Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T22:27:22.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Taking Stock and Moving Forward

from Part IV - Future Directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

Frank Biermann
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rakhyun E. Kim
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access


There is a growing consensus in the literature that governance architectures matter. However, we lack sufficient knowledge about their emergence, dynamics and impacts. This concluding chapter summarizes all insights in the book Architectures of Earth System Governance, and emphasizes how this book has made a scientific contribution by enhancing conceptual clarity, synthesizing a decade of intense research, and charting directions for future research. The book has made at least one point clear: the ‘architecture lens’ offers a bird’s-eye view on the global governance landscape that is highly valuable in explaining outcomes of world politics. The architectures matter in how institutions interact with others, how institutions are entangled with others in larger regime complexes and how institutions are affected by broader architectures that are more or less fragmented or polycentric. In this concluding chapter, we also illustrate how such key insights gained could inform a set of transformative policy proposals regarding the architecture of earth system governance.

Architectures of Earth System Governance
Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation
, pp. 299 - 321
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Abbott, K. W. (2014). Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change. Transnational Environmental Law, 3, 5788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., & Keohane, R. O. (2016). Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization, 70, 247–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2010). International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. Review of International Organizations, 5 (3), 315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P. D., & Tarko, V. (2011). Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Governance, 25 (2), 237–62.Google Scholar
Axelrod, M. (2014). Clash of the treaties: Responding to institutional interplay in European Community–Chile Swordfish negotiations. European Journal of International Relations, 20, 9871013.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (1999). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Barabási, A.-L. (2005). Taming complexity. Nature Physics, 1, 6870.Google Scholar
Betsill, M. M., Dubash, N. K., Paterson, M., van Asselt, H., Vihma, A., & Winkler, H. (2015). Building productive links between the UNFCCC and the broader global climate governance landscape. Global Environmental Politics, 15, 110.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2000). The case for a world environment organization. Environment, 42, 2232.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2014). Earth system governance. World politics in the Anthropocene: Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F., & Bauer, S. (eds.) (2005). A world environment organization: Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance? Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Abbott, K. W., Andresen, S. et al. (2012). Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving earth system governance. Science, 335, 1306–7.Google Scholar
Biermann, R. (2008). Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking: The Euro-Atlantic security institutions interacting. Review of International Organizations, 3, 151177.Google Scholar
Biermann, R., & Koops, J. A. (eds.) (2017). Palgrave handbook of inter-organizational relations in world politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Block, P., Stadtfeld, C., & Snijders, T. AB. (2016). Forms of dependence: Comparing SAOMs and ERGMs from basic principles. Sociological Methods and Research, 48 (1), 202–39.Google Scholar
Block, P., Koskinen, J., Hollway, J., Steglich, C., & Stadtfeld, C. (2018). Change we can believe in: Comparing longitudinal network models on consistency, interpretability and predictive power. Social Networks, 52, 180–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2009). Is there an international environmental constitution? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 16, 565–84.Google Scholar
Bosselmann, K. (2017). The principle of sustainability: Transforming law and governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bouteligier, S. (2011). Exploring the agency of global environmental consultancy firms in earth system governance. International Environmental Agreements, 11, 4361.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. R. (2012). The constitutional right to a healthy environment. Environment, 54, 315.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. R. (2017). The rights of nature: A legal revolution that could save the world. Toronto: ECW Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, E., & Folke, C. (eds.) (2012). Adapting institutions: Governance, complexity and social-ecological resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butts, C. T. (2008). A relational event framework for social action. Sociological Methodology, 38 (1), 155200.Google Scholar
Chaffin, B. C., Garmestani, A. S., Gunderson, L. H. et al. (2016). Transformative environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 399423.Google Scholar
Colgan, J. D., Keohane, R. O., & Van de Graaf, T. (2012). Punctuated equilibrium in the energy regime complex. Review of International Organizations, 7, 117–43.Google Scholar
Conant, R. C., & Ashby, W. R. (1970). Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system. International Journal of Systems Science, 1, 8997.Google Scholar
Dellas, E., Pattberg, P., & Betsill, M. M. (2011). Agency in earth system governance: Refining a research agenda. International Environmental Agreements, 11, 8598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drezner, D. W. (2009). The power and peril of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7, 6570.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., & Milewicz, K. (2011). Toward a deliberative global citizens’ assembly. Global Policy, 2, 3342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duit, A., & Galaz, V. (2008). Governance and complexity: Emerging issues for governance theory. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 21 (3), 311–35.Google Scholar
Duit, A., Galaz, V., Eckerberg, K., & Ebbesson, J. (2010). Governance, complexity and resilience. Global Environmental Change, 20 (3), 363–8.Google Scholar
Earth System Governance Project (2017). Submission to the Global Challenges Foundation. Stockholm: Global Challenges Foundation.Google Scholar
Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. (2018). Death of international organizations: The organizational ecology of intergovernmental organizations, 1815–2015. Review of International Organizations, 70, 132.Google Scholar
Elliott, L. (2017). Cooperation on transnational environmental crime: Institutional complexity matters. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 26, 107–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galaz, V., Biermann, F., Crona, B. et al. (2012a). ‘Planetary boundaries’ – exploring the challenges for global environmental governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4 (1), 80–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2012b). Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries: Emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 81, 2132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2009). The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 15, 125–56.Google Scholar
Gellers, J. C. (2015). Explaining the emergence of constitutional environmental rights: A global quantitative analysis. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 6, 7597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. F. (2013). Order out of chaos: Public and private rules for managing carbon. Global Environmental Politics, 13, 125.Google Scholar
Green, J. F., & Auld, G. (2016). Unbundling the regime complex: The effects of private authority. Transnational Environmental Law, 6, 259–84.Google Scholar
Greenhill, B., & Lupu, Y. (2017). Clubs of clubs: Fragmentation in the network of intergovernmental organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 61, 181–95.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2009). The emergence and effectiveness of the Marine Stewardship Council. Marine Policy, 33, 654–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A., & Mason, M. (eds.) (2014). Transparency in global environmental governance: Critical perspectives. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, N. (2015). Money or mandate? Why international organizations engage with the climate change regime. Global Environmental Politics, 15, 7997.Google Scholar
Hall, N. (2016). Displacement, development and climate change: International organizations moving beyond their mandates. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. A. (2010). Historical institutionalism in rationalist and sociological perspective. In Mahoney, J, & Thelen, K (eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 204–24). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hickmann, T. (2017). The reconfiguration of authority in global climate governance. International Studies Review, 19 (3), 430–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, P. D., Adams, W. M., Brosius, J. P., Zia, A., Bariola, N., & Dammert, J. L. (2011). Acknowledging conservation trade-offs and embracing complexity. Conservation Biology, 25, 259–64.Google Scholar
Hollway, J. (2015). The evolution of global fisheries governance, 1960–2010. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Hollway, J., & Koskinen, J. (2016). Multilevel embeddedness: The case of the global fisheries governance complex. Social Networks, 44, 281–94.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jentoft, S., McCay, B. J., & Wilson, D. C. (1998). Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 22 (4–5), 423–36.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2011). Climate change bandwagoning: The impacts of strategic linkages on regime design, maintenance, and death. Global Environmental Politics, 11, 19.Google Scholar
Jóhannsdóttir, A., Cresswell, I., & Bridgewater, P. (2010). The current framework for international governance of biodiversity: Is it doing more harm than good? Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 19, 139–49.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. J., Huitema, D., Hildén, M. et al. (2015). Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nature Climate Change, 5, 977–82.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Schoenefeld, J., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (2018). Governing Climate Change polycentrically: Setting the scene. In Jordan, A, Huitema, D, van Asselt, H, & Forster, J (eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 326). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalfagianni, A., & Pattberg, P. (2013). Fishing in muddy waters exploring the conditions for effective governance of fisheries and aquaculture. Marine Policy, 38, 124–32.Google Scholar
Kanie, N., Betsill, M. M., Zondervan, R., Biermann, F., & Young, O. R. (2012). A charter moment: Restructuring governance for sustainability. Public Administration and Development, 32, 292304.Google Scholar
Kemp, L. (2014). Framework for the future? Exploring the possibility of majority voting in the climate negotiations. International Environmental Agreements, 16, 757–79.Google Scholar
Kettl, D. F. (2015). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), 980–91.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E., & Bosselmann, K. (2013). International environmental law in the Anthropocene: Towards a purposive system of multilateral environmental agreements. Transnational Environmental Law, 2, 285309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, R. E., & Bosselmann, K. (2015). Operationalizing sustainable development: Ecological integrity as a Grundnorm of international law. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24, 194208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, R. E., & Mackey, B. (2014). International environmental law as a complex adaptive system. International Environmental Agreements, 14, 524.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J. (2012). Arguing global environmental constitutionalism. Transnational Environmental Law, 1, 199233.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J. (2016). Global environmental constitutionalism in the Anthropocene. Portland: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J., & French, D. (2018). A critique of the global pact for the environment: A stillborn initiative or the foundation for Lex Anthropocenae? International Environmental Agreements, 18, 811–38.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J. (2019). International environmental law’s lack of normative ambition: An opportunity for the Global Pact and its Gap Report? Journal of European Environmental and Planning Law, in press.Google Scholar
Lebel, L., Lorek, S. & Daniel, R. (eds.) (2010). Sustainable production consumption systems: Knowledge, engagement and practice. Dordrecht: Springer Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Le Prestre, P. (2017). Global ecopolitics revisited: Toward a complex governance of global environmental problems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lubell, M. (2013). Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41, 537–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusher, D., Koskinen, J., & Robins, G. (2013). Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manning, S., & Reinecke, J. (2016). A modular governance architecture in-the-making: How transnational standard-setters govern sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45, 618–33.Google Scholar
Marcoux, C. (2011). Understanding institutional change in international environmental regimes. Global Environmental Politics, 11, 145–51.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F. (2018). Concentration despite competition: The organizational ecology of technical assistance providers. Review of International Organizations, 70, 133.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., Pauwelyn, J., & Hollway, J. (2017). The trade regime as a complex adaptive system: Exploration and exploitation of environmental norms in trade agreements. Journal of International Economic Law, 20, 365–90.Google Scholar
Mukhtarov, F., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). River basin organizations in the global water discourse: An exploration of agency and strategy. Global Governance, 19, 307–26.Google Scholar
Najam, A. (2000). Future directions: The case for a ‘Law of the Atmosphere’. Atmospheric Environment, 34, 4047–9.Google Scholar
Newell, P., Pattberg, P., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Multiactor governance and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 365–87.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M., & Persson, Å. (2012). Can earth system interactions be governed? Governance functions for linking climate change mitigation with land use, freshwater and biodiversity protection. Ecological Economics, 81, 1020.Google Scholar
O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36, 667–76.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. (2009). Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. International Environmental Agreements, 9 (4), 371–91.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (eds.) (2011). Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Orsini, A., Morin, J. F., & Young, O. R. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom or a boost for global governance? Global Governance, 19 (1), 2739.Google Scholar
Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J. et al. (2017). Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, 116.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2014). At the edge of chaos? Foreign investment law as a complex adaptive system, how it emerged and how it can be reformed. ICSID Review, 29 (2), 263–88.Google Scholar
Pearce, C. (2012). Ombudspersons for future generations: A proposal for Rio+20. UNEP: Perspectives, 6, 112.Google Scholar
Peters, M. A. (2017). Education in a post-truth world. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49 (6), 563–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, J., Betzold, C., & Skovgaard, J. (2017). Managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance. International Environmental Agreements, 17, 116.Google Scholar
Rabitz, F. (2017). The global governance of genetic resources: Institutional change and structural constraints. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ruhl, J. B. (2008). Law’s complexity: A primer. Georgia State University Law Review, 24, 885911.Google Scholar
Ruhl, J. B. (2012). Panarchy and the law. Ecology and Society, 17.Google Scholar
Ruhl, J. B., Katz, D. M., & Bommarito, M. J. (2017). Harnessing legal complexity. Science, 355, 1377–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sand, P. H. (2017). The discourse on ‘protection of the atmosphere’ in the International Law Commission. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 26 201–9.Google Scholar
Sand, P. H., & Wiener, J. B. (2016). Towards a new international law of the atmosphere. Göttingen Journal of International Law, 7, 195223.Google Scholar
Schroeder, H. (2010). Agency in international climate negotiations: The case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements, 10, 317–32.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B, van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32 (1), 4460.Google Scholar
Stadtfeld, C., Hollway, J., & Block, P. (2017). Dynamic network actor models: Investigating coordination ties through time. Sociological Methodology, 47 (1), 140.Google Scholar
Stevens, C., & Kanie, N. (2016). The transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). International Environmental Agreements, 16, 393–6.Google Scholar
Teisman, G., & Gerrits, L. (2014). The emergence of complexity in the art and science of governance. Complexity, Governance and Networks, 1 (1), 1728.Google Scholar
Tomozeiu, D., & Joss, S. (2014). Adapting adaptation: The English eco-town initiative as governance process. Ecology and Society, 19.Google Scholar
Underdal, A. (2010). Complexity and challenges of long-term environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 20, 386–93.Google Scholar
Van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2014). Connect the dots: Managing the fragmentation of global climate governance. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 16, 137–55.Google Scholar
Van der Ven, H., Rothacker, C., & Cashore, B. (2018). Do eco-labels prevent deforestation? Lessons from non-state market driven governance in the soy, palm oil, and cocoa sectors. Global Environmental Change, 52, 141–51.Google Scholar
Widerberg, O. (2016). Mapping institutional complexity in the Anthropocene: A network approach. In Pattberg, P, & Zelli, F (eds.), Environmental politics and governance in the Anthropocene: Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world (pp. 81102). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2010a). Institutional dynamics: Emergent patterns in international environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2010b). Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes. Global Environmental Change, 20, 378–85.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2011). Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 19853–60.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2017). Governing complex systems: Social capital for the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., Möller, I., & van Asselt, H. (2017). Institutional complexity and private authority in global climate governance: The cases of climate engineering, REDD+ and short-lived climate pollutants. Environmental Politics, 26, 669–93.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats