Global Sustainability Governance: fragmented, orchestrated or polycentric?

This paper compares the institutional structure of three issue areas: climate change, forestry and fisheries. Research on global environmental governance in the tradition of neo-liberal institutionalism has shifted its attention from individual institutions towards ‘regime complexes’, also known as ‘architectures’, ‘governance systems’ or ‘assemblages’. Emerging evidence suggests that several environmental issues (e.g. climate change, plant genetic resources and biodiversity) are governed by loosely coupled sets of institutions rather than single and coherent regimes. Discussions to date have been preoccupied with conceptualizations and ideal-type assessments of regime complexes and their properties, for example with the question whether regime complexes are institutionally fragmented or polycentric. What is missing are empirical mappings comparing different regime complexes and subsequent theory-based explanations for the observed variation in the characteristics of institutional structures across issue areas. We suggest a comparative assessment of governance systems along four complementary perspectives: The first dimension used to map a governance architecture is referred to as the institutional dimension, focusing on the rule-systems governing a global issue area. Here, we are particularly interested in the nature of institutions with regards to the various mixes of public and private governance. Second is the organizational dimension, represented by the actors constituting the institutions. Institutions on this account are established by organizations that possess actor quality. In our conceptualization, only organizations that hold a decision-making role are considered. Third is the functional dimension, focusing on the distinct roles performed and instruments applied by institutions. Here we are interested in the bindingness of instruments applied, e.g. the question whether soft or hard compliance mechanisms are in place. Finally, the fourth dimension is referred to as relational. Here, we study the connections between institutions and actors via a network approach.