https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200110101041.htm

Societies have been making rules to control behaviours and the uses of natural resources such as water for centuries. At the same time, however, the competing interests of state and private actors continue to produce environmental problems. In overall terms, the scientific literature is in agreement that developments in the way these regulations are structured are, nevertheless, increasingly positive and effective. But to what extent is this really the case in the long run?

"To assess whether a regulation is positive in the long run, you need to factor in the ecosystem of rules that it is part of, and which it may either reinforce or disrupt," begins Thomas Bolognesi, a researcher at the Institute for Environmental Sciences (ISE) at UNIGE. In fact, a rule that induces a positive impact on the use that it regulates may cause turmoil once it begins to interact with existing regulations, causing the entire system to malfunction, conceived here as transversal transaction costs (TTCs). "And over the very long term," adds the Geneva-based scientist, "the negative effect of TTCs can grow and end up being equivalent to the positive effect generated by the new regulation, creating what we called an institutional complexity trap." The quality of governance is based, therefore, on two key components: the scope, i.e. the set of uses governed by the rules (quantity); and the consistency, i.e. the fact that the rules are defined and followed correctly (quality).