Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
not only how these agreements were formed, but also if they were ef ec-
tive afterwards. There is a growing interest in the ef ectiveness aspect
of regimes, but it is a matter of debate because quite dif erent dei ni-
tions are used, resulting in dif erent ways of estimating ef ectiveness. As
Kütting (2000a, p. 30) observes 'Within the ef ectiveness debate in regime
theory. . . on one level ef ectiveness is seen in terms of institutional work-
ings through good institutional structures. . . on another level ef ectiveness
is measured on the basis of environmental impact'.
Usually regime theorists look at ef ectiveness as institutional perform-
ance and not as environmental improvement. Even though some of them
recognize the need to look at the environmental impact, only a few actu-
ally try to measure it. For example, some of the Norwegian regime theo-
rists (Wettestad and Andresen, 1991; Underdal, 1992) have considered the
environmental problem but still focus on the institutional performance of
a regime. Also, Haas et al. (1993, p. 7) ask the question whether the quality
of the environment is better because of the regime but they do not indicate
how such change could be measured and how much of it could be assigned
to the regime itself, rather than to other external factors. Nevertheless,
change itself is not a sui cient measurement of ef ectiveness (Kütting,
2000b). However, recently there has been an attempt by Kütting (2000a,
2000b) to introduce the concept of environmental ef ectiveness when
studying environmental regimes by distinguishing the concept of ef ective-
ness as seen in institutional terms from that of accounting for improved
environmental quality, though still having a regime theory perspective.
Furthermore, the attempts to measure ef ectiveness have been mainly
qualitative. These qualitative methods vary in whether their view is
descriptive (trying to explain what did happen), predictive (trying to
estimate what will happen), normative (looking at what should ideally
happen) or explanatory (trying to explain the reasons why something hap-
pened) (Mitchell and Bernauer, 2002, p. 2). However, a small but increas-
ing number of researchers have approached the subject quantitatively,
recognizing the need for these methods to complement each other in
order to produce more reliable results. A brief discussion of some of these
methods is provided below.
Qualitative approaches
In order to estimate whether international envi-
ronmental institutions are ef ective, Haas et al. (1993) refer to certain
conditions known as the three Cs. They measure the impact of interna-
tional institutions on three conditions essential for ef ective action in envi-
ronmental problems: high levels of governmental
concern
, a hospitable
contractual
environment in which agreements can be made and kept, and
sui cient political and administrative
capacity
in national governments. In