SDG 17 calls for the international community to “strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development,” emphasizing the role of multi-stakeholder partnerships for achieving the SDGs. Policy documents are replete with statements on the necessity of ‘meaningful’ engagement, especially with civil society—without clarifying what ‘meaningful’ stands for. In this article, we develop an analytical approach to partnership as a form and norm of metagovernance. Partnership as a metanorm is about the roles and relations of different sets of actors. We suggest operationalizing the concept of partnership according to different levels of accountability and participation, allowing for a gradual enhancement of the quality of partnership in terms of ‘meaningfulness.’ We apply our analytical model to the Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well‐Being for All (GAP), a fairly new initiative by health and development agencies to accelerate progress towards the health-related targets of the 2030 Agenda. By investigating the development and the early phase of implementing the GAP, we empirically assess if and how the notion of partnership envisioned in the GAP qualifies as ‘meaningful’ with respect to civil society engagement. From our empirical example, we infer lessons for attaining normative standards of ‘meaningfulness’ and highlight implications for future research on partnerships.
Narratives and metaphors shape how actors perceive the world around them and how policymakers frame the range of policy choices they think of as feasible. The metaphor of war and the narrative of how to tackle the unprecedented threat of COVID-19 are effective mechanisms to convey urgency. However, they also bear serious implications: Thinking in terms of health threats works with a logic of exceptionalism, which supports images of “us” vs. an “enemy” thereby shortening complex lines of causality and responsibility and privileging national answers. It fails to provide for a normative framework for drafting long-term systemic approaches. In this contribution, we critically engage with existing narratives of global health security and show how the logic of exceptionalism is limiting the current responses to the pandemic. We conceptualize an alternative narrative that is based on the logic of solidarity and argue that within this alternative framing a more sustainable and ultimately more just way of coping with infectious diseases will be possible.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.