The subject matter of Peter M. Haas’ article lends itself best to a case study format, as there is not enough data available to do a comparable quantitative study. However, by using the case study method, the author is able to investigate the issue area at a much greater depth and generate interesting and valid information.

In his article, Haas uses the Mediterranean pollution control regime to test his hypothesis that “if a group with a common perspective is able to acquire and sustain control over a substantive policy domain, the associated regime will be come stronger and countries will comply with it.” (Haas 380) This is a single case study, so far as Haas only looks at one regime and does not compare it to other environmental or other issue regimes. However, it is also comparative in the sense that when the author looks at the epistemic communities in the individual countries, he compares and contrasts the countries, concluding that while the epistemic community in France was rather ineffective, the epistemic communities in countries such as Algeria and Egypt were surprisingly successful in influencing their governments resulting in convergence of policy within the regime.

Throughout the article, Haas logically states what his thesis is and what he believes the cause and effect is between epistemic communities and successful regimes. He clearly shows how the Mediterranean pollution control regime developed over time in the predicted direction due to the creation of epistemic communities, and “although it is extremely difficult to confirm, regional scientists concur that the quality of the Mediterranean is better than it would have been without the Med Plan” (Haas 383). The author explicitly lays out how the epistemic community developed in the above-mentioned regime and how it gradually gained influence, resulting in the convergence of national policies and compliance with the regime norms and principles.

The author does not overtly state his reasons for choosing the regime in question, but it is clear from some of the comments that he believes that cooperation within the Med Plan was rather unlikely (at first glance and contrary to what actual happened). First, the success of the Med Plan is “distinctive because of a number of compelling factors militating against it. The extensive pollution of the Mediterranean is the result of intense coastal population pressures, combined with largely unregulated industrial, municipal, and agricultural emission practices. … Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea was widely regarded as a collective goods problem, since one country’s pollutants could wash up on its neighbor’s beaches. … The political antipathies and economic disparities in the region militated against effective and equitable cooperation, and the global recessions of 1973-75 and 1980-84 made the expensive compliance with the regime even more problematic.” (Haas 378-379) In other words, Haas is arguing that this case study could possibly be a “crucial case analysis” or “theory confirming case”, since the case of choice seems to be a case where the hypothesis is least likely to be true. Therefore, the fact that it is true in this difficult case makes a great argument for the general validity of the hypothesis. In fact, the author does generalize at the end of the article, stating: “Is this process of regime creation and interest recalculation generalizable? Other contemporary environmental regimes suggest that it may well be.” (Haas 402)

It is hard to say whether other cases would have been better or as good as the Med Plan. Other cases mentioned by the author, the ozone protocol and the European acid rain policies, could also have been used as test cases, however, the multiple obstacles and problems surrounding the Med Plan makes it a very good “critical case.”

Work Cited: Haas, Peter M., “Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control,” International Organizations, 43, Summer 1989