Domestic drivers of transgovernmental regulatory cooperation

Abstract

Transgovernmental cooperation among domestic regulators has generated considerable interest among scholars and policymakers. While previous research has focused on describing such regulatory networks, we know very little about what drives individual jurisdictions to join them. The question of membership is important because it determines the reach of rules and standards promulgated by a given network, and because it is logically prior to understanding the rulemaking dynamic within a network. We develop a set of hypotheses that highlight the role of domestic political factors in shaping network membership. Our empirical analysis, using an original data set for transgovernmental cooperation in securities and insurance regulation, finds that the institutional form of domestic market regulation, as well as the relative domestic weight of the industry, are closely correlated with membership. All else equal, jurisdictions with independent regulatory agencies and those where the industry in question represents a large share of gross domestic product are much more likely to join the respective network than jurisdictions without these characteristics. The paper underscores the important interactions between domestic and international factors for informal cooperation, an issue that has become increasingly central to global governance.

The drivers of regulatory networking: policy learning between homophily and convergence

“…More recently, the literature has complemented these understandings with perspectives emphasising the importance of domestic determinants for explaining transnational networking (Bach and Newman 2014). In particular, contributors have highlighted the strategic use that regulators make of their networks to achieve more autonomy from the government (Danielsen and Yesilkagit 2014;Ruffing 2015) by exploiting the informational advantages deriving from transnational networking (Eberlein and Grande 2005;Jordana 2017).…”

Regulation governance in the digital era: A new research agenda

“…Bach and Newman () identified key domestic drivers of transgovernmental regulatory cooperation. The first one was the quality of the membership.…”

Transgovernmental Networks and Cooperation in the Global South

“…The significant recent growth of transgovernmental networks formed by collaborating state experts (Raustiala 2002;Slaughter 2004;Bach and Newman 2014) challenges traditional views of bureaucratic behavior that expect state agents to zealously guard domestically appropriated funds and resources (Blais and Dion 1990;Huber and Shipan 2006;Niskanen 2007). Despite such theoretical expectations, international inter-agency cooperation is evident across diverse policy areas and in all regions of the world.…”

“…Despite such theoretical expectations, international inter-agency cooperation is evident across diverse policy areas and in all regions of the world. 1 The extant literature on transgovernmentalism has focused overwhelmingly on the link between state experts and international cooperation in the industrial North (Haas 1992;Raustiala 2002;Slaughter 2004;Adler 2008;Bach and Newman 2014). Yet skilled bureaucrats working with foreign peers on large, complex projects in order to address common policy problems is becoming less exceptional in the developing world (Kahler 2000;Almeida, et al 2010;Elliott 2012;Soulé-Kohndou 2013;Nganje 2015;Alcañiz 2016).…”

“…Relatedly, I control for the role of international organizations as an alternative source of resources (namely, financial aid and technical skills), following diverse research on international development and aid (Pavnick 2000;Slaughter 2002;Vreeland 2003;Bauer 2006;Chwieroth 2007;Hicks, et al 2008;Biermann and Siebenhüner 2009). Finally, I control for standard domestic drivers of transgovernmentalism, including regime type, size of the economy and population (Bach and Newman 2014). Table 1 offers a breakdown of projects by area of application and region.…”