制度环境与国际组织的知识生产

Institutional Environment,Knowledge Production and Sources of Authority in International Organizations

知识是国际组织专业权威的重要来源,解释知识生产的影响因素对于理解国际组织的运作方式具有关键意义。国际组织生产的知识可分为数据、解释与咨询意见三种类型,它们在国际组织决策中发挥着不同作用。受制于内外条件,国际组织往往无法自由决定生产的知识类型。通过评估知识生产的合法性与影响知识生产的能力,国际组织所处的制度环境会对知识生产的类型产生影响。比较欧洲环境署与世界卫生组织分别在欧洲环境治理以及全球疫苗与免疫治理中知识生产过程的演变可以印证这一分析框架。欧洲环境署与世界卫生组织的技术咨询工作都起始于数据收集,并在外部批评影响下推动了知识生产类型的转换。不过两者的转换遵循不同路径:欧洲环境署走向指标生产,直接为问题解决提供解释、评估并监督执行;世界卫生组织则主要发挥咨询作用,对不同方案进行排序与选择。之所以出现这种差异,是因为欧洲环境署能够比较明确地界定知识生产的目标并有效调整组织结构,以满足知识生产新类型的要求;世界卫生组织则缺乏这样的能力,只能被动地开展知识生产转型。打开国际组织知识生产过程这一“黑箱”,能够充分展示国际组织知识生产过程中政治性的一面。

Knowledge serves as a vital foundation of professional authority for international organizations.Understanding the intricacies of knowledge production is crucial for comprehending the operational dynamics of these entities.Three distinct categories of knowledge can be generated by international organizations:data quantification,elucidations,and advisory recommendations.These varying forms of knowledge assume different roles within the decision-making procedure of international organizations.However,it is important to note that international organizations often lack autonomy in categorizing the knowledge they produce,as their output are subject to internal and external influences.The institutional environment in which an international organization operates significantly influences the type of knowledge it produces,by affecting its legitimacy and production capability.This hypothesis is verified by two case studies delineating the evolutionary trajectory of knowledge production within the purview of environmental and health governance at the European Environment Agency(EEA)and the World Health Organization(WHO).Notably,both the EEA and WHO embarked upon their technical advisory endeavors with a focus on data quantification,subsequently undergoing a paradigm shift in the typology of knowledge production,which was spurred by external critiques.Nevertheless,the EEA focused more on creating indicators,immediately providing interpretive evaluations that are essential for problem solving and implementation tracking,while the WHO acted mainly as an advisory body,selecting and ranking different options.This disparity is a result of the following fact:the EEA has the ability to define the objectives of knowledge production relatively clearly and has the ability to effectively adapt its organizational structure to meet the new requirements,but the WHO lacks the capacity to do so and can only passively transform knowledge production.Unveiling the“black box”of knowledge production in international organizations underscores the inherently political underpinnings inherent to this process.