Search

In many issue areas in international political economy (IPE), interstate cooperation is governed by a dense network of distinct but overlapping international institutions. Whether this environment of 'regime complexity' strengthens or undermines cooperation is a subject of intense debate. Some argue that overlapping institutions enhance legitimacy and flexibility, while others claim that opportunistic forum shopping enables states to escape compliance with rigorous rules. This article reconciles this debate, demonstrating that regime complexity has contrasting effects depending on the degree of value differentiation among institutions. In issue areas where undifferentiated institutions function as substitutes, forum shopping will reduce the regime's ability to discipline state behavior. However, in issue areas where institutions are differentiated by value - i.e. the benefits they provide increase as rules become more rigorous - institutional overlap can increase policy change among states. I demonstrate these dynamics formally and provide empirical evidence in a comparative analysis of the regime complexes for election observation and forest-related carbon offsets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article shows that the EU has exerted uneven influence within the global regime complex in shadow banking. Why? We seek to explain the variation in the EU’s ability to exert influence across different elemental regimes—those on hedge funds and securitization—in the broader regime complex over time. In hedge funds regulation, the EU has pursued more stringent international rules, to no avail. In securitization, the EU has been more successful in promoting more lenient regulation at the international level. We focus on the EU’s internal cohesiveness (which can change over time) as the key explanatory variable.

This article shows that the EU has exerted uneven influence within the global regime complex in shadow banking. Why? We seek to explain the variation in the EU's ability to exert influence across different elemental regimes--those on hedge funds and securitization--in the broader regime complex over time. In hedge funds regulation, the EU has pursued more stringent international rules, to no avail. In securitization, the EU has been more successful in promoting more lenient regulation at the international level. We focus on the EU's internal cohesiveness (which can change over time) as the key explanatory variable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]