The behavioural logics of international public servants: the case of African Union Commission staff

Figures & data

Figure 1. AUC organisational structure.

Source: Own compilation, based on decision made at the 34th Ordinary Session of the AU Assembly in February 2021.

Figure 2. AUC staff structure.

Source: Own compilation, based on data submitted to PRC Sub-Committee on Structural Reforms.

Table 1. Summary and operationalisation of the actor-level typology.

	Intergovernmental	Supranational	Departmental	Transnational
Role ideal	National representative	IO-identity and the common good	Professional civil servant	Independent expert
Role base	Territorial	Community	Portfolio	Professional and educational
Driving force	‘What is my state’s interest’?	‘What is the common good’?	‘What is good for my department’?	‘What is scientifically correct’?
Consequence for IPAs	‘Trojan horse’ intergovern mentalism	Supranational cosmopolitanism	Departmentalism	Loosely coupled technocracy

Source: Own compilation.

Table 2. Distribution of response rate in our survey, by staff categories.

	Frequency	Per cent
P1-P3	53	39
P4 and higher	21	15
GS	37	27
Other	24	18
Missing	2	2
N	137	100

Source: Own compilation.

Table 3. Task profile: Distribution of officials spending much or very much time on the following tasks (Percentages)*.

	P1 to P3	P4 and higher
Drafting policy proposals	35	68
Providing scientific, technical, legal advice	22	47
Giving political advice	22	47
Providing background information to the AUC leadership	50	52
Meeting/contacting people	67	70
Facilitating compromises between AUC units/departments	47	30
Facilitating compromises between different AU institutions	32	35
Facilitating compromises between AU and member states	36	35
N	53	21 (100)

* Missing values not included in tables.

Table 4. Contact patterns: Distribution of officials having often or very often contacts with the following (percentages)*.

	P1 to P3	P4 and higher
Intergovernmental role:
National governments	26	33
AU donors	23	50
Departmental role:
Administrative leadership of own department	68	100
Other AU departments	53	58
The Commissioner(s) of the AUC	14	33
Supranational role:
Other AU bodies	14	22
Other IOs	33	44
Regional Economic Communities (RECs)	22	44
Transnational role:
Interest groups	14	22
Industry/business	18	33
Universities/research institutes	9	39
N	53 (100)	21 (100)

* Missing values not included in tables.

Table 5. Distribution of officials’ perceiving the following considerations and concerns as fairly or very important (percentages)*.

	P1 to P3	P4 and higher
Intergovernmental role:
National concerns	36	37
Concerns of AU donors	53	47
Political/ideological concerns	38	28
Departmental role:
The concerns of own policy sector	69	83
Supranational role:
Common/overall African concerns	62	89
Transnational role:
Concerns of particularly affected parties	56	61
Professional/scientific/expert concerns	79	95
N	53 (100)	21 (100)

* Missing values not included in tables.

Table 6. Distribution of officials who report the following institutions provide fairly or very important arguments (percentages)*.

	P1 to P3	P4 and higher
Intergovernmental role:
National governments	30	59
AU donors	39	56
Departmental role:
Colleagues in own department	75	95
Own Head/Director	81	100
Own Commissioner	60	76
Colleagues within other departments	54	68
Heads/Directors of other departments	61	83
Other Commissioner(s)	43	44
The AUC as a whole	71	79
Supranational role:
Other AU bodies	44	59
Other IOs	26	44
Regional Economic Communities (RECs)	38	61
Transnational role:
Interest groups	18	44
Industry/business	22	39
Universities/major research institutes	18	59
N	53 (100)	21 (100)

* Missing values not included in tables.

Table 7. Role perceptions: Distribution of officials identifying much or very much with following roles (percentages)*.

	P1 to P3	P4 and higher
Intergovernmental role:
Representative of own country’s government	24	7
Departmental role:
Representative of own unit/department	79	94
Supranational role:
Representative of AUC	63	79
Transnational role:
Independent expert	59	60
N	53 (100)	21 (100)

* Missing values not included in tables.

Table 8. Distribution of officials who very much or much agree that policy proposals reflect the following (percentages)*.

	P1 to P3	P4 and higher
Intergovernmental role:
The political profile/interests of AU donors	50	50
Departmental role:
Political profile/interest of the Commissioner in charge	53	72
The sectoral/portfolio profile of the Commissioner in charge	47	61
Supranational role:
Political profile/interest of AUC Chairperson	56	72
Political profile/interest of Deputy AUC Chairperson	50	61
Dominant profile of the Assembly/Executive Council/ PRC/Pan-African Parliament	66	84
N	53 (100)	21 (100)

* Missing values not included in tables.

Table 9. Cleavages of conflict: Distribution of officials who much or very much report the following conflicts (percentages)*.

	P1 to P3	P4 and higher
Intergovernmental role:
Between own department and member states	28	22
Departmental role:
Within own department	51	53
Between own and other departments	49	50
Between own departments and AUC Chairperson’s Office	28	22
Between own department and AUC Deputy Chairperson’s Office	22	28
Supranational role:
Between own department and other AU bodies	17	59
Between own department and other IOs	17	17
N	53 (100)	21 (100)

* Missing values not included in tables.

Table 10. Patterns of coordination: Distribution of officials reporting very much or much efficiency in coordination between the following (percentages)*.

	P1 to P3	P4 and higher
Intergovernmental role:
Between AUC and member-state governments	32	58
Departmental role:
Within AUC	32	32
Supranational role:
Between AUC and RECs	32	47
Between AUC and other IOs	41	50
N	53 (100)	21 (100)

* Missing values not included in tables.