Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:20:39.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Governance Fragmentation

from Part II - Core Structural Features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

By
Frank Biermann ,
Melanie van Driel ,
Marjanneke J. Vijge  and
Tom Peek
Edited by
Frank Biermann  and
Rakhyun E. Kim
Frank Biermann
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rakhyun E. Kim
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

This chapter analyzes the fragmentation of architectures of earth system governance. 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. Our research shows that fragmentation is ubiquitous, that it varies among policy areas and governance areas and that it is a variable that can be assessed in comparative research across policy areas and over time. The review is based on a comprehensive study of the literature on governance fragmentation over the last decade. We draw on a Scopus search on all articles published in the subject area of social sciences from 2009 to 2018, supplemented by additional studies, such as books, book chapters and a few policy briefs and working papers.

Keywords

Fragmentationpolycentricityinstitutional complexitygovernance architectureearth system governance
Type
Chapter
Information
Architectures of Earth System Governance
Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation
 , pp. 158 - 180
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.)

References

Abbott, K. W. (2012). The transnational regime complex for climate change. Government and Policy, 30 (4): 571–90.Google Scholar
Acharya, A. (2016). The future of global governance: Fragmentation may be inevitable and creative. Global Governance, 22, 453–60.Google Scholar
Aggarwal, V., & Evenett, S. (2013). A fragmenting global economy: A weakened WTO, mega-FTAs, and murky protectionism. Swiss Political Science Review, 19, 550–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahlström, H., & Cornell, S. E. (2018). Governance, polycentricity and the global nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. Environmental Science & Policy, 79, 54–65.Google Scholar
Araral, E. (2014). Ostrom, Hardin and the commons: A critical appreciation and a revisionist view. Environmental Science & Policy, 36, 11–23.Google Scholar
Aykut, S. C. (2016). Taking a wider view on climate governance: Moving beyond the ‘iceberg’, ‘the ‘elephant’, and the ‘forest’. Climate Change, 7 (3), 318–28.Google Scholar
Beckfield, J. (2008). The dual world polity: Fragmentation and integration in the network of intergovernmental organizations. Social Problems, 55 (3), 419–42.Google Scholar
Beckfield, J. (2010). The social structure of the world polity. American Journal of Sociology, 115 (4), 1018–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenisti, E. D., & Downs, G. W. (2007). The empire’s new clothes: Political economy and the fragmentation of international law. Stanford Law Review, 60 (2), 595–632.Google Scholar
Betsill, M., Dubash, N. K., 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. (2010). Beyond the intergovernmental regime: Recent trends in global carbon governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2 (4), 284–8.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2014). Earth system governance: World politics in the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.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., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (eds.) (2010). Global climate governance beyond 2012: Architecture, agency and adaptation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Abbott, K. W., Andresen, S. et al. (2012). Transforming governance and institutions for global sustainability: Key insights from the Earth System Governance Project. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4 (1), 51–60.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2002). U.S. Climate Policy after Kyoto: Elements for success. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Broude, T. (2013). Keep calm and carry on: Martti Koskenniemi and the fragmentation of international law. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 27, 279–92.Google Scholar
Busch, P.-O., Gupta, A., & Falkner, R. (2012). International-domestic linkages and policy convergence. In Biermann, F, & Pattberg, P (eds.), Global environmental governance reconsidered (pp. 199–218). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carleton, L., & Becker, D. (2018). Forest biomass policy in Minnesota: Supply chain perspectives on barriers to bioenergy development. Forests, 9 (5), 254.Google Scholar
Cerny, P. G., & Prichard, A. (2017). The new anarchy: Globalisation and fragmentation in world politics. Journal of International Political Theory, 13 (3), 378–94.Google Scholar
Clapp, J. (2018). Mega-mergers on the menu: corporate concentration and the politics of sustainability in the global food system. Global Environmental Politics, 18 (2), 12–33.Google Scholar
Cole, D. H. (2015). Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nature Climate Change, 5, 114–18.Google Scholar
Dai, X. (2010). Global regime and national change. Climate Policy, 10, 622–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Coninck, H., & Bäckstrand, K. (2011). An international relations perspective on the global politics of carbon dioxide capture and storage. Global Environmental Change, 21 (2), 368–78.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, R. S. (2005). Hostage to norms: States, institutions and global forest politics. Global Environmental Politics, 5 (4), 1–24.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, R. S., Sprinz, D. F., & DiGiusto, G. M. (2007). International nonregimes: A research agenda. International Studies Review, 9, 230–58.Google Scholar
Dorsch, M. J., Flachsland, C. A. (2017). Polycentric approach to global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 17 (2), 45–64.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (2016). Institutions for the Anthropocene: Governance in a changing earth system. British Journal of Political Science, 46 (4), 937–56.Google Scholar
Dyer, H. C. (2014). Climate anarchy: Creative disorder in world politics. International Political Sociology, 8 (2), 182–200.Google Scholar
Eckersley, R. (2012). Moving forward in the climate negotiations: Multilateralism or minilateralism? Global Environmental Politics, 12, 24–42.Google Scholar
Ekstrom, J. A., & Crona, B. I. (2017). Institutional misfit and environmental change: A systems approach to address ocean acidification. Science of the Total Environment, 576, 599–608.Google Scholar
Falkner, R. (2016). A minilateral solution for global climate change? On bargaining efficiency, club benefits, and international legitimacy. Perspectives on Politics, 14 (1), 87–101.Google Scholar
Falkner, R., Stephan, H., & Vogler, J. (2010). International climate policy after Copenhagen: Towards a ‘building blocks’ approach. Global Policy, 1, 252–62.Google Scholar
Fernández-Blanco, C. R., Burns, S. L., & Giessen, L. (2019). Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: Institutional elements, conflicts and synergies. International Environmental Agreements, 19 (2), 187–205.Google Scholar
Fernández Carril, L., García Arrazola, R., & Rubio, J. (2013). Discursive overlap and conflictive fragmentation of risk and security in the Geopolitics of energy. Sustainability, 5 (3), 1095–1113.Google Scholar
Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2012). Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries: Emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 81, 21–32.Google Scholar
Gallemore, C. (2017). Transaction costs in the evolution of transnational polycentric governance. International Environmental Agreements, 17 (5), 639–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, A. (2011). Seeking coherence in complexity? The governance of energy by trade and investment institutions. Global Policy, 2, 106–19.Google Scholar
Giessen, L. (2013). Reviewing the main characteristics of the international forest regime complex and partial explanations for its fragmentation. International Forestry Review, 15 (1), 60–70.Google Scholar
Gomez, C. J., & Parigi, P. (2015). The regionalization of intergovernmental organization networks: A non-linear process. Social Networks, 43, 192–203.Google Scholar
Graham, E. R. (2014). International organizations as collective agents: Fragmentation and the limits of principal control at the World Health Organization. European Journal of International Relations, 20 (2), 366–90.Google Scholar
Greenhill, B., & Lupu, Y. (2017). Clubs of clubs: Fragmentation in the network of Intergovernmental Organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 61, 181–95.Google Scholar
Guerra, F. (2018). Mapping offshore renewable energy governance. Marine Policy, 89, 21–33.Google Scholar
Gupta, A., Pistorius, T., & Vijge, M. J. (2016). Managing fragmentation in global environmental governance: The REDD+ Partnership as bridge organization. International Environmental Agreements, 16, 355–74.Google Scholar
Hackmann, B. (2012). Analysis of the governance architecture to regulate GHG emissions from international shipping. International Environmental Agreements, 12 (1), 85–103.Google Scholar
Hackmann, B. (2016). Regime learning in global environmental governance. Environmental Values, 25, 663–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner, G. (2003). Pros and cons ensuing from fragmentation of international law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 25, 849–1349.Google Scholar
Hare, W., Stockwell, C., Flachsland, C., & Oberthür, S. (2010). The architecture of the global climate regime: A top-down perspective. Climate Policy, 10, 600–14.Google Scholar
Held, D., & Young, K. (2013). Global governance in crisis? Fragmentation, risk and world order. International Politics, 50 (3), 309–22.Google Scholar
Heubaum, H., & Biermann, F. (2015). Integrating global energy and climate governance: The changing role of the International Energy Agency. Energy Policy, 87, 229–39.Google Scholar
Hjerpe, M., & Nasiritousi, N. (2015). Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5, 864–7.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hollway, J. (2011). Taking stock of the fragmentation of the global fisheries governance architecture. Bonn: German Development Institute.Google Scholar
Holzscheiter, A. (2017). Coping with institutional fragmentation? Competition and convergence between boundary organizations in the global response to polio. Review of Policy Research, 34 (6), 767–89.Google Scholar
Humrich, C. (2013). Fragmented international governance of arctic offshore oil: Governance challenges and institutional improvement. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 79–99.Google Scholar
Isailovic, M., Widerberg, O., & Pattberg, P. (2013). Fragmentation of global environmental governance architectures: A literature review. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
Ivanova, M. (2007). Designing the United Nations Environment Programme: A story of compromise and confrontation. International Environmental Agreements, 7 (4), 337–61.Google Scholar
Ivanova, M. H., & Roy, J. (2007). The architecture of global environmental governance: Pros and cons of multiplicity. In Swart, L, & Perry, E (eds.), Global environmental governance: Perspectives on the current debate (pp. 48–66). New York: Center for UN Reform Education.Google Scholar
Jabbour, J., Keita-Ouane, F. Hunsberger, C. et al. (2012). Internationally agreed environmental goals: A critical evaluation of progress. Environmental Development, 3, 5–24.Google Scholar
Johnson, T., & Johannes, U. (2012). A strategic theory of regime integration and separation. International Organization, 66, 645–77.Google Scholar
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., & McGee, J. (2013). Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: The case of global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 56–78.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9 (1), 7–23.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
Koskenniemi, M., & Leino, P. (2002). Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden Journal of International Law, 15 (3), 553–79.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. B. (2003). International environmental agreements: A survey of their features, formation and effects. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 429–61.Google Scholar
Oh, C., & Matsuoka, S. (2017). The genesis and end of institutional fragmentation in global governance on climate change from a constructivist perspective. International Environmental Agreements, 17 (2), 143–59.Google Scholar
Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H., & Schroeder, H. (2009). Conceptualizing climate governance beyond the international regime. Global Environmental Politics, 9 (1), 58–78.Google Scholar
Orsini, A. (2013). Multi-forum non-state actors: Navigating the regime complexes for forestry and genetic resources. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 34–55.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010a). Beyond markets states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100, 641–72.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010b). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20, 550–7.Google Scholar
Palmujoki, E. (2013). Fragmentation and diversification of climate change governance in international society. International Relations, 27 (2), 180–201.Google Scholar
Paris, R. (2015). Global governance and power politics: Back to basics. Ethics and International Affairs, 29 (4), 407–18.Google Scholar
Pattberg, P., Widerberg, O., Isailovic, M., & Dias Guerra, F. (2014). Mapping and measuring fragmentation in global governance architectures. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
Pickering, J., Betzold, C., & Skovgaard, J. (2017). Managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance. International Environmental Agreements, 17 (1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Pratt, T. (2018). Deference and hierarchy in international regime complexes. International Organization, 72 (3), 561–90.Google Scholar
Rana, P. B., & Pacheco Pardo, R. (2018). Rise of complementarity between global and regional financial institutions: perspectives from Asia. Global Policy, 9 (2), 231–43.Google Scholar
Rayner, J., Buck, A., & Katila, P. (eds.) (2010). Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of international forest governance. A Global Assessment Report: Prepared by the Global Forest Expert Panel on the International Forest Regime. Vienna: International Union of Forest Research Organizations.Google Scholar
Rayner, S. (2010). How to eat an elephant: A bottom-up approach to climate policy. Climate Policy, 10, 615–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerzhagen, C. (2014). The Nagoya Protocol: Fragmentation or consolidation? Resources, 3 (1), 135–51.Google Scholar
Scott, C. (2018). Sustainably sourced junk food? Big food and the challenge of sustainable diets. Global Environmental Politics, 18 (2), 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smits, M. (2017). The new (fragmented) geography of carbon market mechanisms: Governance challenges from Thailand and Vietnam. Global Environmental Politics, 17 (3), 69–90.Google Scholar
Techera, E. J., & Klein, N. (2011). Fragmented governance: reconciling legal strategies for shark conservation and management. Marine Policy, 35 (1), 73–8.Google Scholar
Trommer, S. (2017). The WTO in an era of preferential trade agreements: Thick and thin institutions in global trade governance. World Trade Review, 16 (3), 501–26.Google Scholar
United Nations (2006). Delivering as one. Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on UN System-wide Coherence in the Areas of Development, Humanitarian Assistance and the Environment. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (1998). Report of the United Nations Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements. UN Doc. A/53/463.Google Scholar
Van Asselt, H. (2012). Managing the fragmentation of international environmental law: Forests at the intersection of the climate and biodiversity regimes. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 44 (4), 1205–78.Google Scholar
Van Asselt, H. (2014). The fragmentation of global climate governance: Consequences and management of regime interactions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2014). Connecting the dots: Managing the fragmentation of global climate governance. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 16 (2), 137–55.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 der Ven, H., Rothacker, C., & Cashore, B. (2018). Do eco-labels prevent deforestation? Lessons from non-state market driven governance in the soy, palm oil, and cocoa sectors. Global environmental change, 52, 141–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velázquez Gomar, J. O. V. (2016). Environmental policy integration among multilateral environmental agreements: the case of biodiversity. International Environmental Agreements, 16 (4), 525–41.Google Scholar
Victor, D. (2009). Plan B for Copenhagen. Nature, 461, 342–4.Google Scholar
Vijge, M. J. (2013). The promise of new institutionalism: Explaining the absence of a World or United Nations Environment Organisation. International Environmental Agreements, 13, 153–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J. (2015). Integrative environmental governance: Enhancing governance in the era of synergies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 136–43.Google Scholar
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J. (2018). Integrative governance: The relationships between governance instruments taking center stage. Politics and Space, 36 (8), 1341–54.Google Scholar
Weitz, N., Strambo, C., Kemp-Benedict, E., & Nilsson, M. (2017). Closing the governance gaps in the water-energy-food nexus: Insights from integrative governance. Global Environmental Change, 45, 165–73.Google Scholar
Well, M., & Carrapatoso, A. (2017). REDD+ finance: Policy making in the context of fragmented institutions, Climate Policy, 17 (6), 687–707.Google Scholar
Widerberg, O., Pattberg, P., & Kristensen, K. (2016). Mapping the institutional architecture of global climate change governance. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
Winkler, H., & Beaumont, J. (2010). Fair and effective multilateralism in the post-Copenhagen climate negotiations. Climate Policy, 10, 638–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamineva, Y., & Kulovesi, K. (2018). Keeping the Arctic white: The legal and governance landscape for reducing short-lived climate pollutants in the Arctic region. Transnational Environmental Law, 7 (2), 201–27.Google Scholar
Young, M. A. (2009). Fragmentation or interaction: The WTO, fisheries subsidies, and international law. World Trade Review, 8 (4), 477–515.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., & van Asselt, H. (2015). Fragmentation. In Bäckstrand, K, & Lövbrand, E (eds.), Research Handbook on climate governance (pp. 121–31). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H. (2013). The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: Causes, consequences and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 1–13.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., & van Asselt, H. (2010). The consequences of a fragmented climate governance architecture: A policy appraisal. In Biermann, F, Pattberg, P, & Zelli, F (eds.), Global climate governance beyond 2012. Architecture, agency and adaptation (pp. 25–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., Gupta, A., & van Asselt, H. (2012). Horizontal institutional interlinkages. In Biermann, F, & Pattberg, P (eds.), Global environmental governance reconsidered (pp. 175–98). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., Möller, I., & van Asselt, H. (2017). Institutional complexity and private authority in global climate governance: The cases of climate engineering, REDD+ and short-lived climate pollutants. Environmental Politics, 26 (4), 669–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zürn, M., & Faude, B. (2013). Commentary: On fragmentation, differentiation and coordination. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×