Content uploaded by Peter Haas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Haas
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination
Abstract
The growing technical uncertainties and complexities of problems of global concern have made international policy coordination not only increasingly necessary but also increasingly difficult. If decision makers are unfamiliar with the technical aspects of a specific problem, how do they define state interests and develop viable solutions? What factors shape their behavior? Under conditions of uncertainty, what are the origins of international institutions? And how can we best study the processes through which international policy coordination and order emerge? While a variety of analytic approaches have been used to address the problems of international cooperation, the approaches have yielded only fragmentary insights. At its core, the study of policy coordination among states involves arguments about determinism versus free will and about the ways in which the international system is maintained and transformed. Among the overlapping topics of debate are whether national behavior is determined or broadly conditioned by system-level factors, unit-level factors, or some complex interplay between the two; whether state policymakers can identify national interests and behave independently of pressures from the social groups they nominally represent; and whether states respond consistently to opportunities to create, defend, or expand their own wealth and power, to enhance collective material benefits, or to promote nonmaterial values.' A related question of
... Professional communities can have an instrumental role in shaping international environmental policy (Ali and Vladich, 2017;De Pryck and Wanneau, 2017;Haas, 1989Haas, , 1992. Environmental professionals not only inform policies and negotiations but can also fill in gaps where agreements are not implemented or non-existent (Carius, 2006). ...
... "Epistemic communities" is a term developed to characterize certain expert communities. Epistemic communities are a "network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area" (Haas, 1992, p.3). Epistemic communities in which scientists and environmental professionals played a role can be seen in the management of the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Action Plan, the EU's policy on regional air pollution and the Tigris-Euphrates River systems (Haas, 1989(Haas, , 1992Hjorth, 1994;Kibaroglu, 2008;Kim, 2007), as well as in addressing global issues, such as climate change and biodiversity (Borie et al., 2021). ...
... The field research found that specific teams within the Arava Institute and EcoPeace Middle East lead policy change but do so as part of an organizational commitment, which indicates organizational coherency rather than a set of shared norms. Thus, it seems that a cross-border epistemic community of environmental experts united by a shared interest in a specific policy matter, like the one identified by Haas (1992), or sharing an institutional epistemology as defined by Borie et al. (2021), has yet to appear. ...
Given the environmental challenges many post-conflict societies face, researchers and policy-makers express growing interest in environmental cooperation and management in the aftermath of political agreements. To date, the literature focuses overwhelmingly on government policies, formal agreements, or international interventions. The role of local environmental experts in shaping the science-policy nexus of transboundary cooperation in post-conflict societies received little attention. We address this lacuna by studying influencing factors and interaction realms of such experts in Israel and Jordan following the 1994 peace agreement. Based on survey data, focus groups and participant observations gathered over a five-year period (2017-2022) we find that environmental experts interact with decisions makers in their own country in varying degrees, with the purpose to influence TEC policy. The experts play important roles as policy entrepreneurs in shaping and carrying out post-agreement transboundary environmental cooperation which is independent of their interaction with decision makers and policy. In addition, the experts report a positive transformation of their attitudes vis-à-vis the respective other side. However, contextual factors beyond the experts' control shape transboundary conservation in important and asymmetrical ways. This is most evident by anti-normalisation pressures that Jordanian experts face.
... Exploring the outcomes of different governance regimes is hard given the complexities of measuring conservation effectiveness and the difficulties with the data available to explore it, and because different epistemic communities undertake the research. By epistemic community, we mean groups of people in sustained networks who share lived experiences, scholarship, practice, and writing, or some combination of these things, as well as mutually intelligible methods, theories, beliefs, expertise, and positions (17,18). Across the reports of the different writing teams, we have noted a tendency for natural scientists and economists to produce works that consider the performance of state protection ecologically (and in some cases also socially) and social scientists to explore its social and economic consequences (and often its shortcomings). ...
... Moreover, Peters (1998) suggests that more cohesive "epistemic communities" are more capable of generating coordination than areas with conflicting or less substantial views. It can be argued that, at certain points, the tax collection policy benefits from 'epistemic communities'-networks of professionals who share knowledge, methods, and practices on specific issues (Haas, 1992)-that are more cohesive than those within the education policy. The work of Abrucio and Sano (2013) highlights differences between the National Council of Secretaries of Education (Consed) and the National Council for Financial Policy (Confaz), Brazilian interstate councils that bring together professionals to share solutions to specific problems. ...
... Exploring the outcomes of different governance regimes is hard given the complexities of measuring conservation effectiveness and the difficulties with the data available to explore it, and because different epistemic communities undertake the research. By epistemic community, we mean groups of people in sustained networks who share lived experiences, scholarship, practice, and writing, or some combination of these things, as well as mutually intelligible methods, theories, beliefs, expertise, and positions (17,18). Across the reports of the different writing teams, we have noted a tendency for natural scientists and economists to produce works that consider the performance of state protection ecologically (and in some cases also socially) and social scientists to explore its social and economic consequences (and often its shortcomings). ...
Increased conservation action to protect more habitat and species is fueling a vigorous debate about the relative effectiveness of different sorts of protected areas. Here we review the literature that compares the effectiveness of protected areas managed by states and areas managed by Indigenous peoples and/or local communities. We argue that these can be hard comparisons to make. Robust comparative case studies are rare, and the epistemic communities producing them are fractured by language, discipline, and geography. Furthermore the distinction between these different forms of protection on the ground can be blurred. We also have to be careful about the value of this sort of comparison as the consequences of different forms of conservation for people and nonhuman nature are messy and diverse. Measures of effectiveness, moreover, focus on specific dimensions of conservation performance, which can omit other important dimensions. With these caveats, we report on findings observed by multiple study groups focusing on different regions and issues whose reports have been compiled into this article. There is a tendency in the data for community-based or co-managed governance arrangements to produce beneficial outcomes for people and nature. These arrangements are often accompanied by struggles between rural groups and powerful states. Findings are highly context specific and global generalizations have limited value.
... This section examines their role in influencing decisions on issues like climate change, human rights, and trade (Risse & Sikkink, 1999; Drezner, 2017).6.3. The Influence of Non-State Actors in Global Decision-MakingAnalyzing the mechanisms through which non-state actors can influence global decisionmaking, this section discusses the implications of their involvement in shaping global norms and regulations(Haas, 1992;Drezner, 2017).6.4. The Need for Enhanced Collaboration between States and Non-State ActorsGiven the increasing importance of non-state actors, this section discusses the importance of building collaborative relationships between states and non-state actors to address global challenges effectively (Depledge, 2003; Murray, 2014influence of non-state actors can challenge the traditional concept of state sovereignty. ...
International relations, once primarily confined to interactions between sovereign states, have witnessed a paradigm shift over the years. In the modern globalized world, the dynamics of international relations have expanded to include various non-state actors such as international organizations, international terrorist organizations, and multinational companies. This assignment critically explores the subject of recognizing non-state actors as influential actors in international relations. By examining the roles, impacts, challenges, and potential benefits associated with these actors, this study aims to understand their significance and potential implications for the international system.
Whose preferences influence the design of international institutions? Scholarship on the legalization of international politics and creation of international legal institutions largely adopts a state-centric perspective. Existing accounts, however, fail to recognize how states often delegate authority over institutional design tasks to independent legal experts whose preferences may diverge from those of states. We develop a principal–agent (PA) framework for theorizing relations between states (collective principals) and legal actors (agents) in the design process, and for explaining how legal actors influence the design of international institutions. The legal dimensions of the PA relationship increase the likelihood of preference divergence between the collective principal and the agent, but also create conditions that enable the agent to opportunistically advance its own design preferences. We argue that the more information on states’ preferences the agent has, the more effectively it can exploit its legal expertise to strategically select and justify design choices that maximize its own preferences and the likelihood of states’ acceptance. Our analysis of two cases of delegated institutional design concerning international criminal law at the United Nations and the African Union supports our theoretical expectations. Extensive archival and interview data elucidate how agents’ variable information on states’ preferences affects their ability to effectively advance their design preferences. Our theory reveals how independent legal experts with delegated authority over design tasks influence institutional design processes and outcomes, which has practical and normative implications for the legalization of international politics.
Los objetivos principales de este capítulo son: i) analizar el rol que han ocupado la CTI en la agenda de la CELAC, de qué forma se ha manifestado y cómo ha evolucionado entre 2013 y 2023, de forma tal de comprender el posicionamiento del bloque en torno a su relevancia en ALC; ii) identificar los temas prioritarios en dicha agenda a partir del seguimiento de las diversas Declaraciones del bloque y de sus Planes de Acción / Trabajo; iii) determinar la existencia de similitudes, diferencias, prioridades y obstáculos en las agendas de su Diplomacia Científica Transregional, principalmente en referencia a actores como la Unión Europea y China. Libro completo en https://ceipil.fch.unicen.edu.ar/novedades/ciencia-tecnologia-y-cooperacion-internacional-en-clave-de-desarrollo-reflexiones-sobre-argentina-y-america-latina/
Two books have been particularly influential in contemporary philosophy of science: Karl R. Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, and Thomas S. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Both agree upon the importance of revolutions in science, but differ about the role of criticism in science's revolutionary growth. This volume arose out of a symposium on Kuhn's work, with Popper in the chair, at an international colloquium held in London in 1965. The book begins with Kuhn's statement of his position followed by seven essays offering criticism and analysis, and finally by Kuhn's reply. The book will interest senior undergraduates and graduate students of the philosophy and history of science, as well as professional philosophers, philosophically inclined scientists, and some psychologists and sociologists.