13.07.2015 Views

Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table 5.2 Illustrative Stakeholder MatrixStakeholderInterest in <strong>the</strong>Policy(Pro/Neutral/Con)Salience <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Policy(0-10)Influence on <strong>the</strong>Policy(0-10)Priority forPolicymakers(Hi/Medium/Low)Group 1Group 2Group 3, etc.5.2 shows a generic stakeholder matrix, similarto <strong>the</strong> kind <strong>of</strong> tool policymakers might develop toidentify potential alliances and implementationstrategies for an Legal Empowerment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Poorpolicy initiative.Archon Fung and Erik Wright (2003) suggest twogeneric strategies to contend with stakeholders:top-down adversarial strategies and participatorycollaboration. Building alliances across stakeholdergroups is vital, which will turn on <strong>the</strong> networks andcoalitions to which <strong>the</strong>y belong. Support for LegalEmpowerment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Poor will arise from stakeholderswho view it as good politics and a meansto build political support and legitimacy. Donorscan assist, but <strong>the</strong> driving forces for change mustcome from within <strong>the</strong> country. National leadershipin debating <strong>the</strong> difficult issues is crucial.With regard to participatory collaboration, agreementmay be absent about who should be involvedin decisions. Some stakeholders will not have aprearranged structure. Also, <strong>the</strong>re may be no approvedinter-stakeholder process for developingcommon policy positions. Such an institutionalarrangement will <strong>the</strong>refore need to be expresslybrought toge<strong>the</strong>r for purposes <strong>of</strong> implementingLegal Empowerment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Poor. The challenges<strong>of</strong> establishing commonly agreed upon definitions<strong>of</strong> problem situations and identifying <strong>the</strong> relevantstakeholders must be overcome as a first step.Adversarial situations are even riskier for <strong>the</strong> poor.Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> time, disfavoured, disenfranchisedstakeholders stand to lose in confrontations withbetter endowed groups. Resolution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> conflictinginterests ranges along a continuum from negotiationto mediation, to third-party adjudication or arbitration,to refusal to compromise at all. Adversarialstakeholders ordinarily enter into negotiation when<strong>the</strong>y see that is <strong>the</strong> best alternative compared towhat <strong>the</strong>y could obtain ‘away from <strong>the</strong> bargainingtable’ (Ramirez 1999). Where conflict already exists,a strategic starting point for development pr<strong>of</strong>essionalsis to understand stakeholder preferencesfor how to deal with <strong>the</strong> clash <strong>of</strong> interests.In thinking about stakeholder preferences, <strong>the</strong>reare four stylised stakeholders (shown in <strong>the</strong> middlebox <strong>of</strong> Figure 5.2, above) to consider: <strong>the</strong> policy’sbeneficiaries, obviously, but also its allies (whosupport <strong>the</strong> policy even though <strong>the</strong>y may notbenefit directly), practitioners responsible for <strong>the</strong>policy, and challengers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policy. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>possibilities are sketched out below; <strong>the</strong>se areillustrative categories and, needless to say, <strong>the</strong>descriptions may not accurately depict any actualgroup in any given country. As noted, real groupsmay straddle <strong>the</strong> generic categories or switch backand forth among <strong>the</strong>m, for example from beingLegal Empowerment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Poor challengers at onepoint in time to being Legal Empowerment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Poor allies at ano<strong>the</strong>r period.BeneficiariesPoor people are <strong>the</strong> target beneficiaries <strong>of</strong> LegalEmpowerment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Poor policies. They are <strong>the</strong> ma-291

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!