Suchergebnisse

To accurately assess the relative effectiveness of international environmental agreements requires that we pay greater attention to how problem structures influence both institutional design & the outcomes we use to evaluate institutional effects. Analyzing multiple agreements allows us to move beyond claims that an agreement was influential to claims regarding which variables explain that influence, to examine how institutional influence depends on other factors & to evaluate an agreement's effectiveness relative to other agreements & non-institutional influences. Accounting for problem structure is crucial to such endeavors because problem structure variables may be alternatives to or interact with institutional variables & because institutional design is endogenous to the problem structure-outcome relationship. The shortcomings related to incorporating problem structure in extant effectiveness research can be overcome through four strategies: carefully describing analytically useful variation in problem structure, selecting cases to limit variation in problem structure, evaluating problem structure variables & their influence on design & behavior, & evaluating effectiveness in terms appropriate to the problem structure. References. Adapted from the source document.

A review of The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale by O R Young is presented.

Quantitative analysis of environmental regime effects can complement qualitative analyses by allowing investigation of variation in the effects of different regimes as well as the causes and conditions that explain that variation. Such analysis involves developing metrics that allow comparison of the influence of disparate regimes, models that distinguish regime influence from other explanatory factors, and data sets of independent and dependent variables of sufficient quality to support quantitative analysis. The many theoretical, methodological, and empirical obstacles to undertaking quantitative research on regime effectiveness are daunting but surmountable. By using data regarding component parts of regimes ("subregimes") broken down to the country and year level, quantitative techniques offer promise in identifying which regimes induce greater behavioral change and greater "effort" and, more importantly, what characteristics of those regimes and the context in which they operate explain their greater success.

Quantitative analysis of environmental regime effects can complement qualitative analyses by allowing investigation of variation in the effects of different regimes as well as the causes & conditions that explain that variation. Such analysis involves developing metrics that allow comparison of the influence of disparate regimes, models that distinguish regime influence from other explanatory factors, & data sets of independent & dependent variables of sufficient quality to support quantitative analysis. The many theoretical, methodological, & empirical obstacles to undertaking quantitative research on regime effectiveness are daunting but surmountable. By using data regarding component parts of regimes ("subregimes") broken down to the country & year level, quantitative techniques offer promise in identifying which regimes induce greater behavioral change & greater "effort" &, more importantly, what characteristics of those regimes & the context in which they operate explain their greater success. 6 Tables, 49 References. Adapted from the source document.

In two provocative new books, Elizabeth DeSombre and
Matthew Paterson attack two issues that call into question
common assumptions about international environmental pol-
itics (IEP). Paterson asks: Does our global environmental
predicament reflect unfortunate, but essentially unrelated,
secular trends or the influence of deeper, structural forces?
DeSombre asks: Does resolution of environmental problems,
whatever their sources, require broad support among many
countries, or can solutions arise from unilateral action by a
single powerful state? Paterson's answer involves a refreshing
critique of the IEP literature that shows how traditional
realist and liberal approaches systematically ignore the un-
derlying causes of global environmental change. DeSombre
provides a trenchant analysis of when, how, and why a
country will attempt, and succeed at, internalization of its
own domestic environmental regulations. Both books make
significant contributions to the growing IEP literature, ex-
tending it to important new areas of research.