Power and multistakeholderism

the structuring of spaces between fields

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Abstract

Increasingly complex modes of global governance now include multistakeholder interactions between public and private sectors, and ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ country partners. A debate has arisen, with certain researchers arguing that this new multistakeholderism opens up global governance to new actors, in contrast to alternative accounts that multistakeholderism rather locks in the preferences of more powerful actors. This zero-sum game conceptualisation of multistakeholderism is an artefact of organisational field theory’s focus on the intra-field struggle to ‘win the field’. Moving beyond conventional field theory, the authors use Eyal's (2011) theorisation of ‘spaces between fields’ to conceptualise multistakeholder partnerships as inter-field spaces which are co-constructed by relations between stakeholders. Therefore, to examine these emerging spaces, the authors used network analysis to investigate relationships between partners across ten multistakeholder global financing partnerships (in climate change, education, health, and nutrition). Conceptualising multistakeholderism as spaces between fields explains how global partnerships can simultaneously democratise their membership and perpetuate existing privilege: more powerful actors can ‘win’ the space precisely by ceding ground. Moreover, using spaces between fields theory, we can identify and examine different – thus far overlooked - struggles, such as winning in the space or winning benefits from the space.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 4 Apr 2018
EventInternational Studies Association 2018: The power of rules and rule of power - San Fransico, USA United States
Duration: 4 Apr 20187 Apr 2018
https://www.isanet.org/Conferences/San-Francisco-2018

Conference

ConferenceInternational Studies Association 2018
CountryUSA United States
CitySan Fransico
Period4/04/187/04/18
Internet address

Fingerprint

field theory
global governance
partner relationship
network analysis
privilege
nutrition
private sector
public sector
artifact
climate change
stakeholder
developing country
interaction
health
education

Cite this

Faul, M., & Tchilingirian, J. (2018). Power and multistakeholderism: the structuring of spaces between fields. Paper presented at International Studies Association 2018, San Fransico, USA United States.

Power and multistakeholderism : the structuring of spaces between fields. / Faul, Moira; Tchilingirian, Jordan.

2018. Paper presented at International Studies Association 2018, San Fransico, USA United States.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Faul, M & Tchilingirian, J 2018, 'Power and multistakeholderism: the structuring of spaces between fields' Paper presented at International Studies Association 2018, San Fransico, USA United States, 4/04/18 - 7/04/18, .
Faul M, Tchilingirian J. Power and multistakeholderism: the structuring of spaces between fields. 2018. Paper presented at International Studies Association 2018, San Fransico, USA United States.
Faul, Moira ; Tchilingirian, Jordan. / Power and multistakeholderism : the structuring of spaces between fields. Paper presented at International Studies Association 2018, San Fransico, USA United States.
@conference{49fe0a8d77d440268bbff7865c1f1fed,
title = "Power and multistakeholderism: the structuring of spaces between fields",
abstract = "Increasingly complex modes of global governance now include multistakeholder interactions between public and private sectors, and ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ country partners. A debate has arisen, with certain researchers arguing that this new multistakeholderism opens up global governance to new actors, in contrast to alternative accounts that multistakeholderism rather locks in the preferences of more powerful actors. This zero-sum game conceptualisation of multistakeholderism is an artefact of organisational field theory’s focus on the intra-field struggle to ‘win the field’. Moving beyond conventional field theory, the authors use Eyal's (2011) theorisation of ‘spaces between fields’ to conceptualise multistakeholder partnerships as inter-field spaces which are co-constructed by relations between stakeholders. Therefore, to examine these emerging spaces, the authors used network analysis to investigate relationships between partners across ten multistakeholder global financing partnerships (in climate change, education, health, and nutrition). Conceptualising multistakeholderism as spaces between fields explains how global partnerships can simultaneously democratise their membership and perpetuate existing privilege: more powerful actors can ‘win’ the space precisely by ceding ground. Moreover, using spaces between fields theory, we can identify and examine different – thus far overlooked - struggles, such as winning in the space or winning benefits from the space.",
author = "Moira Faul and Jordan Tchilingirian",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "4",
language = "English",
note = "International Studies Association 2018 : The power of rules and rule of power ; Conference date: 04-04-2018 Through 07-04-2018",
url = "https://www.isanet.org/Conferences/San-Francisco-2018",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Power and multistakeholderism

T2 - the structuring of spaces between fields

AU - Faul, Moira

AU - Tchilingirian, Jordan

PY - 2018/4/4

Y1 - 2018/4/4

N2 - Increasingly complex modes of global governance now include multistakeholder interactions between public and private sectors, and ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ country partners. A debate has arisen, with certain researchers arguing that this new multistakeholderism opens up global governance to new actors, in contrast to alternative accounts that multistakeholderism rather locks in the preferences of more powerful actors. This zero-sum game conceptualisation of multistakeholderism is an artefact of organisational field theory’s focus on the intra-field struggle to ‘win the field’. Moving beyond conventional field theory, the authors use Eyal's (2011) theorisation of ‘spaces between fields’ to conceptualise multistakeholder partnerships as inter-field spaces which are co-constructed by relations between stakeholders. Therefore, to examine these emerging spaces, the authors used network analysis to investigate relationships between partners across ten multistakeholder global financing partnerships (in climate change, education, health, and nutrition). Conceptualising multistakeholderism as spaces between fields explains how global partnerships can simultaneously democratise their membership and perpetuate existing privilege: more powerful actors can ‘win’ the space precisely by ceding ground. Moreover, using spaces between fields theory, we can identify and examine different – thus far overlooked - struggles, such as winning in the space or winning benefits from the space.

AB - Increasingly complex modes of global governance now include multistakeholder interactions between public and private sectors, and ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ country partners. A debate has arisen, with certain researchers arguing that this new multistakeholderism opens up global governance to new actors, in contrast to alternative accounts that multistakeholderism rather locks in the preferences of more powerful actors. This zero-sum game conceptualisation of multistakeholderism is an artefact of organisational field theory’s focus on the intra-field struggle to ‘win the field’. Moving beyond conventional field theory, the authors use Eyal's (2011) theorisation of ‘spaces between fields’ to conceptualise multistakeholder partnerships as inter-field spaces which are co-constructed by relations between stakeholders. Therefore, to examine these emerging spaces, the authors used network analysis to investigate relationships between partners across ten multistakeholder global financing partnerships (in climate change, education, health, and nutrition). Conceptualising multistakeholderism as spaces between fields explains how global partnerships can simultaneously democratise their membership and perpetuate existing privilege: more powerful actors can ‘win’ the space precisely by ceding ground. Moreover, using spaces between fields theory, we can identify and examine different – thus far overlooked - struggles, such as winning in the space or winning benefits from the space.

M3 - Paper

ER -