Multi-level and multi-arena governance: the limits of integration and the possibilities of forum shopping

Kellow, Aynsley

doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9172-3

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The presence of various competing institutions can also strengthen the already powerful actors in their forum-shopping strategy and exacerbate existing power imbalances (Benvenisti and Downs 2007;Drezner 2009). On the other hand, institutional diversity and competition can favor a more flexible, adaptive, and innovative form of governance (Keohane and Victor 2011;Johnson and Urpelainen 2012;Kellow 2012). According to organizational ecology theory (Abbott et al 2015; Faude 2014) and complex system theory (Kim and Mackey 2014), competing institutions are under pressure to specialize in a given niche or to innovate.…”

Section: Theoretical Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The presence of various competing institutions can also strengthen the already powerful actors in their forum-shopping strategy and exacerbate existing power imbalances (Benvenisti and Downs 2007;Drezner 2009). On the other hand, institutional diversity and competition can favor a more flexible, adaptive, and innovative form of governance (Keohane and Victor 2011;Johnson and Urpelainen 2012;Kellow 2012). According to organizational ecology theory (Abbott et al 2015;Gehring and Faude 2014) and complex system theory (Kim and Mackey 2014), competing institutions are under pressure to specialize in a given niche or to innovate.…”

Section: Theoretical Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. (Résumé d'auteur

show abstract

“…If one believes that bilateral aid and hence bilateral donor influence on IDOs is problematic because it undermines agreed international governance structures and distorts aid allocation towards donor interests rather than recipient needs, then multi-bi aid will be welcomed if it substitutes for traditional bilateral aid, but not if it substitutes for existing multilateral funding. Some of the arguments to be considered in this discussion can be drawn from the general literature on aid allocation and aid effectiveness (see, for example, Milner and Tingley, 2013, on the decision between bilateral and multilateral aid) and also from more general considerations on countries forming organized subgroups below the international level in order to solve problems that they, as a group, consider important ('minilateralism', see for example, Kahler, 1992;Kellow, 2012;Ruggie, 1992).…”

Section: Literature Review: the Rise Of Multi-bi Aid And The Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handbook on the Economics of Foreign Aid

Arvin¹,

Lew²

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-level and multi-arena governance: the limits of integration and the possibilities of forum shopping

Cited by 27 publications

References 38 publications

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

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

Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES

Handbook on the Economics of Foreign Aid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About