{"title":"Responsible Accountability? Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships, Sustainable Development and Global Health","authors":"Matteo De Donà, Kristina Jönsson","doi":"10.1111/1758-5899.70158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Following the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) have received renewed political attention. In several policy fields, MSPs have been criticized for a lack of accountability, resulting in efforts to redress this problem. However, it is still unclear how accountability challenges and shortcomings differ across partnerships operating within the same policy field, while little is known about how MSPs themselves understand and frame accountability. Using policy documents and interviews, this paper investigates accountability challenges across two global health MSPs: UHC2030 and Medicines for Malaria Venture. Our analysis shows that MSPs face different accountability challenges depending on their <i>official</i> and <i>de facto</i> responsibilities. We also observe that accountability gaps look different depending on how <i>horizontal</i> accountability is understood as well as on the prevailing logics (either <i>public</i> or <i>corporate</i>) that inform MSPs. Accountability and responsibility are strictly intertwined, and the ways in which accountability is enacted are directly dependent on varying framings of responsibility. Consequently, accountability is understood and framed inconsistently among MSPs contributing to the 2030 Agenda. Hence, the transformative potential of these partnerships should be understood in relation to the specific governance contexts in which these MSPs are embedded.</p>","PeriodicalId":51510,"journal":{"name":"Global Policy","volume":"17 2","pages":"326-337"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1758-5899.70158","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.70158","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Following the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) have received renewed political attention. In several policy fields, MSPs have been criticized for a lack of accountability, resulting in efforts to redress this problem. However, it is still unclear how accountability challenges and shortcomings differ across partnerships operating within the same policy field, while little is known about how MSPs themselves understand and frame accountability. Using policy documents and interviews, this paper investigates accountability challenges across two global health MSPs: UHC2030 and Medicines for Malaria Venture. Our analysis shows that MSPs face different accountability challenges depending on their official and de facto responsibilities. We also observe that accountability gaps look different depending on how horizontal accountability is understood as well as on the prevailing logics (either public or corporate) that inform MSPs. Accountability and responsibility are strictly intertwined, and the ways in which accountability is enacted are directly dependent on varying framings of responsibility. Consequently, accountability is understood and framed inconsistently among MSPs contributing to the 2030 Agenda. Hence, the transformative potential of these partnerships should be understood in relation to the specific governance contexts in which these MSPs are embedded.
《2030年可持续发展议程》通过后,多利益攸关方伙伴关系再次受到政治关注。在一些政策领域,msp因缺乏问责制而受到批评,从而导致纠正这一问题的努力。然而,目前尚不清楚在同一政策领域内运作的伙伴关系中问责制的挑战和缺点有何不同,而对于msp本身如何理解和构建问责制则知之甚少。利用政策文件和访谈,本文调查了两个全球卫生msp的问责挑战:UHC2030和Medicines for Malaria Venture。我们的分析表明,msp面临着不同的问责挑战,这取决于他们的官方和实际责任。我们还观察到,问责制差距看起来不同,这取决于如何理解横向问责制,以及为msp提供信息的主流逻辑(公共或公司)。问责制和责任是严格交织在一起的,问责制的实施方式直接取决于不同的责任框架。因此,为《2030年议程》做出贡献的msp对问责制的理解和框架不一致。因此,应该根据这些msp所处的具体治理环境来理解这些伙伴关系的变革潜力。