Abstract
This article proposes an analytical framework for exploring policy responses to common challenges of environmental governance. Observing that governance involves multiple processes, I begin by identifying a conceptual platform for studying unilateral learning and adaptation as well as international cooperation as integral and interacting components of a complex governance system. I propose the concept of co-evolution as the cornerstone of this platform and distinguish between two modes of co-evolution: diffusion and cooperation. The article draws findings and propositions from recent literature to identify the mechanisms at work and the conditions under which they foster mutually beneficial solutions. Indicating how important governance challenges differ with respect to these conditions, I build the case for a diagnostic and differential approach that matches capacity-building and policy strategies with the challenge in focus.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The empirical study of diffusion does, though, focus primarily on convergence (see e.g. Holzinger et al. 2008).
This is not the whole story, though; compliance with norms may be subject to utilitarian and strategic considerations as well (see e.g. Finnemore and Sikkink 1998).
In fact, constructivists would see the distinction itself as outmoded, arguing that material factors shape behaviour through ideas (see e.g. Wendt 1999, 135).
In this context, coercion involves manipulation of incentives (sticks and carrots), not brute force.
Note that these are not distinctly different pathways; the authors run different causal models, and most point to identical or partly overlapping pathways.
See his own selection of “enduring insights” in this issue (Young 2013).
Abbreviations
- IMO:
-
International maritime organisation
- NGO:
-
Non-governmental organisation
References
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Barrett, S. (2007). Why cooperate? The incentive to supply global public goods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (Eds.). (2009). Managers of global change: The influence of international bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Breitmeier, H., Underdal, A., & Young, O. R. (2011). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Comparing and contrasting findings from quantitative research. International Studies Review, 13(4), 579–605.
Elkins, Z., & Simmons, B. A. (2005). On waves, clusters, and diffusion: A conceptual framework. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 33–51.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
Geopolitics in the High North. (2008). http://www.geopoliticsnorth.org/pdf/Geopolitics_main_doc.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2010.
Greenhill, B. (2010). The company you keep: International socialization and the diffusion of human rights norms. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 127–145.
Haftel, Y. Z., & Thompson, A. (2006). The independence of international organizations: Concept and applications. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(2), 253–275.
Harsem, Ø., & Hoel, A. H. (2012). Climate change and adaptive capacity in fisheries management: The case of Norway. International Environmental Agreements, 13(1). doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9199-5.
Héretier, A., Knill, C., & Mingers, S. (1996). Ringing the changes in Europe. Regulatory competition and redefinition of the state: Britain, France, Germany. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Holzinger, K., Knill, C., & Sommerer, T. (2008). Environmental policy convergence? The impact of international harmonization, transnational communication and regulatory competition. International Organization, 62(4), 553–587.
Hovi, J., Sprinz, D., & Underdal, A. (2003). The Oslo-Potsdam solution to measuring regime effectiveness: Critique, response, and the road ahead. Global Environmental Politics, 3(3), 74–96.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the international political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1973). The world in depression, 1929–1939. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.
Lake, D. A. (2010). Rightful rules: Authority, order, and the foundations of global governance. International Studies Quarterly, 54(3), 587–613.
Levy, M. A. (1993). European acid rain: The power of tote-board diplomacy. In P. M. Haas, R. O. Keohane, & M. A. Levy (Eds.), Institutions for the Earth: Sources of effective international environmental protection (pp. 75–132). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lindberg, L. N., & Scheingold, S. A. (1970). Europe’s would-be polity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. New York: The Free Press.
Miles, E. L., Underdal, A., Andresen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjærseth, J. B., & Carlin, E. M. (2002). Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mitchell, R. B. (2008). Evaluating the performance of international institutions: What to evaluate and how to evaluate it? In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 79–114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mosley, L., & Uno, S. (2007). Racing to the bottom or climbing to the top? Economic globalization and collective labor rights. Comparative Political Studies, 40(8), 923–948.
Olson, M. (1968). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. New York: Schocken Books. (First published in 1965 by Harvard University Press.).
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.
Perrin, S., & Bernauer, T. (2010). International regime formation revisited: Explaining ratification behaviour with respect to long-range transboundary air pollution in Europe. European Union Politics, 11(3), 405–426.
Schelling, T. C. (1973). Hockey helmets, concealed weapons, and daylight saving: A study of binary choices with externalities. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17(3), 381–428.
Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simmons, B. A., Dobbin, F., & Garrett, G. (2006). Introduction: The international diffusion of liberalism. International Organization, 60(4), 781–810.
Snidal, D. (1985). The limits of hegemonic stability theory. International Organization, 39(4), 579–614.
Stokke, O. S. (2011). Environmental security in the Arctic: The case for multi-level governance. International Journal, 66, 835–848.
Stokke, O. S. (2012). Disaggregating international regimes: A new approach to evaluation and comparison. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stokke, O. S. (2013). Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: Explaining regional niche selection. International Environmental Agreements, 13(1). doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9202-1.
The Arctic Governance Project. (2010). Arctic governance in an era of transformative change: Critical questions, governance principles, ways forward. report, Dated 14 April 2010. http://www.arcticgovernance.org, document downloaded 10 October 2010.
Underdal, A. (1980). The politics of international fisheries management: The case of the Northeast Atlantic. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Underdal, A. (1994). Leadership theory: Rediscovering the arts of management. In I. W. Zartman (Ed.), International multilateral negotiation (pp. 178–197). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Underdal, A. (2002). One question, two answers. In E. L. Miles et al., Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence (pp. 3–45). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Underdal, A. (2010). Complexity and challenges of long-term environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 386–393.
Victor, D. G., Raustiala, K., & Skolnikoff, E. B. (Eds.). (1998). The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ward, H., Grundig, F., & Zorick, E. R. (2001). Marching at the pace of the slowest: A model of international climate change negotiations. Political Studies, 49(3), 438–461.
Weiss, E. B., & Jacobson, H. K. (Eds.). (1998). Engaging countries: Strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, J. Q. (1973). Political organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Yip, K. Y., Pate, P., Kim, P. M., Engelmann, D. M., McDermott, D., & Gerstein, M. (2008). An integrated system for studying residue coevolution in proteins. Bioinformatics, 24(2), 290–291.
Young, O. R. (1991). Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society. International Organization, 45(3), 281–308.
Young, O. R. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Global Environmental Politics, 1(1), 99–121.
Young, O. R. (2003). Determining regime effectiveness: A commentary on the Oslo-Potsdam solution. Global Environmental Politics, 3(3), 97–104.
Young, O. R. (2008). Building regimes for socioecological systems: Institutional diagnostics. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 115–144). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Young, O. R. (2010). Arctic governance— pathways to the future. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 2010(2), 164–185.
Young, O. R. (2011). If an Arctic Ocean treaty is not the solution, what is the alternative? Polar Record, 47, 327–334.
Young, O. R. (2013). Sugaring off: Enduring insights from long-term research on environmental governance. International Environmental Agreements, 13(1). doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9204-z.
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this paper was written for the Geopolitics in the High North project (www.geopoliticsnorth.org). The project at large is funded by the Research Council of Norway; work on this paper has been funded by the Department of Political Science, University of Oslo. I am grateful to Olav Schram Stokke, Ronald B. Mitchell and two anonymous reviewers for very useful comments to earlier drafts and to Frank Azevedo for excellent editorial advice.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Underdal, A. Meeting common environmental challenges: the co-evolution of policies and practices. Int Environ Agreements 13, 15–30 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9203-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9203-0