economizing the political: Workfare reform in strategic management mode

“…While these non-elected experts have no official formal political power, they nevertheless have indirect influence through knowledge production (De Francesco and Guaschino, 2020; Ylönen and Kuusela, 2019). For elected politicians, especially the government, this ‘impartial expert knowledge’ provided by the OECD and state officials has been convenient.…”