This chapter outlines how these conceptual and theoretical considerations can be studied empirically and offers a detailed overview of the operationalization of IPAs’ administrative styles. We suggest an operationalization of administrative styles that relies on nine indicators loosely corresponding to a shortened policy cycle model. Moreover, we present our empirical understanding of the key explanatory factors that can account for the variation in administrative styles across different organizations and reflect upon our interview–based methodological approach. By using a two–step case selection strategy, we are able to demonstrate that IPAs do indeed develop very different administrative styles, which formal and structural organizational features alone cannot account for. We conclude the chapter by reflecting on the rationale for case selection and by presenting a brief overview of the IPAs under study.

This chapter is concerned with the WHO and UNEP as examples of advocate–style IPAs. These IPAs share behavioural patterns that have allowed them to establish themselves as ‘advocates’ in the area of environmental and global health matters. Despite their apparent common capability of solving problems of global scale, the two IPAs could hardly be more different when considering only their structural features. We show that this commonality in styles, despite structural dissimilarities, is due to the similarly strong perception of external threats and the comparatively low level of internal challenges. Strong expertise and a common belief system contribute to the formation of an advocacy–orientated administrative style while at the same time, a medium level of perceived external challenges prompts both IPAs to also feature at least some characteristics of a consolidator.

Academic activity is quite often imagined as the picture of a man sitting at a desk, absorbed in thought and sporadically writing. It is uncommon to insert other people– and especially women– into this picture and transform it into something completely different. Applying the concept of ‘scapes’, which is at the heart of this book, we may imagine such pictures as pointing to various ‘academic landscapes’ that frame and define the work of scholars in different parts of the world.

In most places, academic landscapes have not been looking particularly sunny recently. In some universities, they are quite sombre and overcast; in others, the picture may be a bit brighter. Yet, the neoliberal discourse of ‘economic effectiveness’ affects scholarship everywhere. Academics at universities are extremely dependent on their formal status, which is usually measured in terms of their individually authored publications (even if some texts are published under several names). Under these circumstances, we often forget that an ‘academiascape’ could also be regarded as a group portrait of researchers engrossed in fruitful communication rather than a landscape featuring the lonely figure of a scientist surrounded by the formidable shapes of looming deadlines and reports. In any case, when we think about academia today, much of the fun and excitement of doing research seems to be seeping out of the picture that comes to mind.

Research in and on Central Asia is no exception here. Most of the countries in the region cannot afford large and wealthy universities, nor do they have a tradition of independent academic work. Some of the papers and edited volumes on Central Asia reflect the neo-colonial and neoliberal hierarchy of the contemporary world. Tables of content often contain only two types of text: conceptual introductions (and conclusions) written by Western scholars; and more empirical papers written by local researchers under their guidance.

Fortunately, this book is an example of a different approach; it is the result of a team effort– a partnership between German and Central Asian scholars who have created an academiascape that has brought back the joy of collective reflection and discovery.

Moving from the grand and abstract theme of international constitutionalization to the more tangible and observable process of international rule making, Chapter 5 analyzes states’ motives for cooperating over international rules that form the unintended basis of international constitutionalization. It lays out the logic of democratic power, according to which states that are both democratic and powerful (democratic powers) combine the willingness and ability to promote international rules. Because democracies are rule–based, they understand the value of operating through rules and doing so is consistent with their domestic operations. Insofar as they are also powerful, democracies are able to advance their rule–based approach at the international level to shape rules according to their interests and values, which makes it easier for them to commit to and follow those rules. Democratic powers are thus decisive for international rule–based cooperation. States that lack either one or both of these prerequisites are less supportive of institutionalized cooperation and thus constitutionalization in world politics.

Chapter 7 returns to the larger topic of constitutionalization in world politics by addressing its contemporary challenges and implications. Despite the strong evidence presented on the relationship of democracy, power, and international rule–based cooperation, recent events raise serious doubts regarding the constitutionalization of world politics. Current real–world developments challenge the continuing relevance of international treaty making, the support for cooperation from the major powers, the stability of democratic principles, and therefore the viability of constitutionalization itself. This chapter lays out those trends and puts them into longer–term perspective, arguing that, although they pose serious threats in world politics, they should not be overstated. The prospects of constitutionalization must be instead approached with realistic skepticism. What today appears as an impediment to constitutionalization may not be so consequential when viewed over the long run. A realistic perspective must therefore take global constitutionalization both skeptically and seriously.

Constitutionalization encompasses a variety of ways in which constitutional rules emerge and change. Chapter 3 addresses the emergence and development of constitutional rules in the national context. It begins with a conceptual discussion of constitutionalization, defined as any process that brings about and changes constitutional rules. Spanning a spectrum between two ideal–type revolutionary and evolutionary pathways, constitutional processes vary with regard to frequency, intensity, output, and means of change, as well as the underlying political intentionality and contestation. The variability of constitutionalization is demonstrated empirically through a systematic analysis of national constitution–making in the United States, Sweden, and Britain in terms of the five constitutional elements identified in Chapter 2, emphasizing their similarities and differences. While this analysis will not be entirely novel to the comparative constitutional law and politics readership, it is an important building block for conceptualizing constitutionalization in the international setting.

The Conclusion argues that the historical parallels we identify in Irish, Russian, and Ethiopian famine relief are neither incidental nor trivial. Their understanding may be improved if one views humanitarian efforts as an outcome of moral economic considerations, and this approach is consistent with the recent recognition of the links between humanitarianism and capitalism. Our moral economy approach sees practice as central to humanitarian history. This should be a transdisciplinary endeavour, informed by a wide range of debates and observations, including donor psychology, humanitarian logistics, and critical accounting. Our perspective, with a focus on fundraising appeals, allocation, and accounting, is of relevance to current humanitarian policy and practice, which is briefly sketched, and we hope it will inspire future research and practice.

This chapter examines relief operations, showing the difficulties humanitarian workers face from headquarters or encounter in the field as their efforts are either facilitated or constrained by economic, moral, or political considerations. Allocating aid in Ireland, Soviet Russia, and Ethiopia posed major moral, economic, and logistic challenges to the voluntary organisations involved. We identify commonalities over time, moments of change, and present a nuanced understanding of aid. Soup kitchens and camps operating under trying conditions may dominate the public imagination of famine relief, but the reality over two centuries has involved a great deal of routine bureaucratic administration: calculations of dry rations and scientific calorie counting; compiling and checking lists of recipients; mapping networks of distribution points and arranging transport; negotiating with other organisations, governments, and local partners; and monitoring, evaluating, and writing project reports.