Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- 1 Introduction
- 2 ‘Smart’ Public-Private Complementarities in the Transnational Regulatory and Enforcement Space
- 3 Smart Mixes and the Challenge of Complexity
- 4 Smart (and Not-So-Smart) Mixes of New Environmental Policy Instruments
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
3 - Smart Mixes and the Challenge of Complexity
Lessons from Global Climate Governance
from Part I - Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2019
Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- 1 Introduction
- 2 ‘Smart’ Public-Private Complementarities in the Transnational Regulatory and Enforcement Space
- 3 Smart Mixes and the Challenge of Complexity
- 4 Smart (and Not-So-Smart) Mixes of New Environmental Policy Instruments
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
Summary
This chapter analyses the adoption and deployment of traditional ‘command-and-control’ regulations and ‘new’ environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) as they occur in practice in five different jurisdictions, namely Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK) as well as the European Union (EU) since the early 1970s. It focuses on three different types of NEPIs – informational instruments, voluntary agreements and market-based instruments – and examines how and why they have become mixed in different jurisdictions. It argues that while there has been a significant uptake of NEPIs in all five jurisdictions, important differences have remained regarding the composition of instrument mixes in particular jurisdictions. Adopting a longitudinal perspective allows for the identification of leaders, followers and laggards for different types of NEPIs. Although there may be a theoretical ‘optimal mix’ of policy instruments, in reality patterns of adoption and deployment are very strongly influenced by a mixture of contingent factors, which vary within and across jurisdictions, over time.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm , pp. 49 - 68Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Abbott, K. W. 2012. ‘The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change’. Environment & Planning C: Government & Policy 30(4), 571–590.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W. & Snidal, D. 2009. ‘Strengthening International Regulation Through Transnational New Governance: Overcoming the Orchestration Deficit’. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42(2), 501–578.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W. & Snidal, D. 2010. ‘International Regulation without International Government: Improving International Organization Performance Through Orchestration’. The Review of International Organizations 5(3), 314–344.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., Green, J. & Keohane, R. O. 2016. ‘Organizational Ecology and Organizational Diversity in Global Governance’. International Organization 70(2), 247–277, doi:10.1017/S0020818315000338.Google Scholar
Alter, K. J. & Meunier, S. 2009. ‘The Politics of International Regime Complexity’. Perspectives on Politics 7(1), 13–24.Google Scholar
Barabási, A. -L. & Albert, R. 1999. ‘Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks’. Science 286(5439), 509–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biermann, F., Pattberg, Ph., Van Asselt, H. & Zelli, F. 2009. ‘The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis’. Global Environmental Politics 9(4), 14–40, doi:10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.14.Google Scholar
Boas, I., Biermann, F., & Kanie, N. 2016. ‘Cross-Sectoral Strategies in Global Sustainability Governance: Towards a Nexus Approach’. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 16(3), 449–464, doi: 10.1007/s10784–016–9321–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousquet, A. & Curtis, S. 2011. ‘Beyond Models and Metaphors: Complexity Theory, Systems Thinking and International Relations’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24(1), 43–62.Google Scholar
Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Betsill, M. M., Compagnon, D., Hale, Th., Hoffmann, M. J., Newell, P., Paterson, M., Roger, C. & VanDeveer, S. D. 2014. Transnational Climate Change Governance. New York, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D. & Callaghan, G. 2013. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art. Abingdon, Routledge. Available at: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mXC_AAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Byrne+and+Callaghan+2014+complexity+theory&ots=PNk1H-pLEf&sig=0ICNWDfYjIE2gBm-EjOd7FkTIA4.Google Scholar
Capra, F. 1996. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. New York, Anchor.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M. 2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London, A&C Black. Available at: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=64TUAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=delanda+assemblages&ots=9A0lgY2R4q&sig=WO3_YWFp1mRW9oUHDFAaEcOxRdQ.Google Scholar
Drezner, D. W. 2008. All Politics Is Global. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=5466536.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. 1997. ‘Manifesto for a Relational Sociology’. American Journal of Sociology 103(2), 281–317, doi:10.1086/231209.Google Scholar
Friedrichs, J. 2001. ‘The Meaning of New Medievalism’. European Journal of International Relations 7(4), 475–501.Google Scholar
Green, J. F. 2013. ‘Order out of Chaos: Public and Private Rules for Managing Carbon’. Global Environmental Politics 13(2), 1–25.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. M., Kahler, M. & Montgomery, A. H. 2009. ‘Network Analysis for International Relations’. International Organization 63(3), 559–592.Google Scholar
Harrison, N. E. & Singer, D. J. 2006. ‘Complexity is More than System Theory’. In Harrison, N. E. (ed), Complexity in World Politics. Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 25–42.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. 2009. Simply Complexity: A Clear Guide to Complexity Theory. Oxford, Oneworld Publications. Available at: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=REFbbA15cX8C&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=Simply+Complexity.+A+Clear+Guide+to+Complexity+Theory.+London:+Oneworld+Publications.&ots=fuE5B4Z-2r&sig=jX6FYan6J8ILmZdHxuUtmo7prZU.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Van Asselt, H., Huitema, D. & Forster, J. (eds.). 2018. Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kavalski, E. 2007. ‘The Fifth Debate and the Emergence of Complex International Relations Theory: Notes on the Application of Complexity Theory to the Study of International Life’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 20(3), 435–454.Google Scholar
Keck, M. E. & Sikkink, K. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. G. 2011. ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’. Perspectives on Politics 9(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, R. 2013. ‘The Emergent Network Structure of the Multilateral Environmental Agreement System’. Global Environmental Change 23, 980–991.Google Scholar
McNutt, K. 2010. ‘Virtual Policy Networks: Where All Roads Lead to Rome’. Canadian Journal of Political Science 43(4), 915–935.Google Scholar
McNutt, K. 2012. ‘Climate Change Subsystem Structure and Change: Network Mapping, Density and Centrality’. Canadian Political Science Review 6(1), 15–50.Google Scholar
McNutt, K. & Pal, L. A. 2011. ‘“Modernizing Government”: Mapping Global Public Policy Networks’. Governance 24(3), 439–467, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01532.x.Google Scholar
Mitleton-Kelly, E. 2000. Complexity: Partial Support for BPR?. Dordrecht, Springer. Available at: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978–1–4471–0457–5_3.Google Scholar
Mittelman, J. H. 2013. ‘Global Bricolage: Emerging Market Powers and Polycentric Governance’. Third World Quarterly 34(1), 23–37.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. & Visbeck, M. 2016. ‘Map the Interactions between Sustainable Development Goals’. Nature 534(7607), 320–322.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. & Stokke, O. S. 2011. Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Orsini, A., Morin, J. -F. & Young, O. R. 2013. ‘Regime Complexes: A Buzz, a Boom, or a Boost for Global Governance?’. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 19(1), 27–39.Google Scholar
Page, S. E. 2015. ‘What Sociologists Should Know About Complexity’. Annual Review of Sociology 41, 21–41.Google Scholar
Park, H. W. 2003. ‘Hyperlink Network Analysis: A New Method for the Study of Social Structure on the Web’. Connections 25(1), 49–61.Google Scholar
Pattberg, Ph. & Stripple, J. 2008. ‘Beyond the Public and Private Divide: Remapping Transnational Climate Governance in the 21st Century’. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 8(4), 367–388.Google Scholar
Pattberg, Ph., Kristensen, K. & Widerberg, O. 2017. ‘Beyond Biodiversity. Exploring the institutional landscape of governing for biodiversity’, Amsterdam, IVM, R-17/06.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. & Victor, D. G. 2004. ‘The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources’. International Organization 52(2), 277–309.Google Scholar
Rogers, P. J. 2008. ‘Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Interventions’. Evaluation 14(1), 29–48.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. 2010. ‘Mapping Public Web Space with the Issuecrawler’. In Brossaud, C. & Reber, B. (eds.), Digital Cognitive Technologies: Epistemology and the Knowledge Economy. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 89–99.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J. N. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J. N. 2003. Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Available at: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=grYHrK5MSRYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=rosenau+2003&ots=_QpyUr4is4&sig=Nd7ilkIkMywatFsalGWNrTMQicc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassen, S. 2006. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages, Vol. 7. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=1039036.Google Scholar
Singer, D. J. 1971. A General Systems Taxonomy for Political Science. New York, General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Stame, N. 2004. ‘Theory-Based Evaluation and Types of Complexity’. Evaluation 10(1), 58–76.Google Scholar
Watts, D. J. & Strogatz, S. H. 1998. ‘Collective Dynamics of “Small-World” Networks’. Nature 393(6684), 440–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widerberg, O. 2016. ‘Mapping Institutional Complexity in the Anthropocene: A Network Approach’. In Pattberg, Ph. & Zelli, F. (eds.), Environmental Politics and Governance in the Anthropocene: Institutions and Legitimacy in a Complex World. London, Routledge, 81–102.Google Scholar
Widerberg, O., Pattberg, Ph. & Kristensen, K. 2016. ‘Mapping the Institutional Architecture of Global Climate Change Governance - V.2.’, Technical Paper, Amsterdam, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM).Google Scholar
Young, O. R. 1996. ‘Institutional Linkages in International Society: Polar Perspectives’. Global Governance 2, 1–24.Google Scholar
- 6
- Cited by