August 29, 31, 2023
1. How is the international public sector growing.
A first question you should ask is, "how really significant is the international public sector".
The truth is, it’s hard to tell in monetary terms. But we need to start with what constitutes the United Nations System. Formally, the System consists of the United Nations Secretariat, the UN’s Funds and Programs, the Specialized Agencies, the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund (called the Bretton Woods Institutions ) and a number of semi-independent institutions that report to the United Nations General Assembly. Taken together, they include 34 organizations, not including the Breton Woods Institutions. They are coordinated by the United Nations Chief Executives Board. In terms of size, they had revenue of $49 billion in 2016. Table 1.1 shows the revenue by organization in 2016. You can see updated figures in https://unsceb.org/fs-revenue-agency .
|
Agency |
Total Revenue |
Percent |
|
UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) |
$8,726,356,000 |
17.7% |
|
World Food Programme (WFP) |
$5,908,911,778 |
12.0% |
|
UN Secretariat |
$5,146,929,012 |
10.4% |
|
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) |
$5,102,572,823 |
10.3% |
|
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) |
$4,883,697,720 |
9.9% |
|
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) |
$3,973,809,295 |
8.1% |
|
World Health Organization (WHO) |
$2,364,078,787 |
4.8% |
|
International Organization for Migration (IOM) |
$1,615,633,992 |
3.3% |
|
PanAmerican Health Organization (PAHO) |
$1,385,308,220 |
2.8% |
|
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) |
$1,296,446,139 |
2.6% |
|
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) |
$1,274,684,991 |
2.6% |
|
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) |
$895,349,201 |
1.8% |
|
United Nations Office of Project Services (UNOPS) |
$789,934,000 |
1.6% |
|
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) |
$720,805,951 |
1.5% |
|
International Labour Organization (ILO) |
$669,901,812 |
1.4% |
|
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) |
$632,065,162 |
1.3% |
|
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) |
$615,024,051 |
1.2% |
|
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) |
$526,796,000 |
1.1% |
|
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) |
$378,256,585 |
0.8% |
|
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) |
$342,204,000 |
0.7% |
|
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality (UNWOMEN) |
$334,568,866 |
0.7% |
|
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) |
$304,673,368 |
0.6% |
|
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) |
$228,706,405 |
0.5% |
|
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) |
$226,603,200 |
0.5% |
|
World Trade Organization (WTO) |
$221,681,703 |
0.4% |
|
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) |
$197,886,962 |
0.4% |
|
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) |
$172,196,967 |
0.3% |
|
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) |
$80,418,329 |
0.2% |
|
Universal Postal Union (UPU) |
$78,774,041 |
0.2% |
|
International Trade Centre (ITC) |
$66,791,000 |
0.1% |
|
United Nations University (UNU) |
$66,180,554 |
0.1% |
|
International Maritime Organization (IMO) |
$58,723,032 |
0.1% |
|
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) |
$23,682,000 |
0.0% |
|
United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) |
$23,575,875 |
0.0% |
|
Grand Total |
$49,333,227,821 |
100.00% |
Source: United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, Revenue Type by Agency 2016.
The table shows the range of organizations in the system. It does not
include the Bretton Woods Institutions, nor does it include some of the
organizations concerned with climate change like the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change secretariat and its subsidiaries like the Green Climate Fund
because the computation of revenue is different. If these organizations were included the
amount of funds involved would be almost double.
Table 1.1 gives a good sense of what the UN System does. The largest
amount (20 percent) is for peacekeeping activities approved by the Security
Council. The next (totaling 14 percent) is a fund that deals with both
humanitarian relief and development (the World Food Program). This,
together with UNICEF and UNDP are what are called funds and programs, which are
a quarter of the organizations but almost half of the revenue.
Specialized agencies like FAO, WHO and ILO make up half of the organizations
but only a quarter of the revenue.
The Green Climate Fund is supposed to have a budget of $10 billion per year based on the Paris Agreement. In 2017, it had $1.9 billion. The International Monetary Fund in 2016 showed a total operational income of $1.04 billion. The World Bank Group had disbursements of $35.6 billion. However, these are somewhat different from how the amounts in Table 1.1 were computed.
The over-time data show a general increase in funding by year:
Year: All
All values are in USD.
|
Year |
Assessed
contributions |
Voluntary core
(un-earmarked) contributions |
Voluntary
non-core (earmarked) contributions |
Revenue from
other activities |
Total |
|
2021 |
13,633,831,101 |
6,841,262,960 |
40,020,832,543 |
5,394,783,389 |
65,890,709,995 |
|
2020 |
13,679,044,319 |
4,816,811,265 |
38,795,679,829 |
5,307,751,290 |
62,599,286,704 |
|
2019 |
13,669,213,466 |
5,332,900,426 |
32,917,789,007 |
5,005,068,776 |
56,924,971,676 |
|
2018 |
13,522,000,769 |
5,752,006,710 |
32,773,768,941 |
3,996,326,944 |
56,044,103,366 |
|
2017 |
13,953,317,073 |
4,776,304,460 |
30,035,137,292 |
4,434,943,615 |
53,199,702,441 |
|
2016 |
13,972,315,414 |
5,060,877,051 |
26,684,499,383 |
3,615,535,970 |
49,333,227,820 |
|
2015 |
14,519,560,382 |
4,556,612,404 |
25,403,125,387 |
3,500,304,315 |
47,979,602,490 |
|
2014 |
13,726,868,013 |
4,888,979,347 |
26,427,076,096 |
3,036,914,924 |
48,079,838,381 |
|
2013 |
13,254,877,695 |
5,083,635,421 |
23,729,463,404 |
2,570,886,509 |
44,638,863,031 |
|
2012 |
13,647,664,993 |
5,378,842,070 |
20,808,485,687 |
2,488,692,224 |
42,323,684,975 |
|
2011 |
13,293,145,589 |
4,193,761,598 |
19,667,175,986 |
2,484,193,604 |
39,638,276,778 |
|
2010 |
13,282,566,386 |
3,804,501,561 |
20,298,046,934 |
2,254,022,134 |
39,639,137,017 |
|
Total |
606,291,404,678 |
||||
As can be noted, assessed contributions have not increased (they are standard dues that each country pays) while the main growth is in non-core voluntary contributions. These are driven by countries providing funds usually for development but also for humanitarian activities. There is a slight increase in revenue from other activities.
Another
way to look at it is by source of the funds. Here are the figures for 2015,
while the amounts have increased, the ratios of assessed to voluntary
contributions has remained about the same.
You can see the updated figures at https://unsceb.org/fs-revenue-agency by clicking on
advanced filtering.
|
Agency |
Year |
Revenue
type |
Revenue |
|
DPKO |
2015 |
8,503,612,000 |
|
|
DPKO |
2015 |
195,385,000 |
|
|
DPKO |
2015 |
71,850,000 |
|
|
FAO |
2015 |
743,648,143 |
|
|
FAO |
2015 |
496,622,671 |
|
|
FAO |
2015 |
10,288,000 |
|
|
IAEA |
2015 |
377,494,582 |
|
|
IAEA |
2015 |
235,747,742 |
|
|
IAEA |
2015 |
4,661,955 |
|
|
ICAO |
2015 |
106,289,973 |
|
|
ICAO |
2015 |
67,646,343 |
|
|
ICAO |
2015 |
22,635,285 |
|
|
IFAD |
2015 |
221,676,000 |
|
|
IFAD |
2015 |
93,422,000 |
|
|
ILO |
2015 |
400,630,000 |
|
|
ILO |
2015 |
225,040,782 |
|
|
ILO |
2015 |
13,300,000 |
|
|
IMO |
2015 |
44,625,255 |
|
|
IMO |
2015 |
18,963,259 |
|
|
IMO |
2015 |
8,452,364 |
|
|
IOM |
2015 |
1,396,868,852 |
|
|
IOM |
2015 |
156,663,262 |
|
|
IOM |
2015 |
43,148,345 |
|
|
IOM |
2015 |
6,731,290 |
|
|
ITC |
2015 |
37,156,000 |
|
|
ITC |
2015 |
25,023,000 |
|
|
ITC |
2015 |
6,785,000 |
|
|
ITC |
2015 |
1,663,000 |
|
|
ITU |
2015 |
127,595,358 |
|
|
ITU |
2015 |
42,623,420 |
|
|
ITU |
2015 |
5,612,357 |
|
|
ITU |
2015 |
59,399 |
|
|
PAHO |
2015 |
650,999,124 |
|
|
PAHO |
2015 |
613,857,226 |
|
|
PAHO |
2015 |
105,620,000 |
|
|
UN |
2015 |
2,771,359,326 |
|
|
UN |
2015 |
2,093,877,976 |
|
|
UN |
2015 |
682,560,364 |
|
|
UN-HABITAT |
2015 |
156,362,702 |
|
|
UN-HABITAT |
2015 |
16,935,000 |
|
|
UN-HABITAT |
2015 |
2,170,827 |
|
|
UN-HABITAT |
2015 |
1,990,000 |
|
|
UNAIDS |
2015 |
196,250,098 |
|
|
UNAIDS |
2015 |
23,291,335 |
|
|
UNAIDS |
2015 |
6,365,170 |
|
|
UNDP |
2015 |
3,726,179,691 |
|
|
UNDP |
2015 |
745,714,467 |
|
|
UNDP |
2015 |
348,265,392 |
|
|
UNEP |
2015 |
432,297,007 |
|
|
UNEP |
2015 |
222,817,431 |
|
|
UNEP |
2015 |
871,000 |
|
|
UNESCO |
2015 |
351,554,265 |
|
|
UNESCO |
2015 |
341,374,604 |
|
|
UNESCO |
2015 |
49,528,579 |
|
|
UNFPA |
2015 |
581,259,701 |
|
|
UNFPA |
2015 |
398,197,217 |
|
|
UNFPA |
2015 |
57,280,000 |
|
|
UNHCR |
2015 |
2,778,623,534 |
|
|
UNHCR |
2015 |
735,692,971 |
|
|
UNHCR |
2015 |
48,643,700 |
|
|
UNHCR |
2015 |
19,380,184 |
|
|
UNICEF |
2015 |
3,835,891,146 |
|
|
UNICEF |
2015 |
1,067,460,516 |
|
|
UNICEF |
2015 |
106,205,809 |
|
|
UNIDO |
2015 |
250,304,787 |
|
|
UNIDO |
2015 |
77,899,231 |
|
|
UNIDO |
2015 |
5,618,983 |
|
|
UNITAR |
2015 |
24,244,070 |
|
|
UNITAR |
2015 |
1,161,611 |
|
|
UNITAR |
2015 |
15,575
|
|
|
UNODC |
2015 |
234,387,804 |
|
|
UNODC |
2015 |
29,003,000 |
|
|
UNODC |
2015 |
7,460,000 |
|
|
UNODC |
2015 |
4,305,620 |
|
|
UNOPS |
2015 |
682,880,000 |
|
|
UNOPS |
2015 |
396,000 |
|
|
UNRWA |
2015 |
611,448,924 |
|
|
UNRWA |
2015 |
577,591,847 |
|
|
UNRWA |
2015 |
23,689,000 |
|
|
UNU |
2015 |
60,827,400 |
|
|
UNU |
2015 |
2,439,000 |
|
|
UNWOMEN |
2015 |
170,925,799 |
|
|
UNWOMEN |
2015 |
136,053,647 |
|
|
UNWOMEN |
2015 |
7,505,355 |
|
|
UNWOMEN |
2015 |
4,503,000 |
|
|
UNWTO |
2015 |
14,647,529 |
|
|
UNWTO |
2015 |
6,147,505 |
|
|
UNWTO |
2015 |
2,930,322 |
|
|
UPU |
2015 |
35,911,241 |
|
|
UPU |
2015 |
20,901,992 |
|
|
UPU |
2015 |
13,128,962 |
|
|
WFP |
2015 |
4,468,563,183 |
|
|
WFP |
2015 |
339,147,919 |
|
|
WFP |
2015 |
103,162,434 |
|
|
WHO |
2015 |
1,856,625,919 |
|
|
WHO |
2015 |
467,499,153 |
|
|
WHO |
2015 |
111,729,645 |
|
|
WHO |
2015 |
39,286,690 |
|
|
WIPO |
2015 |
357,101,348 |
|
|
WIPO |
2015 |
17,962,326 |
|
|
WIPO |
2015 |
10,347,718 |
|
|
WMO |
2015 |
65,842,583 |
|
|
WMO |
2015 |
5,488,331 |
|
|
WMO |
2015 |
5,087,405 |
|
|
WMO |
2015 |
3,085,772 |
|
|
WTO |
2015 |
198,009,349 |
|
|
WTO |
2015 |
22,834,141 |
|
|
WTO |
2015 |
20,703,371 |
You can
get up-to-date statistics from the Chief
Executives Board for Coordination. These are revenue figures for 2014 which
show the total as well as the United States contribution..
|
Agency |
Year |
Total
Revenue |
US
Share |
US
Pct |
Agency
as Pct of total |
US
Assessed Amount |
Assessed
percentage |
|
DPKO |
2014 |
7,999,450,000 |
2,213,888,420 |
27.7% |
22.0% |
2,213,888,420 |
100.0% |
|
WFP |
2014 |
5,450,369,726 |
2,261,988,935 |
41.5% |
22.5% |
0.0% |
|
|
UNICEF |
2014 |
5,169,287,191 |
941,763,079 |
18.2% |
9.4% |
0.0% |
|
|
UN |
2014 |
5,038,142,913 |
699,604,616 |
13.9% |
6.9% |
621,203,682 |
88.8% |
|
UNDP |
2014 |
5,000,915,482 |
494,950,411 |
9.9% |
4.9% |
0.0% |
|
|
UNHCR |
2014 |
3,055,908,219 |
1,280,827,870 |
41.9% |
12.7% |
0.0% |
|
|
WHO |
2014 |
2,629,392,232 |
419,122,947 |
15.9% |
4.2% |
118,451,142 |
28.3% |
|
PAHO |
2014 |
1,725,654,190 |
82,474,942 |
4.8% |
0.8% |
66,486,090 |
80.6% |
|
IOM |
2014 |
1,487,062,773 |
357,819,641 |
24.1% |
3.6% |
11,429,614 |
3.2% |
|
FAO |
2014 |
1,363,674,211 |
190,222,280 |
13.9% |
1.9% |
116,222,280 |
61.1% |
|
UNRWA |
2014 |
1,342,180,849 |
408,697,923 |
30.5% |
4.1% |
0.0% |
|
|
UNFPA |
2014 |
1,068,218,407 |
48,920,105 |
4.6% |
0.5% |
0.0% |
|
|
UNESCO |
2014 |
782,418,697 |
79,962,151 |
10.2% |
0.8% |
79,962,151 |
100.0% |
|
UNEP |
2014 |
702,098,769 |
44,668,398 |
6.4% |
0.4% |
32,186,014 |
72.1% |
|
ILO |
2014 |
699,561,337 |
124,657,669 |
17.8% |
1.2% |
84,834,416 |
68.1% |
|
UNOPS |
2014 |
673,819,000 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
IAEA |
2014 |
625,132,617 |
195,642,234 |
31.3% |
1.9% |
105,434,916 |
53.9% |
|
IFAD |
2014 |
382,414,000 |
30,000,000 |
7.8% |
0.3% |
0.0% |
|
|
WIPO |
2014 |
375,055,039 |
1,154,482 |
0.3% |
0.0% |
1,154,482 |
100.0% |
|
UNWOMEN |
2014 |
332,888,266 |
9,685,628 |
2.9% |
0.1% |
0.0% |
|
|
UNODC |
2014 |
328,639,466 |
41,830,117 |
12.7% |
0.4% |
0.0% |
|
|
UNAIDS |
2014 |
277,645,967 |
59,384,823 |
21.4% |
0.6% |
0.0% |
|
|
UNIDO |
2014 |
271,219,065 |
670,834 |
0.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
WTO |
2014 |
244,865,408 |
23,824,816 |
9.7% |
0.2% |
22,592,404 |
94.8% |
|
ICAO |
2014 |
226,729,801 |
18,654,370 |
8.2% |
0.2% |
17,059,183 |
91.4% |
|
UN-HABITAT |
2014 |
193,212,000 |
5,349,461 |
2.8% |
0.1% |
0.0% |
|
|
ITU |
2014 |
182,476,541 |
9,665,642 |
5.3% |
0.1% |
9,665,642 |
100.0% |
|
ITC |
2014 |
107,250,792 |
1,100,000 |
1.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
WMO |
2014 |
81,507,500 |
16,350,881 |
20.1% |
0.2% |
14,332,505 |
87.7% |
|
IMO |
2014 |
74,231,338 |
1,594,292 |
2.1% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
UNU |
2014 |
71,871,390 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
UPU |
2014 |
65,407,443 |
2,116,006 |
3.2% |
0.0% |
2,116,006 |
100.0% |
|
UNITAR |
2014 |
28,791,878 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
UNWTO |
2014 |
22,345,873 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
0.0% |
|||||||
|
TOTAL |
2014 |
48,079,838,380 |
10,066,592,973 |
20.9% |
100.0% |
3,517,018,947 |
34.9% |
|
Year |
Revenue
Type |
Revenue |
|||||
|
2014 |
Voluntary
Contributions - Specified |
26,427,076,096 |
66.5% |
||||
|
2014 |
Assessed
Contributions |
13,726,868,013 |
|||||
|
2014 |
Voluntary
Contributions - Non-specified |
4,888,979,347 |
|||||
|
2014 |
Revenue
from other activities |
3,036,914,924 |
Is that a lot? Well, it would make the international public sector like the public sector of a medium-size national economy. But, the UN Secretariat is wont to say, when trying to convince the public that it is not spending too much, that it [the Secretariat] is smaller than the municipal government of Stockholm, or the New York City Fire Department, or MacDonalds worldwide.
Perhaps, however, it is not a fair question: is importance a matter of merely financial expenditure?
How about in terms of jobs? In 2007, I did a paper for a Wilton Park conference in the UK and analyzed staff growth in the UN system. Here is what I found:
According to Chief Executive Board figures, the number of staff in the UN system increased 135 percent between 1986 and 2005. This was a 12 percent growth per year. Constrained by zero growth budgets, the staff funded from the assessed budgets was only steady. However, if we assume an average growth of 12 percent per year, we can expect, in 2020, a UN System staff of 317,401 persons.
It did not quite reach that amount, since in 2022 the total
staff size was 125,436, Still there has
been steady growth.
Secretariat
|
Organization |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
|
CEB |
||||||
|
17 |
15 |
15 |
14 |
17 |
16 |
|
|
CTBTO |
||||||
|
310 |
277 |
280 |
283 |
290 |
300 |
|
|
FAO |
||||||
|
3,134 |
3,108 |
3,119 |
3,171 |
3,224 |
3,202 |
|
|
IAEA |
||||||
|
2,394 |
2,547 |
2,781 |
2,544 |
2,587 |
2,522 |
|
|
ICAO |
||||||
|
795 |
797 |
771 |
741 |
736 |
737 |
|
|
ICJ |
||||||
|
109 |
0* |
115 |
114 |
115 |
111 |
|
|
ICSC |
||||||
|
45 |
42 |
43 |
46 |
45 |
44 |
|
|
IFAD |
||||||
|
627 |
619 |
674 |
723 |
746 |
781 |
|
|
ILO |
||||||
|
3,008 |
3,171 |
3,302 |
3,447 |
3,606 |
3,651 |
|
|
IMO |
||||||
|
270 |
264 |
271 |
273 |
255 |
251 |
|
|
IOM |
||||||
|
4,450 |
4,888 |
5,564 |
6,110 |
6,589 |
7,648 |
|
|
ISA |
||||||
|
35 |
40 |
47 |
41 |
43 |
49 |
|
|
ITC |
||||||
|
287 |
287 |
315 |
355 |
359 |
375 |
|
|
ITCILO |
||||||
|
164 |
176 |
178 |
171 |
172 |
173 |
|
|
ITLOS |
||||||
|
35 |
34 |
0* |
0* |
0* |
37 |
|
|
ITU |
||||||
|
680 |
727 |
749 |
758 |
782 |
774 |
|
|
JIU |
||||||
|
0* |
31 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
|
PAHO |
||||||
|
802 |
881 |
870 |
789 |
786 |
818 |
|
|
UN |
||||||
|
34,153 |
33,745 |
35,194 |
35,520 |
35,700 |
34,914 |
|
|
UN WOMEN |
||||||
|
825 |
934 |
1,036 |
1,095 |
1,123 |
1,129 |
|
|
UNAIDS |
||||||
|
684 |
688 |
715 |
733 |
710 |
631 |
|
|
UNDP |
||||||
|
7,177 |
7,013 |
6,894 |
7,345 |
7,523 |
7,394 |
|
|
UNESCO |
||||||
|
2,148 |
2,206 |
2,246 |
2,251 |
2,303 |
2,341 |
|
|
UNFCCC |
||||||
|
385 |
368 |
385 |
369 |
366 |
396 |
|
|
UNFPA |
||||||
|
2,658 |
2,781 |
2,934 |
3,097 |
3,149 |
3,111 |
|
|
UNHCR |
||||||
|
9,740 |
10,197 |
10,948 |
11,650 |
12,157 |
13,354 |
|
|
UNICC |
||||||
|
263 |
258 |
257 |
276 |
288 |
325 |
|
|
UNICEF |
||||||
|
12,806 |
14,474 |
14,804 |
13,994 |
14,413 |
15,654 |
|
|
UNIDO |
||||||
|
617 |
627 |
643 |
654 |
646 |
649 |
|
|
UNITAR |
||||||
|
41 |
41 |
42 |
49 |
51 |
54 |
|
|
UNJSPF |
||||||
|
247 |
254 |
286 |
307 |
339 |
363 |
|
|
UNOPS |
||||||
|
764 |
744 |
763 |
817 |
683 |
617 |
|
|
UNRWA |
||||||
|
265 |
236 |
205 |
200 |
172 |
179 |
|
|
UNSSC |
||||||
|
35 |
34 |
40 |
44 |
46 |
44 |
|
|
UNU |
||||||
|
116 |
125 |
124 |
128 |
138 |
142 |
|
|
UNWTO |
||||||
|
87 |
83 |
83 |
85 |
85 |
92 |
|
|
UPU |
||||||
|
178 |
183 |
182 |
176 |
244 |
237 |
|
|
WFP |
||||||
|
6,091 |
6,680 |
7,362 |
7,917 |
9,037 |
11,670 |
|
|
WHO |
||||||
|
8,134 |
8,153 |
8,351 |
8,591 |
8,823 |
9,117 |
|
|
WIPO |
||||||
|
1,159 |
1,176 |
1,163 |
1,186 |
1,170 |
1,162 |
|
|
WMO |
||||||
|
324 |
315 |
338 |
294 |
322 |
342 |
|
|
Total |
||||||
|
106,059 |
109,589 |
114,119 |
116,388 |
119,870 |
125,436 |
Statistics
from the Chief Executive Board, UN System Human Resources Statistics.
The main contributers are shown below. These are the countries who pay for most of the operations of the UN system.
Filters: 2021
All values
are in USD.
|
Government
donor |
Entity |
Amount |
|
United States of America |
- |
12,496,438,347 |
|
Germany |
- |
6,112,645,264 |
|
Sweden |
- |
2,852,100,255 |
|
Japan |
- |
2,707,980,548 |
|
United Kingdom |
- |
1,993,439,163 |
|
China |
- |
1,977,740,952 |
|
Canada |
- |
1,701,735,606 |
|
France |
- |
1,309,689,606 |
|
Norway |
- |
1,278,449,910 |
|
Italy |
- |
1,032,975,240 |
|
Others |
- |
15,020,812,510 |
|
Total |
- |
48,484,007,406 |
The statistics do not yet demonstrate my projection, but...
Where is the United Nations expanding?
Let’s try to get a handle on this. Three areas where there is international public sector action could be postulated.
We need to look at this a bit. What are the commons?
The concept was applied in medieval Europe to lands that belonged to everyone in the community and could be used for the collective good. [In fact, this could be found in all cultures]
In our time, it was used to refer to those physical spaces that were outside national jurisdiction. The deep sea bed, the high seas, the troposphere, outer space and, depending on which country you talk to, Antarctica. It has also been used to refer to the Internet.
In a paper I wrote, I expanded on it somewhat.
"The concept of
global commons can be expanded beyond physical space. To do this, it is
possible to start from the two characteristics of the commons as set out in the
Law of the Sea. In this, the commons
(a) is either outside national jurisdiction
or the ability of national authorities to deal with it and therefore cannot be
managed through or by the actions of individual nations, in an exercise of
national sovereignty but rather it can only be managed by actions directed by
the community.
(b) includes issues or phenomena which are of
public interest and cannot be taken care of by the operations of the market."
Here we are talking about a kind of
conceptual space: the interval between the time a good leaves one national
jurisdiction and enters another’s. We are also talking about issues that
cannot be handled by national action (transnational crime, for example, or the
Internet or climate change).
Let me say a word about the market...
A pure modern case is the Internet. We will
expand on that later in the course, since the discussions on Internet
governance are beginning to question whether the Internet could really be a
pure market. In fact, there are no pure markets (since they would have to clear
instantly and this never happens) and, when there are imperfect markets, some
institution has to provide either regulation or a framework on the basis of
which there could be stability.
Managing the commons means more (and less)
than domestic public administration.
Defining that role can be seen in terms of the answers to two questions: What would be required to manage the commons? And, in that management, what value-added does an international organization have?
It is necessary to consider
international organizations as actors in their own right. The theoretical
literature tends to ignore them as actors, in part because, absent any
attributions of sovereignty, it is not clear what their role would be. The
negotiations to establish a regime (or a new institution) are, after all, among
States.
It will be necessary to change the
way in which international public organizations are seen in order to be able to
explore the nature of a "sovereign-less" institution. Some
characteristics, however, can be deduced immediately:
• They will be non-hierarchical, rather than reflecting a Weberian bureaucratic structure;
• They will be based on their use of information rather than on the production of goods;
• They will be decentralized rather than centralized, since there would be no centralizing agency possible.
• Issues of command and control would be particularly complex.
Much of what you learn in public
administration theory will be valid here. Much will not be.
If you apply an open systems model, you will
see that both the internal functioning of the organizations and their policy
environment are particularly complex. We are dealing with a system in which one
large block of actors are sovereign and where the organization itself is
multi-cultural.
It is these differences which make up what
we call the sub-discipline of international public management, one which will
grow, inevitably, over your lifetimes.
2. How to look at the international public sector
Current theories of international relations as they apply to international organizations including realism and neo-realism, functionalism, regime theory, new institutionalism and global governance. It will provide a brief analytical introduction to the structure of the United Nations system.
The function of theory in practice
The way we see things is a combination of two factors:
Theory constructs those categories. It makes it possible to organize the information. It permits coherence. But it has two difficulties;
International relations theory: two competing paradigms
There are two essentially polar approaches to looking at international relations: realism and functionalism. [As we will see, they are not, however true dichotomies.] There are many other terms used to claim to be theories, but in essence they are one of these two.
Realism
The realists (and neo-realists and now "new realists") see the State as the building block of the international system. The Nation-State, the political contribution of the Nineteenth Century, is seen as sovereign and, to an extent, self-contained. Sometimes this is called the Westphalian system, after the Treaty of Westphalia that ended the Thirty-Years War in Europe and solidified the notion of sovereign States.
The government of the State acts on behalf of its citizens, who are bound together by various ties of ethnicity, sometimes religion, more often common experience and a common physical territory.
The State provides services to its members (public order, public investment) almost autonomously and can control its borders.
States have goals and objectives which are grouped under the heading "the national interest" (expressed as policies and positions, such as free trade, protectionism, territorial integrity, economic growth, national pride).
International relations among states are based on power politics. Stronger States dominate weaker. States make deals (bilateral agreements) with each other.
When the State system functions, order is maintained. When it breaks down, order must be re-established, usually through armed conflicts.
In the realist model, international organizations provide a place where national interest can be worked out in a multi-lateral context. Where the national interests of most coincide, agreements can be reached and can be honored.
But at the heart of it all is State sovereignty: the Nation-State is the only real building block. International relations can be likened to a billiard game. Conflict is a characteristic of the system, and from it, change.
Functionalism
What is termed functionalism actually comes from anthropology. Social scientists studying societies (like Bronislaw Malinowski in anthropology and Talcott Parsons in sociology) found that societies held together because certain functions were performed. If these functions were analyzed, this would help understand how the society worked. If the functions were not performed correctly or were in conflict, if they were dysfunctional, the societies could break down.
Functionalism came to be applied to international relations as part of an analysis of why the League of Nations, founded on the realist model, broke down. Scholars found that those aspects of the League that worked most well were in the economic and social area, where the League helped certain functions (like drug control or technical regulation) be performed internationally.
Some scholars in the first half of the Twentieth Century, like David Mitrany, a British political scientist, saw the number and complexity of these functions growing. They noted that the causes of conflict were rooted in economic and social factors (poverty, perceptions) and the causes of community were also rooted there. These functions could not be performed by individual States, so they would have to be performed by multi-lateral institutions. Mitrany’s view was reflected in an influential essay entitled "A Working Peace System" which spoke of a system of international organizations performing key functions.
Both paradigms had their limitations, as well as their strengths.
|
|
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
|
Realism |
Focussed on States who were evidently in charge |
Did not explain well why States could come together Poor explaination of the process (no clear model of State prevalence) |
|
Functionalism |
Explained why States could come together and the role of international institutions |
Did not explain change and did not really match reality |
Of
particular concern to the realists, who have been by far the most dominent, is that global
changes clearly undermine their assumption.
Mark Zacher, a
Canadian political scientist [Canadians are quite prominent in international
relations studies] wrote an essay entitled "The
Decaying Pillars of the Westphalian Temple: Implications for International
Order and Governance" in which he pointed out that each of the
conceptual pillars of realism was decaying. These included:
All of these are factors that the old
functionalists would have assumed would happen.
The
United Nations reflected both models
The UN Charter contains a bit of both
paradigms.
The preamble starts "We the
people..." indicating that the organization is larger than the
Nation-State
It sets up four purposes for the United
Nations, each based on a functionalist perspective. They are:
The Charter specified the norms and
procedures that would achieve these purposes, by stating:
AND FOR THESE ENDS
But then, the realist paradigm was invoked,
by stating:
HAVE RESOLVED TO
COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our
respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San
Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due
form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby
establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
The remainder of the Charter is on how the
Member States would conduct their business.
Article One sets out the objectives to be pursued
in terms of a State system. All but one are
realism-based.
1. To maintain
international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective
measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the
suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring
about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and
international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or
situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop
friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal
rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate
measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve
international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic,
social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging
respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
The fourth is somewhat of a functionalist statement, and was the one least considered for most of the
UN’s first fifty years.
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the
attainment of these common ends.
The key element is the State, and article 2
states this clearly:
"1. The
Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its
Members."
The
intergovernmental structure of international organizations
Translated in structural terms, the realist
model is found in the inter-governmental organizations.
Same is true of the other international
organizations, except for Security Council: A general conference to make final
decisions, a governing body to make operational decisions and specialized
committees on matters like budget.
An exception is the Bretton Woods
institutions (WB, IMF and now the WTO). Here there is a Board of Directors,
with voting and membership based on shares. While it is a realist model, it
also mimics business.
Secretariats
Each organization has a secretariat. These
do not fit well into the realist model.
If you examine articles 98-102 of the
Charter, which describes the Secretariat, you will not find a description of
what it does, only how it is expected to be composed.
Originally, secretariats were an extension
of the realist model: members were to be seconded from national civil services.
This was the case of the League of Nations.
This became clearly dysfunctional, and there
was a move towards an independent civil service.
The idea of an independent service is built
into the Charter (one of the articles specifies that no international civil
servant is to take instructions from a government), but not what it is to do.
Intermediate
theories: regime theory and global governance
The inadequacy of both the realist and the
functionalist paradigms has led scholars to find middle-ground
in other theories. These emphasize the process more than the structure and, to
some degree, build on elements of both realism and functionalism.
Regime
theory
Looking at the world in the early
1980’s, a number of international relations specialists saw an increasing
"harmonization of the actions of nations in the attainment of common
ends." Clearly these were agreements among governments that were felt to
be binding, but which had no "government-like" enforcement measures.
Still, they provided a form of order.