Foundations, Pitfalls, and Assessment of Multistakeholder Governance

Palladino, Nicola; Santaniello, Mauro

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56131-4_2

Legitimacy, Power, and Inequalities in the Multistakeholder Internet Governance 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-56131-4_2

|View full text |Cite

Foundations, Pitfalls, and Assessment of Multistakeholder Governance

Nicola Palladino

Mauro Santaniello

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2023

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 1 1 There is debate on whether initiatives like the GPEDC contribute to the meaningful inclusion of less powerful constituencies, while dominant actors might use MSPs to blur responsibilities (Taggart & Haug, forthcoming; see Palladino & Santaniello, 2021). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Development Governance 2.0: Fractured accountabilities in a divided governance complex

Haug,

Taggart

2023

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proliferation of state and non‐state actors, along with increasing institutional complexity, has led to a qualitative shift in Global Development Governance (GDG) towards what we term ‘GDG 2.0’. Realising accountability in this context presents challenges due to growing actor diversity, institutional plurality and a lack of formalised accountability structures. Building on the introduction to this special section, we explore the potential of ‘forward‐looking’ approaches to accountability, notably collective deliberation, learning and competition. Despite the importance of these mechanisms for GDG processes, conceptualising them as accountability tools may have limited gains and indeed reinforce the preferences of established actors, dilute useful monitoring approaches and divert attention from longstanding agendas. We argue that prioritising enabling environments for more circumscribed ‘backward‐looking’ accountability—with a focus on standard‐setting and monitoring—may be more feasible and effective towards holding decision‐makers to account within the GDG 2.0 context.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Development Governance 2.0: Fractured accountabilities in a divided governance complex

Haug,

Taggart

2023

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Foundations, Pitfalls, and Assessment of Multistakeholder Governance

Cited by 1 publication

References 52 publications

Global Development Governance 2.0: Fractured accountabilities in a divided governance complex

Global Development Governance 2.0: Fractured accountabilities in a divided governance complex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About