Methodological Challenges in the Study of Regime Effectiveness

Abstract

The study of regime effectiveness can be considered a sub-field of the broader study of regime consequences This sub-field is distinguished first and foremost by the perspective it adopts: regimes are assessed in terms of how well they perform a particular function or the extent to which they achieve their purpose.¹ The notion of effectiveness implies the idea of regimes as (potential) tools, and like all other tools regimes can be evaluated in terms of their usefulness in helping us carry out a particular task. In adopting this instrumental perspective, students of regime effectiveness concentrate their attention on a subset of consequences; notably those that are germane to the function or purpose assigned to the regime in focus. Other consequences—side effects—are of interest only in so far as they have a direct or indirect bearing on this task or purpose. Moreover, in assessing effectiveness the costs incurred in establishing and operating the regime are usually left out of the equation. Effectiveness thus becomes a matter of gross rather than net achievement, and should not be confused with efficiency. Finally, in evaluating a regime in terms of the extent to which it achieves its official purpose or solves the problem that motivated its establishment, we should keep in mind that regimes are normally designed to promote the values or interests of their (dominant) members If these interests and values differ significantly from those of non-members, a regime may well serve a useful function for its members at the expense of creating a serious problem for others. As defined here, effectiveness does not imply fairness.