Anchoring International Organizations in Organizational Sociology

Scholars have studied International Organizations (IOs) in various disciplines such as political science, history, law, economics, and anthropology approaching them through a variety of theoretical lenses. The present special issue focuses on the study of IOs and sociology, in particular the sociology of organizations. We are not the first in this endeavor. As early as 1988, Ness and Brechin (1988) made the case to bridge the gap between the study of IOs and the sociology of organizations. They provided us with a stimulating research agenda for the study of IOs around key sociological concepts: environment, technology, organizational goals, and structure. Ten years ago, Brechin and Ness (2013) re-assessed the gap between organizational sociology and the study of IOs and found that “both sides have moved closer to one another and have enriched their perspectives” (Brechin and Ness 2013, 14). However, they observed that this welcomed development is mainly due to the fact that IOs are now seen both more as organizations autonomous vis-à-vis states and as actors in their own right in international relations. Following the footsteps of scholars such as Ness and Brechin (1988), Brechin and Ness (2013), Schemeil (2013) and Bourrier (2017; 2020), the main objective of this special issue is to show how both IO studies and organizational sociology can benefit from more cross-fertilization. While sociology has already been used to study international relations (Devin 2015), and IOs in particular (Lagrange et al. 2021), we argue that an approach through the sociology of organizations can also help study IOs as organizations in their own right within which various actors compete, develop strategies, and perform routines and practices. In turn they produce norms and values with the inherent target to have impact on a global scale. Organizational sociology conceives IOs as autonomous actors (Reinalda and Verbeek 1998; Barnett and Finnemore 2004; Ellis 2010; Koch and Stetter 2013). On a theoretical level, it allows to go beyond rigid categories such as governmental / non-governmental (Nay