| Popis: |
Why do international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) expend considerable resources to alleviate some forms of humanitarian crises, while other crises fail to attract similar levels of attention? How can we explain why some humanitarian issues are selected for attention by transnational advocacy networks (TANs) over others? Existing scholarship suggests that issue attributes help determine the advocacy agendas of transnational actors. Issues which fit well with pre-existing national and international political agendas, resonate with accepted transnational norms, or exude a simple causal chain of blame, are putatively conducive to selection. However, explanations emphasising these factors remain without empirical corroboration. Recent empirical studies suggest such factors co-occur with instances of non-selection and that variation in choice outcomes cannot be accounted for through existing explanatory frameworks. This study advances a political psychology approach to the question of issue selection by INGOs. Drawing on insights from behavioural decision research, it empirically tests the proposition that heuristic-led judgment on the part of key decision-makers is a central determinant in the (non-)adoption of issues by INGOs. The proposed explanation is investigated empirically through a mixed-method research design, encompassing case studies of three major INGOs and a conjoint survey experiment with INGO practitioners. The study finds both qualitative and experimental evidence that heuristic-led judgment contributes to choice outcomes across organizational contexts. Additional factors such as access to reliable information, probability of policy impact, and issue coverage by other INGOs, also appear to affect patterns of selection. |
