IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/2312.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why do multistakeholder processes emerge and flourish? Identifying and operationalizing the leading hypotheses

Author

Listed:
  • Andersson, Krister
  • Meinzen-Dick, Ruth S.
  • Nehring, Ryan
  • Zhang, Wei

Abstract

The literature on Multistakeholder Processes (MSPs) includes several studies that seek to specify the conditions under which MSPs perform well and deliver tangible governance improvements that would otherwise not happen. This is important research as MSPs are gaining popularity as an alternative to more traditional governance strategies, such as centralized, government-led activities. MSPs are often proposed in institutional settings where formal governance institutions are perceived to be ineffective or inequitable. In principle, studies that explain variation in MSP outcomes have the potential to inform MSP organizers and their decisions about how to organize their future MSPs in ways that save resources and improve outcomes. However, the existing MSP research programs demonstrate at least three limitations: First, the literature is characterized by the production of long lists of potential determinants of MSP performance, which makes it challenging for researchers to offer practical advice as to which of these factors is most important for MSP organizers to address first, and under which contextual conditions. Second, there is little agreement among scholars about what the core elements of a well-functioning MSP are, which elements affect mostly the emergence vis-à -vis effectiveness, and it is rare that studies specify which conditions or factors are essential and which may be helpful but not critical ingredients of success. Third, there is a dearth of theory-driven research that uses causal inference methods to test the theoretical propositions, which means that it is difficult to assess the quality of evidence in literature’s existing, mostly descriptive analyses. To advance knowledge about the emergence and flourishing of MSPs, and move beyond the production of long lists of associative success factors, there is an urgent need for researchers to come together in a community of practice to address the noted shortcomings. The Community of Practice will also promote the development of new and innovative ways of conducting MSP work, which will enable researchers to improve outcomes in terms of both cost-effectiveness and equity. In this paper, we review and synthesize the leading hypotheses on MSP emergence and effectiveness, develop a theoretical framework that captures the leading hypotheses, and discuss the viability of employing causal inference methods to test new hypotheses related to the emergence and flourishing of MSPs. We conclude by outlining the contours of a community of practice and how it can help advance MSP scholarship.

Suggested Citation

  • Andersson, Krister & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth S. & Nehring, Ryan & Zhang, Wei, 2024. "Why do multistakeholder processes emerge and flourish? Identifying and operationalizing the leading hypotheses," IFPRI discussion papers 2312, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:2312
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstreams/a66e6cea-4f12-4120-8bbf-60ff2429b178/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ratner, B. D. & Larson, A. M. & Barletti, J. P. S. & ElDidi, H. & Catacutan, D. & Flintan, F. & Suhardiman, Diana & Falk, T. & Meinzen-Dick, R., 2022. "Multistakeholder platforms for natural resource governance: lessons from eight landscape-level cases," Papers published in Journals (Open Access), International Water Management Institute, pages 1-27(2):2..
    2. Larson, Anne M. & Sarmiento Barletti, Juan Pablo & Heise Vigil, Nicole, 2022. "A place at the table is not enough: Accountability for Indigenous Peoples and local communities in multi-stakeholder platforms," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. Mary Vayaliparampil & Frank Page & Eric Wolterstorff, 2021. "The Missing Ingredient for Successful Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships: Cooperative Capacity," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-30, April.
    4. Krister Andersson & Elinor Ostrom, 2008. "Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(1), pages 71-93, March.
    5. Jennifer Garard & Larissa Koch & Martin Kowarsch, 2018. "Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Nicolas Faysse, 2006. "Troubles on the way: An analysis of the challenges faced by multi‐stakeholder platforms," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 30(3), pages 219-229, August.
    7. Gerring, John, 2004. "What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 341-354, May.
    8. Adriane MacDonald & Amelia Clarke & Lei Huang, 2019. "Multi-stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainability: Designing Decision-Making Processes for Partnership Capacity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 409-426, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sarah Easter & Matt Murphy & Mary Yoko Brannen, 2023. "Negotiating Meaning Systems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships Addressing Grand Challenges: Homelessness in Western Canada," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 31-52, February.
    2. Jessica Weber, 2023. "Coordination Challenges in Wind Energy Development: Lessons from Cross-Case Positive Planning Approaches to Avoid Multi-Level Governance ‘Free-Riding’," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-25, October.
    3. Bitoiu Teodora & Radulescu Crina, 2015. "Craving For Balanced Public Decision-Making On Market Failure Pertaining To The Interventionist Economic Policies Strainer," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 157-164, July.
    4. Rana, Pushpendra & Chhatre, Ashwini, 2017. "Beyond committees: Hybrid forest governance for equity and sustainability," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 40-50.
    5. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    6. Rosina K Foli & Frank L K Ohemeng, 2022. "“Provide our basic needs or we go out”: the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, inequality, and social policy in Ghana [Easing of lockdown a relief to Ghana’s poor—despite fears it is premature]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(2), pages 217-230.
    7. Barbara Quimby & Arielle Levine, 2018. "Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Eba'a Atyi, Richard & Assembe-Mvondo, Samuel & Lescuyer, Guillaume & Cerutti, Paolo, 2013. "Impacts of international timber procurement policies on Central Africa's forestry sector: The case of Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 40-48.
    9. Satish Kumar & Dipasha Sharma & Sandeep Rao & Weng Marc Lim & Sachin Kumar Mangla, 2025. "Past, present, and future of sustainable finance: insights from big data analytics through machine learning of scholarly research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 345(2), pages 1061-1104, February.
    10. Andersson, Krister, 2013. "Local Governance of Forests and the Role of External Organizations: Some Ties Matter More Than Others," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 226-237.
    11. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Lipson, Matthew M. & Chard, Rose, 2019. "Temporality, vulnerability, and energy justice in household low carbon innovations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 495-504.
    12. Goletz, Mirko & Haustein, Sonja & Wolking, Christina & L’Hostis, Alain, 2020. "Intermodality in European metropolises: The current state of the art, and the results of an expert survey covering Berlin, Copenhagen, Hamburg and Paris," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 109-122.
    13. Biehl, J. & Köppel, J. & Grimm, M., 2021. "Creating space for wind energy in a polycentric governance setting," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    14. Duncan, Nicolette & de Silva, Sanjiv & Conallin, John & Freed, Sarah & Akester, Michael & Baumgartner, Lee & McCartney, Matthew & Dubois, Mark & Senaratna Sellamuttu, Sonali, 2021. "Fish for whom?: Integrating the management of social complexities into technical investments for inclusive, multi-functional irrigation," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 22(C).
    15. Michelle Lim, 2016. "Governance criteria for effective transboundary biodiversity conservation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 797-813, December.
    16. van Noordwijk, Meine, 2019. "Integrated natural resource management as pathway to poverty reduction: Innovating practices, institutions and policies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 60-71.
    17. Grimley, Matthew & Chan, Gabriel, 2023. "“Cooperative is an oxymoron!”: A polycentric energy transition perspective on distributed energy deployment in the Upper Midwestern United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    18. Müller-Hansen, Finn & Lee, Yuan Ting & Callaghan, Max & Jankin, Slava & Minx, Jan C., 2022. "The German coal debate on Twitter: Reactions to a corporate policy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    19. Hartwell, Christopher A. & Otrachshenko, Vladimir & Popova, Olga, 2021. "Waxing power, waning pollution: The effect of COVID-19 on Russian environmental policymaking," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    20. Ivan Rodrigo Rizzo Dias & George Bedinelli Rossi, 2017. "How far is World Champion from World Class? Institutional effects on a Brazilian non-profit sports organization," Brazilian Business Review, Fucape Business School, vol. 14(Special I), pages 24-44, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    stakeholders; fora; research;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:fpr:ifprid:2312. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.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.