Suchergebnisse

Summary
The aim of this study is to contribute to a deeper understanding of the gendered condi- tions under which diplomats network. We still have limited knowledge of how female diplomats network when serving abroad in strongly male-dominated contexts. To what extent do they experience token tendencies (visibility, assimilation and contrast) and how are these tendencies perceived to affect their access to important contacts? Based on 28 interviews with diplomats and civil servants from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA), this study compares how female and male diplomats are expected and perceived to network. The results indicate that the greater visibility of female diplomats makes them assimilate to a stereotypical gender role that closely resembles that of diplomatic wives. Women thus legitimise their presence in the MFA and make it less intrusive. Still, they experience contrast in silent resistance and con- stant reminders of their presence in a gender-inappropriate profession.

Previous research has described, theoretically and empirically, the negative consequences of a politicized civil service, recruited on political instead of professional merits. However, we know very little about what explains politicization, especially outside the context of theUSA. This study reviews literature in the field and identifies three commonly used explanations that are then tested in a study of recruitment of agency heads in Sweden between 1960 and 2010. For this purpose, we collected new data that includes information about 1,812 agency heads' political and/or professional backgrounds and 1,608 appointments to agency head positions. Our study demonstrates that none of the previously used explanations – ideological bias of the government, the number of years that the government has been in power, and the parliamentarian support for the government – holds. Our general conclusion is therefore negative and emphasizes the need for more systematic research on this question.

Previous research has described, theoretically and empirically, the negative consequences of a politicized civil service, recruited on political instead of professional merits. However, we know very little about what explains politicization, especially outside the context of the USA. This study reviews literature in the field and identifies three commonly used explanations that are then tested in a study of recruitment of agency heads in Sweden between 1960 and 2010. For this purpose, we collected new data that includes information about 1,812 agency heads' political and/or professional backgrounds and 1,608 appointments to agency head positions. Our study demonstrates that none of the previously used explanations -- ideological bias of the government, the number of years that the government has been in power, and the parliamentarian support for the government -- holds. Our general conclusion is therefore negative and emphasizes the need for more systematic research on this question. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThis paper looks at the policy autonomy of different "generations" of agencies in Sweden. Taking a historical institutional perspective, we argue that the policy autonomy of public agencies is related to the dominant political and administrative trends at the time when the agency was first created, i.e. that institutional relations created at that formative moment tend to persist. In the Swedish context, one such trend is of particular importance; the managerial trend that started in 1963 with the Program Budgeting (PB) reform. This was an institutional reform that presented a paradigm shift in Swedish public administration. This reform was reinforced in the 1990s by the New Public Management (NPM) reform, which introduced new instruments and measures consistent with the managerial paradigm previously introduced by the PB reform. This managerial trend aimed at limiting agencies' policy autonomy. Thus, we hypothesise that (1) agencies founded before the PB reform will enjoy more extensive policy autonomy than agencies founded during or after this reform and (2) there will be no such difference between agencies founded before and after the NPM reform. These hypotheses are tested on empirical data consisting of a web survey in which 157 Swedish agencies have stated to what extent they perceive that they enjoy policy autonomy. The results confirm both our hypotheses, thus demonstrating the importance of considering the scope of institutional change when analysing and comparing the effects of administrative reforms in different countries.

Abstract
This research note introduces a new dyadic dataset on gender and diplomatic representation and shows its potential to address questions about international status, gender patterns in international politics, and more. The GenDip dataset includes the names and gender classification of all bilateral ambassadors heading embassies 1968–2019 (74,549), structured as dyad/decade for 1968–1998 and dyad/lustrum for 1998–2019. Cross-fertilizing the quantitative study of status with qualitative studies on women's symbolic meaning for the status of states, we illustrate the utility of this data by showing that the gender of ambassadors is implicated in status hierarchies among states. For instance, states with a reputation as strongly patriarchal are more likely than others to post their female ambassadors to states with an international gender equality profile, for status and to signal policy alignment. We also show that shares of female ambassadors vary considerably among sending states, in unexpected ways, identifying the need for more research explaining why. This dataset enables new, crucial questions to be asked of international relations, mapping gender changes in diplomacy over time and place and explaining their causes and effects.

Abstract
This introductory article situates Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFAs) as gendered institutions at the intersection between domestic and international relations. Based on an extensive literature review and analysis of articles on Australian, Bulgarian, Czech, Japanese, Turkish, UK, and US MFAs in this special issue, we claim that research on gender and MFAs has made important contributions to diplomatic studies by deepening, challenging, and diversifying understandings of what MFAs are; MFAs' institutional structures; and power struggles within MFAs. MFA relations with other actors remain decidedly understudied from a gender perspective, however. Future research on gender and MFAs should direct attention to these relationships, including how they shape MFAs as gendered institutions. Future studies would also benefit from global and intersectional analyses of multiple axes of power and differentiation. By identifying research questions, new theoretical perspectives, and largely unapplied research designs, we hope to facilitate the pursuit of such studies.

Focusing on ambassador appointments, the aim of this pioneering article is to address some fundamental questions about where men and women are positioned in diplomacy. Most of the gender-related diplomacy studies are limited to individual Ministry of Foreign Affairs and say little about diplomacy as an aggregate set of practices. We draw on theories of gender and positional status to ask whether there are gender patterns in ambassador appointments—with men occupying positions of higher military and economic status than women—much like the ones found in other institutions. Our analyses are based on a unique data set containing almost 7,000 ambassador appointments, made by the fifty highest ranked countries in terms of GDP in 2014. The results show that female ambassadors are less likely to occupy high-status ambassadorships than men. In short, gender patterns, linked to power and status, are present also in ambassador appointments. Diplomacy studies need to do much more to address the presence and impact of gender in international affairs.

AbstractThere is an extensive literature on the proliferation of agencies and the delegation of authority to such bodies across different countries. Much of this research asks whether New Public Management (NPM)-style agencification reforms have been implemented according to the original objectives, and what consequences – intended or unintended – the reforms have produced. Yet much of this research lacks an explicit link to the literature on the policymaking functions of public bureaucracies and their interactions with elected politicians. What are the consequences of agencification for the policy process at large? What policy relevant tasks do agencies perform, to what extent are they involved in policy-making, and what factors influence the quality and quantity of their participation? This introductory article gives an overview of key concepts such as "public agencies" and "policy autonomy" and the research literature. Moreover, it critically discusses relevant theoretical perspectives, outlines the articles included in this themed issue and argues for a more systematic and theoretically guided analysis of agencies' role in policy-making.

How are civil servants and politically appointed advisers likely to respond to policy proposals that they believe will harm their countries severely even if they are legal? Based on the different loyalties and roles of political advisors (PA) and civil servants (CS), we hypothesise that (1) PAs are more likely to voice internally, (2) CSs are more likely to voice externally and (3) CSs in functionally politicised systems are more likely to stay silent. These hypotheses are tested on - and partially supported by - data collected through two surveys directed to the ministerial staffs in Denmark and Sweden. PAs are more likely to voice internally, but none of the two groups is particularly keen to voice externally. The propensity to voice concerns in case of perceived harmful policy proposals depends on the kind as well as the level of politicisation.

AbstractHow are civil servants and politically appointed advisers likely to respond to policy proposals that they believe will harm their countries severely even if they are legal? Based on the different loyalties and roles of political advisors (PA) and civil servants (CS), we hypothesise that (1) PAs are more likely to voice internally, (2) CSs are more likely to voice externally and (3) CSs in functionally politicised systems are more likely to stay silent. These hypotheses are tested on – and partially supported by – data collected through two surveys directed to the ministerial staffs in Denmark and Sweden. PAs are more likely to voice internally, but none of the two groups is particularly keen to voice externally. The propensity to voice concerns in case of perceived harmful policy proposals depends on the kind as well as the level of politicisation.