Towards increasing regime complexity? Why member states drive overlaps between international organisations

Abstract

Multilateral cooperation in international organisations is characterised by regime complexity. The literature usually adopts a policy-focused perspective studying the properties, effects, and dynamics within given regime complexes for different policy areas. Yet few accounts of why states drive regime complexity have been provided in the literature. Therefore, we adopt a state-focused perspective and observe how states differ in the extent to which they foster complexity through overlapping memberships and policy competencies in international organisations. In order to explain this variation, we extract state motivations from the regime complexity literature, but also incorporate the role of geopolitical opportunity structures for complexity as well as interactions between both elements. The empirical analysis reveals that the power to pursue self-interests leads to duplicated policy competencies, whereas duplicating international organisation memberships by creating new international organisations or joining existing ones is costly and a less favoured route towards pursuing substantive gains. The motivation to gain external reputation also positively influences the overlap in membership and policy competencies. Moreover, the number of neighbouring states and the disappearance of deep-rooted ideological cleavages are important opportunity structures for states furthering complexity. Opportunity structures also reinforce the positive effect of power to pursue self-interests and external reputation motivations on complexity. Thus, we contribute to regime complexity research in showing that not all states equally foster regime complexity and this relationship is dependent on a specific context.

Regional Governance in Latin America: The More the Merrier?

“…Work by Diana Panke and Sören Stapel has shifted the focus from an RO-centered analysis to embrace a state-centric investigation of the motivations behind institutional complexity. The authors argue that overlap may be a deliberate choice in order to meet states' needs, as a function of states endowments -or whether a state is more powerful in relation to the others (Panke and Stapel 2022). Their study corroborates a concern that institutional complexity would favor powerful states (Drezner 2009).…”

“…Indeed, these three proposed indicators of institution complexity showcase an arrangement that may impact outcomes in a positive way; they are also observable and subject to measurement (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and Westerwinter 2022; Alter and Meunier 2009). The upfront argument that overlap in Latin American regional organizations is problematic warrants further investigation, regardless if it is the case of overlap in membership or mandates (Panke and Stapel 2022). This article is a step in this direction.…”

“…With respect to institutional complexity, comparativists and scholars of regional integration have documented a high level of overlap amongst Latin American regional organizations. The emphasis has been on overlapping membership (Long and Schulz 2022;Malamud 2018), but research has analyzed overlap in mandates as well (Panke and Stapel 2022;Nolte 2018;Gómez-Mera 2015).…”

“…Rather, as Tom Long and Carsten-Andreas Schulz argue, institutions evolve and often in an expansionary manner, to widen their mandates in a compensatory fashion. The broader institutional mandate is yet another form of complexity, enacted through the juxtaposition of new layers, new competencies (Long and Schulz 2022;Panke and Stapel 2022). These new competencies often encroach upon the institutional mandates of preexisting organizations.…”

Navigating Regional Regime Complexity: How and Why Does the European Union Cooperate With Regional Organizations?

“…To assess regional regime complexity, we draw on new versions of the Regional Organizations Competencies (ROCO) datasets (Panke & Stapel, 2023a). The datasets cover all 73 ROs between 1945 and 2020 or since their establishment.…”