Regime Theory: a new perspective on the plastic soup
Master thesis
International Political Economy Naomi ter Haar
s1871773
1 DECLARATION BY CANDIDATE
I hereby declare that this thesis, “Regime Theory: a new perspective on the plastic soup”, is my own work and my own effort and that it has not been accepted anywhere else for the award of any other degree or diploma. Where sources of information have been used, they have been acknowledged.
Name Naomi ter Haar
Signature
2 Abstract
A part of the plastic that is produced globally ends up in the marine environment. Due to its durability, it has accumulated there over the years, forming a ‘plastic soup’. This is a threat to marine life, but also potentially to mankind. Most of the research on the issue focuses on grasping the plastic soup and its impact. This study however looks at the extent to which international cooperation, and more specifically, the formation of an international environmental regime on the subject, is able to address the problems concerning the plastic soup.
This study analyzes what regime theory is and how it applies to the environment. It studies whether a regime on the plastic soup exists and whether it is effective in its current state. Furthermore, this thesis will analyse regime theory itself, try to identify weaknesses and make suggestions on how those weaknesses can be overcome. This study has used available literature and conducted interviews to gather information. It focused on information obtained from NGO’s. A hybrid model was constructed to shape the study.
3 Table of content 1. Introduction ... 4 2. Regime theory ... 13 2.1. International cooperation ... 13 2.2. Regime theory ... 14
2.3. International environmental regimes ... 22
2.4. Methodology ... 23
2.4.1. Sources... 23
2.4.2. Assessing the existence of regimes and examining the effectiveness of regimes .. 24
2.4.3. The hybrid model ... 29
3. International environmental regime on the plastic soup and its effectiveness ... 34
3.1. Existence of a regime ... 34
3.1.1. Analysis ... 34
3.1.2. Theory ... 46
3.2. Effectiveness of the regime ... 47
3.2.1. Analysis ... 47
3.2.2. Theory ... 55
4. Conclusion ... 58
Bibliography ... 65
Appendix A. Questionnaire ... 70
Appendix B. List of experts... 73
4 1. Introduction
A member of the Council of the British Plastics Federation and a Fellow of the Plastics Institute stated in 1974 that “plastic litter is a very small proportion of all litter and causes no harm to the environment except as an eyesore”1. It is safe to say that this view has changed
drastically. Over the last decades, environmental problems in general have come to the forefront of the international agenda. With events like the presentation of ‘An inconvenient truth’ by Al Gore in 2006 and the debate that followed, the environment and more specifically global warming, became a ‘hot topic’. This has happened to more environmental issues, and one of those that has gained attention in the last decades is the problem of plastic waste polluting the earths’ oceans, creating a plastic soup. Many non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), government actors and business actors are now focused on the issue, as will become apparent in this study. However, to address the problem on a global level is problematic. This is the case since no one is actually responsible for keeping the oceans clean.
In order to address the issue of the plastic soup, the first thing that has to be established is what is meant by it. Plastic soup is a popular term to describe a ‘synthetic soup’ of plastic in the oceans2. Other terms that are often used to describe plastic waste in the oceans are marine litter or marine debris. Every year, enormous amounts of plastic are produced and consumed, and this production grows every year. In 2012, 288 million tonnes was produced, in 2013 an estimated 299 million tonnes3. Packaging takes up the most of this, as for example about one
third of all goods in Western Europe are now packaged in plastics4. Every year, a part of the
plastic produced and consumed ends up in the environment, and in the oceans. A 2006 reporting by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that there are 18.000 pieces of plastic litter floating on every square kilometre of ocean5.
UNEP has issued a report in which it elaborates on the two main sources of this marine debris. It distinguishes land-based sources such as industrial activities, littering from for example beachgoers, solid waste disposal and landfills, storm water discharges and combined sewer overflows. The other main sources are ocean-based, such as commercial fishing, recreational boaters, merchant, military and research vessels and offshore oil and gas platforms and exploration6. Plastics have specific characteristics that make them suitable for the
1 Derraik, 2002: 842
2 CNN. Research ship finds the world’s oceans are ‘plasticized’, accessed 29-05-2015 3 PlasticsEurope. Plastics – the facts 2014/2015, accessed 30-05-2015
5 manufacturing of a wide range of products. They are lightweight, strong, durable and cheap7.
But these characteristics also make plastic a challenge to the environment. Because of its durability, plastics are generally resistant to natural processes of biodegradation, which entails that they does not easily break down in the marine environment. What can happen is that plastic items break up into smaller and smaller items. This process is believed to occur due to wave action, oxidation and ultraviolet light. A similar thing may happen with plastics on the shore, where grinding of rocks and sand can have this effect8.
Although plastic debris is observed commonly on shorelines, there is also accumulation of it in mid-ocean ‘gyres’. These are natural circulation features that trap floating material. There are five gyres in the North and South Atlantic Ocean, the North and South Pacific and the Indian Ocean9. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the biggest of these gyres and also known as the Pacific Trash Vortex, is said to have the size of Texas with an estimated six kilos of plastic for every kilo of natural plankton10. However, it is difficult to determine how much debris makes up the Trash Vortex. It is too large to trawl and not all trash floats at the surface. Debris can sink centimetres or even metres beneath the surface. Furthermore, some of the microplastics cannot be seen by the naked eye11. Microplastics and more specifically microbeads have gained attention over the recent years. These microbeads can be found in personal care products such as toothpaste, douche gels and facial cleaners. As they are not commonly filtered out during wastewater treatment, they are released directly into the ocean or other water bodies such as rivers or lakes12. This study will focus on all types of marine debris,
regardless of size or origin.
The different forms of plastics in the ocean, whether they are ‘whole’ plastics, microplastics or microbeads, have the potential to harm the marine environment. There are several ways in which plastic litter is potentially harmful. Entanglement is one of these, as marine debris is known to have injured or killed fish, marine mammals, sea turtles and seabirds. Animals may suffer death by drowning or suffocation, but also strangulation is possible, as plastic bands tighten as pups grow. Furthermore, entanglement can influence the ability to swim, making it more difficult to find food or escape from predators. The weight of the fragments can cause animals to need more food in order to compensate the increased drag
7 Derraik, 2002: 842
8 UNEP. Plastic Debris in the World’s Oceans, accessed 30-05-2015 (p 10)
9 UNEP Year Book 2014 emerging issues update. Plastic Debris in the Ocean, accessed 30-05-2015 (p 49) 10 Greenpeace. The Trash Vortex, accessed 30-05-2015
11 National Geographic. Great Pacific Garbage Patch, accessed 30-05-2015
6 during swimming13. Lost fishing gear made of synthetic materials can also be harmful. They
can cause damage to coral reefs and lost or discarded fishing nets can continue ‘ghost fishing’ for a long time, decades even, depending upon the environmental conditions they are in. An example is a 1500 meter long section of a net was found with 99 seabirds, 2 sharks and 75 salmon trapped in it14. Ingestion is another major possibility for plastic debris to cause harm, as animal may confuse debris for food or accidentally ingest plastics. Debris may pass through the guts of an animal without harming it, but it can also become lodged in their throats and lead to starvation of malnutrition. It can furthermore accumulate and give a false sense of fullness, causing the animal to starve to death as it stops eating. When ingested, hazardous chemicals in plastic may be absorbed into the animal’s body15. The latter issue also concerns microbeads. The beads used in personal care products (but also in air blasting technology, where particles are used for stripping paint from metallic surfaces and cleaning engine parts16), can soak up pesticides and chemicals as they continue their path towards the ocean17. Scientists hypothesize that over time, these pollutants will start to accumulate in the food chain as they transfer from species to species, ultimately affecting humans18.
The last potential major way in which plastic debris can cause harm is when it facilitates the spread of alien species. Human activities have resulted in species being moved to regions where they were not native, hence creating a biological invasion. Colonization by alien species is stated to be one of the greatest threats to global diversity, as the introduction of new native species is accepted to be one of the greatest causes of loss of species. Debris provides a ‘raft’ for marine species. The growth of quantities of plastic debris has massively increased the amount of raft material and therefore the opportunity for dispersal of organisms19.
While these issues present actual treats to the marine environment, all actors involved agree that additional research is necessary. As the problem of marine litter is relatively new, not all effects have been identified or quantified. This study has attempted to give an overview of the problem, but it is extremely hard to determine how much plastic there actually is in the oceans and how often other negative side-effects such as ‘ghost fishing’ occur. It is not the focus of this study to make claims about the quantification of the subject, so a general outline of what the problem is, will suffice for this study.
13 UNEP. Plastic Debris in the World’s Oceans, accessed 01-06-2015 (p 14-15) 14 Ibid. (p 17)
15 Ibid. (p 19) 16 Derraik, 2002: 847
17 CBS. Microbeads could be harming the environment, scientists say, accessed 01-06-2015 18 Beat the Microbead. Science, accessed 01-06-2015
7 Another aspect that is unclear is the long term impact of the plastic soup. An oceanographer from the University of Hawaii for example identified garbage patches as a new habitat, and claimed that studies are needed to find out the impact on the ocean’s eco-system20. Sunken fishing gear can eventually become incorporated into the reef structure21. Also, the Los Angeles Sanitation’s Operations Chief stated that wastewater facilities are capable of filtering out microbeads, as his crew didn’t find microbeads in their own samples from the Los Angeles River. He stated that more research is necessary on what the path of the microbeads exactly is22. There are many more examples of scientists and other actors questioning the impact and potential harm of plastic debris and calling for more research. Actors that acknowledge that something is wrong, also stress that more research is necessary. So although it is an issue in development, this study will focus on what is now known about marine debris and the part above serves to illustrate the issue at hand and to explain what the plastic soup is and what its potential dangers are.
The topic of the plastic soup is an interesting one, considering that it is a present-day problem. Since it is a very important and potentially harmful one for humans, this study might be a step towards grasping the issue. Furthermore, it is interesting to study how actors, and in this study mostly NGO’s, deal with international problems. The fact that there is no such thing as a ‘global government’, makes it difficult for each problem that is of concern to multiple countries, to be dealt with.
The existing literature on the plastic soup is focused mainly on grasping the issue. It for example tries to elaborate on what the issue is and to make a distinction between facts and myths. An example of this is an article in Science by scholar Jocelyn Kaiser that is critical of the way the media portrays the Pacific Garbage Patch as the “world’s largest rubbish dump” and as a “vast mass of floating debris”. It raises doubt on statements concerning the size of the patch and the ratio of plastic in it as it might be an effort to raise public awareness. However, it does try to grasp the issue by considering independent studies that acknowledge that there “clearly is a lot of plastic out there”23. Other articles may focus on trends of how plastic
accumulates and on determining how many plastics are found and in what regions24. A vast majority of the existing literature is on what the plastic soup is. This is not surprising, as much is still unknown. This study will try to the issue one step further nevertheless, as it will not make
20 News.com.au. Floating rubbish dump ‘bigger than US’, accessed 01-06-2015 21 UNEP. Plastic Debris in the World’s Oceans, accessed 02-06-2015 (p 17)
22 CBS. Microbeads could be harming the environment, scientists say, accessed 02-06-2015 23 Kaiser, 2010: 1506
8 claims on that it is certain what the plastic soup is, but it will turn to solutions. The author has come across many different possible solutions, that focus on degradable plastics and ‘smarter product design’25. There are however not many studies that focus on international cooperation
as a way of dealing with the plastic soup. The author has found no scientific studies, although many NGO’s and organizations like the European Union (EU) stress the importance of international cooperation26. This study will attempt to fill this void by making a first step towards assessing how international cooperation can be beneficial for eliminating the threats of the plastic soup.
So, this study considers international cooperation. But what is meant by international cooperation? A common definition of the phenomenon has become more and more accepted. The influential scholar Robert Keohane, alongside several other scholars, has defined cooperation as occurring “when actors adjust their behaviour to the actual or anticipated preferences of others, through a process of policy coordination”. Policy coordination then means that the policies of states have been adjusted in order to reduce negative consequences for the other states27.
This study will take international cooperation one step further, as it considers the explanation of international cooperation. One form of explaining international cooperation focusses on international regimes. These are “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations”28. Regimes facilitate cooperation between states29. Also, in-depth
qualitative case studies came to the conclusion that due to regimes, social practices were developed that played a role in dealing with environmental problems, such as the depletion of the ozone layer30. This thesis will focus on how the formation of an international environmental regime might address the problem of the plastic soup. The main research question is to study to what extent the formation of an international environmental regime in the period between 2000 and the present time has been able to address the problems concerning the plastic soup in the oceans. The specific period is chosen because the recognition of the problem is relatively new. The vast majority of initiatives and coherent rapports stem from the last decade, as will become
25 Van Gansewinkel Groep, 2010: p2. This is an example of an article that mentions possible solutions. Many
more can be found, but it would not be in the interest of this study to list them all.
26 Plastic Soup Foundation. Mission, accessed 15-07-2015 and European Commission. Our oceans, seas and
coasts: descriptor 10: Marine Litter, accessed 15-07-2015
27 Milner, 1992: 467
28 Axelrod & Keohane, 1985: 249 29 Milner, 1992: 475
9 apparent in this study. This does not mean that there was no attention beforehand, but the difference in scale makes it not useful to assess earlier periods.
In order to answer the research question, two sub-questions will have to be answered. The first will be what regime theory is and how it applies to the environment. The second studies whether a regime on the subject of plastic soup exists and whether it is effective in its current state. In addition to these sub-questions, this thesis will use the issue of the plastic soup in order to test regime theory as an appropriate theory for dealing with this kind of problem. It will therefore analyse the theory itself, try to identify weaknesses and make suggestions on how those weaknesses can be overcome.
The sub-questions and finally the main research question will be answered by a study of academic literature available on the subject, but also by using information from civil organisations, governments and international institutions such as the EU. It will elaborately focus on the theory and study influential scholars that have worked on it. In order to analyse the existence and effectiveness of a regime on plastic debris, five NGO’s involved will be questioned, in order to identify converging norms, principles, rules or decision-making procedures on the matter.
The focus will be on NGO’s, as it is probable that they will be influencing the regime to a great extent. “NGO’s are the tugboats of progressive diplomacy, steering supertanker governments and international organizations in the right direction on human rights and climate change”, according to scholar Parag Khanna31. The fact that NGO’s are chosen is because they
are very likely to be involved with the issue of plastic soup. NGO’s that operate on the subject solely have the purpose of addressing the plastic soup. This will not be the case for government actors and business actors, as addressing plastic soup is not likely to be their main priority. NGO’s will have a vast amount of information and ideas on the subject and therefore will be a useful source of information for this study. This does not mean that all NGO’s have the same opinions and ideas on how the plastic soup must be addressed. By interviewing different types of NGO’s, a wide perspective can be gained and a comprehensive study on plastic soup is possible.
There is a risk involved with this focus on NGO’s, which is that this study is biased towards the information they provide. An even greater risk is that the NGO’s selected do not provide for a wide enough perspective on the subject. This can be prevented by looking for ‘data saturation’. This term is used by the scholars Glaser and Strauss. They have developed
10 ‘Grounded Theory’, a way in which theory can emerge from qualitative data analysis. It is a very interesting method of analysis and Glaser and Strauss have developed clear steps that can be used for research in the human and social sciences32. It will not contribute to this thesis to explain the whole method, but one aspect is interesting to include. The scholars have identified that with collecting data, it is the best to search until the point of ‘data saturation’ is reached. This is where “one keeps on collecting data until one receives only already known statements”33. Although a limited amount of NGO’s is interviewed for this study, it can be
determined that when similar claims are made by different NGO’s, this study has a wide enough perspective. This point will be elaborated on in the conclusion of this thesis, based on the statements made by the NGO’s, which will be analyzed in the third chapter.
There are five NGO’s that will be asked to take the questionnaire. These NGO’s have been asked to take part in this study as they are spread across the world and have different fields of expertise. Some are more active on a local scale (Fauna & Flora International), while another consists of a vast global network (Surfrider Foundation). They also differ on ways in which they address the problem. The Clean Oceans Project has as one of its focus points to try and establish a way to make profit from plastic debris, whereas the Ocean Cleanup focuses on finding technical solutions for the problem. The Plastic Soup Foundation has issued an app that warns users about products that contain microbeads, although this is only an example of what they do. Also the way in which NGO’s exert influence differs. The Surfrider Foundation in Brussels is for example very much focused on legislation and the lobby for rules and agreements on the subject. The Ocean Cleanup is less focused on government agencies and has a focus on creating awareness with the general public and getting business actors involved. So, they are all very different NGO’s with diverse opinions on the subject, as will become apparent in the next chapter.
The author has attempted to organize the different NGO’s by their backgrounds and views, in order to be able to judge whether it is possible to find a logic in their position as regarding to their opinions on the plastic soup. The categories have been chosen as they are easy to distinguish but important for the work of the NGO. An overview can be found in figure 1. It can be determined that the NGO’s are all different, but some have overlapping ideas. An important reason to ask these specific NGO’s was that they all seemed to have different ideas and motivations concerning the plastic soup, and this difference was likely to lead to interesting
32 Kolb, 2012: 83
11 responses. In the analysis it will be argued whether for example a focus on direct action, as compared to attempting to influence policy, is of influence in how they assess the problem.
Local vs. international Policy vs. direct action Clean-up vs. prevention Objective Surfrider Foundation Europe
International Policy Clean-up Dedicated to save coastline’s natural heritage
The Ocean Cleanup
International Direct action
Clean-up Develop technology to extract,
prevent and intercept plastic pollution Fauna & Flora
International
Local Policy Prevention Minimizing and eliminating threats to bio-diversity
Plastic Soup Foundation
International Both Prevention Prevent plastic pollution The Clean
Oceans Project
Local Direct action
Clean-up Find profit motivation for processing plastic waste
Figure 1. An overview of the NGO’s interviewed for this study.
In order to provide an even wider perspective, a civil servant from the Dutch government has been asked for her expertise, providing an insight into how a government approaches the issue of the plastic soup. This study has tried to interview a civil servant from the European Union and business actors as well. Although information was received from these actors which will be incorporated in this study, no full interview has been held. This does not mean that these actors are not involved with the issue. Plastic organizations for example strive to work on plastic litter, as can be deduced from their joint declaration on the topic34. They are not interviewed as
planning an interview did not succeed due to busy schedules and the amount of requests they receive daily concerning the plastic soup. According to the author, this illustrates the way in which attention for the subject has grown. One could of course argue that business actors write general reports on the plastic soup and when asked to give comments on the plastic soup, refer to those reports in order to evade critical questions. Although this might be the case for some corporations, it is the believe of the author that the fact that business actors write the reports, a process that will take time and therefore costs money, is a sign that the plastic soup is taken seriously.
Although the fact that no further interviews have been held is a shortcoming which will be discussed later on in this thesis, information from business and government actors will be included as much as possible, in order to be able to provide a balanced overview of the issue.
13 2. Regime theory
2.1. International cooperation
In the last decades, more attention has been given to the study of international cooperation. This can be deduced from the growing amount of articles written on the subject from the 1970s and onward35. The sudden attention for international cooperation might be
explained by international changes, such as the fact that the relation between the United States and the Soviet Union eased and countries needed to reconsider their orientation in policies on international relations, due to for example the fact that the economic situation changed because of higher oil prices and deterioration of global economic performance. The orientation prior to these changes, which was predominantly state-centric realist and which emphasized conflict and zero-sum nature for international relations, didn’t seem to fit anymore and ‘low politics’ (political concerns dealing with socioeconomic and/or welfare issues36) acquired more
attention37. The topic of international cooperation emerged. As described in the introduction,
this thesis will use regime theory as the subject for studying. The following chapter will give an elaborate overview of this theory. However, first of all a general introduction on theories concerning international cooperation will be provided for.
In order to discuss international cooperation, first its definition needs to be clarified. The definition proposed by Robert Keohane has gained acceptance by several scholars. He defines international cooperation as occurring “when actors adjust their behaviour to the actual or anticipated preferences of others, through a process of policy coordination”. Policy coordination entails that “policies of each state have been adjusted to reduce their negative consequences for the other states”38. From this definition, three implications on the concept of
cooperation can be deduced. The first is that the behavior of actors is directed towards the achievement of goals. This can be deduced from the fact that they change their behavior to synchronize with other actors, something they would not do for the fun of it. When actors change their behavior, when they cooperate, they pursue to achieve something. The second implication then is that with cooperation, actors try to achieve rewards or gains. By helping other actors realize their goals (reduce the negative consequences of their policies for others), each actor anticipates its own reward. Helping the other is not the main incentive39. This would
assume rational behavior of actors, the third implication. For rational choice, as it is used in the
35 Milner, 1992: 466
36 Viotti & Kauppi, 2010: 460 37 Krasner, 1983: vii
14 discussion on politics, assumes that “individual behavior is motivated by self-interest, utility maximization, or, more simply put, goal fulfillment”40.
It is also of importance to define what cooperation is not. Keohane himself clarifies that cooperation is not equivalent to harmony. That is due to the fact that cooperation takes places in situations where there is a mixture of complementary and conflicting interests, whereas harmony requires a perfect identity of interests. One should be aware that cooperation thus defined, implies that from a moral point of view, it is not necessarily good41.
When it comes to international cooperation, there are three ways in which this can be achieved, as mentioned in the work by the influential scholar Oran Young. The first is when cooperation occurs without explicit agreement. This can be illustrated by using the Prisoner’s Dilemma, which will be explained further along this chapter. Here, cooperative behaviour is a result of the fact that expectations of actors merge. Secondly, cooperation can also be achieved through negotiation. In the more recent literature on international cooperation, this type seems to be examined most commonly. Thirdly, and finally, cooperation can be imposed. Here, an actor is forced to alter its position by a stronger party. Versions of hegemonic stability theory explain this form of cooperation42.
2.2. Regime theory
The above mentioned scholars provide interesting insights in theories on international cooperation. The establishment of international regimes is also a way of facilitating cooperation. This form is not easy to place within the categories as defined by Young, since arguments can be made in order to place regimes within all of the categories, as they can also exist without explicit consent or they might even be imposed. For example, the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a method for explaining regime theory, shows that cooperation may occur without explicit agreement. Furthermore, Keohane and Axelrod argue that due to the fact that the use of power can facilitate the construction of regimes, the regime approach ought to be seen as complementary to emphasis on hierarchical authority, rather than in contradiction to it43.
However, the use of power is not the same as imposing a regime, so the author would not place international regimes in the third category as defined by Young.
40 Petracca, 1991: 289
41 Axelrod & Keohane, 1985: 226 42 Milner, 1992: 469
15 Regimes can be defined as “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations”44. The definition by Keohane and Axelrod and all the other articles used
for this thesis, mention only international regimes. When considering the definition, one could reason that a national regime is possible as well. However, this thesis will focus only on international regimes, as the scope of this thesis is too limited to go into the possibility of a national regime.
The different terms from the definition are specified in definitions by the scholar Stephen Krasner. These definitions are the following: “Principles are beliefs of fact, causation, and rectitude. Norms are standards of behavior defined in terms of rights and obligations. Rules are specific prescriptions or proscriptions for action. Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing collective choice”45. It is important to make a distinction
between principles and norms versus rules and procedures. This is because principles and norms are the very basis, the defining concepts, of a regime. There can be many rules and procedures consistent with the same principles and norms. From this, important conclusions on change of and within regimes can be derived. These are that changes in rules and decision-making procedures are changes within a regime and changes in principles and norms are changes of the regime itself46. These definitions are outlined here, because these specific terms will be
discussed in the next chapter, when regime theory as a whole will be critically reviewed. It was from the 1980s and onward that international regimes emerged as one of the major points of focus in theoretical debates, but also in empirical research within international relations. As explained above, the zero-sum anarchy of interstate relations didn’t seem to fit anymore. International institutions were needed, which responded to collective-action problems that made cooperation at the international level problematic47. However, intellectual traditions
that focused on other dimensions than ‘anarchy’ and ‘authority’, but for example on the ‘societal’ dimension, were hindered by a taint of idealism. Theories that studied integration, mainly kept to studying formal organizations. It was regime theory that tried to fill the void, by taking as point of origin that the focus was “neither as broad as international structure, nor as narrow as the study of formal organizations”48. It might be stated that regime theory, that
assumed state action was influenced by norms but nonetheless acknowledged that this behavior
44 Ibid.: 249 45 Krasner, 1983: 2 46 Ibid: 3-4 47 Young, 1989: 5
16 was still in pursuit of national interests, can be considered an attempt of reconciling idealist and realist traditions49. It is the author’s opinion that regime theory falls within the neoliberal school
of thought, because of the fact it does recognize anarchy, but also states that cooperation is possible through the development of for example norms, principles and institutions. Furthermore, it uses game theory (of which the Prisoners’ Dilemma, which will be explained later in this chapter, is a part) as a method for explaining.
Although the definition as presented by Keohane and Axelrod, and the explanation of terms by Krasner, will be used in this thesis to study the regime on plastic waste, an important concept, or attribute, of regimes will be laid out as well. This concept is that regimes are “social institutions governing the actions of those involved in specifiable activities or sets of activities”50. They can be formally articulated and there can be explicit organization
accompanying a regime, but this is not per se the case, similar to other social institutions51.
Baylis and Smith proposed a categorization of regimes that is based on the formality and the convergence of expectations. They distinguish three types of regimes, based on the level of convergence of expectation and formality. The authors make an interesting remark when they point toward the danger of regimes becoming ‘dead-letter’ ones, which means that they exist on paper, but are not working in reality52. The categorization is the following:
Convergence of expectations Formality
Low High
Low No regimes Tacit regimes
High Dead-letter regimes Full-blown regimes
Figure 2. A typology of regimes (Source: Baylis & Smith, 2001: 304)
It is perhaps clarifying to make a distinction between international orders and international regimes. International orders are “broad, framework arrangements governing the activities of all (or almost all) the members of international society within a wide range of
49 Ibid.: 492 50 Young, 1989: 12 51 Ibid.: 13
17 specific issues”. Regimes however, are “more specialized arrangements that pertain to well-defined activities, resources, or geographical areas and often involve only some subset of the members of international society”53. The activities mentioned in regimes often apply not just to
states, but also to many other actors such as multinational corporations. Therefore compliance from these actors also needs to be dealt with within a regime. An example of an international order is the international political order, in which states interact as sovereign entities without any central government. A regime can be for example on whaling54. An analytical distinction
can also be made between regimes and agreements. Agreements are made at a particular moment, and are often ‘one-shot arrangements’. Regimes on the other hand, have as a purpose to facilitate agreements55.
What can be derived from the explanation of regimes above, is that there are many definitions used to explain the concept. Because of this, regimes can become a somewhat vague concept, which makes it difficult to use regime theory as a practical tool when studying societal issues. Part of the goal of the study conducted in this thesis, is to clarify the concept of regimes. This will be discussed later on.
After this elaborate establishment of what regimes entail, it is now appropriate to study the impact of regimes. Do regimes matter? Several answers on this question have been given by different schools of thought. Stephen Krasner has been very influential in structuring the various schools and their conception of regimes.
Regimes can be considered as an intervening variable between ‘basic causal variables’ and behavior and outcomes. This is demonstrated in figure 2.
Figure 3. Causal relationships in analyzing regimes (Source: Krasner, 1983:5)
The second arrow, which indicates a causal relationship between regimes and related behavior and outcomes, implies that regimes matter. However, not everyone agrees on this relationship. Three orientations can be distinguished on this issue. As presented by Krasner, these are the ‘conventional structural view’, which claims that the concept of regimes is useless, ‘modified structural view’, which suggest that regimes have the potential to matter, but only under specific conditions, and the ‘Grotian view’, which sees regimes as persistent and inherent
18 attributes of human behavior56. The three orientations as described by Krasner will be outlined
below, explaining the line of thought behind every one of them. The focus however, will be on the Grotian view, which the author will adapt for this thesis. The reason for this will be explained below.
The conventional structural view is most evidently represented by Susan Strange in her article Cave! Hic Dragones: a critique of regime analysis. Within this article, Strange distinguishes five points of critique on regimes. These are that regimes are a fad, imprecise and woolly, value-biased, underemphasizing the dynamic element and narrow-minded57. Even if
there would be regimes, they have no impact. Actors function in an environment that is defined solely by their own interests58. A causal schema would then look like this:
Figure 4.Causal relationships according to the conventional structural view (Source: Krasner, 1983: 6)
This view will not be further developed in this study. The author does not believe that actors act completely without any consideration of others or influence by the environment in which they operate. It is true however, that Strange offers critique on regime theory that might be used to improve it.
The second orientation as defined by Krasner, the modified structural view, can be found in the works of for example Keohane. This orientation has as a point of origin the neorealist assumption of a world that consists of sovereign states that seek to maximize their power and interest. In this world, regimes have as their basic function to coordinate the behavior of states in order to achieve desired outcomes in specific areas. This function shows similarities with the definition and implications of international cooperation that have been discussed earlier in this thesis. Here, regimes have the potential for impact when individual calculations of self-interest could not possibly provide the level of coordination that is necessary for achieving the desired outcome. The logic behind this can be found in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where it is explained that an individual calculation, that seems a rational choice at first, actually has worse results for both parties. It is likely that global interdependence will grow over the years, which means that the number of areas in which regimes can be of significance is growing59.
56 Ibid.: 6
19 Although the Prisoner’s Dilemma is not used directly in the study performed in this thesis, the logic behind it will be explained here. This is because this logic is used by many authors that contributed to regime theory literature. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a part of game theory and its logic is used to explain cooperation. The Prisoner’s Dilemma was developed as a game in 195060. It was at that time when John Nash came up with what is now called the ‘Nash
equilibrium’. This is a point in a non-zero-sum game (which is a game where the interests of player’s are not in complete opposition) where the players don’t have an incentive to change their decision. The Prisoner’s Dilemma was developed as a game to find out whether people would select a ‘Nash equilibrium’ without prior knowledge of equilibrium points61.
Within the Prisoner’s Dilemma, there are two players with two choices. They can either defect or cooperate. They have to make a choice, but are unaware of the choice that the other player makes. From an individual perspective, a player yields a higher payoff when it defects. However, if both defect, they are worse of in comparison to when both would have cooperated and that is what poses the Dilemma62. Heap and Varoufakis have presented a clear explanation
the further illustrates the Dilemma. There are two suspects arrested and kept in different cells, which disables them to communicate with each other. The suspects are offered a deal. If one confesses (A), while the other does not (B), A will spend 0 years in jail because he cooperated, while B will spend 5 for defecting. When both suspects confess, they will receive adjusted jail time of 3 years. When both suspects defect (or don’t confess), they’ll both spend 1 year in jail. The payoff matrix shows the Dilemma.
Figure 5. Payoff Matrix Prisoner’s Dilemma (source: Gowda, 1996: 647)
20 If a suspect, or prisoner, would act ‘rational’, it would choose to confess63. However, if
both prisoners act that way, the outcome for the group would be inefficient, or suboptimal64.
With this game, the contrast between individual and group rational choice is shown. For a ‘rational’ choice to maximize individual results actually leads to poorer results for the individual. Therefore, a truly rational act would be for the prisoners to cooperate, for this would maximize both their personal outcomes65.
According to the modified structural view, there are also situations in which regimes cannot be relevant, and that is in zero-sum situations. When pure power motivations are at stake, regimes are precluded. So according to this view, regimes may be significant, and they are emerging on more fields, but only under specific conditions. The amended causal relations associated with regimes would then look like figure 366. Although the comments offered by the
modified structural view and the logic of the Prisoner’s Dilemma are accepted in this thesis, the author has a more firm believe in the existence of regimes. This believe is reflected in the Grotian view.
Figure 6. Causal relationships according to the modified structural view (Source: Krasner, 1983: 8)
The Grotian view, which can be found for example in the work of Oran Young, has a very different approach to international relations when comparing it to the other two orientations. This view rejects the basic assumption that sovereign states compose the international system and that they are only limited by the balance of power. According to this view, regimes are present in all areas of international relations, even the areas that are concerned with major power rivalry. It moves beyond the realist perspective, which is “too limited for explaining an
63 The logic behind this reasoning can be found in Gowda, 1996: 647. For prisoner A the analysis will be as
follows: If B chooses to not confess, then A will receive a jail term of one year if he also chooses to not confess. If A chooses to confess, then A will receive 0 years in jail. Clearly, in this case, A is better off choosing to confess (0 years in jail is better than one year in jail). Therefore, A's best response strategy is to confess when B chooses to not confess. If B chooses to confess, then A will receive a jail term of three years if he also chooses to confess. If A chooses to not confess, then A will receive five years in jail. Clearly, in this case, A is better off choosing to confess (three years in jail is better than five years in jail). Therefore, A's best response strategy is to confess when B chooses to confess. Because A and B face identical strategies and payoffs in this example, B's logic would be identical to A's reasoning. B will also choose to confess when A chooses to confess, and B will confess when A chooses to not confess. Thus, regardless of what the other prisoner does, each prisoner will choose to confess.
21 increasingly complex, interdependent, and dangerous world”67. This third orientation even
considers the market and the balance of power as a regime, because they cannot be sustained by the mere calculations of self-interest. It needs to be “embedded in a broader social environment that nurtures and sustains the conditions necessary for its functioning”68. The
causal schema would then look like displayed in figure 6. As the arrows show, the patterned behavior, which reflects calculations of interests, tends to lead to the construction of regimes, whereas regimes on their turn reinforce patterned behavior69.
Figure 7. Causal relationships according to the Grotian view (Source: Krasner, 1983: 9)
This thesis will take the Grotian view as a point of origin. It is the authors believe that things aren’t simply based on individual calculations of self-interest. Whereas the first view doesn’t take regimes seriously, the second view considers phenomena such as the market as not prone to regimes, due to the fact that actors act based on self-interest, without regarding the behavior of others70. The author believes this cannot be the case. Even in a market, calculations
will be based on the perception of other actors. Phenomena are embedded in social structures. Regimes shape the way in which people behave. This is a different point of view from the modified structural view that many realists adhere to. As Stephen Krasner states “from a realist perspective, regimes are phenomena that need to be explained; from a Grotian perspective, they are data to be described”71. In this thesis, regimes will be accepted as a “pervasive and
significant phenomenon in the international system”, however, the critical note from the modified structuralist thinkers will be reflected upon. They consider regimes as “phenomenon whose presence cannot be assumed and whose existence requires careful explanation”72. The
critical attitude and the logic of the Prisoner’s Dilemma will be considered in this thesis. However, the author will assume regimes exist and shape human behavior. But, it is very important to establish that adhering to this view does not necessarily mean that a regime on
22 plastic waste does exist. Therefore, this thesis will provide a careful explanation of regimes on the topic of the plastic waste and present an elaborate study on the matter.
2.3. International environmental regimes
In order to make a link towards the problem of plastic soup, an explanation on regime theory that is concerned with the environment will now follow. It will only be a short introduction to environmental regimes, before focusing on the methodology used for this thesis. When it comes to global environmental problems, they have distinct features that distinguish them from other problems that policy makers have to deal with, for they “concern global public goods, are global in their scale and long-term in their impact and they are characterized by high uncertainty, complexity and multiple interests”73. It makes them difficult
to be dealt with and it requires transdisciplinary approaches to do so. International environmental regimes, in the form of systems of obligations, rights and related decision-making procedures, have been developed in order to address these global environmental problems most effectively. These regimes deal with specific issues of environmental concern at the international level74. There are several well-known regimes on issues such as the
protection of the stratospheric ozone layer, how to govern Antarctica and the multilateral arrangement that was established within a regime in order to clean up the Rhine River75. Several
studies have researched whether these regimes were able to deal with the problem at hand. The ones mentioned before were deemed fairly successful. However, there have also been regimes that weren’t effective in dealing with an environmental problem. Examples of these can mostly be found within regimes concerning the climate (for example the arrangement created to combat desertification) and some regional fisheries management regimes76.
International regimes have been often considered as important, sometimes even as key factor when dealing with global environmental problems. However, developing and implementing a regime may be hard and costly, since the system is not easily changed and solving global problems might cost a considerable amount of money. It is therefore essential to establish if and how regimes are effective in tackling global environmental problems77.
73 Vos, Janssen, Kok et al., 2013: 101 74 Ibid.: 101-102
75 Young, 2011: 19853 76 Ibid.: 19853
23 2.4. Methodology
This thesis has several objectives that need to be met. In order to answer the research question, two different aspects need to be established. The first is assessing the existence of a regime on the subject of the plastic soup. The second point is examining whether this regime is effective in dealing with the issue. But this thesis has another purpose as well, which is to test regime theory. An important aspect of regime theory that will be critically dealt with is that this thesis will try to provide advice on how to ensure that the theory can be made operational. How it can be used for studying questions that are posing challenges to the world. This will be based on only one of the views in the debate, the Grotian view, which has been chosen by the author based on its potential to improve the theory. Connected with this aspects, the concept of what a regime precisely is and what it can do, will be addressed. This thesis will make an attempt to grasp and clarify the concept of regimes. It should however be noted that the scope of this thesis is just international environmental regimes and that the specific case of a regime on the plastic soup will be used to draw conclusions, so no all-encompassing conclusions can be drawn. But before remarks on the theory are made, the research questions from this thesis need to be answered. In this chapter, the methodology to do so will be discussed.
2.4.1. Sources
The method of study chosen in the thesis is a hybrid one, using different approaches. At the end of this chapter, an overview of this method will be presented. An important way of doing research for this thesis, will be studying existing literature on the subject of plastic waste in the oceans. However, there will be interviews conducted with experts as well. The questionnaire that will be presented to the respondents can be found in appendix A. As explained in the introduction of this thesis, the focus of study will be on information provided by NGO’s. The complete list of persons interviewed, can be found in appendix B. The line of reasoning for the selection of candidates has been discussed in the introduction.
24 to ensure that opinions and statements made by the experts remained anonymous, these versions have not been incorporated in this study.
2.4.2. Assessing the existence of regimes and examining the effectiveness of regimes
First of all, the existence of a regime on the subject of plastic waste needs to be determined. Besides the use of existing literature, the interviews will be important here. Based on the response, conclusions will be drawn on the existence of a regime on the subject of plastic waste in the oceans. Determinants used by the scholars Vos, Janssen, Kok et al. will be incorporated in the questionnaire, which makes it possible to assess whether the experts consider it likely for a regime to be in place. Vos, Janssen, Kok et al. provide for an interesting approach on international environmental regimes. The authors strive to develop another way of measuring international environmental regime effectiveness. They point to several problems of existing approaches, for example that assessing effectiveness is often prone to speculation and current approaches have problems of comparability and generalizability. Vos, Janssen, Kok et al. propose to cooperate more with integrated assessment of global environmental change. Integrated assessment is a methodology to “analyze global environmental problems by combining knowledge from the social, environmental and economic domains relying strongly on quantification and computer simulation, but also by incorporating participatory methods to include stakeholders in integrated assessments”78. The authors develop a conceptual framework
and use ‘fuzzy logic’ as modelling approach for measuring the effectiveness of an environmental regime. The conceptual framework, and especially the determinants of it, can and will be used in the study of this thesis79. The ‘fuzzy logic’ modelling approach is based on
developing new software and models to evaluate the determinants used in the framework. Since the author has not sufficient knowledge of IT modelling and wishes to use another method, this model will not be used in this study.
The framework that the scholars use, is based on 64 rules on the likelihood of regime formation and regime implementation that are derived from a review of existing literature. They will not be outlined any further in this thesis, since that will not add to the line of reasoning performed here. It is sufficient to state that these rules concern regime formation, the negotiation process, actors involved, the regime environment, structure of the problem and the regime
25 design. From these rules, determinants were established on the likelihood of regime formation and implementation. The determinants can be regarded as input variables, the likelihood as output variables. These two variables, and the two phases in regime development (the likelihood of formation and implementation) are linked in the framework80. The framework itself will not
be discussed any further, for it will not be used in this thesis. The method of study used will not leave enough time to use the entire framework, and just using parts of the framework would lead to vague assumptions. Furthermore, the author believes that using the framework would not answer the research question, because it would not provide the necessary data.
The determinants however will be partly used. They will not be used to determine regime effectiveness, something the authors strived for with their complete model, but to determine the likelihood of the existence of a regime. Because the determinants focus on the likelihood of regime formation and implementation, statements can be derived about whether it is likely a regime exists. An analysis of the different determinants and what this means for the likeliness of the existence of a regime, will be conducted in the next chapter.
The determinants consist of ‘context’ variables and ‘design’ variables. The ‘context’ variables consist of three categories. The ‘problem structure’ refers to the nature and attributes of the environmental problem, ‘actors’ refers to actors that take part in negotiations on the regime and its implementation, and ‘regime environment’ concerns the background against which the formation and implementation of regimes takes place, including influencing by other institutions and norms. In order to prevent misunderstandings, and as this is a thesis on environmental regimes, the ‘regime environment’ will be indicated with ‘regime surroundings’. The ‘design’ variables are choices that policy makers can make during the process of formation and implementation. They in fact can enhance or mitigate the impact of ‘context variables’ on regime effectiveness81. The complete overview of determinants can be found in appendix C.
For the study conducted here, a few of the determinants will be incorporated in the questionnaire. In this questionnaire, there will be no distinction between the formation and implementation of the regime, however, determinants from both phases are used. Determinants that were mentioned for both phases in the model by Vos, Jansen & Kok, have only been used once in this study. The determinants that are used are chosen because they provide clear information and are straightforward, which enables respondents to give their opinion even with no prior knowledge on regime theory. They can be easily categorized and give a full overview of the issue. The hybrid model, discussed below, gives an overview of determinants used.
26 The scope of this study did not permit for all the determinants to be analyzed. Therefore, determinants that proved to be difficult to address by the experts or would lead to vague descriptions have been left out. Examples of these are ‘cumulative cleavages’, ‘negative interplay’, ‘homogeneous states’, ‘informal agreement’, ‘side payments’ and ‘broad issue coverage’. For these determinants are very difficult to grasp, data on them is sometimes difficult to gather and some terms are vague and leave for different interpretations, leading to invaluable information for this study. Also determinants that will be included when questioning about other determinants, have been left out. For example, determinants have been combined, such as the ‘support of powerful states’ and the ‘support of important states in the issue area’, which have been combined in the determinant ‘powerful actors’. ‘Precise rules’ and ‘legally binding rules’ have been combined in ‘differentiated rules’. ‘Strong secretariat’, ‘compliance mechanisms’, ‘reporting mechanism’ and ‘consensus voting’ will be dealt with when the determinants on ‘knowledge, information and public awareness mechanisms’ will be discussed.
In appendix C, the determinants that were used in this study, are underlined with a green line. The determinants that were not used, have a red underlining. As has been explained above, some determinants have been combined. In those cases, the main determinant, the one that was used in the questionnaire, has a green underlining. In this way, the overview of the determinants shows easily which determinants were used and which were not.
Secondly, the effectiveness of the regime, with a proviso that it exists, needs to be examined. There are various ways to examine the effectiveness of regimes. This study will use two different approaches to determine regime effectiveness. These are the political approach and the problem-solving approach. These two provide for an elaborate overview of regime effectiveness. But in order to explain why they are chosen, first an overview will be given of how regime effectiveness can be studied by explaining two ways and lines of arguing on effectiveness. Oran Young and Marc Levy propose five interesting approaches to measure regimes effectiveness82. At first glance one may conclude that the matter of effectiveness can
be shown by the contributions of institutions (regimes) to solving the problems that were the motivation for actors to invest in the creation of them. However, when one considers the effectiveness more elaborately, it can mean multiple things, and may require different difficult judgments, such as normative, scientific and historical ones83. The different approaches Young
and Levy explain are the problem-solving approach, the legal, the economic, the normative and
27 the political approach84. Despite the fact that they aren’t flawless approaches, the
problem-solving and the political approach will be used in this thesis. The other approaches will also briefly be described, in order to present a complete picture and explain why they aren’t used.
The problem-solving approach is based on the sense of effectiveness that is intuitively very appealing, namely the degree to which a regime is able to eliminate the problem that was the cause for its creation. However, this approach is very hard to apply and it will not easily provide meaningful conclusions. This is due to the fact that the social systems that are the focus of regimes, are very complex. Furthermore, most problems that are dealt with in a regime, are serious and therefore, a variety of initiatives is likely to be set up in order to tackle the problem. Result are then not always attributes of the regime85. It is problematic to prove causality in this
approach.
The legal approach measures the effectiveness by taking into account the degree to which contractual obligations are met. This entails the compliance to rules, policies being changed, programs initiated etcetera. This approach provides for a straightforward way of measurement, but a major downside is that a regime can be effective from a legal point of view, but not doing anything, or doing very little, to solve the problem that was the reason for its creation86.
The economic approach incorporates the legal approach, but adds an efficiency criterion, for economists want to ensure not only that the right outcome is achieved, but also whether that is done at the least cost. This efficiency criterion distinguishes the economic approach from the problem-solving approach, for the latter only assesses the degree to which a problem is effectively dealt with. However, the same benefits and weaknesses that apply to the problem-solving approach and the legal approach, can be found here as well. It is very appealing, but difficult to apply. In order to measure the efficiency according to this criterion, observations of alternative regimes or calculations based on theoretical regimes must be made. However, this would in many cases prove to be too abstract and difficult87. Furthermore, it can be stated that
the legal and economic approach won’t work because of the fact that they are disconnected from the problem. They consider promises, not the problem itself. When the legal obligation that is the subject of the study of effectiveness does very little to solve the problem, it is not likely that one gets a reliable result.
28 The normative approach has a different way of assessing the effectiveness of regimes, based on normative principles such as fairness, participation, justice, and so forth. This approach presents severe measurement problems, and is therefore mainly loosely incorporated by analysts. Most of the time, it is used as a matter of evaluation instead of an effort to find causal understanding88.
The political approach measures the effectiveness of a regime by considering its ability to change the behavior of actors, the interest of actors, or policies and performance of institutions in a way to contribute to good management of the problem at hand. The degree of whether problems get solved, compliance is high or low and normative goals are met, are not excluded in this definition. This definition merely insists that the focus is on how behavioral changes that are attributable to a regime, are responsible for an improved environment. When it comes to environmental treaties, goals and aims are often broad and measures not always formulated beforehand. Effectiveness here means stimulating the actions of actors towards the achievement of regime goals through behavioral change, as opposed to the compliance with rules in the legal approach89. This political approach is useful for the method in this study,
because from the response on the interviews, a change of behavior on the subject of plastic waste might be deduced.
These approaches present very elaborate ways for measuring the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. They can be considered useful because two of the approaches will be used in this study. Furthermore, the other approaches help realize that examining regime effectiveness is a very delicate matter and presents many pitfalls. Another model, developed by Helm and Sprinz will be explained here before explaining the way in which this thesis will measure the effectiveness of a regime on plastic waste in the oceans.
Helm and Sprinz take as point of origin three questions posed by Arild Underdal in his study on regime effectiveness. These questions ask what the object to be evaluated precisely is, against what standard it is to be evaluated and what the comparison of the object to the standard should look like90.When defining the object of evaluation, Helm and Sprinz choose a middle
way between the degree of problem-solving, for which reliable data are often lacking, and a focus on observable political effects, which is not that useful because high political output does not necessarily mean that desired societal outcomes are accomplished. The middle way would be a policy instrument that is closely related to the primary goals of the regime, with enough
88 Ibid.: 5 89 Ibid.: 6
29 reliable data as the object of evaluation. According to them, emission reductions are a promising field of study from this point of view91. After having decided on the object of evaluation, the
standard against which the object has to be evaluated needs to be explained. Helm and Sprinz use counterfactuals to produce a standard. The first is the ‘no-regime’ counterfactual, which is the hypothetical state of affairs in which the regime does not exist. However, it is very difficult to establish this counterfactual, without using too much speculation. All one can do is be very explicit and careful when using the no-regime counterfactual. The authors interview experts in order to diminish the speculative element. The second counterfactual is the ‘collective optimum’, which is the hypothetical state of affairs that would be there with a perfect regime. This counterfactual is derived from game-theoretical knowledge of the no-regime counterfactual. The no-regime counterfactual is the Nash equilibrium, when actors choose what is best for them, but not for the group. The collective optimum is the Pareto optimum, when actors choose what is best for the group. By considering the actual policies in relation to no regime, and the collective optimum to no regime, a score between 0 (which is the equivalent of no regime) and 1 (the equivalent of the collective optimum) can measure the effectiveness92. In
the interviews conducted for this thesis, respondents will also be asked to score the rate between no regime or the collective optimum that they seem fit. However, since the entire questionnaire will keep to a scale between 0 and 10, these values will also be used when considering the choice between no regime and the collective optimum. This scale will be used as handhold for the line of reasoning performed in the analysis of the regime on plastic soup.
2.4.3. The hybrid model
This chapter concludes with a summary of the method of study that will be conducted. In order to assess the existence of a regime on the subject of plastic waste and examine its effectiveness, a combination of three approaches will be used.
The first approach is based on the model by Vos, Janssen & Kok. Using their determinants in the questionnaire, information on the likelihood of regime formation and implementation will be assembled from experts. From this information, combined with additional research, a claim on the likeliness of regime existence can be made. Why certain determinants are chosen, was explained in the end of the previous paragraph.
