Diseño de pavimentos flexibles – Método AASHTO

Before examining the major components of transnational networks and what makes them important in the analysis of regimes, it is worth briefly examining the reasons which have contributed to the lack of theoretical linkage between organisation theory and international organisation. Three factors appear to underlie this shortcoming. Mutual Theoretical Underdevelopment

As a subject in its comparative infancy, organisation theory can be forgiven a degree of theoretical underdevelopment. Although its roots can be traced back to the pre World War Two period, and the works of Max Weber, Chester Barnard and Elton Mayo,'*^ it is only really since the late nineteen fifties that organisation theory has been extensively developed. Naturally enough, organisation theorists have been more

41 _{Jonsson 1987 op cit p70}

Keohane 1982 op cit p349

43 _{Max Weber The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation 1967, New York; Oxford University Press j}

(translated by T Parsons and A Herleson) and also Economy and Society 1947, New York: Bedminster; I Chester Barnard The Functions of the Executive 1968 (Thirtieth Anniversary Edition) New York: Harvard | University Press and Organisation and Management 1948, Harvard: Harvard University Press; Elton Mayo I The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization 1933, London: Macmillan, and The Social Problems of 1

^ Archer 1983 op cit, pp 68-125, and Jacobsen 1979 op cit pp 64-80, both contain useful analyses of the various theories. It is not the intention of this analysis to provide a critique of contending approaches, since this is altogether too broad a topic to be included in the present work, and has been more than adequately covered elsewhere in the literature. See, for example, J E Dougherty and R L Pfalzgraff Jr Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Studv 1990, New York: Harper and Row; Richard Little and Michael Smith (eds) Perspectives on World Politics 1991, London: Routledge, for a more general discussion of the different approaches.

Pfeffer 1981 op cit pp 2-6

concerned with developing the basics of their own discipline than with forging links

to related fields. |

i

I

dynamics of, international organisation in the political environment. Indeed, aspects | I of international organisational study suffer from many of the same theoretical | problems discussed above in relation to the analysis of regimes. There is little j

i theoretical mileage in "reinventing the wheel" in relation to the shortcomings of

realist, neo-realist, functionalist, idealist and Marxist theories of international organisation. | 1

Theoretical Origins |

Organisation theory has been developed chiefly by sociologists and management and j business scientists, with additional material from social psychologists and economists.

I

i

or no cross-pollination. This neglect may be attributable to the problematic definition { ■i of power within the social sciences as a whole, and to the peqorative connotations of | .1 the concept of power as intimately involved with problems in the practice and 1 socialisation of managing an organisation*^.

Competing perspectives which did not emphasise power were held to be more persuasive, due to their conformity with the socially acceptable values of rationality and effectiveness. It is possible that, following from Pfeffer’s earlier argument, a more detailed analysis of power and politics within organisations might highlight the

role of basic organisation theory within international organisation, and its relevance to political science more generally.*^

Differing Analytical Frameworks

A further difficulty in reconciling the two fields of stiidy lies in their differing analytical frameworks. A "cognitive gap" exists as a result of the concentration of organisation theorists on the national environment of private and public organisations, operating concurrently in markets and hierarchies within the national arena,and of the concentration on international organisation theorists on transnational systems of IGO’s and NGO’s with national networks as subsystems. Gordenker and Saunders note that the underlying conception of international organisations has tended to emphasise their abstract quality. This encourages the view that they are unique structures in political research.

"Governments have more concrete existence than states, incorporating authorised persons who at least formally concert their action to gain specific ends on behalf of aU subject of the state. In international institutions, governments act formally on behalf of states members. The shift of analytic levels from concrete governments to clusters of concerted activities along presumably agreed lines gives a certain abstract quality to international institutions".*®

The overwhelming majority of international organisation literature treats the institutions involved as self contained, autonomous units. (This echoes the "closed system" conception of organisation theory discussed above). Little, if any, consideration has been given to studying inter-organisational contacts, cross boundary

46

47

48

Ibid p7, where organisational politics are defined as: "those activities taken within organisations to acquire, develop and use power and other resources to obtain one’s preferred outcomes in a situation in which there is uncertainty or dissensus about choices." There is no intrinsic reason restricting this definition to commercial enterprises. It’s implications apply a fortiori to international organisations, bureaucracies, political parties and governments.

B Hjem and D O Potter "Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis". Oreamsation Studies 1981,2/3: 211-227, passim. Jonsson 1987 op cit, p69; Gordenker and Saunders 1978 op cit pp 102-105.

relations or the underlying structural forms which could demonstrate any similarities with other organisations.*^

The lack of synthesis in organisation theory and international organisation theory can, therefore, be seen not as an inevitable result of theoretical incompatability; rather it is the result of their relative novelty and theoretical underdevelopment, their different intellectual paternities and their distinct intellectual and analytical frameworks. There is considerable evidence justifying a theoretical "marriage" between these two heretofore distinct approaches. It is important at this point to examine the chief components of transnational networks, and what makes such networks important in the analysis of regime evolution.