Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:06:29.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Intergovernmental Institutions

from Part I - The Building Blocks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

By
Ronald B. Mitchell ,
Arild Underdal ,
Steinar Andresen  and
Carel Dieperink
Edited by
Frank Biermann  and
Rakhyun E. Kim
Frank Biermann
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rakhyun E. Kim
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

What have scholars learned over the past decade about the forces that shape the creation, design, and adaptation of intergovernmental institutions in earth system governance and their influence on state behaviour? Context characteristics – shared, science-based knowledge; the behaviours involved; and the availability of alternative behaviours – can shape institutional creation, design and adaptation. The strategies states, existing institutions and non-state actors deploy, in turn, can promote institutional formation despite challenges or inhibit it despite propitious conditions. Context characteristics also can pose larger or smaller obstacles to institutional effectiveness. Institutions prove more effective when their designs reflect political, economic and social constraints as well as major actors’ power and incentives. They shape material, ideational and normative incentives and opportunities that channel states toward positive behaviours and away from negative ones. New research can build on recent findings by investigating complex interactions at and across the international, transnational, domestic and subnational levels of earth system governance.

Keywords

Institutional formationinstitutional effectivenessproblem structurespowerconstructivism
Type
Chapter
Information
Architectures of Earth System Governance
Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation
 , pp. 37 - 56
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aakvik, A., & Sigve, T. (2011). Do collective actions clear common air? The effect of international environmental protocols on sulphur emissions. European Journal of Political Economy, 27 (2), 343–51.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Bernstein, S. (2015). The High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: Orchestration by default and design. Global Policy, 6 (3), 222–33.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2013). Taking responsive regulation transnational: Strategies for international organizations. Regulation and Governance, 7 (1), 95–113.Google Scholar
Allan, J. I., & Hadden, J. (2017). Exploring the framing power of NGOs in global climate politics. Environmental Politics, 26 (4), 600–20.Google Scholar
Andonova, L. B., & Mitchell, R. B. (2010). The rescaling of global environmental politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35 (1), 255–82.Google Scholar
Andresen, S. (2013). International regime effectiveness. In Falkner, R (ed.), The handbook of global climate and environment policy (pp. 304–19). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Andresen, S., & Hey, E. (2005). The effectiveness and legitimacy of international environmental institutions. International Environmental Agreements, 5 (3), 211–26.Google Scholar
Andresen, S., & Rosendal, K. (2009). The role of the United Nations Environment Programme in the coordination of multilateral environmental agreements. In Biermann, F, Siebenhüner, B, & Schreyögg, A (eds.), International organizations in global environmental governance (pp. 133–50). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Auld, G. (2014). Constructing private governance: The rise and evolution of forest, coffee and fisheries certification. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Baccini, L., & Urpelainen, J. (2012). Strategic side payments: Preferential trading agreements, economic reform, and foreign aid. Journal of Politics, 74 (4), 932–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baccini, L., & Urpelainen, J. (2014). Before ratification: Understanding the timing of international treaty effects on domestic policies. International Studies Quarterly, 58 (1), 29–43.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. (2003). Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. (2007). Why cooperate? The incentives to supply global public goods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berardo, R., & Gerlak, A. (2012). Conflict and cooperation along international rivers. Global Environmental Politics, 12 (1), 101–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, T. (2002). Explaining success and failure in international river management. Aquatic Sciences, 64 (1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, T., and Böhmelt, T. (2013). National climate policies in international comparison: The climate change cooperation index. Environmental Science and Policy, 25, 196–206.Google Scholar
Bernauer, T., and Böhmelt, T. (2014). Basins at risk: Predicting international river basin conflict and cooperation. Global Environmental Politics, 14 (4), 116–38.Google Scholar
Bernauer, T., Kalbhenn, A., Koubi, V., & Spilker, G. (2013). Is there a ‘depth versus participation’ dilemma in international cooperation? Review of International Organizations, 8 (4), 477–97.Google Scholar
Betsill, M. M., Benney, T. M., & Gerlak, A. K. (eds.) (2019). Agency in earth system governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Betsill, M. M., & Corell, E. (2008). NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Betzold, C., Bernauer, T., & Koubi, V. (2016). Press briefings in international climate change negotiations. Environmental Communication, 10 (5), 575–92.Google Scholar
Beunen, R., & Patterson, J. J. (2016). Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: Exploring the concept of ‘institutional work’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62 (1), 12–29.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (eds.) (2012). Global environmental governance reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2010). The art and craft of international environmental law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2015). Legally-binding vs. non-legally-binding instruments. In Barrett, S, Carraro, C, & de Melo, J (eds.), Towards a workable and effective climate regime (pp. 155–65). London: VoxEU.Google Scholar
Bodin, Ö., & Österblom, H. (2013). International fisheries regime effectiveness: Activities and resources of key actors in the southern ocean. Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), 948–56.Google Scholar
Böhmelt, T., & Betzold, C. (2013). The impact of environmental interest groups in international negotiations: Do ENGOs induce stronger environmental commitments? International Environmental Agreements, 13 (2), 127–51.Google Scholar
Böhmelt, T., & Pilster, U. H. (2010). International environmental regimes: Legalisation, flexibility and effectiveness. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45 (2), 245–60.Google Scholar
Breitmeier, H. (2008). The legitimacy of international regimes. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Breitmeier, H., Underdal, A., & Young, O. R. (2011). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Comparing and contrasting findings from quantitative research. International Studies Review, 13 (4), 579–605.Google Scholar
Breitmeier, H., Young, O. R., & Zürn, M. (2006). Analyzing international environmental regimes: From case study to database. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brochmann, M., & Hensel, P. R. (2011). The effectiveness of negotiations over international river claims. International Studies Quarterly, 55 (3), 859–82.Google Scholar
Brown Weiss, E., & Jacobson, H. K. (eds.) (1998). Engaging countries: Strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brun, A. (2016). Conference diplomacy: The making of the Paris Agreement. Politics and Governance, 4 (3), 115–23.Google Scholar
Brunnée, J., Bodansky, D., & Hey, E. (eds.) (2007). Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brunnée, J., & Toope, S. J. (2010). Legitimacy and legality in international law: An interactional account. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, A. (2015). The 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution: Assessing its effectiveness as a multilateral environmental regime after 35 years. Transnational Environmental Law, 4 (1), 37–67.Google Scholar
Carpenter, R. C. (2007). Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly, 51 (1), 99–120.Google Scholar
Cashore, B., Auld, G., Bernstein, S., & McDermott, C. (2007). Can non‐state governance ‘ratchet up’ global environmental standards? Lessons from the forest sector. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 16 (2), 158–72.Google Scholar
Cirone, A. E., & Urpelainen, J. (2013). Trade sanctions in international environmental policy: Deterring or encouraging free riding? Conflict Management and Peace Science, 30 (4), 309–34.Google Scholar
Corneloup, I. de Agueda, & Mol, A. P. J. (2014). Small island developing states and international climate change negotiations: The power of moral ‘leadership’. International Environmental Agreements, 14 (3), 281–97.Google Scholar
Cullis-Suzuki, S., & Pauly, D. (2010). Failing the high seas: A global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations. Marine Policy, 34 (5), 1036–42.Google Scholar
Curlier, M., & Andresen, S. (2002). International trade in endangered species: The cites regime. In Miles, E. L., Underdal, A, Andresen, S, Wettestad, J, Skjærseth, J. B., & Charlin, E. M. (eds.), Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence (pp. 357–78). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, R. S. (2016). The Paris Agreement on climate change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics, 16 (3), 1–11.Google Scholar
Dombrowsky, I. (2007). Conflict, cooperation and institutions in international water management: An economic analysis. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Dombrowsky, I. (2008). Institutional design and regime effectiveness in transboundary river management: The elbe water quality regime. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12, 223–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, G. W., Rocke, D. M., & Barsoom, P. N. (1996). Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization, 50 (3), 379–406.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, C. (2008). The power of words in international relations: Birth of an anti-whaling discourse. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92 (5), 1107–25.Google Scholar
Gerst, M. D., Wang, P., Roventini, A., Fagiolo, G., Dosi, G., Howarth, R. B., & Borsuk, M. E. (2013). Agent-based modeling of climate policy: An introduction to the engage multi-level framework. Environmental Modelling and Software, 44, 62–75.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2014). Dynamic governance interactions: Evolutionary effects of state responses to non-state certificate programs. Regulation and Governance, 8 (1), 74–92.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Andresen, S. (2004). NGO influence in the implementation of the kyoto protocol: Compliance, flexibility mechanisms, and sinks. Global Environmental Politics, 4 (4), 54–75.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. (2008). Transparency under scrutiny: Information disclosure in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8 (2), 1–7.Google Scholar
Gupta, J. (2010). A history of international climate change policy. WIRE Climate Change, 1 (5), 636–53.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M., Keohane, R. O., & Levy, M. A (eds.) (1993). Institutions for the earth: Sources of effective international environmental protection. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, T. (2016). ‘All hands on deck’: The Paris Agreement and nonstate climate action. Global Environmental Politics, 16 (3), 12–22.Google Scholar
Haufler, V. (2010). Disclosure as governance: The extractive industries transparency initiative and resource management in the developing world. Global Environmental Politics, 10 (3), 53–73.Google Scholar
Helm, C., & Sprinz, D. F. (2000). Measuring the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44 (5), 630–52.Google Scholar
Hønneland, G., & Stokke, O. S. (2007). International cooperation and arctic governance: Regime effectiveness and northern region building. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Houghton, K. A., & Naughton, H. T. (2014). International environmental agreement effectiveness: A review of empirical studies. In Eisenberg, T, & Ramello, G. B. (eds.), Comparative law and economics (pp. 442–55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hovi, J., Sprinz, D. F., Sælen, H., & Underdal, A. (2017). The club approach: A gateway to effective climate co-operation? British Journal of Political Science, 1–26.Google Scholar
Hovi, J., Sprinz, D. F., & Underdal, A. (2003). The Oslo-Potsdam solution to measuring regime effectiveness: Critique, response, and the road ahead. Global Environmental Politics, 3 (3), 74–96.Google Scholar
IEA Database (2019). International Environmental Agreements Database Project (Version 2018.1). Available at: http://iea.uoregon.edu. Accessed: 4 March 2019.Google Scholar
Ivanova, M. H. (2010). UNEP in global environmental governance: Design, leadership, location. Global Environmental Politics, 10 (1), 30–59.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2011). Marketing linkages: Secretariat governance of the climate-biodiversity interface. Global Environmental Politics, 11 (3), 23–43.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2014). Post-treaty politics: Secretariat influence in global environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kellenberg, D., & Levinson, A. (2014). Waste of effort? International environmental agreements. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1 (1–2), 135–69.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., & Oppenheimer, M. (2016). Paris: Beyond the climate dead end through pledge and review? Politics and Governance, 49 (3), 142–51.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9 (1), 7–23.Google Scholar
Khoo, S., & Rau, H. (2009). Movements, mobilities and the politics of hazardous waste. Environmental Politics, 18 (6), 960–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Tanaka, K., & Matsuoka, S. (2017). Institutional mechanisms and the consequences of international environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics, 17 (1), 77–98.Google Scholar
Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55 (4), 761–99.Google Scholar
Krasner, S. D. (ed.) (1983). International regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lempert, R., Scheffran, J., & Sprinz., D. F. (2009). Methods for long-term environmental policy challenges. Global Environmental Politics, 9 (3), 106–33.Google Scholar
Lucier, C. A., & Gareau, B. J. (2015). From waste to resources?: Interrogating ‘race to the bottom’ in the global environmental governance of the hazardous waste trade. Journal of World-Systems Research, 21 (2), 495–520.Google Scholar
Mason, M. (2008). Transparency for whom? Information disclosure and power in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8 (2), 8–13.Google Scholar
Miles, E. L., Underdal, A., Andresen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjærseth, J. B., & Carlin, E. M. (eds.) (2002). Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Milkoreit, M. (2015). Hot deontology and cold consequentialism: An empirical exploration of ethical reasoning among climate change negotiators. Climatic Change, 130 (3), 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. B. (2006). Problem structure, institutional design, and the relative effectiveness of international environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics, 6 (3), 72–89.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. B. (2009). The influence of international institutions: Institutional design, compliance, effectiveness, and endogeneity. In Milner, H. V. (ed.), Power, interdependence and non-state actors in world politics: Research frontiers (pp. 66–83). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. B. (2010). International politics and the environment. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., & Dickson, N. (eds.) (2006). Global environmental assessments: information and influence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. M. L., & Zawahri, N. A. (2015). The effectiveness of treaty design in addressing water disputes. Journal of Peace Research, 52 (2), 187–200.Google Scholar
Myint, T. (2012). Governing international rivers: Polycentric politics in the Mekong and the Rhine. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Nagtzaam, G. J. (2009). The international tropical timber organization and conservationist forestry norms: A bridge too far. Melbourne: Monash University.Google Scholar
Newell, P., Bulkeley, H., Turner, K., Shaw, C., Caney, S., Shove, E., & Pidgeon, N. (2015). Governance traps in climate change politics: Re-framing the debate in terms of responsibilities and rights. WIRE Climate Change, 6 (6), 535–40.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, W. D. (2015). Climate clubs: Overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. American Economic Review, 105 (4), 1339–70.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (2011). Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Parson, E. A. (2003). Protecting the ozone layer: Science and strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perrin, S., & Bernauer, T. (2010). International regime formation revisited: Explaining ratification behavior with respect to long range transboundary air pollution agreements in Europe. European Union Politics, 11 (3), 405–26.Google Scholar
Pettenger, M. E. (ed.) (2007). The social construction of climate change: Power, knowledge, norms, discourses. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ringquist, E., & Kostadinova, T. (2005). Assessing the effectiveness of international environmental agreements: The case of the 1985 Helsinki protocol. American Journal of Political Science, 49 (1), 86–102.Google Scholar
Saleh, P., & Abene, N. M. (2016). Africa and the problem of transboundary movement of hazardous waste: An assessment of the Bamako convention of 1991. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 48, 47–53.Google Scholar
Sand, P. H. (2013). Enforcing cites: The rise and fall of trade sanctions. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 22 (3), 251–63.Google Scholar
Schroeder, H., & Lovell, H. (2012). The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations. Climate Policy, 12 (1), 23–37.Google Scholar
Seelarbokus, C. B. (2014a). Assessing the effectiveness of international environmental agreements (IEAs): Demystifying the issue of data unavailability. SAGE Open, 4 (1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Seelarbokus, C. B. (2014b). The influence of treaty design on the participation of developing and developed nations in international environmental agreements (IEAs). African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 8 (8), 288–301.Google Scholar
Seto, K. C., Davis, S. J., Mitchell, R. B., Stokes, E. C., Unruh, G., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2016). Carbon lock-in: Types, causes, and policy implications. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 425–52.Google Scholar
Shi, L. (1999). Successful use of the tacit acceptance procedure to effectuate progress in international maritime law. University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 11 (2), 299–332.Google Scholar
Siebenhüner, B. (2008). Learning in international organizations in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8 (4), 92–116.Google Scholar
Spilker, G., & Koubi, V. (2016). The effects of treaty legality and domestic institutional hurdles on environmental treaty ratification. International Environmental Agreements, 16 (2), 223–38.Google Scholar
Sprinz, D. F., & Vaahtoranta, T. (1994). The interest-based explanation of international environmental policy. International Organization, 48 (1), 77–105.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2012). Disaggregating international regimes: A new approach to evaluation and comparison. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2013). Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: Explaining regional niche selection. International Environmental Agreements, 13 (1), 65–85.Google Scholar
Strange, S. (1983). Cave! Hic dragones: A critique of regime analysis. In Krasner, S. D. (ed.), International regimes (pp. 337–54). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Underdal, A., & Hanf, K. (eds.) (2000). International environmental agreements and domestic politics: The case of acid rain. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Underdal, A., & Young, O. R. (eds.) (2004). Regime consequences: Methodological challenges and research strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Urpelainen, J. (2013). A model of dynamic climate governance: Dream big, win small. International Environmental Agreements, 13 (2), 107–25.Google Scholar
Vabulas, F., & Snidal, D. (2013). Organization without delegation: Informal intergovernmental organizations and the spectrum of intergovernmental arrangements. Review of International Organizations, 8 (2), 193–220.Google Scholar
Van der Ven, H., Bernstein, S., & Hoffmann, M. (2017). Valuing the contributions of nonstate and subnational actors to climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 17 (1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Vanhala, L., & Hestbaek, C. (2016). Framing climate change loss and damage in UNFCCC negotiations. Global Environmental Politics, 16 (4), 111–29.Google Scholar
Victor, D. G. (2011). Global warming gridlock: Creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Victor, D. G., Raustiala, K., & Skolnikoff, E. B. (eds.) (1998). The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vollenweider, J. (2013). The effectiveness of international environmental agreements. International Environmental Agreements, 13 (3), 343–367.Google Scholar
Von Stein, J. (2008). The international law and politics of climate change: Ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention and the Kyoto protocol. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52 (2), 243–68.Google Scholar
Wettestad, J. (2011). The improving effectiveness of CLRTAP: Due to a clever design? In Lidskog, R, & Sundqvist, G (eds.), Governing the air: The dynamics of science, policy, and citizen interaction (pp. 39–60). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (1999). Governance in world affairs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2001). Inferences and indices: Evaluating the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Global Environmental Politics, 1 (1), 99–121.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2003). Determining regime effectiveness: A commentary on the Oslo-Potsdam solution. Global Environmental Politics, 3 (3), 97–104.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2008). The architecture of global environmental governance: Bringing science to bear on policy. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 14–32.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2010). Institutional dynamics: Emergent patterns in international environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2011). Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108 (50), 19853–60.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2017). Governing complex systems: Social capital for the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (ed.) (1999). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Causal connections and behavioural mechanisms. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×