Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis

Contents:

Author Info

  • Frank Biermann

    (Frank Biermann is Professor and head of the Department of Environmental Policy Analysis of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He is also general director of the Netherlands Research School for the Socio-economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE); director of the EU-based Global Governance Project, a network of twelve European research institutions (glogov.org); and chair of the Earth System Governance Project, a ten-year global research program under the auspices of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change. His most recent publications are Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies (2009, edited with B. Siebenhüner); Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptation (2010, edited with P. Pattberg and F. Zelli); and International Organizations in Global Environmental Governance (2009, edited with B. Siebenhüner and A. Schreyögg).)

  • Philipp Pattberg

    (Philipp Pattberg is an Assistant Professor of international relations, Department of Environmental Policy Analysis, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He is also the management committee chair of the European COST Action "The Transformation of Global Environmental Governance: Risks and Opportunities" and deputy director and research coordinator of the Global Governance Project, a network of twelve leading European institutions in the field of global environmental governance.)

  • Harro van Asselt

    (Harro van Asselt is a researcher with the Department of Environmental Policy Analysis at the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He is also a research fellow with the EU-based Global Governance Project (Glogov.org). His work focuses on international and European climate change governance, trade and environment issues, and international environmental law. He is working on his doctoral thesis on the fragmentation of global climate governance. He was a visiting researcher at the Department of Value and Decision Science at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan (2007) and at the Dean Rusk Centre of the University of Georgia School of Law, United States (2008). He holds an LLM (International Law) degree from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.)

  • Fariborz Zelli

    (Fariborz Zelli is a Research Fellow at the German Development Institute in Bonn, Germany, since February 2009. He is also a visiting fellow at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, United Kingdom, where he was a senior research associate from 2006 to early 2009. Since 2004, he has been a research fellow of the Global Governance Project, where he co-coordinates the research group Multiple Options, Solutions and Approaches: Institutional Interplay and Conflict (MOSAIC). His most recent publication is Global Climate Governance beyond 2012 (2010, edited with F. Biermann and P. Pattberg).)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Most research on global governance has focused either on theoretical accounts of the overall phenomenon or on empirical studies of distinct institutions that serve to solve particular governance challenges. In this article we analyze instead "governance architectures," defined as the overarching system of public and private institutions, principles, norms, regulations, decision-making procedures and organizations that are valid or active in a given issue area of world politics. We focus on one aspect that is turning into a major source of concern for scholars and policy-makers alike: the "fragmentation" of governance architectures in important policy domains. The article offers a typology of different degrees of fragmentation, which we describe as synergistic, cooperative, and conflictive fragmentation. We then systematically assess alternative hypotheses over the relative advantages and disadvantages of different degrees of fragmentation. We argue that moderate degrees of fragmentation may entail both significant costs and benefits, while higher degrees of fragmentation are likely to decrease the overall performance of a governance architecture. The article concludes with policy options on how high degrees of fragmentation could be reduced. Fragmentation is prevalent in particular in the current governance of climate change, which we have hence chosen as illustration for our discussion. (c) 2009 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.14
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by MIT Press in its journal Global Environmental Politics.

    Volume (Year): 9 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 4 (November)
    Pages: 14-40

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:9:y:2009:i:4:p:14-40

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/

    Order Information:
    Web: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/glep

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Robert Falkner & Hannes Stephan & John Vogler, 2010. "International climate policy after Copenhagen: towards a ‘building blocks’ approach," Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Papers 21, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    2. Jeffrey McGee & Ros Taplin, 2009. "The role of the Asia Pacific Partnership in discursive contestation of the international climate regime," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 213-238, August.
    3. Antto Vihma, 2009. "Friendly neighbor or Trojan Horse? Assessing the interaction of soft law initiatives and the UN climate regime," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 239-262, August.
    4. Sylvia Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen & Harro Asselt, 2009. "Introduction: exploring and explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 195-211, August.
    5. Leipold, Sina, 2014. "Creating forests with words — A review of forest-related discourse studies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 12-20.
    6. Joy Kim & Suh-Yong Chung, 2012. "The role of the G20 in governing the climate change regime," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 361-374, November.
    7. Marjanneke Vijge, 2013. "The promise of new institutionalism: explaining the absence of a World or United Nations Environment Organisation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 153-176, May.
    8. Heike Schroeder, 2010. "Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 317-332, December.
    9. Schut, Marc & Cunha Soares, Núria & van de Ven, Gerrie & Slingerland, Maja, 2014. "Multi-actor governance of sustainable biofuels in developing countries: The case of Mozambique," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 631-643.
    10. Sofie Bouteligier, 2011. "Exploring the agency of global environmental consultancy firms in earth system governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 43-61, March.
    11. Norichika Kanie & Hiromi Nishimoto & Yasuaki Hijioka & Yasuko Kameyama, 2010. "Allocation and architecture in climate governance beyond Kyoto: lessons from interdisciplinary research on target setting," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 299-315, December.
    12. Frank Biermann & Michele Betsill & Joyeeta Gupta & Norichika Kanie & Louis Lebel & Diana Liverman & Heike Schroeder & Bernd Siebenhüner & Ruben Zondervan, 2010. "Earth system governance: a research framework," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 277-298, December.
    13. Harro Asselt & Norichika Kanie & Masahiko Iguchi, 2009. "Japan’s position in international climate policy: navigating between Kyoto and the APP," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 319-336, August.
    14. Rakhyun Kim & Brendan Mackey, 2014. "International environmental law as a complex adaptive system," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 5-24, March.
    15. Bernd Hackmann, 2012. "Analysis of the governance architecture to regulate GHG emissions from international shipping," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 85-103, March.
    16. Robert Shum, 2014. "China, the United States, bargaining, and climate change," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 83-100, March.
    17. Eleni Dellas & Philipp Pattberg & Michele Betsill, 2011. "Agency in earth system governance: refining a research agenda," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 85-98, March.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:9:y:2009:i:4:p:14-40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Karie Kirkpatrick).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.