The Review of International Organizations

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 399–424 | Cite as

Capacity, not constraints: A theory of North-South regulatory cooperation



While neoliberal institutionalists argue that treaties facilitate collective action, many North-South regulatory treaties focus on largely national problems in developing countries. As such, these treaties present a puzzle: why a global treaty to address national regulatory problems? We argue that while activists in industrialized countries often promote regulatory treaties, these treaties garner political support among developing countries because they allow governments to enhance their national regulatory capacity. Developing countries are often not interested in banning practices such as trade in hazardous waste. Instead, developing countries want to increase their ability to control them. We test the argument against data on the global regime for hazardous waste trade. Contravening the conventional wisdom, we find that weak regulatory capacity is a powerful predictor of ratification of the Basel Convention, a treaty that does not ban hazardous waste trade but allows regulatory enhancement. By contrast, other treaties in the regime that do aim at banning hazardous waste trade receive little support among developing countries.


International cooperation Regulation Capacity building Environmental policy Environment and development Hazardous waste Treaty ratification 

Supplementary material

11558_2012_9142_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (127 kb)
(PDF 126 kb) (6 kb)
(DO 5.58 kb)
11558_2012_9142_MOESM3_ESM.dta (1.2 mb)
(DTA 1.18 MB)


  1. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2010). International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. Review of International Organizations, 5(3), 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernauer, T., Kalbhenn, A., Koubi, V., & Spilker, G. (2010). A comparison of international and domestic sources of global governance dynamics. British Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 509–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernhagen, P. (2008). Business and international environmental agreements: Domestic sources of participation and compliance by advanced industrialized democracies. Global Environmental Politics, 8(1), 78–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjørnskov, C. (2011). Combating corruption: On the interplay between institutional quality and social trust. Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1), 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bob, C. (2005). The marketing of rebellion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1995). The new sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clapp, J. (1994). Africa, NGOs, and the international toxic waste trade. Journal of Environment and Development, 3(2), 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clapp, J. (2001). Toxic exports: The transfer of hazardous wastes from rich to poor countries. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Congleton, R. D. (1992). Political institutions and pollution control. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3), 412–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dai, X. (2006). The conditional nature of democratic compliance. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(5), 690–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Wang, H., & Wheeler, D. (2002). Confronting the environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(1), 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Desombre, E. R. (1995). Baptists and bootleggers for the environment: The origins of United States unilateral sanctions. Journal of Environment and Development, 4(1), 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Djankov, S., Porta, R. L., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). The regulation of entry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Downs, G. W., Rocke, D. M., & Barsoom, P. N. (1996). Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization, 50(3), 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, N. R. (1996). The Basel convention: A toxic treaty for a toxic trade? Economic Affairs, 16(5), 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finnemore, M, & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gehring, T., & Obertür, S. (2009). The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 15(1), 125–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gruber, L. (2000). Ruling the world: Power politics and the rise of supranational institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Guzman, A. T. (2008). How international law works: A rational choice theory. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henry, L. A., & Sundstrom, L. M. (2007). Russia and the Kyoto protocol: Seeking an alignment of interests and image. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, W. F. (1993). The evolution of the Bamako convention: An African perspective. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 4, 324–342.Google Scholar
  26. Kempel, W. (1999). The negotiations on the Basel convention on the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal: A national delegation perspective. International Negotiation, 41(3), 411–431.Google Scholar
  27. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krasner, S. D. (1991). Global communications and national power: Life on the Pareto frontier. World Politics, 43(3), 336–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Langbein, L., & Knack, S. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Six, one, or none? Journal of Development Studies, 46(2), 350–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell, R. B., & Keilbach, P. M. (2001). Situation structure and institutional design: Reciprocity, coercion, and exchange. International Organization, 55(4), 891–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Neumayer, E. (2002). Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 39(2), 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oates, W. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3), 1120–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perrin, S., & Bernauer, T. (2010). International regime formation revisited: Explaining ratification behaviour with respect to long-range transboundary air pollution agreements in Europe. European Union Politics, 11(3), 405–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roberts, J. T., Parks, B. C., & Vásquez, A. A. (2004). Who ratifies environmental treaties and why? Institutionalism, structuralism and participation by 192 nations in 22 treaties. Global Environmental Politics, 4(3), 22–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sánchez, R. (1994). International trade in hazardous wastes: A global problem with uneven consequences for the third world. Journal of Environment and Development, 3(3), 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Selin, H. (2010). Global governance of hazardous chemicals: Challenges of multilevel management. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simmons, B. A., & Danner, A. (2010). Credible commitments and the international criminal court. International Organization, 64(2), 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sprinz, D., & Vaahtoranta, T. (1994). The interest-based explanation of international environmental policy. International Organization, 48(1), 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tallberg, J. (2002). Paths to compliance: Enforcement, management, and the European union. International Organization, 56(3), 609–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomas, D. (2001). The Helsinki effect: International norms, human rights, and the demise of communism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Urpelainen, J. (2009). Explaining the Schwarzenegger phenomenon: Local frontrunners in climate policy. Global Environmental Politics, 9(3), 82–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Urpelainen, J. (2010a). Enforcement and capacity building in international cooperation. International Theory, 2(1), 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Urpelainen, J. (2010b). Regulation under economic globalization. International Studies Quarterly, 54(4), 1099–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. VanDeveer, S. D., & Geoffrey, D. D. (2001). “It’s capacity, stupid: International assistance and national implementation. Global Environmental Politics, 1(2), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Victor, D. G., Raustiala, K., & Skolnikoff, E. B. (Eds.) (1998). The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: Theory and practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Vogel, D. (1995). Trading up: Consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Von Stein, J. (2008). The international law and politics of climate change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(2), 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceDePauw UniversityGreencastleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations