The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis

Abstract

Most research on global governance has focused either on theoretical accounts of the overall phenomenon or on empirical studies of distinct institutions that serve to solve particular governance challenges. In this article we analyze instead "governance architectures," defined as the overarching system of public and private institutions, principles, norms, regulations, decision-making procedures and organizations that are valid or active in a given issue area of world politics. We focus on one aspect that is turning into a major source of concern for scholars and policy-makers alike: the "fragmentation" of governance architectures in important policy domains. The article offers a typology of different degrees of fragmentation, which we describe as synergistic, cooperative, and conflictive fragmentation. We then systematically assess alternative hypotheses over the relative advantages and disadvantages of different degrees of fragmentation. We argue that moderate degrees of fragmentation may entail both significant costs and benefits, while higher degrees of fragmentation are likely to decrease the overall performance of a governance architecture. The article concludes with policy options on how high degrees of fragmentation could be reduced. Fragmentation is prevalent in particular in the current governance of climate change, which we have hence chosen as illustration for our discussion. (c) 2009 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

UNFCCC before and after Paris – what's necessary for an effective climate regime?

“…Aldy et al, 2003;Biermann et al, 2009;Keohane andVictor, 2011, Weischer et al, 2012;Falkner, 2015;Nordhaus, 2015). The pioneer climate club envisaged here would, in contrast to other proposals, be set up with the explicit objective to fast-track progress.…”

The Sustainable Development Goals and REDD+: assessing institutional interactions and the pursuit of synergies

“…It is by now a consensus that the environmental governance architecture is increasingly dense and complex (Oberthür and Gehring 2006;Biermann et al 2009;Visseren-Hamakers 2015), including various public, hybrid (public-private) and private principles, norms, rules and decision-making mechanisms in place at multiple governance scales to steer human behavior (Krasner 1982;Young 2008;Visseren-Hamakers 2013). Complexity emerges because such institutions exert influence over one another, with consequences for governance outcomes (Oberthür and Stokke 2011).…”

“…Complexity emerges because such institutions exert influence over one another, with consequences for governance outcomes (Oberthür and Stokke 2011). The strategic management of institutional interactions (or interplay) has thus also received growing attention from environmental governance scholars (see Young 1996;Raustiala and Victor 2004;Oberthür and Gehring 2006;Biermann et al 2009;Gupta et al 2015;Visseren-Hamakers 2015) and in policy circles (see Soria 2014).…”

“…Governance for sustainable development has arguably entered an ''era of synergies '' (Visseren-Hamakers 2015), where the growing density and complexity of multilateral environmental agreements and other international institutions have resulted in increasing attention to how they influence one another and the governance architecture as a whole (Oberthür and Gehring 2006;Biermann et al 2009;. We contend that for both REDD?…”

Integrating Earth Observation Systems and International Environmental Regimes

“…Terminology differs but considerable agreement exists regarding the conceptual core and empirical significance of this phenomenon. Among the terms in use are "clusters" (Young 1996;Oberthür and Gehring 2006), "governance architectures" (Biermann et al 2009), "regime complexes" (Raustila and Victor 2004), and "institutional complexes" (Oberthür and Stokke 2011). The conceptual core is clear.…”