Abstract

Many authors have argued that International Public Administration can influence policy-making through their expert authority. The article compares de jure and de facto expert authority of IPAs to evaluate their conformity. It comparatively assesses the two kinds of authority for five important IPAs (BIS, FAO, IMF, OECD and World Bank) active in agriculture or financial policy. It shows that, on average, de jure and de facto authority seem to conform. At the same time, it demonstrates that gaps between de jure and de facto authority exist at the level of the IPAs, the policy areas and the IPAs’ addressees.

中文翻译：

---

注意间隔？比较国际公共行政部门在金融和农业政策方面的事实和法律专家权威

摘要

许多作者认为，国际公共行政可以通过他们的专家权威影响政策制定。本文比较了 IPA 的法律和事实上的专家权威，以评估其符合性。它比较评估了活跃于农业或金融政策的五个重要投资促进机构（国际清算银行、粮农组织、国际货币基金组织、经合组织和世界银行）的两种权威。它表明，平均而言，法律上和事实上的权威似乎是一致的。同时，它表明，在 IPA、政策领域和 IPA 的收件人层面，法律上和事实上的权威之间存在差距。