Determining Regime Effectiveness: A Commentary on the Oslo-Potsdam Solution

摘要

The preparation of this commentary on "The Oslo-Potsdam Solution to Measuring Regime Effectiveness: Critique, Response, and the Road Ahead" is a clear case of "good trouble." The appearance of the Sprinz and Helm and the Helm and Sprinz papers on regime effectiveness triggered a productive scientific debate of the sort we all aspire to but seldom achieve. My own earlier critique of the approach set forth in these papers has provoked considerable interest culminating in the paper to be discussed in this commentary. The tone of the debate has been constructive and courteous throughout, and the exchange has shed considerable light on a topic that lies at the heart of our efforts to understand the roles that institutions play in international society. I have prepared this commentary in the interest of keeping this stimulating dialogue going and, in the process, encouraging scientific discourse of the highest order. In their new paper, Hovi, Sprinz and Underdal raise a wide range of issues that are worthy of consideration and comment. In order to keep the debate focused, however, I shall concentrate in this commentary on three main concerns: (1) the conceptualization and measurement of the no-regime outcome (NR) and the collective optimum (CO), (2) alternatives to effectiveness as the dependent variable, and (3) the idea that a faulty measure of effectiveness is better than none.