Dynamic Evolution of International Regime Complexes (Pre-Recorded)

Session Submission Type: In-Person Full Paper Panel

Session Description

The research program on international regime complexity examines the sources and consequences of overlap, competition and collaboration among multiple institutions that operate in a common issue area. This panel gathers together four papers that analyze the consequences of regime complexes and their evolution over time. The papers are each part of the Project on International Regime Complexity, organized by Randall Henning (American University) and Tyler Pratt (Yale University), which at the time of APSA 2021 will be either under consideration or accepted as a special issue of one of the leading journals in International Political Economy/International Relations. The panel is meant to collect feedback for revisions (in the event the special issue proposal has not yet been accepted), preview this forthcoming work for APSA scholars, and advance the research program on regime complexity in the discipline broadly.

The four papers systematically test the expectations based on the theoretical framework for the project as a whole. The framework paper and two of the other empirical papers for the project have been presented at APSA meetings in 2018 and 2019. Only papers that have not yet been presented at APSA are included in the present panel proposal. They analyze regime complexes with different combinations of hierarchy and differentiation – variables that explain the strategies that principals adopt when dissatisfied with institutional outcomes and the degree of policy adjustment achieved. As a consequence of these outcomes, the complexes examined in these papers evolve differently over time.

Evolution of these regime complexes can be traced as movement across a two-dimensional space in which each axis represents a continuous measure of hierarchy or differentiation. The regime complex for nuclear arms control, analyzed by Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, originated as a hierarchical-differentiated architecture, but regime shifting and competitive regime creation rendered it nonhierarchical and undifferentiated over the subsequent four decades. The regime complex for global private security, addressed by Oliver Westerwinter, emerged around 2000 with a nonhierarchical and moderately differentiated architecture and has become strongly hierarchical and modestly less differentiated presently. The regime complex for education, examined by Rie Kijima and Phillip Lipscy, originated with a relatively differentiated and hierarchical architecture centered around UNESCO and exhibited diminished hierarchy and less differentiation as the decades went by. The regime complex that governs cyberspace, analyzed by Stephanie Hofmann and Patryk Pawlak, emerged in the 1990s with a nonhierarchical and moderately differentiated architecture but congealed over time into relatively distinct national-security and development components through competition among alternative frames.

Movement of each regime complex along the two dimensions (hierarchy and differentiation) had consequences for strategies of contestation and policy adjustment in the issue area concerned. The flattening of hierarchy and increasing substantive overlap rendered nuclear arms control less effective over time, as they did to the regime complex for education. The strengthening of hierarchy within the complex for private security was associated with an overall increase in cooperation among its constituent institutions and configured cooperation among dyads. While it may be too early to assess the outcomes, the consolidation of the complex for cyberspace is expected to modestly strengthen the effectiveness of rules and norms.

Collectively, the papers find general correspondence with the project’s theoretical framework, although some papers identify circumstances in which expectations might not hold, and each paper offers extensions of the framework or novel theoretical propositions of its own.

This set of papers is methodologically pluralistic, employing comparative case analysis, historical process tracing, multiple regression, machine learning and social network analysis.

We have assembled a set of recognized, accomplished scholars for this project, and recruited excellent discussants for the panel. Their names and paper titles appear below.

Panel title: “Dynamic Evolution of International Regime Complexes”

Chair: Randall Henning (American University)

Stephanie Hofmann (Geneva Institute) and Patryk Pawlak (EU Institute for Security Studies), “Governing Cyberspace: Issue Frames, Institutional Springboards and Frame Consolidation”

Rie Kijima and Phillip Y. Lipscy (University of Toronto), “The Regime Complex for Education”

Oliver Westerwinter (University of St. Gallen/European University Institute), “Hierarchy and Cooperation in the Regime Complex for Global Private Security Governance”

Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni (Cambridge/European University Institute), “The International Regime Complex for Nuclear Arms Control: A System in Constant Flux”

Discussants:
Lisa Martin (University of Wisconsin)
Tyler Pratt (Yale University)

Sub Unit

• Division 17: International Collaboration

Individual Presentations

• Governing Cyberspace: Issue Frames, Institutional Springboards & Consolidation - Stephanie Claudia Hofmann, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies; Patryk Pawlak, EU Institute for Security Studies

• The Regime Complex for Education - Phillip Y. Lipscy, University of Toronto; Rie Kijima

• The International Regime Complex for Nuclear Non-Proliferation - Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, Cambridge University

• Hierarchy, Differentiation, and Cooperation in Private Security Governance - Oliver Westerwinter, University of St. Gallen

Chair

• C. Randall Henning American University-SIS

Discussants

• Lisa L. Martin University of Wisconsin, Madison

• Tyler Pratt Yale University