IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/5495.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why multi-stakeholder groups succeed and fail

Author

Listed:
  • Truex, Rory
  • Soreide, Tina

Abstract

Anti-corruption initiatives increasingly use multi-stakeholder groups, comprised of representatives from government, private sector, and civil society organizations, to drive implementation at the local level and serve as a force for transparency. In theory, the multi-stakeholder groups ideal is quite appealing -- each stakeholder has its own interest in the initiative and contributes its unique capacities. In practice, many multi-stakeholder groups have fallen short of expectations. This paper considers two separate but related questions. First, what are the unique barriers to implementation facing multi-stakeholder groups? Second, what policy measures can be taken to improve the likelihood that multi-stakeholder groups will succeed? The authors use existing research in political science and economics to develop a multi-level framework that accounts for the"nested nature"of multi-stakeholder groups. The framework is then applied to experiences of MSGs from the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative, a new pilot program that aims to promote transparency in construction through the release of material project information. The evidence shows that the barriers facing multi-stakeholder groups are substantial, but once the level (individual incentives, organizational dynamics, country context, or international pressures) of the challenge confronting a multi-stakeholder group is identified, the specific barrier, its root causes, and appropriate solutions can be identified. More broadly, the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative experiences suggest that multi-stakeholder groups are best used as a means of promoting dialogue and building consensus, not as the locus of policy implementation and oversight.

Suggested Citation

  • Truex, Rory & Soreide, Tina, 2010. "Why multi-stakeholder groups succeed and fail," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5495, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:5495
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/12/06/000158349_20101206154144/Rendered/PDF/WPS5495.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenny, Charles & Soreide, Tina, 2008. "Grand Corruption in Utilities," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4805, The World Bank.
    2. Mueller, Dennis C, 1976. "Public Choice: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 14(2), pages 395-433, June.
    3. Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753.
    4. Susan Rose-Ackerman & Tina Søreide (ed.), 2011. "International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, Volume Two," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14003.
    5. Cadot, Olivier, 1987. "Corruption as a gamble," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 223-244, July.
    6. Andvig, Jens Chr. & Moene, Karl Ove, 1990. "How corruption may corrupt," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 63-76, January.
    7. Kenny, Charles, 2006. "Measuring and reducing the impact of corruption in infrastructure," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4099, The World Bank.
    8. Kolstad, Ivar & Wiig, Arne, 2009. "Is Transparency the Key to Reducing Corruption in Resource-Rich Countries?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 521-532, March.
    9. Pranab Bardhan, 1997. "Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1320-1346, September.
    10. Rajeev Goel & Daniel Rich, 1989. "On the economic incentives for taking bribes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 269-275, June.
    11. Tsebelis, George, 1995. "Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 289-325, July.
    12. David Edmunds & Eva Wollenberg, 2001. "A Strategic Approach to Multistakeholder Negotiations," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 32(2), pages 231-253, March.
    13. Wester, Philippus & Merrey, Douglas J. & de Lange, Marna, 2003. "Boundaries of Consent: Stakeholder Representation in River Basin Management in Mexico and South Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 797-812, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anica Zeyen & Markus Beckmann & Stella Wolters, 2016. "Actor and Institutional Dynamics in the Development of Multi-stakeholder Initiatives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 341-360, May.
    2. Waligo, V.M. & Clarke, J. & Hawkins, R., 2014. "The ‘Leadership–Stakeholder Involvement Capacity’ nexus in stakeholder management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1342-1352.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:pdn:wpaper:79 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Caselli, Francesco & Morelli, Massimo, 2004. "Bad politicians," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 759-782, March.
    3. Wolfgang Maennig, 2004. "Korruption im internationalen Sport: ökonomische Analyse und Lösungsansätze," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 73(2), pages 263-291.
    4. Dong, Bin & Dulleck, Uwe & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Conditional corruption," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 609-627.
    5. Günther G. Schulze & Bambang Suharnoko Sjahrir & Nikita Zakharov, 2016. "Corruption in Russia," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(1), pages 135-171.
    6. Wolfgang Maennig, 2002. "On the Economics of Doping and Corruption in International Sports," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 3(1), pages 61-89, February.
    7. Keith Blackburn & Niloy Bose & M. Emranul Haque, 2011. "Public Expenditures, Bureaucratic Corruption And Economic Development," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 79(3), pages 405-428, June.
    8. Nan Zhang, 2015. "Changing a ‘culture’ of corruption: Evidence from an economic experiment in Italy," Rationality and Society, , vol. 27(4), pages 387-413, November.
    9. Villena, Mauricio G. & Villena, Marcelo J., 2010. "On the economics of whistle-blowing behavior: the role of incentives," MPRA Paper 35917, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Mar 2010.
    10. Roberta Gatti & Stefano Paternostro & Jamele Rigolini, 2003. "Individual attitudes toward corruption: do social effects matter?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3122, The World Bank.
    11. Paolo Mauro, 2004. "The Persistence of Corruption and Slow Economic Growth," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 51(1), pages 1-1.
    12. M. Haque & Richard Kneller, 2009. "Corruption clubs: endogenous thresholds in corruption and development," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 345-373, November.
    13. Licht, Amir N. & Goldschmidt, Chanan & Schwartz, Shalom H., 2007. "Culture rules: The foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 659-688, December.
    14. Thomas Herzfeld & Christoph Weiss, 2007. "Corruption clubs: empirical evidence from kernel density estimates," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(12), pages 1565-1572.
    15. Cooter, Robert & Garoupa, Nuno, 2000. "The Virtuous Circle of Distrust: A Mechanism to Deter Bribes and Other Cooperative Crimes," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt83c0k3wc, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    16. Yang, David Da-hua, 2005. "Corruption by monopoly: Bribery in Chinese enterprise licensing as a repeated bargaining game," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 171-188.
    17. Susan-Rose Ackerman, 1997. "Corruption, Infefficiency and Economic Growth," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 24, pages 3-20.
    18. repec:zbw:rwidps:0035 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Cooter Robert D. & Garoupa Nuno, 2014. "A Disruption Mechanism for Bribes," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:5495. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.