Institutional Interlinkages

Given the regulatory gap in earth system governance, numerous new governance initiatives, such as multilateral clubs, private certification schemes and multi-stakeholder forums, have emerged to tackle transboundary environmental challenges. This plethora of different governance initiatives has led to a significant increase in the institutional complexity of global (environmental) policymaking and to more interlinkages between such institutions. Chapter 6 perceives dyadic institutional interlinkages as a key ‘microscopic’ structural feature of the overall global governance landscape and most basic building blocks or units of analysis in current scholarship on global governance architectures. After defining the term institutional interlinkages, we synthesize the literature on institutional interlinkages with a particular view on the expansion of interlinkages across different governance levels and scales. Against this backdrop, we examine to what extent the existing concepts and typologies of institutional interlinkages can capture the various new interlinkages between different kinds of institutions in earth system governance.

Keywords

Building blocks dyadic interlinkages horizontal vertical and transnational interlinkages institutional interaction institutional interplay institutional overlap microscopic structural feature

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Architectures of Earth System Governance
Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation
, pp. 119 - 136
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108784641.006 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbott, K. W. (2012). Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance. International Affairs, 88 (3), 543–64.Google Scholar

Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., & Keohane, R. O. (2016). Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization, 70 (2), 247–77.CrossRef Google Scholar

Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009). Strengthening international regulation through transnational new governance: Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42 (2), 501–78.Google Scholar

Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 13–24.CrossRef Google Scholar

Andonova, L. B. (2017). Governance entrepreneurs: International organizations and the rise of global public–private partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Arts, B., & Buizer, M. (2009). Forests, discourses, institutions: A discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 11 (5–6), 240–7.Google Scholar

Bäckstrand, K., Zelli, F., & Schleifer, P. (2018). Legitimacy and accountability in polycentric climate governance. In Jordan, A, Huitema, D, van Asselt, H, & Forster, J (eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 338–56). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Balsiger, J., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2012). Navigating regional environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 12 (3), 1–17.Google Scholar

Bernstein, S. (2002). Liberal environmentalism and global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 2 (3), 1–16.CrossRef Google Scholar

Betsill, M. M., Dubash, N., Paterson, M., van Asselt, H., Vihma, A., & Winkler, H. (2015). Building productive links between the UNFCCC and the broader global climate governance landscape. Global Environmental Politics, 15 (2), 1–10.Google Scholar

Biermann, F. (2014). Earth system governance: World politics in the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017). Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 26–31.Google Scholar

Biermann, F. Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9 (4), 14–40.Google Scholar

Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (eds.) (2009). Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Biermann, R. (2008). Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking. Review of International Organizations, 3 (2), 151–77.Google Scholar

Biermann, R., & Koops, J. A. (2017a). Studying relations among international organizations in world politics: Core concepts and challenges. In Biermann, R & Koops, J. A. (eds.), Palgrave handbook of inter-organizational relations in world politics (pp. 1–46). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Biermann, R., & Koops, J. A. (eds.) (2017b). Palgrave handbook of inter-organizational relations in world politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Boas, I., Biermann, F., & Kanie, N. (2016). Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability governance: towards a nexus approach. International Environmental Agreements, 16 (3), 449–64.Google Scholar

Brosig, M. (2011). Overlap and interplay between international organisations: Theories and approaches. South African Journal of International Affairs, 18 (2), 147–67.Google Scholar

Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Betsill, M. M. et al. (2014). Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Caddell, R. (2013). Inter‐treaty cooperation, biodiversity conservation and the trade in endangered species. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 22 (3), 264–80.Google Scholar

Chambers, W. B. (ed.) (2001). Inter-Linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the international trade and investment regimes. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar

Chambers, W. B. (2008). Interlinkages and the effectiveness of international environmental agreements. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar

Chambers, W. B., Kim, J. A., & ten Have, C. (2008). Institutional interplay and the governance of biosafety. In Young, O. R., Bradnee, C. W., Kim, J. A., & ten Have, C (eds.), Institutional interplay: Biosafety and trade (pp. 3–19). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar

Colgan, J. D., Keohane, R. O., & Van de Graaf, T. (2012). Punctuated equilibrium in the energy regime complex. Review of International Organizations, 7 (2), 117–43.Google Scholar

Dahrendorf, R. (1968). Zu einer Theorie des sozialen Konflikts. In Zapf, W (ed.), Theorien sozialen Wandels (pp. 108–23). Berlin: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.Google Scholar

De Grenade, R., House-Peters, L., Scott, C., Thapa, B., Mills-Novoa, M., Gerlak, A., & Verbist, K. (2016). The nexus: Reconsidering environmental security and adaptive capacity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 21, 15–21.Google Scholar

Dingwerth, K., & Green, J. F. (2015). Transnationalism. In Bäckstrand, K, & Lövbrand, E (eds.), Research handbook on climate governance (pp. 153–63). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Eberlein, B., Abbott, K. W., Black, J., Meidinger, E., & Wood, S. (2014). Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualization and framework for analysis. Regulation & Governance, 8 (1), 1–21.Google Scholar

Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2013). The dynamics of regime complexes: Microfoundations and systemic effects. Global Governance, 19 (1), 119–30.Google Scholar

Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2014). A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor. Review of International Organizations, 9 (4), 471–98.Google Scholar

Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2006). Empirical analysis and ideal types of institutional interaction. In Oberthür, S, & Gehring, T (eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies (pp. 307–71). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2009). The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 15 (1), 125–56.Google Scholar

Gordenker, L., & Sanders, P., A. (1978). Organization theory and international organization. In Taylor, P, & Groom, A. J. R. (eds.), International organization: A conceptual approach (pp. 84–107). London: Pinter.Google Scholar

Green, J. F. (2008). Delegation and accountability in the clean development mechanism: The new authority of non-state actors. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 4 (2), 21–51.Google Scholar

Green, J. F. (2013). Order out of chaos: Public and private rules for managing carbon. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (2), 1–25.Google Scholar

Green, J. F. (2014). Rethinking private authority: Agents and entrepreneurs in global environmental governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2014). Dynamic governance interactions: Evolutionary effects of state responses to non‐state certification programs. Regulation & Governance, 8 (1), 74–92.Google Scholar

Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Hale, T., & Roger, C. (2014). Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Review of International Organizations, 9 (1), 59–82.Google Scholar

Hanf, K., & Scharpf, F. W. (1978). Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Helfer, L. (2009). Regime shifting in the international intellectual property system. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 39–44.CrossRef Google Scholar

Herr, R. A., & Chia, E. (1995). The concept of regime overlap: Towards identification and assessment. In Bruce, D (ed.), Overlapping maritime regimes: An initial reconnaissance (pp. 11–26). Hobart: Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.Google Scholar

Hickmann, T. (2016). Rethinking authority in global climate governance: How transnational climate initiatives relate to the international climate regime. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hickmann, T. (2017a). The reconfiguration of authority in global climate governance. International Studies Review, 19 (3), 430–51.Google Scholar

Hickmann, T. (2017b). Voluntary global business initiatives and the international climate negotiations: A case study of the greenhouse gas protocol. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 94–104.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hickmann, T., & Elsässer, J. (2018). New alliances in global environmental governance: Intergovernmental treaty secretariats and sub- and non-state actors. Paper presented at the General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, Hamburg.Google Scholar

Hickmann, T., Partzsch, L., Pattberg, P., & Weiland, S. (eds.) (2019). The Anthropocene debate and political science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hollway, J., Lomi, A., Pallotti, F., & Stadtfeld, C. (2017). Multilevel social spaces: The network dynamics of organizational fields. Network Science, 5 (2), 187–212.Google Scholar

Jinnah, S. (2010). Overlap management in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat influence on trade-environment politics. Global Environmental Politics, 10 (2), 54–79.Google Scholar

Jinnah, S. (2014). Post-treaty politics: Secretariat influence in global environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (eds.) (2018). Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kim, J. A. (2004). Regime interplay: The case of biodiversity and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 14 (4), 315–24.Google Scholar

Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), 980–91.Google Scholar

Kluvánková-Oravská, T., & Chobotová, V. (2012). Regional governance arrangements. In Biermann, F, & Pattberg, P (eds.), Global environmental governance reconsidered (pp. 219–35). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Krasner, S. D. (ed.) (1983). International regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Krisch, N. (2017). Liquid authority in global governance. International Theory, 9 (2), 237–60.Google Scholar

Lesage, D., & Van de Graaf, T. (2016). Global energy governance in a multipolar world. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lima, M. G. B., Kissinger, G., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Braña-Varela, J., & Gupta, A. (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals and REDD+: Assessing institutional interactions and the pursuit of synergies. International Environmental Agreements, 17 (4), 589–606.Google Scholar

Lindstad, B., Pistorius, T., Ferranti, F., Dominguez, G., Gorriz-Mifsud, E., Kurttila, M., Leban, V., Navarro, P., Peters, D. M., Pezdevsek Malovrh, S., Prokofieva, I., Scuck, A., Solberg, B., Viiri, H., Zadnik Stirn, L., & Krc, J. (2015). Forest-based bioenergy policies in five European countries: An explorative study of interactions with national and EU policies. Biomass and Bioenergy, 80, 102–13.Google Scholar

Morin, J. F., & Orsini, A. (2013). Insights from global environmental governance. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 562–5.Google Scholar

Morse, J. C., & Keohane, R. O. (2014). Contested multilateralism. Review of International Organizations, 9 (4), 385–412.Google Scholar

O’Neill, K. (2013). Vertical linkages and scale. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 571–3.Google Scholar

Oberthür, S. (2001). Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols: Enhancing synergies between protecting the ozone layer and the global climate. International Environmental Agreements, 1 (3), 357–77.Google Scholar

Oberthür, S. (2003). Institutional interaction to address greenhouse gas emissions from international transport: ICAO, IMO and the Kyoto Protocol. Climate Policy, 3 (3), 191–205.Google Scholar

Oberthür, S. (2006). The climate change regime: Interactions with ICAO, IMO, and the EU burden-sharing agreement. In Oberthür, S, & Gehring, T (eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies (pp. 53–77). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2006a). Conceptual foundations of institutional interaction. In Oberthür, S, & Gehring, T (eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (eds.) (2006b). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2011). Institutional interaction: Ten years of scholarly development. In Oberthür, S, & Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 25–58). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Oberthür, S., & Pożarowska, J. (2013). Managing institutional complexity and fragmentation: The Nagoya protocol and the global governance of genetic resources. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 100–18.Google Scholar

Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (eds.) (2011). Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Orsini, A., Morin, J. F., & Young, O. R. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom or a boost for global governance? Global Governance, 19 (1), 27–39.CrossRef Google Scholar

Overdevest, C., & Zeitlin, J. (2014). Assembling an experimentalist regime: Transnational governance interactions in the forest sector. Regulation & Governance, 8 (1), 22–48.Google Scholar

Pattberg, P., Chan, S., Sanderink, L., & Widerberg, O. (2018). Linkages: Understanding their role in polycentric governance. In Jordan, A, Huitema, D, van Asselt, H, & Forster, J (eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 169–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pattberg, P., & Zelli, F. (eds.) (2016). Environmental politics and governance in the Anthropocene: Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pulkowski, D. (2014). The law and politics of international regime conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58 (2), 277–309.Google Scholar

Roger, C., Hale, T., & Andonova, L. (2017). The comparative politics of transnational climate governance. International Interactions, 43 (1), 1–25.Google Scholar

Rosenau, J. N. (1997). Along the domestic-foreign frontier: Exploring governance in a turbulent world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rosendal, G. K. (2001). Impacts of overlapping international regimes: The case of biodiversity. Global Governance, 7 (1), 95–117.Google Scholar

Sanderink, L., Widerberg, O., Kristensen, K., & Pattberg, P. (2017). Mapping the institutional architecture of the climate-energy nexus. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.Google Scholar

Schapper, A., & Lederer, M. (2014). Introduction: Human rights and climate change: Mapping institutional inter-linkages. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 27 (4), 666–79.Google Scholar

Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11 (1), 303–26.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schmidt, V. A. (2017). Theorizing ideas and discourse in political science: Intersubjectivity, neo-institutionalisms, and the power of ideas. Critical Review, 29 (2), 248–63.Google Scholar

Selin, H., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2003). Mapping institutional linkages in European air pollution politics. Global Environmental Politics, 3 (3), 14–46.Google Scholar

Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung (Gesamtausgabe Band 11). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Stokke, O. S. (2001). The interplay of international regimes: Putting effectiveness theory to work. Lysaker: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar

Tosun, J., & Leininger, J. (2017). Governing the interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals: Approaches to attain policy integration. Global Challenges, 1 (9), 1700036.Google Scholar

van Asselt, H. (2014). The fragmentation of global climate governance: Consequences and management of regime interactions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

van Asselt, H., Gupta, J., & Biermann, F. (2005). Advancing the climate agenda: Exploiting material and institutional linkages to develop a menu of policy options. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 14 (3), 255–64.Google Scholar

Van de Graaf, T. (2013). Fragmentation in global energy governance: Explaining the creation of IRENA. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 14–33.Google Scholar

Van de Graaf, T., & Colgan, J. (2016). Global energy governance: A review and research agenda. Palgrave Communications, 2, 15047.Google Scholar

Van de Graaf, T., & De Ville, F. (2013). Regime complexes and interplay management. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 568–71.Google Scholar

Von Moltke, K. (1997). Institutional interactions: The structure of regimes for trade and the environment. In Young, O. R. (ed.), Global governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience (pp. 247–72). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Vranes, E. (2009). Climate change and the WTO: EU emission trading and the WTO disciplines on trade in goods, services and investment protection. Journal of World Trade, 43 (4), 707.Google Scholar

Weitz, N., Nilsson, M., & Davis, M. (2014). A nexus approach to the post-2015 agenda: Formulating integrated water, energy, and food SDGs. Review of International Affairs, 34 (2), 37–50.Google Scholar

Widerberg, O. (2016). Mapping institutional complexity in the Anthropocene: A network approach. In Pattberg, P, & Zelli, F (eds.), Environmental politics and governance in the Anthropocene: Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world (pp. 81–102). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Young, M. A. (2011). Trading fish, saving fish: The interaction between regimes in international law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2 (1), 1–24.Google Scholar

Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Young, O. R. (2008). Deriving insights from the case of the WTO and the Cartagena Protocol. In Young, O. R., Bradnee, C. W., Kim, J. A., & ten Have, C (eds.), Institutional interplay: Biosafety and trade (pp. 131–58). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar

Young, O. R., King, L. A., & Schroeder, H. (eds.) (2008). Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Zelli, F. (2010). Conflicts among international regimes on environmental issues: A theory-driven Analysis. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls University.Google Scholar

Zelli, F. (2011). The fragmentation of the global climate governance architecture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2 (2), 255–70.Google Scholar

Zelli, F., Gupta, A., & van Asselt, H. (2013). Institutional interactions at the crossroads of trade and environment: The dominance of liberal environmentalism? Global Governance, 19 (1), 105–18.Google Scholar

Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H. (2010). The overlap between the UN climate regime and the World Trade Organization: Lessons for post-2012 climate governance. In Biermann, F, Pattberg, P, & Zelli, F (eds.), Global climate governance beyond 2012: Architecture, agency and adaptation (pp. 79–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H. (2013). Introduction: The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 1–13.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Book contents

6 - Institutional Interlinkages

Summary