regulatory change and the introduction of flexible instruments. The use of any policy approaches
depends on the government’s capacity of monitoring and enforcement. Thus, the central issue
again, is not the nature of the instrument but the ability to ensure that it will work, if it is
adopted. In this case, a comparison of the institutional frameworks would bring to light the
factors that influence the capacity to ensure compliance.
Hypotheses
Location and Nature of Policy Authority
Centralization and concentration of policy authority is often found appealing as a means
to secure effectiveness, performance, and goal achievement. Centralized authority is also seen as
conducive to policy consistency: a consistency not only between the legislative intent and
implementative standards, but also among the individual decisions based on those standards.
Advocates of centralization say it brings together specialized expertise and develops a common
core of experience and competence, all of which are conducive to performance. Centralized
policy authority may be defended as necessary to secure continuity in policy development
(Lundqvist 1980).
Concentration and centralization of policy authority were also seen as an attribute of
traditional direct regulation approach in public policy. The demands and complexities of
environmental policy in particular dictated a necessity of a highly centralized regulatory structure
for pollution control (Kelley, Stunkel, and Wescott 1976; McIntyre and Thompson 1978; Rabe
2000). A new vision of governance, however, contributes towards an understanding that the
functions traditionally assumed by centralized authorities are now being diffused and fragmented
among a wide range of actors and at different levels (Nicolaidis and Howse 2001). Worldwide
movements towards devolution and decentralization resulted in a shift of power from national to
state, regional, or local entities, which are responsible for implementing environmental
programs, and are deemed to experiment with and introduce innovative strategies.
If the costs of coordination are sufficiently low, decentralization can result in such
benefits as more direct access to local information and creativity on the part of the individual
citizens and of various levels of government. In addition, decentralization potentially carries the
ability to unravel the forces of competition among governmental entities, which could allow
these to adjust to the demands of environmental policy (Breton, Brosio, and Dalmazzone 2003).
Convention