The regionalization of intergovernmental organization networks: A non-linear process

Gomez, Charles J.; Parigi, Paolo

doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2015.03.007

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The increasing multiplicity of institutions in recent years did not lead to fragmentation between the trade and environmental governance superclusters but rather brought them closer together. This is because the new institutions came with cross-domain links that joined the two, as evidenced by decreasing modularity (Gomez and Parigi 2015;Greenhill and Lupu 2017;Kim 2013;Perez and Stegmann 2018). Institutional proliferation, somewhat ironically, has given rise to order (Green 2013;Kim 2020).…”

Section: Implications For Global Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Massive Institutional Structures in Global Governance

Morin¹

2021

Global Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global governance consists of elementary regimes that form regime complexes, which in turn give rise to what we call superclusters around broad policy domains. In recent years, scholars have explored what these macroscopic structures look like and how they evolve over time. Yet the complex ways in which entire governance superclusters interact and coevolve, and what might emerge through this process, have not received much attention. In this article, we expand the ontological frontier of global governance research by offering a first bird’s-eye view on supercluster-level institutional interaction with an empirical focus on trade and environment. We constructed and analyzed a dynamic network-of-networks model, revealing a supercluster complex, a massive institutional structure in global governance consisting of two or more interlocking superclusters that exert a measurable influence on each other’s course of development. We theorize that the supercluster complex serves as an institutional fabric that enables the degree of self-organized coordination observed between the trade and environment policy domains. Our preliminary findings warrant more research on supercluster complexes as an important but little-noticed phenomenon in global governance.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Global Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Massive Institutional Structures in Global Governance

Morin¹

2021

Global Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, horizontal fragmentation refers to fragmentation between different policy domains (Zelli, Gupta and van Asselt 2012), while vertical fragmentation points at fragmentation between different levels of governance (Busch, Gupta and Falkner 2012). While most literature on governance fragmentation focuses on the horizontal dimension, long-standing academic debates in the broader literature on world polity also centre on whether the world becomes more regionally fragmented or more globalized (for overviews, see for example, Beckfield 2010; Gomez and Parigi 2015). Interestingly, though the distinction between horizontal and vertical governance fragmentation is rarely explicitly made in the literature, there seems to be more attention for vertical versus horizontal policy measures to address the negative consequences of fragmentation, for example through policy integration (Chapter 9), institutional interlinkages (Chapter 6) and interplay management (Chapter 10).…”

Section: Conceptualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One promising and recently introduced method to quantify and comparatively analyze fragmentation is network theory, which has so far mainly been used to analyze links between international organizations (Beckfield 2008(Beckfield , 2010Gomez and Parigi 2015;Greenhill and Lupu 2017). Network theory can be used to study not only fragmentation but also related concepts such as polycentricity and complexity (e.g., Ahlström and Cornell 2018), and it can be applied as well for analyses of the structure and dynamics of global governance architectures.…”

Section: Research Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance Fragmentation

Biermann

Driel²,

Vijge³

et al. 2020

Architectures of Earth System Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of 'architectures' of global governance is a useful heuristic device to help understand the macro level of institutions and governance mechanisms. With it, one may better grasp the complexity of the myriad treaties and agreements in, for instance, climate and energy governance and compare this with a governance architecture on oceans, biodiversity or chemicals. Such comparisons across institutional architectures and issue areas can reveal, especially, lower or higher degrees of governance fragmentation, which might influence performance of an architecture.We find governance fragmentation at all levels of political institutions, from local administrations up to national political systems and global governance. Architectures of global governance, however, fundamentally differ from national architectures. Within countries, the rights and responsibilities of political actors and institutions are defined in a written or unwritten constitution that lays down procedures in cases of institutional conflict and normative contestation. While this ideal-type description is rarely matched in realitywith political systems being often marked by constitutional ambiguity, conflict, overlap and crisisthe difference between national and global architectures is evident. Some observers see the Charter of the United Nations as a functional equivalent to national constitutions. But even then, global governance follows logics that differ from national political systems. At the global level, institutional fragmentation is much deeper, and it is ubiquitous.This fragmentation of global governance stands at the centre of this chapter. We start with a conceptualization of governance fragmentation and its relation to concepts such as polycentricity and institutional complexity. We then review the origins of governance fragmentation and its problematization; methodological approaches to studying fragmentation; and the impacts and consequences of fragmentation. We conclude by identifying future research directions in this domain.158

show abstract