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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

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

7. 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!

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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