🏗️ Formation and Legitimacy

The preceding chapters have established the profound need for a systemic, foundational approach to navigating existential risks and outlined the principles and potential structure of a body capable of undertaking this task: The Steward Network. However, envisioning such an entity is distinct from bringing it into existence and ensuring it possesses the legitimacy and influence required to be effective. 

This chapter explores plausible scenarios for the Steward Network’s formation, strategies for building its legitimacy in a fractured global landscape, and potential models for sustainable funding, explicitly considering the significant barriers identified in Chapter 10.

🏗️ 12.1 Formation: Decentralized Emergence via Steward Scouts

Given the significant barriers facing top-down institutional creation (Chapter 10), particularly political resistance (10.1) and institutional inertia (10.4), a more plausible and potentially resilient pathway for enhancing global capacity may emerge from a decentralized, grassroots effort centered around the Steward Scouts concept. Instead of starting with a formal Steward Network, this scenario prioritizes building the distributed network and foundational capacities first, allowing structure to emerge organically based on demonstrated need and shared principles.¹

A decentralized formation model is not a fallback—it is a strategic response to the realities of a fragmented world. Centralized institutions increasingly suffer from degraded trust, slow adaptability, and high vulnerability to politicization or capture. By contrast, decentralized emergence through Steward Scouts enables localized legitimacy, flexible experimentation, and distributed learning. It aligns with the current environment of institutional fragility, allowing legitimacy to be earned through demonstration and coordination to emerge organically—rather than imposed prematurely.

🏗️ Scenario A: Organic Growth from Open Resources (Bottom-Up – Primary Focus):

Phase & Core Activities	Primary Goals	Key Challenges
Distributed Foundation  Scout Troops form; local resilience projects and peer learning begin; legitimacy built through demonstrated value.	Seed trust and local legitimacy (🤝📀) Test core interventions Attract early talent and partnerships Develop training materials Celebrate successes	Coordination friction Initial lack of credibility Member wellbeing
Strategic Coordination  Shared infrastructure (task forces, epistemic commons) emerges; cross-scout synthesis and scalable models take shape.	Build credibility (🔎) and influence Scale validated practicesF oster international collaboration Celebrate successes	Resource strain Project risk toleranceM ember wellbeing
Network Maturity  Formal coordination structures solidify (e.g., Council, Foresight Hub); partnerships with external institutions expand.	Operate as a strategic steward Defend against co-option (📀🏛️) Shape policy  Advise institutional ecosystems Celebrate successes	Legitimacy attacks Funding sustainability Member wellbeing

• Initiation: The core principles, learning materials, and activity frameworks for the Steward Scouts (Chapters 4, 12) are developed as open-source, freely accessible “texts” or resources.²  These could be created and curated by an initial coalition (academics, educators, ethicists, domain experts, potentially supported by aligned foundations or initiatives like Rocking Change).
• Dissemination: These resources are shared widely online, encouraging self-organization. Individuals, educators, existing community groups (scouting organizations, environmental clubs, faith groups, therapy groups, etc.), and potentially new, self-formed “Steward Scout Troops” (for all ages) begin adopting and adapting the materials based on local needs and interests.³ 
• Network Formation: An online platform (also potentially open-source) is established primarily to connect these disparate groups and individuals, facilitate peer-to-peer learning, share best practices derived from local projects (Pillar 4 – Build), and maintain a shared repository of updated resources. The focus is on facilitation, not central command.⁴ 
• Emergent Structure: Over time, successful local groups or regional clusters might develop stronger connections. Needs for broader coordination on specific projects (e.g., large-scale citizen science 🔥, 🌍, 📀, cross-regional advocacy) or resource development might lead to the formation of voluntary, lightweight coordinating committees or specialized working groups, emerging from the network itself. Formal institutions (like the Steward Network components outlined in Part 4) might eventually arise from this networked base, but only if there is a clear, demonstrated need and broad support from the participating stewards.⁵

🏗️ Scenario B: Integration within Existing Movements:

• Initiation: Steward Scout principles and activities are adopted and integrated within existing global or local movements focused on related areas (e.g., climate activism,⁶ effective altruism,⁷ community resilience building, open-source communities, mental wellness networks).
• Challenge: Risks dilution of the core systemic focus; potential for co-option by agendas not fully aligned with all Guiding Principles (⭐, =, etc.). However, it does leverage existing organizational structures and reach.

🏗️ Scenario C: Hybrid Model (Most Likely Evolution of A):

• Initiation: Starts as Scenario A (open resources, decentralized adoption).
• Evolution: Simultaneously, a core group (perhaps the initial “coalition of the concerned” or a dedicated non-profit)⁸ acts as a steward of the core principles and resources, maintaining the online connection platform, facilitating updates, and potentially seeking funding (e.g., philanthropic grants)⁹ to support resource development, translations, and network facilitation, without imposing hierarchical control. This core group might eventually evolve into something resembling the Steward Network’s Council or key operational units, but its legitimacy is derived from its service to the decentralized network.

🏗️ Advantages of a Decentralized Steward Scout Focus:

• Lower Initial Barriers: Less reliant on securing immediate political buy-in or large-scale institutional funding. Bypasses sovereignty concerns (13.1) and institutional inertia (13.4) by operating outside formal structures initially.¹⁰
• Resilience: A distributed network is less vulnerable to single points of failure or political attack targeting a central body.¹¹
• Adaptability & Contextualization: Allows local groups to tailor activities to their specific needs, cultures, and priorities, enhancing relevance and engagement.¹²
• Trust Building (🤝): Fosters trust through direct participation, peer-to-peer connection, and shared action at the community level, potentially counteracting broader societal trust deficits (10.3).¹³
• Focus on Foundational Capacities: Directly builds capacity in crucial areas like strategic literacy (🔎), mental wellbeing (🧠), community cooperation (🤝), and practical resilience skills across a broad base of the population.

🏗️ Challenges of this Approach:

• Coordination & Scale: Achieving coordinated action on large-scale global issues without a central coordinating body is difficult.¹⁴
• Quality Control & Consistency: Ensuring the quality and integrity of activities and adherence to core principles across a highly diverse, decentralized network is challenging.
• Resource Mobilization: Securing funding for resource development and platform maintenance without a formal institutional structure can be difficult.¹⁵
• Bridging to Policy Impact: Translating grassroots energy and local resilience into systemic change at the national and global policy levels requires specific strategies for connection and advocacy.¹⁶

Three Strategic Pathways to Steward Network Formation

Scenario & Core Strategy	Key Advantages	Key Risks / Limitations
A. Bottom-Up Emergence (Preferred Path): The network forms organically through decentralized Steward Scout action. Shared norms, legitimacy, and peer coordination serve as the foundation for later structure.	High adaptability Strong local legitimacy Resistant to co-option	Slower coordination? Inconsistent quality Harder to scale
B. Top-Down Institutional Integration: The Steward Network is formalized via an existing institution (e.g., multilateral body, government-backed initiative).	Greater access to resources Faster policy influence	Political capture risk Reduced independence Lower grassroots trust
C. Hybrid Emergence: The network begins with decentralized Scouts and evolves toward formal coordination mechanisms (e.g., council, foresight hub) based on legitimacy and demonstrated value.	Balanced legitimacy Blends flexibility with structure Adaptable to context	Design complexity Incoherence risk

🏗️ Conclusion for 12.1 (Decentralized Focus):

While a decentralized formation model offers resilience, adaptability, and organic legitimacy, it is not without its critics. Common concerns include the risk of fragmentation, inconsistent quality across regions, and the difficulty of coordinating coherent action without centralized authority. 

The Steward Network anticipates these challenges and addresses them in two ways: first, by grounding all local efforts in shared principles, strategic frameworks, and Foundational Factor repair (🧠🔎🤝🏛️📀=🔌); and second, by designing a phased evolution in which soft coordination infrastructure (e.g., peer validation, shared epistemic commons, cross-scout synthesis) gradually gives rise to more formal systems of guidance and accountability. In this way, decentralized emergence becomes not a compromise—but a strength aligned with the realities of a fragmented world and degraded trust in existing institutions.

Therefore, focusing initially on building a decentralized, open-source Steward Scout movement offers a more resilient and feasible pathway to enhancing global foundational capacity compared to attempting to create a formal GCB top-down. This approach prioritizes empowering individuals and communities (🧠, 🤝, 🔎) and building a robust network from the ground up. 

While facing challenges in coordination and scaling, it directly addresses key barriers like political resistance and low institutional trust. A lightweight, facilitating core body may emerge to support the network, but the primary engine of formation and legitimacy becomes the distributed community of stewards themselves.

🏗️ 12.2 Evolving Steward Scout Needs and Phased Network Formalization

Consistent with the preferred pathway of decentralized emergence (Scenario A/C, Chapter 12.1), the formal functions of the broader Steward Network (Appendices D & E) are envisioned not as prerequisites, but as structures that emerge organically to support the evolving needs of the growing, distributed Steward Scout network. The timing and specific form of this formalization should be driven by demonstrated need and value generated from the grassroots level upwards, always adhering to the Guiding Principles (Chapter 4). A plausible, phased timeline, contingent on the Network’s scale and activities, might look as follows:

🏗️ Phase 1: Foundation & Initial Connection (Focus: Supporting Pillars 1a, 1b, 2)

• Scout Network Status: Early adoption phase. Individuals and initial local groups (e.g., Foundational Learning Circles, age-specific troops) are forming, primarily focused on understanding core concepts (X-Risks, FFs, Principles) and building local connections/community. Activities center on ‘Learn’ and ‘Connect’ (Chapter 9.3).
• Emergent Needs: Access to reliable, well-curated core learning materials; a basic, secure online platform for resource access and initial connections between members/groups; potentially access to experienced facilitators or ‘Guides’ for new groups (Chapter 9.2).
• Required Steward Network Functions (Minimal/Proto):
  • Proto-Resilience Center: A small team or coalition curates/maintains the open-source educational materials.
  • Proto-Coordination Hub: Manages the initial online platform and facilitates basic connections. (These initial functions might be handled by the founding “coalition of the concerned” or an initial lightweight non-profit).

🏗️ Phase 2: Network Weaving & Collaborative Action (Focus: Supporting Pillars 3, 4)

• Scout Network Status: Significant number of active groups across diverse locations. Growing interest in inter-group collaboration, sharing best practices from local ‘Build’ projects (Pillar 4), adapting materials for different contexts, and potentially regional coordination. Advanced skills workshops (Pillar 3) are desired. Issues of quality control and adherence to principles across diverse groups may arise. First attempts at larger or cross-group projects (e.g., citizen science , local FF strengthening initiatives ).
• Emergent Needs: Enhanced platform capabilities for collaboration and knowledge sharing; mechanisms to identify, document, and disseminate best practices; development of advanced training modules (e.g., deep CCC ❤️💬, resilience skills 🧠, 🔌); potentially small grants or support for translations/adaptations; clearer mechanisms for addressing conduct inconsistent with principles; reliable channels for sharing insights from local actions upwards.
• Required Steward Network Functions (Formalizing):
  • Coordination Hub: Needs formalization to actively manage network weaving, facilitate peer learning, support project collaboration (🤝), and potentially manage small grants.
  • Resilience Center: Requires dedicated capacity to develop advanced modules, integrate best practices, and adapt resources based on network feedback (=).
  • Information Integrity (Rudimentary): Basic capacity needed to address potential mis/disinformation circulating within the network platform and provide guidance on reliable information (📀).
  • Organizational Wellbeing (🧠): Explicit focus needed on supporting member wellbeing amid potentially challenging work (Principle 4.12).

🏗️ Phase 3: Maturation, Scale & Systemic Impact (Focus: Leveraging Network Capacity)

• Scout Network Status: Large, globally distributed network with established local/regional hubs. Significant data/insights being generated through distributed monitoring (e.g., OSINT , citizen science 📀) and local FF assessments. Stronger desire for coordinated action on systemic issues and engagement with external policy processes. Increased visibility makes the network a potential target for mis/disinformation or subversion attempts. Need for sustainable, independent funding becomes critical.
• Emergent Needs: Sophisticated capabilities for analyzing cross-network data and identifying large-scale trends/risks (🔎); robust foresight and scenario development informed by network insights; formal mechanisms for principled strategic advocacy and influence (Function X); dedicated defense against external mis/disinformation campaigns (📀); secure, independent, long-term funding (=); high-level strategic oversight and governance ensuring adherence to principles across scale.
• Required Steward Network Functions (Mature/Established):
  • Foresight (Systemic Risk Analysis) Office: Essential for integrating network-wide data, conducting aggregate risk assessment/foresight (🔎), and identifying leverage points (Chapter 11).
  • Information Integrity Unit: Must be fully operational to defend the Network’s epistemic commons (📀) and counter external strategic mis/disinformation.
  • Strategic Advocacy & Influence Function: Formalized capacity required to translate analysis into impact by engaging with global actors, promoting norms, and facilitating high-level dialogues (🤝).
  • Council: Likely necessary for providing legitimate high-level strategic oversight, ensuring long-term mission alignment (⭐), championing principles, and potentially managing a large endowment (Chapter 12.3).
  • Task Forces: Can be convened based on threats identified by the Foresight Office or urgent needs emerging from the network.

🏗️ Flexibility and Principle Alignment ☸️:

This timeline is illustrative, not prescriptive. The actual pace of development will depend on resource availability, network uptake, and evolving global circumstances. The critical factor is that formalization should always be driven by the demonstrated needs of the decentralized network and its members, implemented transparently (🤝, 📀), and rigorously aligned with the core Guiding Principles (Chapter 4), ensuring the structure serves the mission (⭐) rather than becoming an end in itself. The ultimate aim remains fostering widespread foundational resilience (=, 🔌) through empowered, connected individuals and communities.

🏗️ 12.3 Strategies for Building Legitimacy and Influence

Historical and contemporary examples show that legitimacy can emerge from earned credibility, transparency, and service to public needs. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)¹⁷ built global authority not through enforcement power, but through consistent methodological rigor, transparency in process, and broad inclusivity of scientific voices. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)¹⁸ has sustained trust in volatile conflict zones by upholding principled neutrality, demonstrating high operational competence, and visibly prioritizing humanitarian needs. 

Even decentralized digital knowledge institutions like Wikipedia¹⁹—initially dismissed as unreliable—grew into one of the world’s most trusted reference sources through transparent governance, open contribution, and community-driven error correction. These examples highlight that in a fragmented and skeptical world, legitimacy is less about inherited authority and more about reliability, humility, and visible public value.. 

These examples show that institutions can gain broad legitimacy not through inherited power, but through earned trust, clarity of purpose, and consistent demonstration of value.  Lacking formal state backing or treaty-based authority initially, the Steward Network must earn its legitimacy and influence (“soft power”)²⁰ a consistent and demonstrable commitment to specific, principled ways of operating, translating its Guiding Principles (Chapter 4). This directly confronts barriers related to low trust (🤝), political resistance, and institutional weakness (🏛️). Key strategies built around these core operational commitments include:

• Radical Transparency (🤝, 📀 Principle 4): Operate with unprecedented openness regarding funding sources, governance structures, decision-making processes, data, methodologies, and analytical outputs.²¹ This transparency serves as a cornerstone for both external legitimacy and internal accountability, acting as the primary antidote to mistrust (🤝) and accusations of hidden agendas, directly enacting Principle 4.4 (Epistemic Integrity 📀).
• Demonstrable Epistemic Authority & Utility (📀, Principle 4.6 🔄): Consistently produce high-quality, independent, relevant, and uniquely valuable analysis, foresight, and resilience frameworks (Function IV). Becoming the indispensable “go-to” source for understanding systemic risks builds influence organically. Providing practical tools via the Resilience Center demonstrates tangible value.  Builds influence organically by fulfilling the commitment to Effectiveness (Principle 4.6 🔄).
• Cooperation, Not Competition: Strategically position the Steward Network as a support and complement to existing institutions (UN agencies, national governments), providing analysis and coordination they currently lack, rather than attempting to supplant their authority (addresses Barrier 10.1, 10.4).²²
• Strategic Advocacy and Principled Influence (Appendix D/E): Actively bridge the gap between the Network’s analysis/foresight and real-world decision-making to catalyze systemic change. This involves strategically communicating findings (e.g., tailored summaries, policy briefs from the Foresight Office/Resilience Center) to relevant policymakers, international organizations, and industry leaders; convening high-level multi-stakeholder dialogues (facilitated by the Coordination Hub using CCC ❤️ principles) focused on specific risks or leverage points; promoting the adoption of voluntary standards and resilience frameworks (developed by the Resilience Center); and serving as a trusted public voice to frame risks systemically and counter harmful narratives (📀). Crucially, all influence activities must adhere strictly to the Network’s core principles: relying solely on Soft Power (evidence and convening), maintaining Political Independence and neutrality, operating with Radical Transparency (🤝, 📀), upholding absolute Epistemic Integrity (📀).
• Compositional Legitimacy & Inclusivity (=, Principle 8): Ensure the Council and key operational staff reflect genuine global diversity (geographic, disciplinary, cultural, stakeholder group). Inclusive representation is crucial for buy-in, particularly from the Global South, countering perceptions of dominance by specific nations or interests (addresses Barrier 10.1, 10.2).²³  This operational commitment reflects the commitment to Foundational Equity and Justice (=).
• Network Centrality & Convening Power (❤️💬, 🤝, Principle 3): Act as an effective and neutral facilitator (Coordination Hub), connecting disparate actors and enabling constructive dialogues (❤️💬) that might not otherwise occur. Demonstrating value in bridging divides builds network influence (Function IV.5).²⁴
• Focus on Shared Threats & Co-Benefits (Principle 4.1 ⭐, Principle 9↑↓): Frame analyses and proposed actions around universally recognized threats and potential co-benefits (e.g., linking climate action 🔥 to improved health 🧠 or economic opportunities =), potentially depoliticizing issues and finding common ground across ideological divides (addresses Barrier 10.1, 10.3).²⁵
• True Independence & Neutrality (=, Principle 4): Rigorously maintain and demonstrate independence and demonstrate independence from narrow national, corporate, or political interests through diversified, transparent funding and robust internal governance. This is critical for credibility, especially when dealing with powerful vested interests (Barrier 10.2).  This operational stance underpins the Network’s ability to act as a trusted, neutral entity.

🏗️ 12.4 Sustainable Funding Models

Securing adequate, long-term, and independent funding is perhaps the single greatest practical challenge (Challenge VI.2), directly confronting barriers related to underfunding of public goods and vested interests (Barrier 10.2, 10.4).

• Ideal Model: A large, independent endowment, potentially seeded by major philanthropic foundations or a coalition thereof.²⁶ This offers the best guarantee of long-term operational independence from political cycles and commercial pressures, allowing focus on the Primacy of Existential Safety (⭐). Requires significant initial capital mobilization.
• Alternative/Supplementary Models:
  • Multi-Stakeholder Consortium Funding: A pooled fund with contributions from diverse non-profit organizations, academic institutions, and potentially ethical private sector actors not directly involved in generating primary X-Risks.²⁷ Requires strong governance to manage diverse interests.
  • Project-Specific Grants: Securing grants from aligned foundations or potentially international bodies for specific analytical outputs, capacity-building projects, or dialogues. Risks mission drift if not carefully managed against core principles.²⁸
  • Membership Models (Caution Advised): Potential for institutions or even nations to become paying members for access to certain levels of analysis or advisory services. High risk of compromising independence and equity (=); requires extreme transparency and careful design.
• Avoiding Compromising Funding: Critically, to maintain legitimacy and True Independence, the Steward Network should avoid accepting direct, tied funding from national governments (especially major powers) or corporations whose core business models are significant drivers of existential risk (e.g., fossil fuel industry, potentially some AI labs without robust safety commitments).²⁹ If any state funding is considered, it would need to be channeled through a deeply firewalled, untied, internationally managed pooled mechanism – a significant governance challenge in itself. All funding sources must be radically transparent.

Models like The Wikimedia Foundation, which supports Wikipedia and related knowledge commons, show that large-scale, transparent, and mission-aligned funding is achievable—even in an information-saturated and politically contested world. Wikimedia maintains its independence by relying on small donations from a wide base of contributors, publishing detailed financial reports, and declining advertising or government ties that could compromise trust. 

Similarly, organizations like the Mozilla Foundation and Signal Foundation use hybrid models—combining philanthropic support, public interest revenue, and open governance—to sustain infrastructure while protecting core values. These examples demonstrate that it is possible to build institutions that are both financially viable and structurally protected from co-option.

🏗️ Conclusion for Chapter 12:

The emergence of the Steward Network will not be simple, linear, or uncontested. Its growth will be grounded in practical action, transparency, distributed legitimacy, and principled restraint. Through our actions, we can earn the trust we need to endure. 

Our structure must emerge from our purpose: to steward shared risk, restore foundational capacity, and seize the opportunity of a bright future, supported by long-term strategic thinking.  It embodies the principles we seek to uphold: 🤝 trust before authority, 🔄 iteration before dogma, and ⚖️ legitimacy earned through relevance, humility, and public good.  This will empower us to evolve with integrity—through experimentation, adaptation, and demonstrated value. 

Next: 📣 A Call to Action

Previous: ↗️ Leverage Points

1. Elinor Ostrom, “Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Change,” Global Environmental Change 20, no. 4 (2010): 550–57. [Discusses benefits of polycentric, emergent systems]. ↩︎
2. Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004). [Analyzes open-source development models]. ↩︎
3. Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006). [Discusses peer production and self-organization]. ↩︎
4. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder, Cultivating Communities of Practice. ↩︎
5. Ostrom, “Polycentric Systems.” ↩︎
6. See, e.g., movements like Fridays For Future, accessed April 23, 2025, https://fridaysforfuture.org/. ↩︎
7. See, e.g., resources from Effective Altruism, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.effectivealtruism.org/. ↩︎
8. See examples like the Wikimedia Foundation (stewarding Wikipedia), accessed April 23, 2025, https://wikimediafoundation.org/. ↩︎
9. See Candid (formerly Foundation Center), accessed April 23, 2025, https://candid.org/ [Database of philanthropic funding]. ↩︎
10. Ostrom, “Polycentric Systems.” Addresses barriers in Chapter 10.1 and 10.4. ↩︎
11. Perrow, Normal Accidents; Taleb, Antifragile. [Networks can be more resilient than centralized hierarchies]. ↩︎
12. Michael Howlett and Ishani Mukherjee, “Policy Design and Non-design.” [Emphasizes tailoring]. ↩︎
13. Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993); Edelman, 2025 Trust Barometer. Addresses barrier in Chapter 10.3. ↩︎
14. See literature on complex adaptive systems and network governance, e.g., Albert-László Barabási, Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life (New York: Plume, 2003). ↩︎
15. Lester M. Salamon, ed., The State of Nonprofit America, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2012). [Discusses funding challenges]. ↩︎
16. Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998). ↩︎
17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Principles Governing IPCC Work, updated October 2013, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles.pdf (accessed April 30, 2025).
    [The IPCC’s legitimacy stems from its transparent assessment procedures, extensive peer review process, and wide engagement with global scientific communities. It deliberately remains policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive.] ↩︎
18. Rony Brauman and Laurence Binet, Médecins Sans Frontières: Humanitarian Negotiations Revealed (London: Hurst Publishers, 2011). [MSF has maintained trust in politically unstable regions by adhering to operational neutrality, transparency in reporting, and clear prioritization of medical need over ideology or affiliation.] ↩︎
19. Joseph M. Reagle Jr., Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010);
    Wikipedia, “About,” accessed April 30, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About.
    [Wikipedia’s open-editing model, visible revision history, and commitment to neutrality and verifiability have helped transform it from a distrusted experiment into one of the most widely used and trusted reference platforms worldwide.] ↩︎
20. Joseph S. Nye Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: PublicAffairs, 2004). ↩︎
21. See, e.g., WikiLeaks or initiatives promoting open government data. ↩︎
22. Thomas G. Weiss, What’s Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix It, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2016). [Discusses complementing existing institutions]. ↩︎
23. See sources on procedural justice and legitimacy in governance, e.g., Bo Rothstein, The Quality of Government: Corruption, Social Trust, and Inequality in International Perspective (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011). Addresses barriers in Chapter 10.1 and 10.2. ↩︎
24. See literature on network governance and brokerage roles, e.g., Ronald S. Burt, Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). ↩︎
25. See, e.g., Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2017). [Framing economics around social and ecological goals]. ↩︎
26. See Joel L. Fleishman, The Foundation: A Great American Secret; How Private Wealth Is Changing the World (New York: PublicAffairs, 2007). [Discusses role of endowments]. ↩︎
27. See examples like GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.gavi.org/; or CEPI, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, accessed April 23, 2025, https://cepi.net/. ↩︎
28. David Callahan, The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2017). [Discusses potential influence and mission drift]. ↩︎
29. See reports by InfluenceMap or SourceWatch documenting corporate funding and influence on policy. ↩︎