Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered by Frank Biermann & Philipp Pattberg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biermann, Frank, and Philipp Pattberg, eds. Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. xvi + 301 pages. Cloth, $25.00. This compendium of studies edited by political scientists Frank Biermann and Philipp Pattberg reports the results of the decade-long Global Governance Project, an effort led by the editors and including forty researchers at thirteen European locations. The purpose of the project was to examine the subject of global environmental governance from the standpoint of three new trends: greater participation of non-state actors; increasing public-private partnerships; and more segmentation of the layers of rulemaking. These trends are used to structure the text in three parts. Part I deals with new actors in global environmental governance and includes chapters on international bureaucracies, global corporations, and science networks. The researchers who investigated international bureaucracies report that structure and internal factors determine the influence of these organizations. Other chapters present case studies detailing the success of global policy on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and biodiversity. Global corporations are active on environmental issues as lobbyists, communicators, and regulators. These same corporations, however, can be limited by industry conflict and by countervailing forces such as non-government organizations (NGOs). Science networks are also part of the changing landscape of global environmental governance, and reflect the greater institutionalization of science and the augmented uses of advisory bodies. Case studies in this area include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Whaling Commission, and trade policy dealing with genetically modified organisms. Overall, science's sway on policy is dependent on the inclusiveness of the investigatory process and its pertinence to politics. Part II details research findings pertaining to new mechanisms or forms of cooperation in global environmental governance. Transitional environmental regimes resemble international regimes but without legally binding rules. Examples of such agreements are the Forest Stewardship Council and the Forest Alliance. Other case studies include the transnational public-private partnerships emanating from the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. Researchers studying this area maintain that these partnerships, although limited in their effectiveness, have improved participation and dialogue. Transnational governance experiments associated with global environmental concerns have been initiated for several reasons: to express ideology, to reap profits, and to expand authority. The specific experiments discussed are the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan, and initiatives for starting a voluntary offset carbon market. Part III treats the new interlinkages that have followed the division of rule making in global environmental governance. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".