Registration
You will receive an email confirming your registration.
July 7, 2000
Wolfgang Reinicke, Director, UN Vision Project on Global Public Policy Networks
Jan Martin Witte, Research Associate, UN Vision Project on Global Public Policy Networks
Thorsten Benner, Research Associate, UN Vision Project on Global Public Policy Networks; Research Fellow, German Council on Foreign Relations
Wolfgang Reinicke, Jan Martin Witte, and Thorsten Benner examined the changing global environment for public policymaking and presented findings from their book Critical Choices: The United Nations, Networks, and the Future of Global Governance. The book is the result of the United Nations Vision Project on Global Public Policy (GPP) Networks.
Wolfgang Reinicke described globalization as a process characterized by economic and political liberalization and by technological developments that have led to fundamental and rapid changes in economic, political, and social life. These trends have given rise to numerous developments that affect global governance, including (1) the changing nature and conceptualization of space where many of the aforementioned changes now occur transnationally; (2) an accelerated rate of change caused by new technologies and now presenting difficult challenges to traditional policy making bureaucracies (for example, the outdated institutions and rules governing international financial markets failed to prevent financial crises in the 1990s); (3) increasingly complex and interlinked issue areas (e.g., trade and the environment); (4) a greater emphasis on the concept of intergenerational equity in making policy decisions; and (5) the emergence of a multi-actor world in which nonstate actors are more important in all aspects of economic, political, and social life.
These developments have led to an "operational gap" and a "participatory gap" in policy making. The operational gap arises because policy makers and public institutions lack the information, knowledge, and tools they need to respond to complex policy issue areas. The participatory gap stems from an inability to include an increasingly large and diverse set of nonstate actors in traditional policymaking venues and deliberations.
One response to these challenges has come in the form of new and innovative "trisectoral networks," partnerships consisting of representatives from the private sector, governments, and civil society. These networks possess three major characteristics. First, they accept globalization a fait acompli, and their operational structures and approaches mirror the dynamic and fluid nature of the globalization process. Secondly, these networks incorporate diverse actors in the decision-making process, thereby pooling skills perspectives and resources that are key to success. For example, state actors bring power, NGOs bring legitimacy, and the private sector brings financial resources. All these actors bring knowledge, which enhances the network's strength and effectiveness.
THE STRATEGIC TRIANGLE
Key Functions of Networks
Thorsten Benner identified six major functions of networks. First, networks place issues on the global agenda (e.g., International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jubilee 2000). Second, networks facilitate the negotiation and setting of global standards (e.g., the Global Commission on Dams). Third, networks serve as mechanisms for developing and disseminating knowledge. Fourth, networks make markets where they are lacking and deepen them where they are not fulfilling their potential by acting as bridges between producers and buyers and between borrowers and lenders. Fifth, networks serve not only as policy makers, but also as innovative implementation mechanisms. Finally, networks create trust and help to close the participation gap (e.g., the WHO joining forces with NGOs and private corporations in the Roll Back Malaria effort).
Implementation of the Global Public Policy Agenda
Jan Martin Witte discussed the management principles of networks and explored the roles of states and international organizations within GPP Networks.
Management Principles
Networks are not easy to manage; they are complicated and time-intensive policy tools. While they may be effective in certain instances, they are not universal solutions to all policy challenges. There are five major management characteristics of networks. First, getting networks up and running requires personal and institutional leadership. Secondly, balancing adequate consultation with delivery is key to the success of the networks. In other words, the implementation of policy and the production of tangible results are as important as coordinating and negotiating policy. Third, maintaining "structural informality" within the network avoids over-institutionalization and a disproportionate emphasis on process versus results. Fourth, cross-sectoral alliances can play a decisive role in overcoming policy-making stalemates (e.g., alliance between Greenpeace and insurance companies). Fifth, the inclusion of local-global and North-South alliances is imperative to ensure the legitimacy and sustainability of policy decisions. While deliberation and decision-making may be made at the global level, local actors must be included from the start of the policy making process if local implementation is to be effective.
Advancing Global Public Policy: A Three-Track Strategy
The first strategy is the consolidation and strengthening of existing networks, focusing on implementation and learning processes. Second, implementation networks should support existing international conventions and should support traditional policy making processes. Third, where they are lacking and are needed, new networks should be nurtured and developed.
Role of International Organizations
International organizations (IOs) are important intermediary players and can perform myriad roles. First, IOs can act as convenors, providing a safe space or a platform for negotiation. Secondly, IO staff members act as social entrepreneurs. Third, IOs act as multilateral network managers (e.g. WHO). Fourth, IOs can act as capacity builders. Finally, IOs can act as financiers for networks. These roles do not only constitute theoretical possibilities. In practice, many international organizations, such as the World Bank and some specialized United Nations agencies, act as critical players in networks. The World Health Organization, for example, functions as a coordinator and convenor in the Roll Back Malaria Initiative. The World Bank served as an important initial convenor for the World Commission on Dams. However, IOs may have to reinvent themselves in order to become effective players in networks.
Role of States
Networks are not meant to replace states but to complement their policymaking activities and decision-making processes. States should support global public policy networks as they are ultimately only strengthened by trisectoral networking. Finally, states should engage in networks in order to improve and legitimate their own policymaking abilities.
Ultimately, practice drives theory with respect to global public policy networks. For instance, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment failed because of the deliberate non-inclusion of civil society actors during negotiation of the accord. Thus, we must refrain from placing networks in an analytical box because only the operation of networks and their successes and failures will give us more insight into why networks operate as they do.
For more information on the Global Public Policy project,
please visit their website at
Prepared by Radha Kuppalli, Junior Fellow.