Multi‐Stakeholder Initiatives for Sustainable Development Goals: The Importance of Interlocutors

Abstract

SUMMARYThis article argues that the complex multi-stakeholder arrangements anticipated for implementing Sustainable Development Goals call for a distinct type of host: an interlocutor. This central idea arises from new comparative research on multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs) undertaken in four countries: Costa Rica, Indonesia, Kenya and Kyrgyzstan. This work adds a detailed dimension to meta-studies on conditions for success and practical guides for establishing and running MSIs. It begins to fill a significant gap in knowledge by analysing the attributes and competencies required for effectively orchestrating MSIs as well as illuminating their relative significance over time. The context is an anticipated expansion in demand for finely tuned and skilled hosting of Sustainable Development Goals-inspired MSIs. This task will probably be more complicated than MSIs associated with climate change and Millennium Development Goals, both of which saw business on the side lines with uneven attention paid to the principle of local ownership. Recognising and investing in interlocution as a pivotal role can increase the performance of internationally inspired MSIs which, to date, have a mixed but generally poor record of effectiveness.

Ownership dynamics in local multi-stakeholder initiatives

“…Brouwer and Woodhill arrive at seven. 26 Our analysis of this input, combined with reviews of others, 27 suggests that social investment MSIs are more likely to be effective if: (1) the quality of leadership conforms with processes where differences in power are acknowledged and where inclusion and voluntarism of membership are respected; (2) local contexts and actors are recognised as the final arbiters of performance;…”

A New Approach to Partnerships for SDG Transformations

“…Due to efficacy problems with partnerships [51,54], several recent studies call for an "orchestrator" to enable and guide partnerships, and much of the debate revolves around the precise role of the orchestrator and which entity should orchestrate [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][105][106][107]. Most of these studies focus on initiating and supporting individual partnerships and different ways to overcome collective action problems involving diverse actors, e.g., by convening stakeholders, contributing set-up costs, expertise, leadership, process management, trust building, etc.…”

“…Most studies view orchestration as initiating and supporting individual partnerships. Proposed orchestrators include international institutions, government departments, [53,[58][59][60], or professional orchestrators [61,62]. Other studies focus on the institutional environment and its governance, proposing government as "coordinating and integrating mechanism" [63], or assigning responsibility to the entity managing the partnership system, e.g., UN [64].…”

Explaining global network emergence and nonemergence: Comparing the processes of network formation for tuberculosis and pneumonia

“…This prior work suggests that considering networks as a policy process outcome may allow scholars to answer the key unresolved question of why some attempts to form networks succeed and others do not. Networks and similar entities such as partnerships have been studied for their roles participating in policy processes, especially within low‐ and middle‐income countries (Beisheim, Ellersiek, Goltermann, & Kiamba, ; Fowler & Biekart, ), but networks as outcomes of policy processes are less studied.…”