Pathways and Strategies of Advocacy in International Organizations

Abstract This chapter summarizes the book’s findings, outlines implications for theory and practice, and suggests directions for further research. In terms of implications for theory, the advocacy-centred framework has been able to explain the transformation of UN peacekeeping better than rival perspectives, such as principal–agent models, functionalism, or historical institutionalism. In terms of implications for practice, advocacy has unintended consequences. It can lead to proliferation of uncoordinated agendas and become one of the reasons why organizations end up with an ever-growing list of responsibilities that do not fit well together. When novel issues become institutionalized in international organizations, they are formalized in structures, frameworks, and guidelines. While promoting uniformity and predictability, institutionalization can stifle innovation. Together, advocacy and institutionalization create three problems: incoherence, overcommitment, and inflexibility. In terms of directions for further research, the advocacy-focused framework should be applied to the analysis of the trajectories of other peacekeeping innovations, such as the women, peace and security agenda or community violence reduction projects. The framework should also be applied to the study of institutional change in organizations in other fields beyond peacekeeping. While this book focuses on international organizations’ expansion, assessing whether the advocacy-focused framework can explain their contraction equally well would be an important contribution. Finally, reasons why advocates take up campaigning for change in international organizations is an important question that this study has not addressed but that further research should explore.