Connecting Development Knowledge Beyond 2015 Executive … · Networks for Prosperity: Connecting...

Networks for Prosperity Connecting Development Knowledge Beyond 2015Executive Summary

Design: creative images s.r.o., Bratislava, SlovakiaPrinted in SlovakiaISBN 978-3-200-02884-5

Networks for Prosperity

Connecting Development Knowledge Beyond2015

Executive Summary

2 Networks for ProsperityExecutive Summary

Networks for Prosperity: Connecting Development Knowledge Beyond 2015is published by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)Vienna International Centre,P.O. Box 300, 1400 Vienna, AustriaTelephone: (+43-1) 26026-0,Fax: (+43-1) 26926-69E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2012 by the United Nations Industrial Development OrganizationNo part of this publication can be used or reproduced without prior permission from UNIDO.

ISBN 978-3-200-02884-5

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations Industrial DevelopmentOrganization (UNIDO) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or its economic system or degree of development.Designations such as “developed”, “industrialized” and “developing” are intended for statistical convenienceand do not necessarily express a judgment about the stage reached by a particular country or area in thedevelopment process. Mention of firm names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement byUNIDO. The opinions, statistical data and estimates contained in signed articles are the responsibility of theauthor(s), including those who are UNIDO members of staff, and should not be considered as reflecting theviews or bearing the endorsement of UNIDO. Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy ofinformation herein, UNIDO does not assume any responsibility for consequences, which may arise from theuse of the material. This document has been produced without formal United Nations editing.

Report TeamNetworks for Prosperity: Connecting Development Knowledge Beyond 2015 is the product of a collectiveeffort of UNIDO and the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies (CGGS), under the overall auspices of the MDG Achievement Fund. Operations and administration colleagues facilitate the work of the jointreport team.

Authors and Contributors: Kazuki Kitaoka, Axel Marx, Cormac O’Reilly, Joaquín Fuentes, Johan Adriaensen,Ettore Bolisani, Colleen Carroll, Michele Clara, Ariane Agnes Corradi, Georg Duernecker, Jacint Jordana,Petra Koppensteiner, Orly Lobel, Moritz Meyer, Timothy Meyer, Ana Aleksić Mirić, Jorge Rodriguez Vives,Enrico Scarso, Jadir Soares, Fernando Vega-Redondo, Thomas Vogel

Research support (UNIDO): Augusto Alcorta, Kai Bethke, Amadou Boly, Nobuya Haraguchi, AnnemarieHeuls, Sarwar Hobohm, Stefan Kratsch, Heinz Leuenberger, Sergio Miranda da Cruz, Toshiaki Ono, GabrieleOtt, Sabine Stroh, Natascha Weisert, Benjamin Leitner, Fabio Picinich and Katrin Schomaker.Operations and administration: Maribel Olegario-Polimeni, UNIDO

Design and print by creative images s.r.o., Bratislava, Slovakia – www.c-images.com

Printed on FSC certified paper

3Networks for ProsperityExecutive Summary

Table of Contents

Forewords

Introduction

PART 1: Towards a New Eraof Networked Development

PART 2: Measuring Connectedness and ItsImpact

PART 3: Knowledge Networks in Practice

PART 4: Exploring the Boundaries ofKnowledge Network Governance

PART 5: Networks for Prosperity in the World We Want Beyond 2015: Findings and Recommendations

Acronyms


The Millennium Development Goals Achievement Fund (MDG Fund)is a Spanish initiative created to accelerate progress on the achievementof the MDGs, by supporting high-impact innovative actions in selectedcountries and sectors, actions that could be wide replicated.

the potential of networking and cooperation asessential tools to create jobs through economic growthand prosperity. From a historical perspective, this field has been severely underestimated and under-researched but recent academic research shows itsrelevance and direct impact in economic development.

This is why Spain is proud and honoured to be part ofthis second report and cherishes UNIDO for itscontinued work in this field. The Networks forProsperity initiative has been supported by Spain sinceits beginning, and we value all the relatedachievements and activities developed under thisprogramme by UNIDO. We especially welcome thefocus on Latin America and the Caribbean in this firstphase of the initiative and I truly believe thatUNIDO’s catalytic work and expertise are ideal formatching the economic development priorities of thecountries from this geographic region.

The MDG Fund represents the Spanish commitment tomultilateral cooperation for development, andacknowledges the extraordinary effort made by Spainin this regard. This expertise-based partnership ofUNIDO with the MDG Fund has made a tremendouscontribution to the impact and visibility of the Fundefforts, both globally and in its country programs. Weare therefore looking forward to the continuation ofthe fruitful collaboration and partnership withUNIDO in this field of economic governance andknowledge networking.

Jesús Gracia AldazSecretary of State for International Cooperation andfor Latin America of Spain

Foreword Jesús Gracia AldazSecretary of State for InternationalCooperation and for Latin America of Spain

Another key objective of the Fund has been topromote the cooperative inter-agency work within theUN System. In fact, all MDG-F-financed programsbuild on the collective strength of the UN, bringingseveral Agencies together to address issues that cutacross the mandate of individual organizations. TheMDG-F is thus contributing to the UN Reform pro -cess, in particular to the UN efforts to deliver as one.

With the resources assigned to this Fund (a total of618 million Euros) Spain has supported more than130 joint programs in fifty countries from five regionsaround the world. Over twenty UN Agencies havebeen involved in the formulation and implementationof MDG Fund joint programs, with an average of sixAgencies participating in each programme.

In 2010 the MDG Fund requested UNIDO to create aknowledge management concept that would helpdeveloping countries to adapt private sectordevelopment knowledge to their specific contexts andneeds, and, at the same time, enhance the knowledgecapabilities of the United Nations system and itsnational counterparts and partners in the field ofPrivate Sector Development policy. As a result, theNetworks for Prosperity initiative was born within thecontext of the project “Establishing a GlobalKnowledge System for Private Sector Development(PSD) Policy”.

In this context, a first report Networks for Prosperity:Achieving Development Goals through KnowledgeSharing was published in November 2011, and hasreceived an overwhelmingly positive response. This isnot surprising. Policy-makers increasingly recognize


The first Networks for Prosperity report was launched in November2011 at a time of great economic uncertainty, great inequity, highurbanization, financial constraints and high youth unemployment.

Foreword Kandeh K. YumkellaDirector-General, UNIDO

production has become segmented into different stages acrossdifferent countries. Many of these countries are located in theSouth. Emerging or transition economies are increasinglybroadening and deepening their range of knowledge andexpertise to a point where traditional development actors willneed to re-define their role towards acting as a connector andcatalyst, facilitating countries on their paths to greaterindependence and international leadership.

This second Networks for Prosperity report collects all theseinterests from a rich diversity of sources and goes one stepfurther by analyzing knowledge networks and networkgovernance in practice, including some factors that allowsome to be more successful than others. An updated versionof the Connectedness Index covering more countries,together with a comparative analysis of all internationalnetworking indices and additional case studies introduced,provides a closer and more detailed approach to networks,reflecting its influence and impact on global policymakingand development cooperation. Reflective essays by leadingexperts point to key issues to be tackled in the near futurewith regard to knowledge networks. The report wasprepared on behalf of the United Nations system byUNIDO’s Networks for Prosperity initiative in closecollaboration with the University of Leuven. The Networksfor Prosperity initiative was generously supported by theGovernment of Spain through the Development and thePrivate Sector thematic window of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals Achievement Fund. I am convinced thatthis report will prove to be a useful tool for policymakers,professionals and experts in the achievement of sustainabledevelopment and economic growth.

Kandeh K. YumkellaDirector-General, UNIDO

It was intended to build on the existing literature byexamining types of knowledge networks and exploring theirrelationship with private sector development and economicgrowth. It was a genuine and original academic exercisewhich reflected the critical role of knowledge networks as oneof the driving, though invisible, forces of economic growth.

The first report highlighted in its recommendations thatcountries could significantly benefit from ensuring that theirlocal and international networks are successfully embedded.Vibrant knowledge networks require a living ecology ofinstitutions, which perpetually provide new knowledge andopportunities, and which continuously enhance socio-economic and private sector development policymakingabilities at the national and international levels. Globali -zation means that world economies cannot grow in isolation,and in this context of interrelations and connectednesshigher economic growth stems from regional and inter -national integration. If this integration is to be successful, itis necessary to create a strong infrastructural base, and todiffuse the transfer of knowledge, skills, information,technology, innovation and investments with the objective ofachieving a major goal: sustainable growth and prosperity.

One year on, the global community seems ready to embracenew forms of partnership in the pursuit of sustainabledevelopment. The High-level Forum on Aid Effectivenessheld in Busan in November 2011 has set the scene for newmodalities of development assistance that go beyondtraditional concepts of donor and recipient, to incorporatemore complex networks of South-South, triangular andpublic-private cooperation. Efforts towards agreeing to anew set of global development goals beyond 2015 are alsolooking to unleash the power of new development actorsthrough networks. It has for some time been an importantfeature of the global economic environment that industrial


As part of a larger knowledge management initiative for privatesector development programming, the MDG Achievement Fund hasproudly supported the Networks for Prosperity initiative since itsinception. The second report of the Networks for Prosperityinitiative provides the reader a clear and insightful picture on thecritical role that knowledge networks play in a new global aidarchitecture.

We are convinced that the achievements and resultspresented in this report will have a strong impact inthe overall field of sustainable development, thedebate about the post-2015 agenda, and the growingrelevance of South-South cooperation.

Sophie de CaenDirector, MDG Achievement Fund

Remarkable academics and practitioners havecollaborated in the elaboration of this report byproviding new and innovative essays coveringdifferent aspects of networks, from regulatorynetworks to business networks or the analysis ofbarriers to learning.

The Connectedness Index presented in this reportshows the correlation between a high degree ofregional and global integration with economicimprovement. Knowledge networks have an impact ineconomic growth, so policymakers and practitionerswill find this report particularly useful as it shows theinternal workings of knowledge networks, how theyare created, what factors are going to play a decisiverole in the successful end of a network. Country casestudies show networks in action, particularly throughthe creation and promotion of knowledge platformsaimed at the achievement of sustainable economicgrowth.

Foreword Sophie de CaenDirector, MDG Achievement Fund


In the face of evolving global challenges and shifting notions ofdevelopment, the strategies which developing countries devise inorder to achieve economic growth and stability must also adapt.Industrial development is no longer the monopoly of largehierarchically organized institutions.

Foreword Jan Wouters Director, Leuven Centre for GlobalGovernance Studies

degree to which organizations, firms, and peopleinfluence knowledge flows across and betweennetworks. A series of case studies expose networks inaction, drawing lessons from the experience of states,NGOs, and sectors.

The findings and results reflect coordinated action anddiscourse between academics and practitionersfermented under the framework of the UNIDO-LeuvenCentre for Global Governance Studies Expert GroupMeeting on Knowledge Networks. The insights onnetworks, knowledge management, and networkgovernance stem from studies prepared and discussed inthis forum, and embody the multidisciplinary researchapproach honed at the Expert Group meeting. Thereport submits not only that networks constitute aninnovative tool for developing countries to pursueprivate sector development, but also that they are apotent instrument with vast potential to impact sectors,domestic industrial development, and internationalcooperation to achieve the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. As we continue to investigate the magnitude of anetwork’s effect on industrial development, theinformation and experiences detailed here can helpchallenge and rethink current notions of development,reestablishing industrialization as a key force to achievesustainable economic development.

Prof. Dr. Jan WoutersJean Monnet Chair Ad Personam EU and Global GovernanceProfessor of International Law and International OrganizationsDirector, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies –Institute for International Law University of LeuvenPresident, Flemish Foreign Affairs Council

Networks and knowledge networks are becomingincreasingly important to support industrialdevelopment in line with the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. The present second Networks for Prosperityreport, building on the foundational first report, tapsthe knowledge of academics and practitioners alike todemonstrate how networks and network governancecan help states in applying sound and profitableindustrial development strategies. By disseminatinginformation, encouraging learning, and diffusingmanagement practices, networks spark and supportprivate sector development.

This report aims to expand the understanding of hownetworks function in theory and in practice. Doing soexposes the ways in which networks can disseminateinformation capable of influencing developmentpractices. The research centres on UNIDO’s recognitionof networks as major contributors to private sectordevelopment. Bearing this in mind, the reportacknowledges networks as an emerging governancestructure, and it recognizes that there is both aprofound lack of scientific research on thisphenomenon and significant potential for such researchto bolster developing countries’ capacity to moreeffectively utilize networks to reach development goals.

The contributions to this report span across academicdisciplines, indicating that networks and networkgovernance offer significant opportunities for privatesector development. Delving deeper into the conceptsfirst elaborated in the 2011 report, they look intovarious ways to measure the links between states, therole networks play in various societal settings, and the


This study is the second report prepared by UNIDO’s Networks forProsperity initiative. The initiative was born under the fundingwindow “Development and the Private Sector” of the Spanish MDGAchievement Fund (MDG-F). In 2010, UNIDO, as the technicalconvenor agency of this thematic window, was requested by theMDG-Fund Secretariat to establish a knowledge managementconcept that would support developing countries in acquiring andadapting private sector development (PSD)-relevant knowledge totheir specific contexts and development needs, and enhance theknowledge capabilities of the United Nations system and its nationalcounterparts and partners in the field of PSD policy.

consultations on knowledge networks as an essentialtool for policymakers to achieve economic and otherdevelopment goals. This first report was launched in Vienna, Brussels,New York, San José and Washington D.C. betweenNovember 2011 and April 2012 and served as a basisfor policy considerations related to developmentstrategy, effectiveness and governance, and led interalia to UNIDO General Conference resolutionGC.13/Res.2 “Knowledge networking andknowledge sharing for achieving development goals“.

The first report, titled Networks for Prosperity:achieving development goals through knowledgesharing was launched in November 2011, as a globalstudy inspired by initial discussions on the issue ofknowledge management and networking indevelopment cooperation that took place during aglobal workshop among MDG-F programmecoordinators in March 2011 in Panama City. Thisworkshop was the starting point in developing aconcept of the role that knowledge networks andknowledge sharing can play in private sectordevelopment policy at local, regional and global level.The meeting also inspired a first round of

Introduction


Knowledge networking and knowledge sharing forachieving development goals

The General Conference,

Recalling resolution GC.13/Res.6 on the crucial roleof the productive sectors in supporting theachievement of the Millennium Development Goals,

Recalling also decision IDB.38/Dec.8 on UNIDOactivities in the field of industrial policy, and inparticular paragraph (g) (ii) of that same decisionrequesting the Director-General to support theexchange of knowledge, experiences and bestpractices among experts and policymakers at theglobal and regional level,

Recalling further decision IDB.36/Dec.13 on UnitedNations system-wide coherence: UNIDO’s role, andin particular paragraph (d) of that same decisionstressing the essential contribution of industrialdevelopment in achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals,

Stressing the key role of the productive sectors inreducing poverty and supporting sustainabledevelopment, and thus in the achievement ofinternationally agreed development goals, includingthe Millennium Development Goals,

Underlining the importance of internationalknowledge networking and the exchange ofexperiences and best practice for the achievement oflocal, regional and international development goalsand prosperity,

Welcoming the role of UNIDO as convenor agencyfor the eighth funding window of the Spanish MDGAchievement Fund (MDG-F) on “Development andthe Private Sector” and, within this context, itsactive coordination role in the first global meeting ofJoint Programme Coordinators in Panama City from1 to 3 March 2011 and the resulting Panama Plan ofAction,

Taking note of the global report “Networks forProsperity: Achieving Development Goals throughKnowledge Sharing”, launched on 14 November2011, and in particular the newly-introducedConnectedness Index and the recommendations inthe same report,

1. Requests the Director-General to continue todevelop and foster, within the Organization’smandate and within existing resources, activitiesthat: (a) Promote international knowledge

networking and knowledge governancestructures for achieving local, regional andglobal development objectives;

(b) Encourage and facilitate the internationalknowledge networking capacities of publicand private institutions in developingcountries;

(c) Improve the inter-institutional informationand knowledge exchange systems ofUNIDO in the wider United Nationscontext;

(d) Support the establishment of internationaland cross-sectoral consultation networks tofurther develop the initial findings onknowledge networking and connectednessand to expand the geographic coverage ofthe Connectedness Index;

2. Encourages the Secretariat to strengthen itsefforts to mobilize funds for the implementationof the above-mentioned activities;

3. Invites development partners to enhance theirfinancial support to the Organization for theimplementation of the present resolution;

4. Requests the Director-General to submit a reporton the progress made in implementing thepresent resolution to the Industrial DevelopmentBoard at its fortieth session.

Box 1.1: UNIDO General Conference Resolution GC.14/Res.2


Box 1.2: Expert group meeting and its findings

critical factors that influence the creation andsuccessful development of a knowledge network.For this purpose, some twenty academic and practicalexperts from around the world were selected ascontributors after a global call for proposals and anexperts group meeting that took place in September2012 in Vienna (see box 1).

Inspired by the success of the first report, this secondreport Networks for Prosperity: connectingdevelopment knowledge beyond 2015 was preparedwith the aim of building on the initial findings. Itintends to provide a more in-depth account andinsights into the internal functioning of knowledgenetworks and knowledge platforms, and to define the

On September 26th 2012, an Expert GroupMeeting on Knowledge Networking and NetworkGovernance took place in Vienna, co-organized byUNIDO and the Leuven Centre for GlobalGovernance Studies. Participants includedrepresentatives from the European UniversityInstitute (EUI), the University of Belgrade, thenon-governmental organizationKNOWHOW3000, the Leuven Centre for GlobalGovernance Studies, the Institute for Internationaland European Policy of the University of Leuven,UNIDO, the University of California San Diego,the University of Padua, the University of GeorgiaSchool of Law, the University of Coimbra, theInstitute for Economic Research on Innovation(IERI) of the Tshwane University of Technology,the International Institute of Social Studies of theErasmus University of Rotterdam, the ALTERAResearch Group of the Wageningen Universityand ESADE Business School.

The meeting was organized with the overarchinggoal of peer-reviewing the latest academic insightson knowledge management and knowledgenetworking. Papers were presented around threethemes: (i) the conceptualization, design,management and measurement of networks; (ii)knowledge diffusion through networks; and (iii)transferring knowledge from networks to users.After the day of discussions on networks andknowledge management, the group itselfinadvertently formed a network of researchersand practitioners in the field of knowledgenetworking in the public sector. A selectednumber of papers were selected to form theconceptual and academic basis of this secondNetworks for Prosperity report.

12 Networks for ProsperityExecutive summary

Part 3 shows how knowledge networks actuallywork in the real world. From the Costa Ricancase of the establishment of a competitivenesscouncil to the networked system of businessdevelopment services in Brazil and the globalknowledge-networking concept of an AustrianNGO, the reader is invited to explore recent casestudies that show knowledge networking andnetwork governance in real life. In addition, thischapter illustrates the utilization of knowledgenetworking in the field of trade policy, comparingseveral trade administrations.

Part 4 explores how and to what degreeknowledge networks differ and provides severalthink pieces on knowledge networks andepistemic cooperation in the respectiveenvironments of regulatory agencies, business andinternational organizations, such as UNIDO andIRENA. An additional chapter calls for the freemovement of knowledge as a principal factor fortargeted human capital development, an essentialprerequisite for any knowledge economy.

Part 5 provides conclusions on theaforementioned items and formulates somerecommendations that Member States may wishto consider in their deliberations on the report.

Part 1 sheds light on the changes in thedevelopment landscape over the past two decades– from the global development conferences to theMDGs and beyond – and discusses the newlyemerging development architecture and potentialscenarios for a post-MDG world. It also linksthese broad developments to the increasedrelevance of South-South and triangulardevelopment cooperation, thus demonstrating theconnection between this rise of “the South” andknowledge networks and network governance.

Part 2 presents an empirical analysis ofknowledge networks and internationalconnectedness, and their relevance todevelopment effectiveness and economicdevelopment. A new, updated, version of globalConnectedness Index is introduced for 132countries, along with an analysis on correlationsbetween a country’s connectedness and itseconomic success factors. This part also includesa network-based empirical analysis on economicglobalization.

This report is divided into five parts:


PART 1: Towards a New Era of Networked Development


1. KNOWLEDGE FUNNELLING: THE CASE OFTHE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

The establishment of the MDGs as the over-archingframework for global development efforts isfrequently recalled as a key outcome of the adoptionof the Millennium Declaration by the GeneralAssembly in 2000, a process in which every UnitedNations Member State had the opportunity to playan equal part. The Millennium Declaration couldtherefore be regarded as the conclusion to theultimate participatory process – the coming togetherof all nations to agree a common position on how toachieve a better future for mankind. The Declarationitself had its origin in a wide range of internationaldevelopment publications, initiatives and conferencesspanning many decades but particularly gatheringsteam in the early- to mid- 1990s. The publication bythe United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) of its first Human Development Report in1990 began a rapid shift away from an emphasis indevelopment discourse on economic growth andinfrastructure development towards one which sawdevelopment as a means to enrich human life and toenlarge the individual’s choices. A number of mainlyUN-led global conferences in the following yearshighlighted the need to invest in social needs such asaccess to nutrition, education and health services, aswell as links between development and theenvironment, human rights, population, and gender(see Manning, 2009).

By 1995 the breadth of information on globaldevelopment issues had possibly never been greater,but there was a growing feeling in some quarters thatthis information needed to be better analysed toarrive at areas of prioritization. The OECD’sDevelopment Assistance Committee (DAC) took itupon itself to review the future of development aidand the role of the DAC within this. One of its taskswas to examine declarations made at some of therecent UN conferences and to extract a set of

Part 1 traces the emergence of an embryonicnetwork-based approach to the global developmentagenda. It charts the experience of elaborating theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the1990s, largely a result of distilling existing knowledgetowards specific aims, before examining efforts in the2000s to encourage greater participation by non-traditional development actors. In this connection, italso explores the parallel rise of South-South andtriangular cooperation as well as moves by thedevelopment community to expand the globalpartnership for development to include morecomplex forms of cooperation. It goes on to examinewhat appears to be the beginning of a new agendabeyond the projected expiration of the MDGs in2015, one which is likely to place greater emphasison building and accessing knowledge in a moredecentralized and dynamic way than before. Finally,it concludes by providing suggestions to developingcountries on matters to consider concerning theirown roles in the emerging development architecture.

Towards a NewEra of NetworkedDevelopment


actionable principles. This led to the publication in1996 of a paper entitled “Shaping the 21st Century:the Contribution of Development Cooperation”,which included a short set of proposed “InternationalDevelopment Goals” (IDGs), largely drawn from UNsummit declarations but including rudimentarytargets and indicators. The period from 1996 to 2000saw increasing engagement and policy coordinationin favour of the IDGs from a smaller group of DACdonors (mainly the “Utstein Group” of the UnitedKingdom, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands).

Meanwhile the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations began the process of preparing theMillennium Declaration, which would also contain aset of goals. Adoption of the Declaration by theGeneral Assembly would give unimpugnable inter-governmental authority to these proposed‘Millennium Goals’. Discussions between MemberStates on the text eventually led to a long list of goalscovering peace, security and disarmament;development and poverty eradication; theenvironment; human rights, democracy and goodgovernance; protecting the vulnerable; meeting thespecial needs of Africa; and strengthening the UnitedNations. The goals went far beyond the DAC/UtsteinGroup’s proposal for prioritized, concrete,monitorable, achievable IDGs.

Following the Millennium Summit, discussions onhow to bring the development agenda forwardmoved to an informal group of like-minded entities,spearheaded by members of the Utstein Grouptogether with the DAC secretariat, individuals fromsome UN entities, and the Secretary-General’s office.This group tasked itself with agreeing a set of goalsthat would highlight a limited number ofcommitments in the Millennium Declaration thatcould be quantified, and for which there wereestablished indicators for which reasonable dataexisted. The result of this exercise was a frameworkcontaining 8 goals, 18 targets, and 48 indicators,which was annexed to a road map on follow-up tothe Millennium Summit released by the Secretary-

General in 2001. This list became the authoritativestatement of the MDG framework despite the factthat it had not been agreed in the General Assemblyor on a truly multilateral basis. In essence, the MDGshad been ‘funneled’ into existence by a small,informal, but highly influential network. The Goalswent on to receive informal endorsement at the UNConference on International Financing forDevelopment in Monterrey in 2002, and it was therethat funding commitments started to be made on thebasis of the MDGs.

Against this backdrop, the rapid acceptance of theMDGs as a set of goals shared by all is an interestingphenomenon. The clear consensus that emergedaround the framework was one of its greateststrengths, and certainly helped to mobilize resourcesfor development. However the lack of a moreinclusive consultation process also arguably led togaps in knowledge that weakened the scope of theMDGs, and their targets and indicators, from thebeginning. For example, a large range of importantissues were either ignored or inadequately addressed– including productive employment (and economicaims generally), peace and security, governance andthe rule of law. There was also a general lack ofunderstanding at the outset that achieving MDGs atthe country level required extensive adaptation togiven country contexts – tapping into localknowledge and, above all, keeping those closest tothis knowledge in the driving seat.

Ironically, perhaps, one of the MDGs did point theway towards a more broad-based approach. MDG 8,the goal to develop a global partnership fordevelopment, aimed to galvanize support –particularly financial support – for the achievementof the MDGs as a whole. However, a number of thetargets related to this proposed global partnership fordevelopment were defined in an imprecise manner,weakening the likelihood of establishing the networksneeded to provide such support (see United Nations,2011). In the first attempt by the United Nationssystem to apply lessons learned from the MDGs to anew post-2015 development agenda, one of the moststriking recommendations is that, for a globalpartnership of this type to succeed, it should not belimited to resource mobilization and should beconstructed in a much more participatory manner,with more reflection given to the knowledge thatresides in a wider range of actors, includinggovernments, civil society, the private sector andfoundations (United Nations, 2012).


2. THE NEW KNOWLEDGE PLAYERS: FROMBRICS TO BUSAN

Just as the MDG framework became the dominantparadigm for development cooperation, noticeablechanges were emerging in how industrialized anddeveloping countries, or North and South, related toeach other. Between 1990 and 2008, world tradeexpanded fourfold, spurred on by a wave ofglobalization that saw South-South trade escalate bymore than twenty times its initial level. Indeed,despite the ongoing financial and economic crises,South-South relations have continued to becharacterized by a noticeable increase in trade andinvestment (United Nations, A/66/229). Theascendancy of emerging economies from the South,including – but not limited to – the BRICS countriesof Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa,brings important implications for internationalapproaches to development and multilateral priority-setting.

This is not to claim that the role of the South indevelopment cooperation is a new one. Manydeveloping countries have themselves been engagedfor many years in activities to promote economicdevelopment and welfare, to provide technicalassistance, and to give humanitarian aid (Mawdsley,2012). As Mawdsley notes, the role of the South as apositive actor in development, even as it has grown,has nevertheless appeared to be somewhat out of themainstream. One reason for this is that, whiletraditional donors of the DAC or Utstein schoolinfluenced the agenda towards human development,“the (re)emerging partners appear to be re-animatingthe modernization theories of the 1950s and 1960s,in which economic growth is the primary and priorrequirement of ‘development’” (Mawdsley, due2013). Another may quite simply be that these actorsare often hesitant to use terms like ‘donor’ or ‘aid’ todescribe their cooperation and may characterize theiractions in different ways.

However described, during the course of the 2000s itbecame apparent to the traditional donors that therewas a need to connect to this new stream ofdevelopment actors, in part because of their growingconviction that meeting the MDGs would require amuch greater degree of donor togetherness. The ParisDeclaration, agreed at the OECD/DAC’s High-levelForum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF) in 2005,advocated recipient country ownership, donoralignment, in-country harmonization, and mutualaccountability for results. This was again a clearexample of an avant-garde action spearheaded by acore group, with the expectation that this wouldbecome the dominant paradigm for aid effectiveness.

While supported by a range of developing countries,and also agreed to by the United Nations system andregional development banks, the new actors from theSouth were conspicuously absent in Paris.

Attempts were made to include a wider range ofpartners at the next HLF, held in Accra in 2008.Developing countries played a more active role in thepreparations and agenda, with a number of regionalpreparatory events hosted and organized by thesecountries. Civil society was also included indiscussions. However, it was the fourth HLF inBusan, Republic of Korea, held in 2011, whichproved to be the game changer. The final independentevaluation of the Paris Declaration had been criticalof donors for not adequately adhering to the majorityof principles (Wood et al, 2011), while other analysesshowed that coordination between the traditionaldonors had even weakened (Nunnenkamp et al,2011).

Busan echoed commitments made in Paris and Accra,but in a looser way. The emphasis was no longer onthe OECD/DAC’s driving role – there would now bea new ‘Global Partnership for Effective DevelopmentCooperation’ which would be inclusive and representthe entire international community. Most notably,Brazil, China and India voluntarily joined in agreeingto the outcome document, a text which brings South-South cooperation and the knowledge and expertiseof emerging economies into the heart of developmentcooperation. The document explicitly recognizes thatthe Global Partnership must be a multi-speed one, asdifferent types of countries have ‘differentialcommitments’ (paragraph 1) and ‘the nature,modalities and responsibilities that apply to South-South cooperation differ from those that apply toNorth-South cooperation’ (paragraph 2). Languagein the document reaffirmed commitment to economicdevelopment and the role of the private sector, whilesingling out South-South and triangular cooperationas extending ‘well beyond financial cooperation tothe knowledge and development experience of allactors and countries’ (paragraph 30). Moreover,signatories agreed to encourage ‘the development ofnetworks for knowledge exchange, peer learning andcoordination among South-South cooperation actorsas a means of facilitating access to importantknowledge pools by developing countries’ (paragraph31).

How the Global Partnership will operate in practiceremains to be seen. After much discussion, a lightsecretariat has been established, supported by theOECD and the United Nations Development Group,with the aim of improving networking in anincreasingly complex world, in which many diverse

17Networks for ProsperityExecutive summary

forces have an impact on development. ThePartnership is therefore likely to be a far moreinclusive and representational network than itspredecessor, a Working Party of the OECD/DAC.However, it is uncertain if it will manage to workeffectively, or with sufficient voice for weakercountries. Whatever the case, it is clear that Busanmarks a profound shift in the development landscape,with consequences for the future development agendaas well as for how complex and highly varieddevelopment actors should coordinate, create andtransmit knowledge.

Whether this emerging development architecture willredefine the global aid architecture in a way that willbring “more coherence to the chaos that characterizesinternational cooperation initiatives”, as Severinoand Ray (2010) wish for, is another point thatremains to be seen. It is without doubt, however, thatthe next era of globalization will require ever-increasing degrees of international coordination,especially calling for a strengthened United Nationssystem, due to its catalyst role and universalmembership and legitimacy.

Equally, South-South partnerships and regionalcooperation are likely to rapidly become moredominant features in the unfolding internationaldevelopment architecture, with network governancestructures, based on multi-stakeholder knowledgenetworks, increasingly gaining key importance inlocal, regional and global policymaking. In thiscontext, as described in the first Networks forProsperity report (UNIDO 2011), the role ofknowledge networks in processes of regional or inter-regional integration should be emphasized as amechanism for strengthening the innovationcapacities of countries, prerequisites for theachievement of development goals, includinginclusive growth and sustainable development.

3. THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF MIDDLE-INCOMECOUNTRIES

Since the adoption of the Millennium Declaration andthe creation of the MDGs, millions have been liftedout of poverty. The percentage of the world’spopulation living on less than $1.25 a day fell from 42per cent in 1990 to 25 per cent in 2005, and isprojected to fall to 14 per cent by 2015. Thisimpressive success on income poverty is largely due tothe increased industrialization and growth of relatedeconomic activities in a range of developing countries,and especially China. Indeed, MICs are the fastestgrowing group of countries, both in terms ofpopulation and key economic and human developmentindicators, today with a share of more than 30 percent of global manufactured value added. However,progress towards reaching the full range of MDGs,which did not prioritize economic growth as a meansof achieving development objectives, remains uneven.One remarkable change in the past two decades hasbeen the shift in location of the world’s poor fromlow-income countries (LICs) to MICs. It is estimatedthat in 1990 over 90 per cent of the world’s poorpeople lived in LICs, while there is evidence that todayalmost three-quarters of the world’s poor live in MICs.At the same time, the ongoing global financial andeconomic crises, the food and energy crises, as well asthe more recent European sovereign debt crisis, havehad a negative effect on world economic growth andcontinue to pose challenges to development efforts.Therefore, poverty reduction strategies that do notinclude MICs cannot be successful. They need to beseen in the global context and include economicstructural transformation policies, human resourceinvestments and targeted private sector developmentstrategies in MICs.

Also at the centre of most forward-looking analyses orstudies on global development is sustainabledevelopment. It is almost axiomatic to say that theongoing financial and economic crises have beenaggravated by negative environmental trends, of whichclimate change has the most critical consequences. Yet,despite the fact that the concept of sustainabledevelopment with its economic, environmental andsocial pillars was first articulated by the BrundtlandCommission as early as 1987, its operationalization asa development paradigm has proven difficult. Indeed,resource efficiency will play an increasingly importantrole in the context of global stability, security anddevelopment. Inefficient technologies and operatingpractices currently in use by many industries indeveloping countries will need to be replaced. This isparticularly true for MICs with a high degree ofemployment-creating manufacturing industries. Inaddition, energy access is one of the most pressing of


all the global challenges and is central to all the threepillars of sustainable development. As the impacts ofclimate change become clearer, it is increasinglyevident that a growing share of humanity will becomevulnerable to its effects, which renews the urgency tomove towards “green” industry in developing andindustrialized countries alike. In the light of the UnitedNations Conference on Sustainable Development heldin Rio de Janeiro in June 2012 (Rio+20), at whichMember States agreed to a process to draw up a set ofsustainable development goals (SDGs), the opportunityto do so has now arisen. In the Conference outcomedocument, The Future we Want, Member Statesrecognized that the SDGs need to be coordinated andcoherent with related processes to set the post-2015development agenda. It will be essential that MICs notonly participate in the deliberations of these crucialnegotiations; their active leadership and commitmentwill determine how successful and inclusive theemerging development framework will be.

Finally, recession in many industrialized countries hasled to pressure on global official developmentassistance (ODA) budgets, the total spend for whichdeclined in 2011 for the first time since 1997. On theother hand, MICs are rapidly increasing their owndevelopment cooperation and particularly triangular(North-South-South) and South-South cooperation arerecognized as potential drivers of future developmentfinance. According to some estimates, South-Southcooperation already accounts for about $15 billion indevelopment cooperation each year and could provideover $50 billion by 2025 (Kharas et al, 2012). Someanalyses of South-South cooperation spending indicatea firmer emphasis on industry and economic activitygenerally, compared to the tendency of traditionaldonors to fund the social, humanitarian andgovernance sectors (Turner et al, 2012). It is wellknown that opportunities for the creation,transmission and dissemination of knowledge havetransformed industry worldwide, yet there remainsignificant gaps in access to knowledge by manydeveloping countries, even in upper MICs. Over thepast decade it has become evident that the importanceof knowledge transfer is equal to, or in some casesexceeds, the importance of technology transfer.Limited access to knowledge hampers progresstowards inclusive growth and employment creation, aswell as technological progress for sustainabledevelopment, and for food, nutrition and energysecurity. As described in the first Networks forProsperity report (UNIDO 2011), a major challenge isthus to enhance access to policy-relevant knowledge insustainable economic development, and to create thespace for national, regional and global knowledgestreams and networks for policymaking and capacity-building, particularly among MICs.

4. BEYOND 2015: AN ECOSYSTEM OFDEVELOPMENT KNOWLEDGE

The tracks leading to the development agendabeyond 2015 are complex, increasing in number, andquite different to those that led to the MDGs. First,the outcome document of the 2010 High-levelPlenary Meeting of the United Nations GeneralAssembly on the progress towards the MDGsrequested the Secretary-General to makerecommendations to advance the United Nationsdevelopment agenda beyond 2015. Initialrecommendations in this regard were presented inAugust 2011 in the Report of the Secretary-Generalon accelerating progress towards the MDGs (UnitedNations, A/66/126), with special reference to theneed for an open and inclusive process ofconsultations on the agenda. This led to theestablishment by the Secretary-General of a system-wide Task Team (UNTT), which was charged withproducing a report reviewing the successes andchallenges of the MDG process and providing somegeneral options on the way forward for thedevelopment agenda (United Nations, 2012).

The UNTT report provides one basis for discussionof a High-level Panel on the Post-2015 DevelopmentAgenda (HLP), established by the Secretary-Generalin June 2012 under the tripartite co-chairmanship ofthe United Kingdom (Prime Minister Cameron),Liberia (President Johnson Sirleaf), and Indonesia(President Yudhoyono). The HLP has been taskedwith producing a major report by May 2013, whichis expected to inform discussions among MemberStates in a High-level Meeting on the MDGs andpost-2015 to be held in autumn 2013 at the GeneralAssembly. Further relevant reports will be preparedby the Secretary-General for ECOSOC and for theGeneral Assembly. Consideration of the parametersand detail of the post-2015 development agenda willeventually take place in the General Assembly, mostlikely during 2014.

In June 2012, the outcome document of the UnitedNations Conference on Sustainable Development(Rio+20) provided for an Open Working Group(OWG) of 30 Member States to be inaugurated at thebeginning of the 67th session of the GeneralAssembly in September 2012 (United Nations,A/66/288). The OWG is tasked with submitting areport to the 68th session of the General Assemblycontaining a proposal for a set of sustainabledevelopment goals (SDGs). According to the outcomedocument (para 249), the SDG process “needs to becoordinated and coherent with the process leading tothe post-2015 development agenda”. In order toprovide technical support to this process and to the


work of the working group, the Secretary-Generalwas asked to ensure all necessary input and supportto this work from the UN system including throughthe establishment of an inter-agency technical supportteam (TST, of which UNIDO is a member agency)and expert panels as needed, drawing on all relevantexpert advice. Reports on the progress of work willbe made regularly to the General Assembly.

In addition to the above, there are a range of formaland informal processes, publications and events thatare seeking to influence the agenda beyond 2015,many of which are taking place at the country level.From the side of the United Nations, there is adetermination to make sure that accusations of lackof inclusiveness cannot be levelled this time.However, this is tempered by the experience of howthe actionable MDGs, whatever their faults, werederived from a more exclusive process than thatwhich led to the Millennium Declaration. Onepotential solution to this conundrum is to recognizeand embrace the multi-polarity of the developmentlandscape, building an ecosystem of decentralizedand flexible networks for development knowledgeand development results. In essence, this meansbuilding the post-2015 agenda around an improvedversion of the maligned MDG 8, instead of merelyviewing partnership as supportive of other goals.

Although the MDG conception of a globalpartnership was framed as incentivizing stakeholdersin all countries, the subtext was mostly about acompact between the industrialized North (throughofficial development assistance (ODA), debt relief,extensions to market access, and established privatesector entities making technologies more accessible)and a poor South. This framing is increasingly losingits relevance as the lines between country typologiesblur, and new modes of cooperation become moreimportant. Southern-led or triangular developmentinitiatives, knowledge exchange activities andpartnerships to address poverty and other socio-economic issues can become a determining feature ofthe international development architecture in a multi-polar world.

There are already some clear instances of how theinternational community is using networks to dealwith complex facets of the post-2015 agenda. Thedecision by the United Nations Secretary-General andthe President of the World Bank to further a globalinitiative on Sustainable Energy for All throughestablishing a ‘network of networks’, building onexpertise residing in the public sector, private sector,civil society and academia, is one such example.Similarly, UNIDO’s Green Industry initiative is builton the recognition that the future of industrialgovernance will be of a multi-sector and action-oriented nature.

In view of the importance of knowledge networkingand the potential to make knowledge exchange adefining pillar for the implementation of any post-2015 development strategy, some of the mostsuccessful networks appear to be those addressingregional or global issues through cross-border, peer-to-peer knowledge sharing and multi-stakeholdergovernance. This second Networks for Prosperityreport aims to contribute to this development withnew empirical findings on the importance of domesticand international connectedness for achievingdevelopment objectives, academic think pieces onvarious aspects of knowledge networking, andexamples for good network governance from aroundthe world.

PART 2:Measuring Connectedness and its Impact


The intricacies of knowledge networks present avariety of innovative mechanisms for alleviating orcircumventing typical barriers to industrialdevelopment. But at first glance, networks areabstract and nebulous in nature, differing greatlyfrom traditional governance structures easilyidentified by a parliament, head of state or anadministration. This in mind, a sound understandingof network characteristics is necessary forunderstanding the true potential of knowledgenetworks to impact development goals. A thoroughlyconceptualized concept of networks allows a deeperdelve into understanding the variety of networks,

their magnitude, and how, specifically, they canimpact private sector development and overalleconomic growth.

Noting a marked gap in academic literature,contributions in this section set forth two distinctmeasurements of networks. Both highlightconnectedness, or the degree to which a country isnetworked. Measuring how well a country isconnected can indicate whether networks are indeedcontributing factors for development. Rankings aregenerated that list the countries from most connectedto least connected as follows:

MeasuringConnectedness andits Impact

The Connectedness Index 2012 is the average of three subindices (International, lnter-organizational, and Intraorganiutional Networks).This map shows the level of overall connectedness of countries for which data was available.

1.0 - 0.8 0.79 - 0.6 0.59 - 0.4 0.39 - 0.2 0.19 - 0 No data

Table 2.5: Connectedness Index


Connectedness 2012 Connectedness 2011 RankingIndex Rank Index Rank Differences

ISO code Country 2011-2012

CHE Switzerland 0.977 1 0.971 1 0SWE Sweden 0.915 2 0.913 2 0DNK Denmark 0.886 3 0.901 3 0NLD Netherlands 0.873 4 0.886 5 1BEL Belgium 0.859 5 0.875 6 1FIN Finland 0.849 6 0.863 7 1SGP Singapore 0.838 7 0.836 9 2IRL Ireland 0.822 8 0.803 12 4CAN Canada 0.822 9 0.813 11 2USA United States 0.820 10 0.887 4 -6NOR Norway 0.818 11 0.813 10 -1AUT Austria 0.818 12 0.837 8 -4GBR United Kingdom 0.785 13 0.770 14 1CZE Czech Republic 0.758 14 0.705 20 6AUS Australia 0.758 15 0.755 16 1LUX Luxembourg 0.741 16 0.695 21 5ISL Iceland 0.729 17 0.748 17 0DEU Germany 0.723 18 0.773 13 -5MYS Malaysia 0.711 19 0.716 19 0NZL New Zealand 0.701 20 0.682 22 2FRA France 0.691 21 0.756 15 -6JPN Japan 0.687 22 0.736 18 -4THA Thailand 0.666 23 0.650 26 3EST Estonia 0.653 24 0.640 28 4CHL Chile 0.640 25 0.609 33 8ZAF South Africa 0.625 26 0.622 30 4ESP Spain 0.624 27 0.613 32 5SVN Slovenia 0.622 28 0.666 24 -4CYP Cyprus 0.619 29 0.583 35 6ISR Israel 0.618 30 0.677 23 -7KOR Korea, Republic of 0.610 31 0.654 25 -6BRA Brazil 0.603 32 0.561 39 7POL Poland 0.598 33 0.523 42 9PRT Portugal 0.582 34 0.562 38 4QAT Qatar 0.577 35 0.569 37 2TUN Tunisia 0.574 36 0.635 29 -7IND India 0.573 37 0.554 40 3ARE United Arab Emirates 0.565 38 0.506 46 8HUN Hungary 0.548 39 0.590 34 -5ITA Italy 0.538 40 0.575 36 -4CRI Costa Rica 0.537 41 0.507 44 3CHN China 0.536 42 0.613 31 -11SVK Slovakia 0.529 43 0.645 27 -16MLT Malta 0.515 44 0.464 56 12PAN Panama 0.512 45 0.506 45 0ARG Argentina 0.503 46 0.469 53 7


BRB Barbados 0.503 47 0.470 52 5PER Peru 0.496 48 0.475 51 3RUS Russian Federation 0.496 49 0.423 70 21COL Colombia 0.482 50 0.451 60 10DOM Dominican Republic 0.480 51 0.430 66 15SAU Saudi Arabia 0.477 52 0.469 54 2PRI Puerto Rico 0.477 53 0.463 58 5VNM Viet Nam 0.476 54 0.429 67 13IDN Indonesia 0.474 55 0.502 47 -8JOR Jordan 0.472 56 0.491 48 -8KEN Kenya 0.469 57 0.468 55 -2HRV Croatia 0.466 58 0.484 49 -9LTU Lithuania 0.463 59 0.544 41 -18JAM Jamaica 0.459 60 0.514 43 -17SLV El Salvador 0.457 61 0.405 76 15KAZ Kazakhstan 0.454 62 0.421 72 10BHR Bahrain 0.450 63 0.477 50 -13TTO Trinidad and Tobago 0.445 64 0.420 74 10NGA Nigeria 0.443 65 0.444 62 -3LKA Sri Lanka 0.443 66 0.464 57 -9GTM Guatemala 0.439 67 0.418 75 8UKR Ukraine 0.435 68 0.421 73 5NAM Namibia 0.434 69 0.399 78 9MEX Mexico 0.433 70 0.397 79 9TUR Turkey 0.431 71 0.402 77 6PHL Philippines 0.428 72 0.451 61 -11GRC Greece 0.428 73 0.422 71 -2BGR Bulgaria 0.427 74 0.454 59 -15GMB Gambia 0.422 75 0.356 92 17ARM Armenia 0.421 76 0.369 88 12SEN Senegal 0.420 77 0.394 80 3ZMB Zambia 0.420 78 0.425 69 -9OMN Oman 0.416 79 0.388 82 3ROU Romania 0.413 80 0.436 63 -17URY Uruguay 0.411 81 0.378 84 3MNG Mongolia 0.404 82 0.317 104 22MNE Montenegro 0.402 83 0.375 85 2GUY Guyana 0.389 84 0.303 107 23KHM Cambodia 0.389 85 0.366 89 4KWT Kuwait 0.388 86 0.431 65 -21HND Honduras 0.386 87 0.374 86 -1SRB Serbia 0.385 88 0.384 83 -5MUS Mauritius 0.383 89 0.431 64 -25BWA Botswana 0.379 90 0.353 93 3EGY Egypt 0.378 91 0.363 90 -1BRN Brunei Darussalam 0.378 92 0.346 96 4LVA Latvia 0.375 93 0.425 68 -25MAR Morocco 0.374 94 0.391 81 -13ECU Ecuador 0.373 95 0.370 87 -8


GHA Ghana 0.365 96 0.347 95 -1MWI Malawi 0.364 97 0.337 99 2UGA Uganda 0.360 98 0.338 98 0AZE Azerbaijan 0.351 99 0.356 91 -8MDG Madagascar 0.350 100 0.310 106 6BOL Bolivia, Plurinational State of 0.350 101 0.319 102 1MLI Mali 0.347 102 0.317 105 3LSO Lesotho 0.340 103 0.298 110 7ZWE Zimbabwe 0.335 104 0.331 100 -4BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.331 105 0.295 112 7CIV Côte d'Ivoire 0.329 106 0.348 94 -12MOZ Mozambique 0.326 107 0.302 108 1LBY Libya 0.326 108 0.290 114 6TZA Tanzania, United Republic of 0.325 109 0.228 125 16CMR Cameroon 0.307 110 0.318 103 -7TCD Chad 0.303 111 0.246 121 10PRY Paraguay 0.300 112 0.266 117 5MRT Mauritania 0.296 113 0.300 109 -4MKD Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of 0.296 114 0.343 97 -17KGZ Kyrgyzstan 0.292 115 0.297 111 -4VEN Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 0.292 116 0.295 113 -3BEN Benin 0.288 117 0.255 120 3ETH Ethiopia 0.287 118 0.320 101 -17ALB Albania 0.282 119 0.227 126 7NIC Nicaragua 0.281 120 0.244 122 2DZA Algeria 0.280 121 0.243 123 2PAK Pakistan 0.274 122 0.261 118 -4BFA Burkina Faso 0.265 123 0.278 115 -8SYR Syrian Arab Republic 0.263 124 0.260 119 -5MDA Moldova 0.243 125 0.235 124 -1TMP East Timor 0.225 126 0.200 130 4GEO Georgia 0.223 127 0.225 127 0TJK Tajikistan 0.221 128 0.274 116 -12BDI Burundi 0.206 129 0.147 132 3BGD Bangladesh 0.204 130 0.219 128 -2NPL Nepal 0.127 131 0.186 131 0SUR Suriname 0.081 132 0.204 129 -3

Median: 0.441 0.429 Average 6.636Difference:


The first Network for Prosperity report provided thefirst contribution to constructing a measure whichaims to capture the degree to which countries arenetworked, both internally as well as externally. Thekey effort last year was to identify the informationnecessary to quantitatively capture the importance ofnetworks. In this year’s report, results are updated

and compared with a similar index (GhemawatIndex) commissioned and published by DHL. TheUNIDO Connectedness Index identifies three distinctlevels of networks (international, inter-organizational, and intra-organizational) andincorporates relevant economic and political variableto construct a connectedness ranking across the threeidentified levels.

International Networks

PoliticalGlobalization (KOF)

EconomicGlobalization (KOF)

University IndustryCollaboration (GCR)

Networks andSupporting

Industries (GCR)

ProfessionalAssociation (WVS)

Firms OfferingTraining (WB-ES)

On the Job Training(GCR)

Inter-organizational Networks

Intra-organizational Networks

ConnectednessIndex

Figure 2.1: Connectedness Index


THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENCONNECTEDNESS AND GOVERNMENT,INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

The quantitative nature of data produced lends to aseries of graphs and a correlation matrix. Arrangingthe results in this way helps expose the relationshipbetween connectedness and government effectiveness,regulatory quality, competitive industrialperformance, and GDP per capita PPP. The graphsclearly show a strong positive linear relationshipbetween connectedness and the various performanceindicators. Given the linear relationship between thevariables (see graphs 2.4-2.7), the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient is used to measurethe relationship between the different indicators,although no causal inferences were intended with thisanalysis. The correlations between the ConnectednessIndex and the four development measures listedabove are high, ranging from 0.721 (connectedness xGDP per capita) to 0.845 (connectedness xGovernment Effectiveness) (presented in table 2.6).This indicates that, in the majority of the cases,connectedness and these development measuresfollow the same direction, i.e., when one increases(decreases), the other follows a similar standard.Graphs 2.4 to 2.7 demonstrate this trend.

A second contribution comes from researchers at theEuropean University Institute in Florence. In contrastto the first contribution, efforts here target themeasurement of networks’ impact on economicgrowth. The authors focus on the causal relationshipbetween networks, utilizing bilateral trade andeconomic data to measure a state’s connectedness viaa measure of trade integration.

Taken together, these contributions offer nuancedapproaches to measuring networks. The differencesin methodologies and data used in the twomeasurements (as well as in the GhemawatConnectedness Index which is extensively discussedin the first contribution) indicate that the idea ofnetworks, particularly knowledge networks, demandsfurther quantitative conceptualization andmethodological validation but holds great exploratoryand explanatory value. These quantitative endeavoursexploring how to describe a country’s connectednessset the stage for contributions further on in the reportthat explore specific countries’ and NGOs ‘experiences with networks and as well ascontributions that highlight the complexities ofnetworks.

THE CONNECTEDNESS INDEX 2011 AND 2012COMPARED

The Connectedness Index 2012 is compared with theConnectedness Index 2011. The differences betweenthese indices are presented in table 2.5. Minimaldifferences separate the rankings of the countries inthe top of the list. The three countries in the top ofthe list – Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark – reachexactly the same positions. The Netherlands, Belgiumand Finland increased their ranking by one positioneach. Singapore increased two spots in the ranking.

Among the top ranked countries, the most significantchanges are in the United States and the CzechRepublic’s rankings. Between 2008 and 2009, theUnited States score on the international networkssub-index decreased; the country consequentiallydropped from the 4th to the 10th position in the2012 Connectedness Index. In contrast, the CzechRepublic jumped 6 positions, from the 20th to 14th.The Czech Republic increased in all three sub-indices,most dramatically in the intra-organizations sub-index.

The average difference (up or down) is 6.6 rankingpositions. Nine countries keep the same positions asin the previous ranking and another 38 change amaximum of 3 positions. 26 countries change morethan 10 positions from one year to the next.Mauritius and Latvia experience the greatest changes(from 64th to 89th, and from 68th to 93rd), thelatter dropping 25 positions between the two indices.On the other hand, Guyana, Mongolia and Russiamost significantly increased their ranking positions.Guyana jumps 23 positions, from the 107th to 84th;Mongolia increases 22 positions, rising from 104th to82nd: and Russia improves 21 positions, from the70th to the 49th position. Overall, there was a slightincrease in the median score of countries, from 0.429to 0.441, indicating that more countries achievehigher scores indicating that they are becoming moreconnected.

It is interesting to note that, given the methods forcalculating scores and the 0 and 1 scoring range,small score differences can make significantdifferences in the ranking positions. Serbia andSingapore, for example, present a very small increasein their scores from 2011 to 2012 (almost the samescore), but Serbia decreased 5 positions andSingapore won 2. On the other hand, the differencesin scores are higher in the case of Switzerland(positive) or Malaysia (negative), but the countriesmaintain the same rankings in the 2011 and 2012Connectedness Indices.


Gov

ernm

ent

Eff

ecti

vene

ss

Connectedness Index

Graph 2.4: 2012 Connectedness Index

Reg

ulat

ory

Qua

lity

2012 Connectedness Index

Graph 2.5: Regulatory Quality x Connectedness Index


Com

peti

tive

Ind

ustr

ial P

erfo

rman

ce


Graph 2.6: Competitive Industrial Performance x Connectedness Index

GD

P pe

r ca

pita

PPP


Graph 2.7: GDP per capita PPP x Connectedness Index


Con

nect

edne

ss I

ndex

Polit

ical

glo

baliz

atio

n

Eco

nom

ic g

loba

lizat

ion

Inte

rnat

iona

l Net

.

Inte

r-fi

rm N

etw

orks

Uni

vers

ity-

indu

stry

Net

.

Prof

essi

onal

Ass

ocia

tion

Inte

r-or

g. N

etw

orks

% f

irm

s of

feri

ng f

orm

al t

rain

ing

On-

the-

job

Tra

inin

g

Intr

a-or

g. N

etw

orks

Gov

ernm

ent

Eff

ecti

vene

ss

Reg

ulat

ory

Qua

lity

Com

peti

tive

Ind

ustr

ial P

erfo

rman

ce

GD

P pe

r ca

pita

PPP

Connectedness 1Index

Political .525** 1globalization

Economic .599** -.036 1globalization

International .779** .795** .578** 1Networks

Inter-Firm .854** .468** .315** .529** 1Networks

University- .906** .406** .420** .570** .823** 1Industry Net.

Professional .111 -.131 -.092 -.162 .049 .066 1Association

Inter-org .904** .408** .340** .511** .904** .932** .328** 1Networks

% firms offering .510** .181 .332** .360** .181** .192** -.076 .157 1formal training

On-the-Job .926** .394** .466** .597** .885** .918** .037 .905** .198** 1Training

Intra-org. .929** .366** .440** .559** .778** .843** .009 .814** .868** .896* 1Networks

Government .845** .176** .489** .449** .748** .814** .086 .797** .281** .839** .709** 1Effectiveness

Regulatory .792** .236** .467** .483 .715** .741** .046 .731** .284 .773** .658** .928** 1Quality

CIP .746** .446** .314** .529** .761** .771** -.011 .754** .255** .758** .687** .703** .657** 1

GDP per .721** .275** .490** .533** .665** .690** -.040 .667** .311** .714** .638** .788** .733** .605** 1capita

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 2.6: Correlations


PART 3:Knowledge Networks in Practice


Theoretical explorations of networks are only valid ifthey hold in practice. This section turns attention tonetworks in the real world, looking at four separate,issue-specific networks. Regional, business, trade,and development cooperation networks are thesubject of the case studies that follow. Eachcontribution highlights the interworking of thesenetworks and draws attention to the relevant actors,strategies, and outcomes across organizational units.

The first contribution, by Jorge Rodríguez Vives,documents the creation of a Competitiveness Councilwithin Costa Rica. The Brunca Region, located in thesouthwest corner of Costa Rica, introduced theCouncil in order to revive local private sectordevelopment and revamp efforts to improve localwelfare, particularly for women and youths. Thecontribution documents the Council’s experiencespairing policy makers, business owners andcommunity members with academic support toaddress competitiveness in four key local businesssectors: agri-business, tourism, municipal sectors, andgovernment agencies. In turn, the Council fermentedinformation transfer and learning, two key functionsof knowledge networks and a prime example of aninter-organizational network.

Trade networks are the subject of the secondcontribution by Johan Adriaensen. The trade anddevelopment link, in particular, is examined, and theauthor employs network theory to understand howtrade administrations work. Three specific tradeadministrations are highlighted, and theadministrations’ role in building a knowledgenetwork is seen to be instrumental to develop a tradepolicy and as input in trade negotiations.

A third contribution, by Ariane Agnes Corradi, shiftsattention south of the equator to Brazil but keepssight on business development. This case studyfocuses on the impacts of networks in businessincubators which are designed to aid new businessesin overcoming barriers to market entry andparticipation. The business incubators under studyuniquely emphasize the role of informal networks atthe inter-organizational level and the importance ofincubator managers as network facilitators.

A fourth case study, by Thomas Vogel and PetraKoppensteiner, comes from an Austrian NGOdedicated to development cooperation. The reportfrom HORIZONT3000 documents the constructionof a network for the sharing of “best practices”among partner organizations in the developingworld. The organization’s experiences in building aknowledge network are detailed, noting theirconstruction of an international network consistingof Austrian organizations, local developmentpartners, and research partners. HORIZONT3000’scontribution incorporates a practitioner’s perspectiveand the organization’s efforts to encourage“systematization”- a participatory process ofgenerating and sharing knowledge- yield lessons forknowledge management in practical situations.

Though each case covers different actors, regions, orsectors, they together form a dynamic picture ofvarious functioning networks and how knowledgemakes a difference and creates added value.Challenges and responses for the Brunca Region’sconstruction of a Competitiveness Council, forexample, can underscore the lessons exposed inHORIZONT3000’s contribution. The diversity ofpublic and private actors and their functioning acrossthe international, inter-organizational and intra-organizational levels also point to boundaries forknowledge networks, later detailed in part 4.

KnowledgeNetworks inPractice


PART 4:Exploring the Boundaries ofKnowledge Network Governance


The case studies presented in part 3 detail networksas they occur in four distinct environments. Thissections attempts to dig deeper into understandinghow and to what degree knowledge networks differ.This task in turn exposes factors that influencenetwork formation, a network’s effectiveness, and anetwork’s capacity to manage and create knowledge.Here, attention moves to knowledge networks.Knowledge networks foster the flow of know-how,learning processes, and management practices.Within these capacities we see how the design andmanagement of knowledge networks can inspireprivate sector development. The contributions in thispart reflect on these issues and provide key insightson network governance.

Jacint Jordana provides the first contribution to thissection. His contribution focuses on the impressivegrowth of regulatory agencies across policy sectors inmost countries from the OECD countries. Regulatoryagencies are explored here, as they act as nodes in anetwork. In focusing on how regulatory agenciescollect and distribute relevant information tointerested parties, this piece demonstrates thecapacity for quasi-government organizations to helpovercome information disadvantages, which oftendecreases performance of pertinent sectors. Thiscontribution points to the central role played byregulatory agencies in a global knowledge network.The contribution from Ettore Bolisani and EnricoScarso follows, shifting the focus from regulatoryagencies to inter-organizational knowledge networks.Their research identifies a host of new challenges forbusiness management and policy-making, and seesknowledge networks as a potent solution for many ofthese issues. Various typologies of knowledgenetworks are parsed out in this piece, as are thefactors that influence knowledge sharing amongfirms. Doing so indicates that within knowledgenetworks, the success of one network memberinfluences the success of a single company in thenetwork. Ana Aleksić Mirić authors the thirdcontribution to this section and focuses on barriers tolearning in business network forms of governance.Her research emphasizes that not all knowledgenetworks are learning networks, and, concentratingon the intra-organizational and inter-organizationallevel, that network design (and redesign) can improvelearning flows across the network.

Exploring theBoundaries ofKnowledge NetworksGovernance


Turning attention to international networks, TimothyMeyer’s research concentrates on the governancesystems best capable of transferring scientificinformation. His research presents networks as amiddle way between markets and hierarchicalgovernance architectures, keenly noting that there arecosts associated with both markets and hierarchicaltypes of architecture. In this way, there are instanceswhere networks (as opposed to markets orhierarchies) are the most efficient in terms of costs,but such is not always the case. A case study focusingon the International Renewable Energy Agency(IRENA) serves to exemplify the author’sproposition.

Human capital and knowledge retention is thesubject of Orly Lobel’s contribution. Like thecontribution by Ana Aleksić Mirić, the author treatshurdles for knowledge network creation. Recognizingrecent, significant changes in economic structures, theauthor investigates the way knowledge flows cancontribute to innovation and explores the barrierspreventing knowledge flows between firms.Intellectual property issues are at the core ofarguments presented, as overprotection of such rightsimpedes the improvement of a given idea, technology,or practice. Encapsulation of human capital results,thus impeding knowledge network formation andinhibiting innovative behaviors. The implications ofthis contribution are profound for internationalknowledge management.

Michele Clara of UNIDO rounds out this section andincorporates the perspective of policy-makers on thesubject of knowledge networks. Significant challengesthreaten industrial development, and this contributionpresents arguments for a realignment of the academicdebate of growth and development that embraceindustrial development’s potentials. UNIDO’smember states, sensing the need for such a shift, arerallying around the idea of knowledge networks as amechanism for overcoming barriers to private sectorand industrial development. An approach that crossesthe international, inter-organizational, and inter-organizational network levels is stressed, andmultilateral organizations such as UNIDO serve askey players in networks dedicated to improving globalindustrial development.

Overall, these chapters paint a complex picture ofknowledge networks and depict a complicated systemof actors. But in each contribution lie insights with thepotential to inform knowledge network constructionand maintenance; as a result, these are findings thatpave the way for policies supporting successful privatesector development. Though these networks prove tobe intricate, these contributions demonstrate thatknowledge networks hold the potential to mitigatetraditional governance hurdles and pave a path foreffective industrial development through private sectorgrowth.


PART 5: Networks for Prosperity –Connecting developmentknowledge beyond 2015


4. There is a significant benefit to be gained frominstitutionalizing or embedding networks andhence investing in networks. The creation of trustand social capital which follows from this isbeneficial for organizations and the economy as awhole.

5. It is crucial not only to embed networks but alsoto be involved in other or new networks whichwill provide new information, knowledge andopportunities.

6. From an actor’s or organization’s perspectivesuccessful networking implies the development ofsolid networks which continue over time and arebuilt on trust; and constantly moving betweenrelevant other networks to capture newinformation.

7. Networks are proliferating. Given the increasingchoice of networks, the importance of seriouslyinvesting in some networks and institutionalisingnetwork ties in these networks (highadministrative co-ordination cost) and theimportance of balancing arm-length ties withembedded ties it is becoming important todevelop clear networking strategies with specificobjectives.

8. Knowledge on networking strategies andmanaging effective and efficient networks is morelimited. Efforts to generate knowledge and bestpractices on network management and thedevelopment of network strategies, especially inthe context of private sector development, wouldbe welcomed. The latter can be achieved viastudy visits, workshops or illustrative casestudies. These activities can contribute toidentifying success factors for networkmanagement.

KEY FINDINGSWithout doubt, knowledge networks and networkgovernance will play a crucial role in the emergingpost-2015 development agenda and the new post-Busan aid architecture. Networks do not onlyconstitute a distinct way of organizing transactionsbetween actors but more importantly are emerging asa new paradigm for governance. A key component ofthis paradigm revolves around the exchange ofinformation and the creation of knowledge. In thefirst Networks for Prosperity report (UNIDO 2011)we conceptually clarified this and linked it to privatesector development. The first report argued thatnetworks play a key role in diffusing information andgenerating knowledge and hence contribute directly toeconomic development. Moreover the reportillustrated that network governance is becomingincreasingly important on a local, national, regionaland global scale. Consequently the report introducednetwork governance as a distinct way of governing.Most importantly the report made a conceptualdistinction in types of networks in order to clarify thatnetworks differ in nature and that this difference isrelevant in the context of knowledge management andinformation provision. The key points stressed were:

1. Networks are crucial for information exchangeand knowledge creation and diffusion andcontribute significantly to knowledgemanagement.

2. Networks are becoming increasingly a distinctform of governance with the aim of includingdifferent types of public and private actors withinand across organizational and nationalboundaries.

3. Not all networks are equivalent and variousnetworks differ in nature. Different types ofnetworks exist and some are more instrumentalin the context of learning, information exchangeand knowledge creation.

Networks for Prosperity– Connecting develop -ment knowledgebeyond 2015


This second report builds on this in several ways.First, the report launched a new edition of theconnectedness index and compared it to otherindices. Indeed, since the launch of the first report wesaw several related new indices see the light. Many ofthese build on earlier efforts to capture a degree ofglobalization and basically measure the degree towhich countries are internationally networked orintegrated. The UNIDO Connectedness Index isconceptually distinct in that it not only measures thedegree to which countries are internationally,externally networked but also internally. Indeed, asmany contributions in this report highlight, theimportance of networks lies not only in makinginternational connections, but also internally. JacintJordana highlights the network nature of manyregulatory agencies across the world and JohanAdriaensen identifies distinct forms of networkorganization in the context of trade policy in threedistinct policy administrations. Proposing a multi-level concept of connectedness captures better theideas embedded in the notion of network governance.What emerges from these rankings is not so much adivision between the ‘North’ and ‘South’, butbetween highly networked societies and lessnetworked societies, countries moving from theperiphery to the core grasping the importance ofbeing connected. The hypothesis is that thosecountries that understand the importance ofnetworks, as is illustrated in the case of Costa Rica,can develop distinct advantages in their pursuit ofprosperity.

Secondly, the report presented a set of case studieswhich delve further into the diversity of networksand highlights that network governance ranges fromthe local to the global and from public actors toprivate actors such as NGO’s. Thirdly the essays inthe third part reflect on different key aspects relatedto network governance focusing on the diversity ofnetworks (Bolisani) and the importance ofovercoming different types of barriers in effectivenetwork governance (Mirić). These essays also reflecton key issues in relation to the management ofknowledge in international organizations andbeyond. Tim Meyer describes different strategies andgoverning knowledge in international organizationsand Orly Lobel expands the issues by reflecting onhow different types of knowledge should or shouldnot be governed. The implications of thesecontributions are profound. They sketch a silenttransformation which (international) organizationshave to confront. This transformation is one in whichknowledge is managed in hierarchical terms withinthe boundaries of an organization to a context inwhich knowledge moves in and out of organizationsdepending on the networks in these organizations

operate. How to deal with this will have significantimplications for the design and management,including the human resources management, of theseorganizations. As Michele Clara identifies, this opensopportunities for international organizations but willalso require vision and a well-developed changemanagement plan.

To further investigate these profound changes theUnited Nations Industrial Development Organization(UNIDO) and the Leuven Centre for GlobalGovernance Studies (GGS) intend to furthercollaborate. Expounding the dynamics of networksand network governance is the goal of thepartnership between UNIDO and GGS. Thisundertaking combines UNIDO’s recognition ofnetworks as major contributors to private sectordevelopment. To this end, UNIDO founded aconcerted, long-term programme to utilize knowledgenetworks to support developing countries inacquiring and adapting PSD-relevant knowledge totheir specific contexts and needs. Research at theGGS undergirds these efforts; recognizing networksas an emerging governance structure, the profoundlack of scientific research on this phenomenon, andthe potential for such research to more efficientlyutilize network to reach development goals, thepartnership has identified three intermediate goals tobetter understand the dimensions of networkgovernance.

First, our partnership strives to more concretelydefine network governance. Initial collaborationidentified three levels on which networks operate (theinter-governmental, inter-organizational, and intra-organizational levels) and three general types ofnetworks (learning, information exchange,knowledge management), but networks asgovernance mechanisms remain poorly concept -ualized. To this end, research empirically andqualitatively analyses various network structuresbetween and within countries, among private andpublic actors; doing so allows a more accuratepicture to be drawn of the capacity for networks tomore succinctly identify how these networks govern.The policy interest that prompt such a questiontriggers a theoretical investigations into market-based, hierarchical, and network governancearchitectures and their relevance given recent patternsand innovations in global governance. In order to


achieve this aim the partnership will continue toapproach network governance from a multidisciplin -ary perspective, taking into account the variouspolitical, economic, sociological, psychological andlegal studies of network governance building on thegroup of experts who are already involved in theinitiative.

Secondly, the partnership aims to gain in-depthknowledge on the emergence, development andeffectiveness of networks with special attention toprivate sector development and success factors fordesigning network forms of governance. Here we willhave to break new ground. The essays and casesgathered in this report point to some success factorsin terms of strategy, leadership and culture but alsoprovide a canvass of the diversity of issues andorganizations we capture under the umbrella ofnetworks. Identifying success factors will requireunderstanding this diversity. There will be no one-fitfor all. In this context it is also crucial to betterunderstand what we mean with success factors ofeffective networks. Effectiveness of networks can beunderstood to mean different things to differentpeople. As a result, it is important to approacheffectiveness as a multi-dimensional concept whichcan be analysed according to a number of interrelateddimensions, which include problem solvingeffectiveness, process effectiveness, behaviouraleffectiveness, constitutive effectiveness and evaluativeeffectiveness. These different dimensions capturedifferent elements of effectiveness:

Goal attainment/problem solving effectivenessrefers to the degree to which specific goals, asstated for example in the mission statement of anetwork organization, are achieved.

Process effectiveness refers to the degreeknowledge generated in a network is adopted bythe partners of the network.

Behavioural effectiveness is a measure of thedegree to which the network and the knowledgegenerated in a network generates differences inbehaviour and practices of the members or actorsin the network.

Constitutive effectiveness refers to the acceptanceof a network by a large group of stakeholders asa key institution in a given policy area.

Evaluative effectiveness assesses networks on aset of criteria such as equitability and legitimacy.

As a result, networks can achieve different things andbe effective on one or more of these dimensions. If wewant to understand factors contributing to successwe need to understand how networks make animpact on these different dimensions. The partner -ship will continue to investigate this and build aknowledge base on designing effective networks toachieve public policy goals.

A third aim is to empirically capture the importanceof networks. Here, attention focuses on constructingan empirical measurement of networks, which canevidence the tangible effects of networks on PSD andprogress towards international goals, such as thecurrent MDGs or the new development agendaexpected to emerge after 2015. This empiricalmeasurement is developed at the nation-state leveland seeks to explore variation between countries. The2011 Networks for Prosperity report contains a firstattempt at describing networks in its construction ofa global Connectedness index, which is followed inthis report by presenting the 2012 ConnectednessIndex. The same caveats as identified in the firstreport remain and trigger our eagerness to developbetter and strong indicators and indices. As arguedby many leading scholars Governance by Indicators isbecoming an important instrument to steer policies ofcountries and stimulate convergence on specificparameters. For governance by indicators to work,we need robust and validated indicators. We alreadyhave a pool of relevant indicators but much moreempirical work needs to be done to better capture thedegree of connectedness.

These three aims and challenges will define thefurther analytical work in the framework of theNetworks for Prosperity initiative and will act as aguide in expanding the number of experts who areinvolved in the initiative. What we are witnessing andaim to grasp is a paradigm shift in governance inwhich a key role is reserved for internationalcoordination and cooperation. Multilateral organi -zations, by nature, are central players in this newgovernance context. However, a particular focusshould be put on the increasingly dominance ofSouth-South cooperation and the emerging leadershipof middle-income countries in the post-2015development landscape.

THE FIRST NETWORKS FOR PROSPERITYREPORT (UNIDO 2011) RECOMMENDED THAT

(i) The international community should activelypromote knowledge networking and networkgovernance structures for achieving local, regionaland global development objectives;

(ii) Member States should encourage and facilitate theinternational knowledge networking capacities oftheir own public and private institutions;

(iii) International organizations should improve theirinter-institutional information and knowledgeexchange systems and facilitate better knowledgenetworking among their members; and

(iv) An international and cross-sectoral consultationnetwork should be established to further developthe initial findings.


Recommendations

(v) The international community should recognizethat knowledge networks, multi-sector partnershipsand network governance should be at the centre ofany emerging post-2015 development agenda asthese are crucial ways and means towards tacklingthe complexities of today’s state of developmentand globalization. In particular, a bigger pictureapproach should be taken in the deliberations on thefuture of MDG-8 on the global partnership fordevelop ment, enriching it with considerations ofknowledge networking and network governance,and mainstreaming it to the centre of thedevelopment agenda. It should be recognized thatwithout knowledge sharing and networking, inclu -ding technology transfer, sustainable and inclusivepatterns of global development cannot be achieved.

(vi) Middle-income countries should enhance their rolein global development coop eration throughintensified knowledge networking, policycoordination and the establishment of networkgovernance structures in fields of their sharedinterest. In particular, it is proposed to organize aconference of middle-income countries to allow forfocused deliberations on such shared interests in thefields of inclusive economic growth, sustainabledevelopment and finance for development. It shouldbe recognized that without the pro-active andconstructive cooperation and collaboration ofmiddle-income countries, no meaningful globaldevelopment agenda, strategy or goal can beformulated or achieved.

(vii) The international community should embraceSouth-South and triangular cooperation, basedon knowledge exchange and technology partner -ships, as effective ways for achieving develop -ment goals, and anchor these in the post-2015development agenda. In particular traditionaldonors and international organizations shouldconsider triangular cooperation modalities forsustainably supporting capacity building efforts,especially in middle-income countries, and forensuring long-term results and impact ofdevelopment activities, beyond the immediatelyvisible outputs. Also, middle-income countriesand international organizations should activelysupport bilateral and multilateral South-Southcooperation, both on regional and global levels.

(viii) The international community should advance its analysis on the link between a country’sconnectedness and its population’s prosperity asthe ultimate goal of development. In particular,international organizations, financial institutionsand their academic partners should intensify theirempirical research and policy analysis in this field,and collaborate amongst each other to leverageeach other’s knowledge. Member States shouldencourage their academic institutions anddevelop ment agencies to actively engage inprogrammes that advance the understanding ofthe nexus between knowledge networking,economic network governance and prosperity,and support ongoing efforts in this regard.

While all four initial recommendations remain valid and highly relevant, it can be observed that progress has been madeon all four levels, in particular in the frame work of the emerging post-2015 development landscape. However, more workneeds to be done. Based on this and the findings and conclusions of experts in this second Networks for Prosperity report, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FORMULATED FOR CONSIDERATIONBY MEMBER STATES:


Acronyms

OEM Original Equipment ManufacturerOVI Objectively Verifiable IndicatorsPCM Project Cycle Management PPP Purchasing Power Parity R&D Research and DevelopmentSDGs Sustainable Development GoalsSEBRAE Brazilian Service for the Support of

MSMEsSMEs Small and Medium EnterprisesUNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade

and DevelopmentUNDP United Nations Development

ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environmental

Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural OrganizationUNFCCC United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate ChangeUNIDO United Nations Industrial

Development OrganizationWIPO World Intellectual Property

OrganizationWTO World Trade Organization

ADC Austrian Development CooperationANPROTEC National Association of Promotion

Companies for Innovative EnterprisesBRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China and South

AfricaCIP Competitive Industrial PerformanceCOMTRADE Commodity Trade DatabaseCSO Civil Society OrganizationDCED Donor Committee for Enterprise

DevelopmentDG Directorate General (of the European

Union)ERI Enabling Rural InnovationEU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United NationsFDI Foreign Direct InvestmentGDP Gross Domestic ProductIEA International Energy AgencyIEC Inter-ministerial Economic

ConferencesILO International Labour Organization IMF International Monetary FundIOM The International Organization for

MigrationIRENA International Renewable Energy

AgencyISO International Organization for

StandardizationIT Information TechnologyITU International Telecommunication

UnionKM Knowledge ManagementKN Knowledge NetworksKOF Konjunkturforschungsstelle der ETH

Zurich (Swiss Economic Institute)MDGs Millennium Development GoalsNGO Non Governmental OrganizationNGDO Non Governmental Development

OrganizationNIH Not Invented HereODA Official Development AssistanceOECD Organization for Economic Co-

operation and Development

Connecting Development Knowledge Beyond 2015 Executive … · Networks for Prosperity: Connecting...

Documents

Transcript of Connecting Development Knowledge Beyond 2015 Executive … · Networks for Prosperity: Connecting...