Course Code & Name: HHM9020 Special Course in Public Administration

Student Name: Pisith San

Instructor Name: Amirouche Moktefi
Academic Year: 2022-2023

A Commentary on What's Wrong with Global Challenges?

A paper by David Ludwig al et. titled "What's wrong with global challenges?" examines institutional
responses to the Global and Grand Challenges (GGCs) across three levels of organizations: (1) at the
local level of Wageningen University and Research (WUR), (2) at the national level of Dutch innovation
and research governance, and (3) at the international level, the European Union's framework programs for
research and technological development.

In their introduction, the authors note the increasing importance of global and grand challenges in
research and innovation policy, emphasizing their importance in addressing energy shortages and social-
environmental concerns. This paper discusses how Grand Challenges and Global Challenges can be
interchangeably used as umbrella concepts that shape policy frameworks and are integral to responsible
research and innovation (RRI).

The authors highlight the importance of examining how responses to these global challenges are
negotiated. However, the focus on global challenges has recently gained traction in policy and academic
circles. The authors explore the possibility of emerging a "solution strategy" which legitimizes dominant
actors' responses as solutions and a "negotiation strategy" that acknowledges the contested nature of
global challenges and the need for diverse perspectives and interests. The authors emphasize that global
challenges are "wicked problems" characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and contestation. According
to them, framing these challenges as "tame problems" with straightforward technical solutions can
misalign the challenges' nature with the proposed responses. Moreover, this misframing encourages a
dominant position for some actors and their solutions, limiting the opportunities for inclusive and
reflexive governance.

To explore these strategies, the authors conducted interviews and document analyses within Wageningen
University and Research at the local level, analyzed Dutch policies at the national level, and examined
European research and innovation policies at the international level. The study highlights the need for
more attention on how governance actors respond to global and grand challenges (GGCs). Negotiation
and solution strategies are discussed, but in practice, the solution strategy tends to dominate, reinforcing
dominant perspectives. There are challenges associated with the negotiation strategy, such as symbolic
engagement and reliance on dominant stakeholders. When implementing the negotiation strategy, the
urgency and wickedness of GGCs create tensions, as immediate interventions often overlook meaningful
inclusion and exacerbate inequalities.

As a whole, Ludwig et al.'s paper shed light on the shortcomings in current approaches to global
challenges. Study findings emphasize the need for substantial and reflexive approaches to navigating
heterogeneity in addressing GGCs, aligning negotiation with the urgency of intervention, and promoting
diverse innovation futures. However, I found it unclear when the authors used the term ‘Dutch’ or the
concept of ‘Dutch Solution’ in the paper. I am not sure whether the idea is widely accepted in responding
to global challenges or is used at the local Dutch level. It would be much clearer if the paper explicitly
defined the concept of ‘Dutch’ or ‘Dutch Solution.’