IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v3y2003i3p74-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Oslo-Potsdam Solution to Measuring Regime Effectiveness: Critique, Response, and the Road Ahead

Author

Listed:
  • Jon Hovi
  • Detlef F. Sprinz
  • Arild Underdal

Abstract

In international regimes research, one of the most important questions is how effective regimes are in delivering what they were established and designed to achieve. Perhaps the most explicit and rigorous formula for measuring regime effectiveness is the so-called Oslo-Potsdam solution. This formula has recently been criticized by Oran Young, himself one of the founding fathers of regime analysis. The present article reviews and responds to his critique and provides several extensions of the Oslo-Potsdam solution. Our response may be summarized in three points. First, we recognize that difficult problems remain unsolved. Second, we argue that for some of the most profound problems there is no escape; we need to engage in counterfactual reasoning, and we need some notion of the "best" solution achievable (such as the "collective optimum"). Finally, we would welcome efforts to further develop and refine the Oslo-Potsdam formula as well as alternative approaches. Copyright (c) 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Jon Hovi & Detlef F. Sprinz & Arild Underdal, 2003. "The Oslo-Potsdam Solution to Measuring Regime Effectiveness: Critique, Response, and the Road Ahead," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(3), pages 74-96, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:3:y:2003:i:3:p:74-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/152638003322469286
    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 search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Carolyn Johns & Adam Thorn & Debora VanNijnatten, 2018. "Environmental regime effectiveness and the North American Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 315-333, June.
    2. Tobias Böhmelt & Jürg Vollenweider, 2015. "Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 105-123, May.
    3. Tamar Gutner & Alexander Thompson, 2010. "The politics of IO performance: A framework," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 227-248, September.
    4. Leif Helland & Jon Hovi, 2008. "Renegotiation Proofness and Climate Agreements: Some Experimental Evidence," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 34, pages 1-2.
    5. Yves Steinebach, 2022. "Instrument choice, implementation structures, and the effectiveness of environmental policies: A cross‐national analysis," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 225-242, January.
    6. Michael Mehling, 2012. "Alternative Frameworks for International Climate Cooperation: Towards a Systematic Assessment Matrix," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 44538, April.
    7. Ronald Mitchell, 2013. "Oran Young and international institutions," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, March.
    8. Sander, Michael, 2013. "Conceptual proposals for measuring the impact of international regimes on energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 449-457.
    9. Arild Underdal, 2012. "Strategies in international regime negotiations: reflecting background conditions or shaping outcomes?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 129-144, May.
    10. Arild Underdal, 2013. "Meeting common environmental challenges: the co-evolution of policies and practices," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 15-30, March.
    11. Lindstad, Berit H. & Solberg, Birger, 2010. "Challenges in determining national effects of international policy processes: Forest protection in Norway as a case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(7), pages 489-496, September.
    12. Andreas Kokkvoll Tveit, 2018. "Can the management school explain noncompliance with international environmental agreements?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 491-512, August.
    13. Jürg Vollenweider, 2013. "The effectiveness of international environmental agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 343-367, September.
    14. RonaldB. Mitchell & LilianaB. Andonova & Mark Axelrod & Jörg Balsiger & Thomas Bernauer & JessicaF. Green & James Hollway & RakhyunE. Kim & Jean-Frédéric Morin, 2020. "What We Know (and Could Know) About International EnvironmentalAgreements," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 103-121, February.
    15. Chenaz B. Seelarbokus, 2014. "Assessing the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (IEAs)," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, February.
    16. Clara Brandi & Dominique Blümer & Jean-Frédéric Morin, 2019. "When Do International Treaties Matter for Domestic EnvironmentalLegislation?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 19(4), pages 14-44, November.
    17. Eric van Um, 2009. "Discussing Concepts of Terrorist Rationality: Implications for Counter-Terrorism Policy," Economics of Security Working Paper Series 22, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    18. Brzoska Michael, 2008. "Measuring the Effectiveness of Arms Embargoes," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 1-34, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:3:y:2003:i:3:p:74-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.