First, I want to thank Megan Mullin for her careful review of my book, which raises several important issues worthy of careful consideration. These will be helpful to me in my continued research and analysis of global environmental governance. A main criticism offered by Mullin's review is that my book includes a great deal of empirical detail but is less focused on testing propositions. This is largely by design, however, and her critique reflects our different views on research design and our varying ways of approaching empirical case studies and analysis.
In Chapter 1 of my book, I outline and justify three related research questions that guide my analysis in the subsequent chapters: First, how do coalitions of regime participants form in support of policy expansions, and how are their interests and actions affected by institutional linkages? Second, how do regime participants diffuse regime components across policy venues, and how are policy diffusion and expansion efforts shaped by institutional linkages? Third, how do institutional linkages influence the effectiveness and design of multilevel governance efforts? I address each of these questions directly in the concluding chapter, discussing important governance challenges.
In her book, Governing the Tap, Mullin focuses principally on testing a small set of hypotheses, using quantitative data and statistical analysis. When she writes that she was “disappointed not to see more systematic treatment” of the “causes and effects” of linkages and that she was wanting more “testable propositions,” she is in effect calling for the kind of methodological approach applied in her own book. In constructing my analysis, I chose to frame it around research questions. I believe this approach best resonates with the character of the case and my stated aim to present a comprehensive analysis of the multifaceted chemicals regime and explore issues of policy expansions, institutional linkages, and effective multilevel governance.
Distilling a large set of complex and interacting factors into testable propositions inevitably simplifies and omits elements of an empirical case. Critical background and specific influencing factors may be ignored when quantitative data are often included and excluded to answer a narrow hypothesis. There is no “perfect” research approach, and the appropriateness of different ones is partially case dependent, as they come with separate strengths and weaknesses. I chose the use of research questions based on an aspiration to provide contextual information examining the historical development of the chemicals regime, as I sought to be both analytically focused and policy relevant. I still think this was the correct choice.
One of the reasons I very much liked being part of this Critical Dialogue was that it illustrated the important point that scholars working in different fields do well to look beyond their immediate core literature in order to gain valuable ideas and insights from other areas. Many of us are, of course, already aware of this, but it is still easy to get stuck in one's own tracks. Mullin's analysis of domestic interjurisdictional issues inspired me to think more broadly about my own research on multilevel institutional linkages in global environmental politics and policymaking. This reconfirms my strong belief in the benefits of crossing disciplinary boundaries and subfields.
