Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

Conclusion 185
sidered of paramount importance in ideational analysis. Lack of public
attention and support creates barriers and obstacles to attempts to build
and change regimes. Education of the public is therefore often necessary
before further policy initiatives can be undertaken. In the words of Majone
(1989, p. 145), “major policy breakthroughs are possible only after public
opinion has been conditioned to accept new ideas and new concepts of the
public interest.” It seems quite evident, for instance, that significant policy
breakthroughs in the area of climate policy will not be possible until the
American and the European general public is better informed about global
warming and thus becomes more supportive of public policy targeted at
this problem. 13
Comparative studies of the influence of ideas on environmental and other
policy areas would be valuable. What role do ideas play in environmental
policy making in smaller states, developing countries, and regional groups,
such as the European Union? 14 How are differences in domestic structure,
political culture, and national regulatory style across countries shaping the
ways in which ideas acquire influence over environmental policy making
and, in turn, environmental regimes? Recent studies in the influence of ideas
on macroeconomic policy, foreign policy, and human rights have concluded
that different domestic political systems provide policy entrepreneurs, ideas,
and norms with different opportunities and access points. 15 Such studies
could provide a useful starting point when designing comparative studies
on how ideas acquire influence over environmental policy making. There
is also a need for developing and using testable theories of domestic politics
in regime studies. 16
The role of leadership in regime processes should also be examined more
carefully. As noted, the case of the ocean dumping regime disproves Young’s
hypothesis that a regime arises only if two of the three forms of leadership
suggested by him—structural, entrepreneurial, and intellectual—are provided.
To develop hypotheses, it would be useful to compare the findings in
this study with other cases where transnational coalitions of policy entrepreneurs
control problem definition and agenda formation, mobilize stakeholder
groups, craft solutions, and broker those solutions to powerful
actors. In this way we would learn more about how various forms of leadership
combine in regime processes. The role of ideational leadership, in
particular, needs closer examination. It would also be important to identify
with more precision under what conditions policy entrepreneurs are