International organizations as teachers of norms: the ...

Internationalorganizationsas teachersofnorms:theUnitedNations Educational,Scientifica,nd Cutural Organizationand sciencepolicy

MarthaFinnemore

The structureof states is continuallyevolving.Since theirestablishmentin Europe somefivehundredyearsago and particularlysinceWorldWar I, states have grownin termsof both the varietyof tasks theyperformand the organizationaal pparatuseswithwhichtheyperformthesetasks.

The researchoutlinedbelowinvestigatetshecauses underlyingthisprocess ofstatechangein thecase ofone recentlyadoptedset ofstatebureaucracies, thosedesignedto coordinatescientifircesearch.In the lastfiftyearsscience policymakinogrganizationshavesprungup invirtuallyall developedcountries and in mostdevelopingones. Most explanationsforthe appearance of these new pieces of state machineryfoundin the politicalscience or economics literatureds escribethisdevelopmentas demand-drivent,hatis,somedomestic groupperceivesa problemtowhicha sciencepolicybureaucracyisthesolution. Social groups such as producersof science (e.g., scientists)or consumers of science (e.g., technology-intensibvuesinesses)maycome to perceivethat state coordinationand directionof a growingscience establishmentare in theirinterestS. tate officialsmaycome to perceivethatthe intimaterelationship betweenscience and securitymakes controlof science in the national interest.Depending on the perspectiveadopted, one would predictdifferent configurationosf science bureaucraciesservingdifferenitnterestsb, ut in all cases, the impetusforcreatingthose organizationswould be a demand by state or societal actors that the governmentshould directand control science.

This studyquantitativeltyeststhesedemand-drivenhypothesesbycomparinga varietyofindicatorsofstateconditionsthathavebeen arguedto prompt demand withthe timingof adoption of science policybureaucracies.The

I am gratefulto Laura Helvey,Peter Katzenstein,Steve Krasner,ForrestMaltzman,Rose McDermott,JohnMeyer,JohnOdell, FranciscoRamirez,Nina Tannenwald,KurtWeyland,and twoanonymousreviewersforhelpfulcommentson earlierdrafts.

IntemationaOl rganization47,4,Autumn1993,pp. 565-597 ?31994byThe 10 Foundationand theMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology

566 InternationOalrganization

resultsprovidelittlesupportforany of the demand-drivehnypotheses. Consequentlyan, alternativeexplanatioinsinvestigateEda.rlyinthediffusion of thisbureaucratiicnnovations,everalinternationoarl ganizationtsookup sciencepolicyas a causeandpromoteditamongmemberstatesT. he article tracestheprocesws hereboyneoftheseinternationoarlganizationtsh,eUnited NationsEducational,Scientifica,nd CulturalOrganization(UNESCO), "taught"statesthevalueandutilitoyfsciencepolicyorganizations.

I arguethatthecreationofthisteachingmissionw, herebyUNESCO would supplytheorganizationianlnovatiotnostatesw, asa reflectioonfa newnorm elaboratedwithintheinternationcaolmmunityT.h' isnormheldthatcoordinationanddirectioonfsciencearenecessarytasksofthemodernstateandthat a sciencepolicybureaucracyhavingcertainwell-specifiecdharacteristics was the appropriatme eansto fulfiltlhosetasks.Statescreatedscience bureaucraciews,ithUNESCO's help,to complywiththenewnormabout states'responsibilitfyorscience.Thus,the organizationailnnovationwas suppliedtostatesfromoutsidef,romaninternationoarlganizationra,therthan beingtheproductofanycharacteristiicnsternatlo or inherenitn thestate itself.

The articlemakescontributiontso threedifferenttheoreticadl ebates ongoingin the field.First,the findingosutlinedabove lend supportto constructivoisrtreflectivteheoreticaalpproachesthattreatstatesas social entitiess,hapedin partby internationaslocial action.State policiesand structuriensthiscase areinfluencebdychanginigntersubjectiuvnederstandingsabouttheappropriatreoleofthemodernstate.

Howeveri,nmostcasesthecausesofthosechangedunderstandinlgiesnotat thenationalevelbutat thesystemilcevel:itis an internationoarlganization' thatpersuadestatesto adoptthesechangesT. hus,a secondcontributioonf thisarticleis to demonstrattehe role of internationaolrganizationass principalsr, atherthanagents,ininternationaplolitics.

Finallyt,hearticleraisesquestionsaboutthenatureandroleofepistemic communitieWs.hilemanyoftheUNESCO officiailns volveidnthisreorganizationofinternationsacliencehadscientifcicredentialtsh, eirreasonsforacting hadmoretodo withtheirstatusas internationbaul reaucrattshanwiththeir professionsaolcializatioonrprinciplebdeliefsaboutscienceT. hissuggesttshat the "epistemic"aspect of groupsmay not alwaysbe theirmost important featuraendthatcautionis warranteidn ascribincgausalstatusto specialized knowledgwehenexplaininpgoliticabl ehavior.

1. Forpurposeosfthisarticlae "norm"isdefinedasa rulelikperescriptiwonhichisbothclearly perceptiblteo a communitoyf actorsand whichmakesbehavioracllaimsuponthoseactors. AlthoughcommentosfMcElroywereinfluentiianl formulatinthgisdefinitioMn,cElroy'oswn definitiodnifferssignificantflryommine;see RobertMcElroyM, oralityand AmericanForeign Plicy: TheRoleofMoralNonnsinInternationalAffa(iPrsrincetonN,.J.P: rincetoUnniversitPyress, 1992).

UNESCO 567

The developmentofsciencepolicy

The relationshipbetween states and science by no means beginswiththe establishmentof formalstate science policybureaucracies.2National academies and royalsocietiesof science,manyofwhichenjoyedsome amountof statesponsorshipand whose memberswere in frequentcontactwithgovernmentofficialsd,ate backto theseventeenthcenturyS.imilarlys,tate-sponsored universitieosftenhousedscientistsandtheiractivitiesH. owever,statesponsorshipofthesciencesinthisearlyperiodwas understoodtobe analogoustostate sponsorshipof the arts;greatnessand accomplishmentin arts and sciences reflectedstatepowerratherthanbeing a means to achievepower.Further, patronageof thiskindusuallyentailedminimaldirectionand control.Academiesand universitiems ay(or maynot) havebenefitedfromstatefundingb,ut theywerenotpartofthestateapparatusandwereleftfreetopursuetheirwork witha minimumofstateinterference.

The modern concept of science policy differson both these issues. It understandsscienceas a meansto nationalpowerand consequentlyseeks to bringscienceactivityunderthecontrolofthestate.Mostoftenthishas entailed thecreationof a newpiece ofstateapparatusdedicatedexplicitlyto thistask. The firsteffortto do thiswas madebytheBritishin 1915whentheyestablished theDepartmentof Scientificand IndustrialResearchto wean Britishscience and industryfromcontinentale,speciallyGerman,innovationse,xpertise,and technicalequipmentduringWorld War 1.3 A few Commonwealthmembers mimickedtheBritishlead and establishedsimilarorganizationsb,utitwas not untilafterWorldWarII thatsciencepolicybureaucraciesbecamewidespread. Before1955onlya handfulof countries(fourteen)had suchentities;by1975 eighty-ninceountriesdid.Thisresearchseeksto explainhowandwhythestate interestinand use ofsciencechangedinthisway.

2. The historyofstates'changingattitudestowardscienceobviouslyis muchmorecomplexthan theoverviewpresentedhere.For moreon thissubject,see JosephBen David,"The ScientifiRc ole: The ConditionsofIts Establishmentin Europe,"Minerva4 (Autumn1965),pp. 15-54;A. Hunter Dupre, Sciencein theFederalGovemmentA: HistoryofPoliciesand Activitietso 1940 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 1957); Philip Gummett,Scientistsin Whitehall(Manchester, England: ManchesterUniversityPress,1980); Ros Herman,TheEuropeanScientifiCc ommunity (Harlow,England:LongmanPress,1986); Eric Hutchinson,"Scientistsas an InferiorClass: The EarlyYears oftheDSIR," Minerva8 (July1970),pp. 396-411; Daniel Kevels,ThePhysicistsT:he Historyofa ScientifiCc ommunitiyn ModemAmerica(New York: AlfredA. Knopf,1978); Frank Pfetsch,"ScientificOrganizationand Science Policy in Imperial Germany,1871-1914: The Foundingof the ImperialInstituteof Physicsand Technology,"Minerva8 (October 1970), pp. 557-80; JarlathRoyane, Sciencein Govemment(London: Edward Arnold,1984); Ian Varcoe, "ScientistsG, overnmenta,nd OrganizedResearchin GreatBritain,1914-1916:The EarlyHistory oftheDSIR," Minerva8 (April1970),pp. 192-216;and RobertWuthnow,"The WorldEconomy and theInstitutionalizatioonfScience in SeventeenthCenturyEurope," in AlbertBergesen,ed., StudiesoftheModemWorld-Syste(mNew York:AcademicPress,1980),pp. 57-76.

3. PeterAlter,TheReluctantPatron:Scienceand theStateinBritain1, 850-1920(Oxford:Berg, 1987),pp. 201ff.

568 InternationaOl rganization

For purposesofthisstudyI definesciencepolicybureaucraciesas organsof the state that have as their primarymission the tasks of coordinating, organizing,and planningscientificand technologicalactivitiesat a national level. I exclude frommydefinitionthe followingtypesof organizations:(1) nonstateorganizations(suchas scientistsp' rofessionaslocieties);(2) organizationsdealingwithonlyone branchof science (such as the NationalWeather Serviceor medical and healthorganizations);(3) educationalorganizations whoseprimarymissionis totrainscientifiacnd technicalpersonnelratherthan coordinateactivitiesbroadly;and (4) researchorganizationswhose primary missionis to conductresearchratherthanto make policy.This definitionis based on UNESCO's definitionused in compilingits world directoriesof national science policymakingbodies and so ensures that the UNESCO activitieschronicledbelowand myanalysisconcernthesamephenomena.4

Demand-driveenxplanationfsorscience policyorganizations

Most explanationsforthecreationofnewstatebureaucraciestracethecause to somechangein materialconditionsthatreconfiguretsheinterestsofactors withinthe state.Functionalistsmightregardsuch an objectivechangeto be sufficienats well as necessaryforthenewbureaucracyto appear. Othersless sanguineabouttheefficacyofpoliticalsystemsinmeetingall needsorfulfilling all functionswould regardchangein materialconditionsonlyas a necessary conditionand look to the process bywhichdemands are voiced and, once voiced, are realized for sufficientconditions.Even in this latter set of explanations,however,some material change must promptthe demandmakingprocess.

Thus in mostexplanationsthereis some prerequisiteconditionassociated withthecreationofnewstatebureaucracies.5Threekindsofprerequisitehs ave been arguedto be relevant.The firstare whatI call issue-specificconditions. Here, it is the situationin the issue-area particularlyrelevantto the new

4. The firstof these directoriesappeared duringthe 1960s.See United NationsEducational, Scientific,and CulturalOrganization(UNESCO), WorldDirectoryof National SciencePolicymakingBodies,3 vols.(Paris: UNESCO, 1966-68).Volume 1 coveredEurope and NorthAmerica; volume2, Asia and Oceania; and volume3, LatinAmerica.A second directorywas publishedin 1984. See UNESCO, WorldDirectoryof National SciencePolicy-makinBgodies, Science Policy Studies and DocumentsSeries,vol. 59 (UNESCO: Paris, 1984). A second editionof this1984 directorywas publishedin 1990.See UNESCO, WorldDirectoryofNationalSciencePolicy-making Bodies,SciencePolicyStudiesand DocumentsSeries,vol.71 (Paris:UNESCO, 1990).I havemade severalrefinementtsotheUNESCO definitionsF.or furtheerxplanations,ee theappendix.

5. I haveborrowedtheterm"prerequisite"fromCollierand Messick'sanalysisofthespreadof social securityacross states. See David Collier and Richard Messick, "Prerequisitesversus Diffusion:Testing AlternativeExplanationsof Social SecurityAdoption,"AmericanPolitical ScienceReview69 (December 1975),pp. 1299-315.

UNESCO 569

organizationthatpromptsitscreation.Appliedto science,thisargumentlinks the creationof a state science policymakingapparatus to the growthand strengthofthedomesticsciencecommunityA.n argumentofjustthistypehas been made byDavid Dicksonto explaintheoriginsofsciencepolicymakinign the United States.6In Dickson's view the growthof the domesticscience establishmenptromptedthecreationofa statesciencepolicyapparatusintwo ways.On the one hand state actorssaw a science policybureaucracyas an opportunittyo directand controlthisnewactivityO. n theotherhandscientists saw suchan organizationas a potentialconduitforstateaid and coordination. Thisthesiswouldpredictadoptionofsciencepolicyorganizationsto be highly correlatedwith domesticlevels of science activityf, or example,with the numberof scientistsin the countryand the amountof researchand development(R&D) spending.

The nexttwotypesofconditionsapplyto consumersratherthanproducers of science. Developmentor modernizationlevels are argued to promptthe creation of science policy entitiesthroughthe actions of the economic consumersof science,particularlyindustryT. he idea here is thatas a state's economydevelops,it will become more technology-intensivaned so require morescientifiscupport.Economicactorsthereforpeutpressureon thestateto organize and supplythis support;a new science policyorganizationis the result.In manymixedeconomies,these actorsmaybe stateeconomicactors; whatis importantforthisanalysisis thatthe purposeof demand-makingis economic.Accordingto thisthesis,indicatorsofeconomicdevelopments,uch as per capita grossdomesticproduct(GDP), shouldpredictthe creationof a sciencepolicyorganization.

Securityconditionsare argued to promptthe creationof science policy bureaucraciesthroughthe actionsof militaryconsumersof science. In the modernera ofwarfares,cientifipcrowesshasbeen clearlylinkedtotechnological and henceto militarysuccess.Thus statesperceivingthreatsto theirpower and/orsecuritywillbe pushedto findnew and moreeffectivteechnologiesto meet those threats.Militariesin these states will demand that the state organize and supportthe scientificestablishmentfor reasons of national defense.

The timingofsciencebureaucracycreationinBritain(duringWorldWar I) and in the United States (immediatelyfollowingWorld War II) has led a numberofscholarsto drawcausal connectionsbetweensecurityconcernsand sciencepolicy.SanfordLakoffJ, ean-JacqueSsalomon,andHarveySapolskyall point to these wars as well as to anotherperceived securitythreat-the launchingof Sputnik-as the catalystsforgovernmenitnterestin harnessing scienceto achievenationalobjectivesintheUnitedStatesand Europe. Having organized science to meet securitythreatsduringwartimewith apparent

6. David Dickson.TheNewPoliticsofScience(New York:Pantheon,1984),pp. 25ff.

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download