The ‘Third’ UN: Imagining Post‐COVID‐19 Multilateralism

Carayannis, Tatiana; Weiss, Thomas G.

doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12919

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[6] See Carayannis and Weiss (2021) for more discussion about the ecosystem of non-state actors who interact with the intergovernmental machinery of the UN and the important role they play.…”

Section: Global Health Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Global Health Governance and the Challenge of Holding Power to Account

McCoy,

Joshi,

Khosla

et al. 2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While there is much to celebrate about the many institutions, actors, and initiatives that form the global health system, there are also problems with how the system is governed. Some of these relate to inequities and unmanaged conflicts of interest that are rooted in power imbalances and which leave certain actors with excessive and undue influence. By contrast, poorer countries and communities with the biggest stake in the global health system working equitably, effectively, and efficiently have little power by which to hold the system accountable. This intersecting issue of power, accountability, and global health governance is the focus of this Working Paper. The paper is broken into three sections. The first section discusses the meaning of global health governance and the role of accountability within governance structures and systems in general. It describes the current system of global health governance as being nested within a wider system of global political and economic governance, shaped by international relations, globalisation, and the dominance of neoliberal ideas and policies in recent decades. This has seen, among other things, shifts of power from state-based actors and institutions to more distant and less accountable global actors, as well as from democratic and public institutions to private actors and market forces. In doing so, the Working Paper draws particular attention to the power and accountability of powerful private actors and whether they are sufficiently held accountable. The second section unpacks the concept of accountability and describes five elements that are required for accountability to function (standards; data and information; answerability; sanctions; and remedy). It highlights the importance of independence in accountability and the challenges of holding powerful actors accountable. It then presents a three-layered framework to map accountability as a component of good global health governance. The final section concludes by calling for more discussion about power and accountability in global health, while also emphasising the need for rigorous research in identifying and helping correct harmful and unhealthy accountability deficits.

show abstract

Section: Global Health Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Global Health Governance and the Challenge of Holding Power to Account

McCoy,

Joshi,

Khosla

et al. 2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The academic literature views potential in such a ‘hierarchy plus network’ mode of governance, where high‐level processes convene the activities of lower level transnational processes (Manulak & Snidal, 2021). In a similar vein, Carayannis and Weiss (2021) call for better collaboration of the intergovernmental ‘first UN’ and civil servants of the ‘second UN’ with supportive non‐state actors of the ‘third UN’, especially when it comes to knowledge brokering, analysis and innovation – deliverables that we see emerging especially from the informal proceedings of the HLPF. These findings should be reflected in the follow‐up of the HLPF's results.…”

Section: Outlook and Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The secretariat for the HLPF is located within DESA. Beyond that, when investigating instances of orchestration, we also need to take into account the ‘third UN’, encompassing stakeholders working within the UN context (Carayannis & Weiss, 2021). The 2013 resolution on the HLPF grants the ‘Major Groups and other Stakeholders’ (MGoS), which consist inter alia of representatives from civil society organizations, academia, or the private sector, comprehensive participation rights (UNGA, 2013, para.…”

Section: Assessing the Hlpf's Deliverables And Proceedings – Analytic...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The UN High‐Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: An orchestrator, more or less?

Beisheim

Fritzsche

2022

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The UN High‐level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) is at the heart of the UN's follow‐up and review of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Analysing the first full cycle of the HLPF (2016–19), we ask what and how the HLPF delivers. In the early debates on its mandate, experts suggested that the HLPF could be an orchestrator, arguing that it would likely have to rely upon indirect and non‐hierarchical forms of governance. Others asked for more or expected less. For the analysis of the HLPF's (orchestration) qualities, we study the proceedings of the HLPF and specifically the HLPF's review of SDG 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions, one of the most contested goals and therefore an interesting hard case. Taken together, DESA as the secretariat of the HLPF does indeed use orchestration to make the most out of the forum's mandate, both through convening and shaping third actors' activities. Political conflicts and limited resources, however, negatively impact what they can do and what the HLPF can deliver. The results of the UN's recent negotiations on the review of the HLPF's ‘format and organizational aspects’ (2020–21) did not change that.

show abstract

“…The research that has been done on participation brokerage demonstrates that it is not an easy role to inhabit. Firstly, brokerage requires connecting and exchanging knowledge between different worlds while never really being part of these worlds, also called "double peripherality" [Meyer, 2010, p. 118], which asks for continuous scrutinization of one's practices and devices to maintain effectiveness in mediating between the different worlds [Carayannis and Weiss, 2021]. Secondly, participation brokerage requires distinct skill sets that relate to designing participatory formats, hosting democratic exchanges, and understanding the decision-making processes that participation outcomes should feed into [Chilvers, 2010;Emery, Mulder and Frewer, 2015;Escobar, Faulkner and Rea, 2014].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participation brokers in the making: intermediaries taking up and embedding a new role at the science-society interface

Schuijer¹,

Meij²,

Broerse³

et al. 2022

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although research has been performed on participatory mechanisms in science and technology such as brokering, little seems written on intermediary organizations, e.g. science museums, taking up and embedding a participation brokerage role and systemic factors influencing these. This paper presents a qualitative case study in which six different intermediary organizations developed their participation brokerage role in a European RRI project. We demonstrate how structuring factors in the project context, the intermediary organization and the broader systemic context influenced the participation brokerage role take-up and embedding. Our findings yield implications for future capacity building endeavors among participation brokers in the making.

show abstract

The ‘Third’ UN: Imagining Post‐COVID‐19 Multilateralism

Cited by 14 publications

References 29 publications

Global Health Governance and the Challenge of Holding Power to Account

Global Health Governance and the Challenge of Holding Power to Account

The UN High‐Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: An orchestrator, more or less?

Participation brokers in the making: intermediaries taking up and embedding a new role at the science-society interface

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About