The forest policy outputs of regional regimes: a qualitative comparative analysis on the effects of formalization, hegemony and issue-focus around the globe

Pradip Kumar Sarker, Lukas Giessen, Max Göhrs, Sohui Jeon, Minette Nago, Fredy David Polo-Villanueva, Sarah Lilian Burns
{"title":"The forest policy outputs of regional regimes: a qualitative comparative analysis on the effects of formalization, hegemony and issue-focus around the globe","authors":"Pradip Kumar Sarker, Lukas Giessen, Max Göhrs, Sohui Jeon, Minette Nago, Fredy David Polo-Villanueva, Sarah Lilian Burns","doi":"10.1007/s10784-024-09641-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>International regimes, defined as sets of norms and rules around which members’ expectations converge, are providing structures for facilitating cooperation in a given issue area. Two main lines of environmental regime scholarship prevailed thus far: one on structural design aspects of international institutions and one on their effects and effectiveness. However, questions on how such effects are achieved in detail largely remain unanswered. Against this background, this study aims to analyze the institutional design conditions under which regional regimes produce strong or weak policies. We do so by qualitatively comparing, using a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), nine regional regimes across the world towards their ability of producing regime forest policies as an illustrative issue area. Three structural conditions were identified as being influential on regime policy: (i) The degree of formalization (ii) The existence of hegemonic/powerful member state(s) and (iii) Scope or issue specificity bearing the identity of a regime. Our results showed that no one condition on its own was necessary to produce either strong or weak regime forest policy. However, all three conditions, through three different configurations, created a robust pathway for producing strong regime policy. In addition, the combination that showed the presence of all three conditions was related to weak regime policy. These results open several prospects for future research on the relationship between regimes´ structures and regime policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47272,"journal":{"name":"International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-024-09641-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

International regimes, defined as sets of norms and rules around which members’ expectations converge, are providing structures for facilitating cooperation in a given issue area. Two main lines of environmental regime scholarship prevailed thus far: one on structural design aspects of international institutions and one on their effects and effectiveness. However, questions on how such effects are achieved in detail largely remain unanswered. Against this background, this study aims to analyze the institutional design conditions under which regional regimes produce strong or weak policies. We do so by qualitatively comparing, using a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), nine regional regimes across the world towards their ability of producing regime forest policies as an illustrative issue area. Three structural conditions were identified as being influential on regime policy: (i) The degree of formalization (ii) The existence of hegemonic/powerful member state(s) and (iii) Scope or issue specificity bearing the identity of a regime. Our results showed that no one condition on its own was necessary to produce either strong or weak regime forest policy. However, all three conditions, through three different configurations, created a robust pathway for producing strong regime policy. In addition, the combination that showed the presence of all three conditions was related to weak regime policy. These results open several prospects for future research on the relationship between regimes´ structures and regime policy.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
区域制度的森林政策成果:对全球正规化、霸权和问题重点的影响进行定性比较分析
国际制度被定义为成员期望趋同的一系列规范和规则,是促进特定问题领域合作的结构。迄今为止,环境制度的学术研究主要有两个方向:一个是国际制度的结构设计方面,另一个是国际制度的效果和有效性方面。然而,关于如何详细实现这些效果的问题在很大程度上仍然没有答案。在此背景下,本研究旨在分析区域制度产生强势或弱势政策的制度设计条件。为此,我们采用模糊集定性比较分析法(fsQCA),对全球九个地区性制度制定制度性森林政策的能力进行了定性比较。我们确定了对制度政策有影响的三个结构性条件:(i) 正规化程度 (ii) 是否存在霸权/强势成员国;(iii) 影响制度特性的范围或问题特殊性。我们的研究结果表明,没有任何一个条件本身是产生强势或弱势制度森林政策的必要条件。然而,所有三个条件通过三种不同的组合,形成了产生强势制度政策的稳健途径。此外,显示出所有三个条件都存在的组合与弱制度政策有关。这些结果为今后研究制度结构与制度政策之间的关系开辟了若干前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
26.50%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary journal that focuses on the theoretical, methodological and practical dimensions of achieving cooperative solutions to international environmental problems. The journal, which is published four times each year, emphasizes both formal legal agreements (such as multilateral treaties) and less formal cooperative mechanisms (such as ministerial declarations and producer-consumer agreements). The journal''s scope encompasses the full range of environmental and natural resource issues, including (but not limited to) biosafety, biodiversity loss, climate change, desertification, forest conservation, ozone depletion, transboundary pollutant flows, and the management of marine and fresh-water resources. The editors welcome contributions that consider stakeholder initiatives and the role of civil society in the definition and resolution of environmental conflicts. The journal provides a forum on the role of political, economic, and legal considerations in the negotiation and implementation of effective governance strategies. Special emphasis is attached to the following substantive domains: The normative aspects and political economy of treaty negotiations and multilateral agreements, including equity considerations; Methodologies for evaluating the effectiveness of alternative governance mechanisms; The role of stakeholder initiatives and civil society in the definition and resolution of environmental conflicts; The harmonization of environmental strategies with prevailing social, political, and economic institutions.
期刊最新文献
The environmental rule of law and the protection of human rights defenders: law, society, technology, and markets Should we regulate forests through free trade agreements? Arctic wetlands, an evaluation of progress towards implementation of the Ramsar convention on wetlands: 1978–2022 The split ladder of policy problems, participation, and politicization: constitutional water change in Ecuador and Chile Pathways of scientific input into intergovernmental negotiations: a new agreement on marine biodiversity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1