Boundary Organizations in Regime Complexes: A Social Network Profile of IPBES

Abstract

Regime complexes are arrays of institutions with partially overlapping mandates and memberships. As tensions frequently arise among these institutions, there is a growing interest geared to finding strategies to reduce them. Insights from regime theory, science and technology studies, and social network analysis support the claim that ''boundary organizations''-a type of organization until now overlooked in International Relations-can reduce tensions within regime complexes by generating credible, legitimate, and salient knowledge, provided that their internal networks balance multiple knowledge dimensions. Building on this argument, this article offers an ex ante assessment of the recently created International Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Results from our network analysis of IPBES point to clear improvements compared with similar organizations, although major deficiencies remain. The contribution of this article is threefold. Methodologically, it introduces new conceptual and technical tools to assess the ''social representativeness'' of international organizations. Theoretically, it supports the claim that international organizations are penetrated by transnational networks and, consequently, that the proliferation of institutions tends to reproduce structural imbalances. Normatively, it argues that a revision of nomination processes could improve the ability of boundary organizations to generate salient, credible, and legitimate knowledge.

Boundary Concepts for Boundary Work Between Science and Technology Studies and International Relations: Special Issue Introduction

“…In the parlance of social network analysis, a boundary organization that aspires to generate credible, legitimate, and salient knowledge requires both external "bridging ties," which connect it with various issue areas, scales, and epistemologies, as well as internal "bonding ties" (Coleman, 1988) to create a dense, balanced, and cohesive group. As a result, a third condition for a boundary organization to succeed, particularly salient at the international level, seems to be related to the social capital of its members, related to their professional and personal contacts, to their past professions, and their social networks (Morin, Louafi, Orsini, & Oubenal, 2017). Ideally, a boundary organization would include individuals from different functions and disciplines but also with different types of social capital, and would work with the aim of giving them an equal chance to express their views.…”

“…The context in which boundary concepts are developed at the international level is already populated by an extensively broad range of norms, principles, and rules. In this fragmented architecture, boundary organizations could play a great role, by reducing tensions between international regimes when their members are representatives of different alternative understandings, like the IPBES in the biodiversity field (Morin et al, 2017). Partnerships are also promising forms of boundary structures (Gupta, Pistorius, & Vijge, 2016).…”

Institutional Drift in International Biotechnology Regulation

“…Scaled-up and centralized technology assessment could also contribute to resolving the inherent difficulty of defining and delineating the actual objects of regulation, which has been a consistent theme in the case studies above. In Global Policy (2019) International Biotechnology Regulation addition, a central organization at the science-policy interface could also enhance the effectiveness of regulatory responses through multiple, fragmented international institutions (Morin et al, 2016). The case studies above also suggest a number of specific policy implications.…”

Network analysis of workshop activities reveals increasing transdisciplinarity of German biodiversity research community

“…Only with effective, transparent and credible knowledge brokers at the interfaces between different disciplines and societal sectors, decision-makers can be informed and different perspectives comprehensively integrated (Neßhöver et al, 2016;Morin et al, 2017;Sarkki et al, 2019). Network analyses can help to assess knowledge exchange flows within a given network and identify or evaluate knowledge brokers (Toikka, 2010;Crona and Parker, 2011;Weiss et al, 2012;Cvitanovic et al, 2017), as demonstrated by the presented analysis.…”