Outline for today’s class Relative effectiveness paper assignment Readings – takehome messages Negotiation theory How to analyze and graph data

Discussion paper Thurs, next week Relative Effectiveness Fully described in assignment packet Goals of exercise Compare problem effect/effectiveness in light of differences in problem structure – a REALLY hard thing to think about Practice THINKING about graphing Practice GRAPHING Lay foundation for Treaty Assignment 2

Negotiation Theory Sprinz and Vaahtoranta – will be reviewing extensively in class but Takehome: positions states take in negotiations (the DV) are determined by two IVs: the costs states face to take action to protect the environment (abatement costs) and the benefits they receive if the environment is protected (ecological vulnerability) Betsill and Corell show: Need to clarify research question – WHAT is influence? Evidence of NGO influence Use of process tracing AND counterfactuals Building on work of prior others

Who to involve – which states, which non-states What to discuss and how to discuss it (framing) How ambitious to be Means of implementation Response to compliance and noncompliance Different general strategies of negotiation process Questions in a negotiation

Why States Take Positions They Do in Int’l Negotiations Ecological Yes Vulnerability No Low Abatement PusherBystander Costs HighIntermediateDragger Sprinz and Vaahtoranta, 1994.

Graphing without thinking: don’t know what you’re seeing Goal: See if treaties change country behavior over time Draw what you want by hand, then graph Country-groups, X-axis, Y-axis, expected lines Practice makes perfect – do it by hand again!

Making graphs takes too long Rectangle Years as columns Countries as rows Empty NW cell Highlight rectangle Then: Insert // Line // 2-D line

Graphing everything creates spaghetti Large countries swamp small Too much to understand Graph all; then delete one-by-one to learn about your data: major polluters, missing data, etc. Create groups of different type states Members vs. Non-members Developed vs. Developing members Green vs. Brown members Other categories theory suggests Make sure data isn’t messing you up

Graphing the raw data doesn’t make countries similar enough Solution 1: Indexing Concept: view each country’s behavior as % of its behavior in year treaty entered into force (EIF year) Doing it: copy of rectangle, but with formula that divides each country’s data in each year by that country’s data in the EIF year Solution 2: Normalizing Concept: view each country’s behavior after adjusting for population, GDP, or other variables Doing it: copy of rectangle, but with formula that divides each country’s DV by IV in each year

Possible Comparison #1: Members/Non-members Members (regulated actors) to non-members (non- regulated actors), Members vs. non-members after treaty Treaty members before/after treaty starts

Possible Comparison #2: Regulated/Non-regulated Activity Members regulated activity to members non-regulated activity Catch of regulated yellowfin tuna vs. non-regulated bluefin tuna Sulfur dioxide pollution vs. carbon monoxide pollution

Possible Comparison #3: Regulated/Non-regulated Location Members in regulated location to members in non- regulated location Catch of yellowfin tuna in regulated area (Indian Ocean) vs. non-regulated area (Western Pacific) Pollution of regulated river vs. pollution of non- regulated river