Readers' Guide Comment on “individual priority challenges”
WEF’s Step Three has two directives. First, use the augmented institutional geometry in certain sectors (e.g. education and health) to gain experience with the multi-stakeholder governance system. Second, use the success stories from these sector experiments to gain wider acceptance for the new over-arching governance model.
There is a functional chasm between WEF’s concept of augmented institutional geometry and the delivery of progress on individual problems. There is no requirement that the non-state Actors who ‘make policy’ carry out the governance decision. They are invited to participate in the augmented institutional governance arrangement but not obligated to implement the outcome of the process. For WEF, that translates into “accelerate[d] progress” and action on the part of the new international system. There is no discussion of the budgets, staff, time tables, program targets, or project evaluations needed to implement the results of an augmented institutional geometry in order for it to deliver the desired policy outcomes.
WEF’s Step Three does not explain how the augmented institutional geometry will deal with those who may be quite happy with the status quo or would prefer an alternative sector policy. It may be the case that WEF presumes that enough ‘good’ Actors can prevent ‘bad’ Actors from dominating a given market or region. On the other hand, this might be another example of the GRI avoiding addressing public regulation of globalization, even if it means an ineffective implementation of the outcome of a multi-stakeholder process.
The Readers' Guide welcomes comments with alternative examples or counter examples, supplemental assessments of the extracted GRI text or commentary – critical or otherwise – of the above interpretation of GRI’s perspective.