Are Equity and Sustainability a Likely Outcome When Foxes and Chickens Share the Same Coop? Critiquing the Concept of Multistakeholder Governance of Food Security

McKeon, Nora

doi:10.1080/14747731.2017.1286168

Cited by 71 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fransen (2012) describes how the label 'multi-stakeholder' has become for many an indicator of legitimacy. However, not all MSIs share the same properties, and scholars have repeatedly criticized the dominance of established stakeholder groups, a focus on selective topics and discourses, power asymmetries between participants, and differences in their level of inclusiveness (Cheyns, 2011;Fransen & Kolk, 2007;McKeon, 2017;Schouten et al, 2012). There is also variation in the use procedural fairness-based strategies.…”

Section: Varieties Of Multi-stakeholder Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Non-state actors supply a growing proportion of the rules and regulations that govern the global economy, raising pressing questions about the legitimacy of transnational governance (McKeon, 2017;Wouters, Bijlmakers, Hachez, Lievens, & Marx, 2013). The existing literature on legitimacy and private governance falls fairly neatly into two camps: one normative, the other empirical in its orientation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Varieties of multi-stakeholder governance: selecting legitimation strategies in transnational sustainability politics

Schleifer

2018

Globalizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) are often referred to as the 'gold standard' of private governance. However, existing MSIs vary strongly in their institutional designs and the ways in which they use inclusiveness, procedural fairness and, expert-based strategies to create legitimacy for their rules. This article investigates these institutional choices. It reviews arguments about demand from legitimacy-granting audiences, isomorphic pressures, and the role played by institutional entrepreneurs, and intergroup bargaining. It explores these mechanisms in an empirical investigation of the formation of three MSIs in the field of sustainable agriculture. Its findings advance our understanding of the conditions under which MSIs adhere or depart from normative ideals of democratic governance.

show abstract

Section: Varieties Of Multi-stakeholder Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of multi-stakeholder governance: selecting legitimation strategies in transnational sustainability politics

Schleifer

2018

Globalizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The conditions that allow expanded representation to translate into greater inclusivity at CFS has also been questioned by McKeon [52], building on the differentiation between "multi-actor" and "multistakeholderism". According to the author, while the first concept recognizes the different interests, roles, responsibilities and power resources of the parties, the former disregards those, for example, by diluting the distinction between "right-holders" (citizens, in the case of CFS, those affected by food insecurity) and "duty-bearers" (states) in international law within MSP arrangements.…”

Section: Results and Discussion: Deliberation And The Committee On Womentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberation in Multi-Stakeholder Participation: A Heuristic Framework Applied to the Committee on World Food Security

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-stakeholder participation (MSP) has become a central feature in several institutions and processes of global governance. Those who promote them trust that these arrangements can advance the deliberative quality of international institutions, and thereby improve the democratic quality, legitimacy and effectiveness of both the institutional landscape, as well as decisions made within it. This paper employs a heuristic framework to analyze the deliberative quality of MSP. Specifically, it applies Dryzek's deliberative systems framework to the case of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). The assessment shows that the CFS improves the deliberative quality of food security governance by including and facilitating the transmission of discourses from the public to the empowered spaces. However, the deliberative quality of CFS could be higher with stronger accountability mechanisms in place, more meta-deliberation and adoption of CFS outcomes at national and local levels. Reflecting on the limitations of using this heuristic framework to assess MSP, we conclude that the analysis would benefit from more explicit consideration of different forms of power that are part of the social relations between actors involved in such settings. By proposing this analytical approach, we expect to advance a heuristic framework for assessing deliberation in an international context of the growing importance of MSP in sustainability and global governance.

show abstract

“…The institutional framework I identify in this article is thus based on the recognition of current complex interaction between ministries of foreign affairs, global institutions, and nongovernmental actors. To observe and identify this kind of political dynamic, we need innovative approaches to analyze the interaction between nongovernmental actors and institutions beyond resistance and protest perspectives when ordinary citizens are trying to influence global agendas (Appadurai ; Dauvergne and LeBaron ; DeMars and Dijkzel ; Elder ; McKeon , ; Silva ; Willetts ; Wong ). In the case of Mexico, a set of experiences demonstrates how this country has developed its democratic political skills to incorporate nongovernmental actors into its foreign policy procedures in a way that is relevant to global policies (Alejo Jaime ).…”

Section: Mexico and Nongovernmental Actors In Global Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary Diplomacy, Global Politics, and Nongovernmental Actors: Dilemmas of the Multistakeholder Mechanism of Participation in Mexico

Alejo

2019

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines dilemmas of the multistakeholder mechanism of participation in Mexico—situated in the context of the post‐2015 Agenda for Sustainable Development—to rethink the interplay between contemporary diplomacy, global politics, and nongovernmental actors. The central argument is that diplomacy has to open up and function as a collaborative space that includes nongovernmental actors who, in turn, influence the design of contemporary institutions. This, I contend, ultimately leads to a redefinition of relations between governments and societies under a more democratic, inclusive design and code of conduct. The case of the nongovernmental organization campaign “Beyond2015” in Mexico is used in the above context. I evidence, through a qualitative analysis, that the particular multistakeholder mechanism encouraged both at the United Nations level and the Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Affairs, held important limitations for developing an effective inclusive mechanism for certain nongovernmental actors.

show abstract

Are Equity and Sustainability a Likely Outcome When Foxes and Chickens Share the Same Coop? Critiquing the Concept of Multistakeholder Governance of Food Security

Cited by 71 publications

References 16 publications

Varieties of multi-stakeholder governance: selecting legitimation strategies in transnational sustainability politics

Varieties of multi-stakeholder governance: selecting legitimation strategies in transnational sustainability politics

Deliberation in Multi-Stakeholder Participation: A Heuristic Framework Applied to the Committee on World Food Security

Contemporary Diplomacy, Global Politics, and Nongovernmental Actors: Dilemmas of the Multistakeholder Mechanism of Participation in Mexico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About