Where does power lie in the UN development system—and how is influence exercised? A new study analyses structural imbalances and outlines ways to address them. IDOS researcher Dr Anna Novoselova shares her insights in this interview.
Your study highlights a “triple disconnect” in the UN Development System. What does this mean; and why does it matter?
The “triple disconnect” refers to the three gaps that define how power and influence operate in the UN development system (UNDS). First, those with formal governance authority – for example, board members and UN General Assembly delegates – lack control over resources, leading to governance bodies losing their influence over outcomes they are supposed to oversee. Second, those providing resources operate outside formal channels, bypassing governance structures designed to ensure collective oversight. Finally, those most affected by UNDS programming have the least influence over global-level priorities, approaches or accountability standards. However, they tend to have a larger influence at the regional and country level.
The bottom line is that formal governance structures are actual power dynamics. These imbalances constrain the effectiveness of the UN development system, shaping how and to what extent it can deliver on its mandates, as well as undermine its legitimacy.
How is influence actually distributed within the UN Development System, and what does this reveal about the balance of power between different actors?
The study reveals a consistent hierarchy of influence. The most impactful mechanisms, such as donor coordination, earmarking negotiations, and penholder positions, require financial resources that only larger donor countries have access to. Organisational mechanisms, such as coordination through coalitions like the G77 or AOSIS and various ‚Friends of‘ groups, have moderate impact but demand sustained engagement that few smaller actors can maintain. Although public mechanisms such as side events and board sessions are the most accessible, they rarely shape outcomes. In short, the more influential the mechanism, the less accessible it is.
This is also reflected in how the system is perceived. In the survey conducted for this study, respondents rated traditional donors as having ‚high or very high‘ influence 91% of the time, compared to 27% for the Global South. This gap points to a system that is seen as donor-driven rather than collectively governed, and where the North-South divide is tangible.
The study shows that these imbalances are not fixed. What concrete steps could help better align power, resources and accountability?
UN reforms – including the ongoing UN80 Initiative – tend to address the symptoms: duplication, inefficiency, and overlapping mandates. However, the politics of control that sustain structural imbalances need to be taken into account too, while creating incentives that align self-interest with collective benefit.
In the report, we offer a number of recommendations curated specifically for different stakeholders, such as the UN leadership, major donor countries, emerging economies, etc. Overall, finance and governance must be realigned, for example, by giving the Funding Compact enforcement mechanisms. Additionally, the decision-making process needs to be democratised. This might include opening informal consultations to all interested states with virtual participation and rotating penholder roles, ensuring Global South countries hold at least 50% of them on development resolutions. Other reforms include strengthening oversight and leadership, embedding civil society inclusion, and creating continuous accountability through public dashboards and regular independent evaluation. None of these reforms require Charter amendments – only coalitions willing to shift incentives within the existing system.
With a new UN Secretary-General to be selected, what role can she play in making the development system more effective and fit for purpose?
While any Secretary-General is constrained by member-state authority and the broader structure of the UN system – she has no control over specialised agencies – there are four areas in which she can exert real influence.
First, she holds symbolic power as the “voice” of the international community. This gives her a platform to shape narratives around what needs to change within the UNDS, and to highlight the gap between governance and funding.
Second, through control over appointments, budgets, and internal structures, the Secretary-General can take concrete steps that do not require member state involvement. For example, increasing the visibility of voluntary contributions flows would enhance transparency and put pressure on member states to change their behaviour.
Third, her network power allows her to convene actors and coalitions across regional and institutional divides, helping to facilitate consensus proactively.
Finally, she can draw on her Charter power, in particular Article 99, which enables the Secretary-General to bring issues to the attention of member states, to elevate governance reform as a system-wide priority.
Schreibe einen Kommentar