Hybrid institutional complexes in global governance

Abstract

Most issue areas in world politics today are governed neither by individual institutions nor by regime complexes composed of formal interstate institutions. Rather, they are governed by “hybrid institutional complexes” (HICs) comprising heterogeneous interstate, infra-state, public–private and private transnational institutions, formal and informal. We develop the concept of the HIC as a novel descriptive and analytical lens for the study of contemporary global governance. The core structural difference between HICs and regime complexes is the greater diversity of institutional forms within HICs. Because of that diversity, HICs operate differently than regime complexes in two significant ways: (1) HICs exhibit relatively greater functional differentiation among their component institutions, and hence suffer from relatively fewer overlapping claims to authority; and (2) HICs exhibit greater informal hierarchy among their component institutions, and hence benefit from greater ordering. Both are systemic features. HICs have characteristic governance benefits: they offer good “substantive fit” for multi-faceted governance problems and good “political fit” for the preferences of diverse constituents; constrain conflictive cross-institutional strategies; and are conducive to mechanisms of coordination, which enhance substantive coherence. Yet HICs also pose characteristic governance risks: individual institutions may take on aspects of problems for which they are ill-suited; multiple institutions may create confusion; HICs can amplify conflict and contestation rather than constraining them; and the “soft” institutions within HICs can reduce the focality of incumbent treaties and intergovernmental organizations and forestall the establishment of new ones. We outline a continuing research agenda for exploring the structures, operations and governance implications of HICs.

The UN High‐Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: An orchestrator, more or less?

“…2) – it is clear that intergovernmental regulatory policymaking is indeed not part of the HLPF's work. Rather, what we find confirms what the literature analyses as a turn towards more informal forms of international cooperation (Martin, 2021; Vabulas & Snidal, 2013), in some cases the co‐existence of a diversity of institutional forms in ‘hybrid institutional complexes’ (Abbott & Faude, 2021). At the HLPF, however, the parallel events are neither formally linked nor loosely coupled to the formal proceedings.…”

The Shadow of History in Inter-Organizational Cooperation for the Environment

“…The degree of uncertainty faced by IOs may vary with IO pairings, as it is influenced by their records for cooperation. While rational institutionalism does not incorporate such a historical perspective, the influence of a prior institution on a present institution is increasingly discussed in a growing literature, which bridges historical institutionalism with rational institutionalism (Abbott & Faude, 2022;Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Westerwinter, 2022;Jupille et al, 2003Jupille et al, , 2017Reinsberg & Westerwinter, 2021). Cooperation problems and institutional status quo interact to drive institutional choice today (Fioretos, 2017).…”

New Multilateralism: The United Nations and Governance in the Era of Nonstate Actors

“…New institutional designs, particularly hybrid forms, provide new political opportunity structures for nonstate actors to select to target for access and influence. Abbott and Faude (2021) and Grigorescu (2020) provide examples from global health and education, while Lake (2021) and Andonova (2010) showcase new examples in environmental politics and Büthe and Mattli (2011) focus on cases from international finance and banking.…”