YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Evaluation

The editorial intent is not to provide a "judgement" or "definition" of an organization, and priority is normally given to providing a profile in the words of the organization itself. The information is at no time considered complete, rather it reflects a "work in progress".

Suspect bodies

Some organizations included in the Yearbook of International Organizations are perceived as highly suspect by other bodies, whether because of dubious academic standing, questionable values or as a threat to public order. The editors do not act on such judgements which may be contradicted by others. The final assessment is left to the user. See Type 2 for more information.

Description length

How much space can be devoted to a particular organization? As a general guide, more information is desirable for organizations in Types A through C (see Type 1); an absolute minimum is the rule for most of the other types.

Error control policy

It would be unrealistic to expect a Yearbook of this size to be error free. There are various kinds of possible error.

• Errors in information supplied
• Errors due to out-of-date information
• Errors in editorial treatment
• Errors in keyboarding/proof-reading
• Duplicate entries

Change in editorial policy and practice

While every effort is made to maintain continuity of types of organization, over the period of production of the Yearbook series some new types have been added to the classification system in order to complete the coverage and evolution of the range of organizational forms.

The editors usually prefer to add a new type to the classification system, rather than modify the definitions of pre-existing types, in order to minimize disruption to the core statistical series.

Evaluation

It has never been the intention of the editors to evaluate the significance of the organizations described or to provide interpretation of the information supplied by an organization. The guiding principle has been to portray the organization as it sees itself usually in words from its own documents, as far as this is possible. The editors cannot verify the claims made in documents received.

The final evaluation of the information presented here must be left to the users of this volume. Users may be assisted in this assessment by whether a full description is included, by the amount of information it has been considered useful to include in the description, by the last date on which information has been received, and by the organization type. See Contents of profiles, Type 1 and Type 2 for further information.

Some organizations included are perceived as highly suspect by other bodies, whether because of dubious academic standing, questionable values, or as a threat to public order. The editors do not act on such judgements, which may be contradicted by others. However, in the case of the very small minority of bodies that seek to mislead through false claims, to defraud or to engage in covert operations, the editors endeavour to juxtapose items of information that draw attention to the questionable aspects of these organizations.

The final assessment is left to the user.

Information collection

The number and variety of organizations in this Yearbook are sufficient indication of the information collection problem. Documenting many organizations is difficult for reasons such as the following.

• Regional proliferation and functional specialization is such that, frequently, organizational “neighbours” do not know of each other’s existence.
• The “creation” of an organization is often the subject of widely-reported resolutions of an international conference, but such resolutions are not always acted upon very effectively – the intent being of greater significance (or practicability) than later implementation. Many organizations are ephemeral creations or are only “activated” for infrequent meetings, events or projects.
• A significant number of bodies have secretariats rotated among annually elected officers, making continuing contact somewhat problematic.
• The differing (mis)translations of the name of a body (further complicated by name changes) make it difficult to determine whether one or more bodies exist.
• Many bodies are reluctant to publicise their activities.
• Many active “international” bodies do not perceive themselves as “international” or as sufficiently formalized to be mentioned in the same context those that are legally established.
• Information on the existence, or change in status, of an organization may take time to filter through communication networks and be registered by the editors.
• Organizations may not respond to questionnaires, or may omit significant information from their replies, in which case outdated information from previous periods will be treated as current.
• Information on the creation, existence or formal dissolution of an organization may only be received after the current reporting year, thus affecting reporting by year.

In such a dynamic environment, the time required for information collection may even be greater than the effective life of organization.

Dating information

Organizations may form gradually. A formal organization that evolves from a network or series of meetings may not have a clear date of foundation. There may be several dates that could be considered as the date of founding (e.g. first statutes, first officers, first address, first members).

Representatives of the organization may have differing views on when the organization started. Similarly the dissolution of an organization may be progressive, rather than formally indicated at a particular date. It is therefore not always evident, even with hindsight, in which reporting year its dissolution should be correctly indicated.

Description length

How much space can be devoted to a particular organization? As a general guide, more information is desirable for organizations in Type B than in Type C (see Type 1); an absolute minimum is the rule for most of those in Type G. However, large, active or structurally complex organizations of any type generally warrant longer descriptions, while relatively inactive or simple bodies merit less space, especially when the aims are evident from the title.

This obviously gives rise to difficulties due to the tendency of organizations to inflate their importance according to normal public relations practice. In the case of exaggerated claims, however, when they are briefly stated they can effectively be used to define the organization. This is not the case when organizations claim large membership in many countries. Some supporting evidence is therefore sought although there is a limit to what can be usefully demanded. Normally, however, exaggerated claims are easy to detect and can be handled by limiting the amount of information given and allocating the organization to the appropriate type.

Since it is difficult to obtain information from organizations that do not wish to supply it, some elements of a description may remain incomplete (e.g. budget and staff). The organization may even request that information, such as the country list of membership, should be suppressed because of its political or other significance.

When no information is available, the problem is one of how long to allow entries to remain un-updated before considering the organization inactive. Generally, there is a delay of several years before it is assumed that the body is no longer functioning.

Error control policy

It would be unrealistic to expect a Yearbook of this size to be error free. There are various kinds of possible error.

• Errors in information supplied: As noted above, the entries attempt to describe the organizations as they wish themselves to be perceived. Whilst it is possible to detect exaggeration in some claims, it is not always possible to detect errors in information such as budgets, date of foundation, etc.
• Errors due to out-of-date information: Portions of organization descriptions can quickly become out-of-date (especially when the secretariat address rotates among members). Every effort is made to include the most recent information and to date entries accordingly.
• Errors in editorial treatment: Since the editorial treatment of an organization may involve weighing alternative possibilities in documents from different sources, this can result in errors of judgement, which can only be corrected when the organization next receives its entry for updating or other information is received from other sources.
• Errors in keyboarding/proof-reading: Whilst every effort is made to reduce the number of such errors, it is not cost-effective to do this beyond a certain point when there is a print deadline to be met.
• Duplicate entries: Tracing organizations whose names may be (mis)reported in a variety of languages can result in duplicates being detected too late to be eliminated.

Change in editorial policy and practice

While every effort is made to maintain continuity of types of organization, over the period of production of the Yearbook series some new types have been added to the classification system in order to complete the coverage and evolution of the range of organizational forms. This is relevant to understanding the international community of organizations.

The editors usually prefer to add a new type to the classification system, rather than modify the definitions of pre-existing types, in order to minimize disruption to the core statistical series.

New types of international organization are usually one of two forms:

• new kinds of organization (networks, virtual organizations, etc) which have no implications for historical statistics;
• or an acknowledgement of previously neglected types with a long historical record (e.g. religious orders).