Beyond Overlaps: Leveraging Comparative Advantage for Multilateral Collaboration

The multilateral system is under acute strain. Rising global needs linked to conflict, climate change, pandemics, and inequality coincide with declining official development assistance (OECD, 2025_[1]) and significant funding cuts (MOPAN, 2025_[2]). Multilateral organisations face projected budget shortfalls, while the UN Secretariat has introduced spending reductions. These pressures unfold alongside persistent expectations that multilateral organisations demonstrate greater efficiency and deliver “better with less”.

In this context, the UN80 Initiative was launched in 2025 to “renovate, refresh and streamline” the United Nations ahead of its 80th anniversary. Workstream 3 examines options for structural change and programme realignment to strengthen system-wide coherence and efficiency. The Secretary-General’s Shifting Paradigms: United to Deliver report (United Nations, 2025_[3]) identifies a menu of “paradigm shifts”, including mergers, consolidation, and strengthened cross-pillar functions, while the UN80 Action Plan, including its work packages (WP) around programmatic and structural shifts within pillars, shifts in cross-pillar approaches and system-wide enablers^[1] (United Nations, 2025_[4]) help to operationalise these proposals but do not clarify how roles should be differentiated or how duplication could be reduced in practice.

This thematic brief contributes directly to Workstream 3 and the Action Plan by examining how multilateral organisations define and operationalise their comparative advantage, how this shapes collaboration, and which systemic factors influence these efforts, including scenarios in which mergers or consolidations may occur. Drawing primarily on 25 MOPAN assessments (2023–2025) and complementary public sources, it situates UN entities in dialogue with MDBs and vertical funds to place UN80 reform considerations within a broader multilateral landscape.

This thematic brief is part of MOPAN’s Multilateral Effectiveness in a Shifting Landscape series, complemented by forthcoming analysis of responses to funding cuts (MOPAN, 2025_[5]).

Across the multilateral system, using the concept of comparative advantage is increasingly invoked to foster collaboration, reduce fragmentation, and promote more coherent delivery. MOPAN’s assessment methodology (MOPAN, 2020_[6]) recognises that an organisation’s effectiveness depends on how clearly it articulates its comparative advantage and how consistently it leverages such advantage in partnerships. The Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (United Nations General Assembly, 2024_[7]) similarly emphasises the role of comparative advantage in strengthening co-ordination, collaboration and coherence.

MOPAN’s analysis across 25 multilateral organisations – UN entities, MDBs and vertical funds – shows that the concept of comparative advantage is widely referenced in strategic documentation but lacks consistency in definition, purpose and use. Four broad findings emerge:

Most multilateral organisations assessed by MOPAN articulate comparative advantage in their global strategies and, increasingly, in their country-level planning. Examples include UN entities integrating comparative advantage into their strategic plans, vertical funds (e.g., the Global Fund and the GEF) using comparative advantage as a foundation for partnership design, and MDBs grounding their strategies and country partnership frameworks in comparative advantage and long-term country engagement.

Across the multilateral system, institutional mechanisms have been developed to organise co-ordination and collaboration explicitly around comparative advantage and support a clearer division of labour. In the UN development system, instruments such as UN Sustainable Development Co-operation Frameworks (UNSDCF) require teams to identify where different UN entities add the greatest value. In the humanitarian sector, the cluster architecture assigns co-ordination roles according to agencies’ mandates and technical strengths. Vertical funds have formalised this approach through co-operation frameworks such as the GEF and GCF’s Long-Term Vision and the GEF’s Integrated Programmes, which designate lead and partner agencies based on thematic expertise. MDBs have expanded similar practices through trust funds, memoranda of understanding and Mutual Reliance Frameworks that allow institutions to rely on each other’s standards in co-financed operations.

Definitions of comparative advantage are heterogeneous, hindering coherence. Organisations rarely define comparative advantage in a way that allows for meaningful comparison across entities or supports a structured division of labour. Some equate it with mandated roles, others with unique strengths, technical expertise or geographic presence, while MDBs and vertical funds emphasise financial instruments and long-term partnerships as their comparative advantages. Taken individually, these definitions are not inaccurate; they reflect each organisation’s purpose and history. However, collectively they do not add up to a coherent picture of who is best placed to lead, support or step back across the system.

Operationalising comparative advantage remains inconsistent. Across the system, MOPAN assessments show that divergent interpretations of comparative advantage frequently translate into weak operationalisation, blurred roles and fragmentation. For example, UNFPA and UN Women both position themselves on gender-based violence yet define the issue differently while delivering overlapping programmes; WFP’s broad engagement across humanitarian and development spheres enables flexibility for country teams but places few limits on mandate expansion, complicating its ability to sustain specialist capacity; FAO’s shift toward extensive project delivery risks diluting its core role as a normative, knowledge-based agency; and UNESCO still needs to articulate more clearly what it does best relative to others in its operational planning.

For MDBs, selectivity remains the central challenge. Although their country partnership frameworks embed a division of labour in principle, in practice, MDBs struggle to say no to host-country requests or ensure complementarity when multiple actors operate in the same space.

Vertical funds and partnerships face a different tension. Highly inclusive governance models enhance legitimacy but make it harder to maintain strategic clarity as expectations evolve. For instance, GPE’s multi-constituency governance strengthens ownership, but stakeholder feedback highlights the need for sharper differentiation from UNESCO, UNICEF, and ECW.

These findings highlight that the main problem is not that comparative advantage is not used as an organising principle, but rather that the absence of a shared approach prevents entities from applying it consistently and in relation to one another. Recent MOPAN Assessments and the broader literature show that even when organisations recognise the value of working to their strengths, the broader system and funding practices often pull them in different directions.

Three structural factors – governance, funding patterns and system-wide accountability – help explain why operationalising comparative advantage remains challenging in practice:

· Fragmented governance hinders the division of labour based on comparative advantages across the system. With more than 40 000 resolutions, decisions and presidential statements in the General Assembly, Security Council, ECOSOC and the Human Rights Council since 1946, with many mandates cited by multiple entities, overlapping responsibilities persist in policy, technical assistance and normative work, and no mechanism exists to rationalise functions system-wide. Divergent positions within national administrations and power imbalances across governing boards reinforce competitive role-setting, limiting incentives for agencies to narrow portfolios. Country-level co-ordination structures can add further entry points, shaping multilateral behaviour in ways that dilute coherence.

· Funding patterns continue to push organisations to go beyond their strictly defined comparative advantage. By 2023, more than 80 per cent of UNDS resources were earmarked, limiting flexibility, weakening in-house expertise, and driving short-term, projectised delivery aligned with donor visibility and thematic priorities. MOPAN assessments illustrate how this translates into operational fragmentation: UNESCO manages many small, earmarked projects, IOM struggles to align project-based funding with agency-wide goals, and WFP’s reliance on single-year grants constrains strategic planning. While pooled and softly earmarked instruments show the benefits of flexible financing for collective priorities, they remain too small relative to the system to shift incentives at scale.

· Accountability mechanisms still emphasise organisation-specific delivery rather than shared results, limiting incentives to operationalise complementary roles. MOPAN assessments of WHO, IFAD, UNDP and UNICEF show that – even when agencies engage in joint frameworks such as the UNSDCF – management and governing bodies continue to create internal incentives and hold them accountable for their own strategic plans and internal results frameworks.  Similar dynamics apply in humanitarian co-ordination, where agencies plan jointly but report individually, and inter-agency evaluations face challenges in follow-up through individual governing bodies. In MDBs, partnership value is not assessed systematically. The establishment of the UN System-Wide Evaluation Office in 2023 represents a significant step forward for UNDS, but management response, follow-up, and reporting remain nascent. 

The brief proposes a common analytical approach to strengthen the credibility, comparability and practical utility of comparative advantage analysis. Its purpose is to create a shared understanding through which agencies can articulate their strengths in relation to others, reducing ambiguity and enabling a more coherent division of labour.

The proposed approach consists of three elements:

1. Core functions (the how): a functional analysis – categorising functions as normative work, policy support, analytics, convening, capacity development, service delivery and financing – clarifies how an organisation delivers its contribution. This allows organisations to distinguish between roles they are uniquely positioned to lead and roles where they may contribute to outcomes led by others.

2. Thematic areas (the what): comparative advantage may vary across themes such as health, education, food security, or climate, around which organisations structure their mandates, expertise and programmes. This identifies what area of engagement is being assessed. An organisation may have strong normative authority in one area but operational advantages in another. This distinction encourages a more granular assessment rather than broad, system-wide claims.

3. Organisational attributes (the why): including mandate, expertise, geographic presence, operational capacity, partnerships, and financing modalities, clarify why an organisation is well placed to perform a given function in a specific thematic area. This helps distinguish structural strengths (e.g. WHO’s normative authority in health) from context-dependent advantages (e.g. operational reach in each country). Importantly, it also encourages organisations to articulate why they will not pursue certain functions or thematic areas.

This approach does not imply that one organisation should own a thematic area exclusively and recognises that comparative advantage can be relational and complementary. It also acknowledges that comparative advantage is dynamic and may vary over time, across country contexts – particularly in complex settings – meaning that the analysis does not predetermine country-team and platform configurations or programme modalities.

By applying a common approach, discussions and processes to implement the proposed UN80 Action Plan could map complementarities more objectively before considering mergers or consolidation. This may help avoid the creation of unfocused mega-agencies with diluted roles. Areas where functions could be combined, sequenced or delegated may be identified. Such an approach could help governing bodies assess whether proposals align with system-wide needs rather than individual organisational interests, and strengthen the evidence base for country-level configuration and collaborative arrangements.

UN80 reform proposals include ambitious options – mergers, consolidation, and new institutional configurations (United Nations, 2025_[3]). Yet comparative advantage is not systematically embedded as an organising principle. Without a clear understanding of roles and a realignment of incentives, structural reforms may simply recreate fragmentation within new configurations.

Two implications stand out:

· Mapping comparative advantages is essential and should inform any merger or consolidation, as well as the mandate implementation review process. Distinct capabilities must be preserved. Using a common approach, such as the one proposed in this brief, could help identify where consolidation strengthens or weakens system performance.

· Structural change alone cannot realign incentives. If funding, governance and accountability systems continue to reward organisational expansion and visibility, mergers or reconfigurations will not necessarily deliver sustained coherence.

Where structural reforms prove politically unfeasible, meaningful progress may still be achieved through practical measures that strengthen system coherence. A system-wide comparative advantage analysis can clarify roles and guide decision-making across country, regional and global levels. Realistic and strategic joint results frameworks linked to shared accountability mechanisms can help shift incentives towards collective outcomes, while role-based collaboration arrangements can provide clearer boundaries between where organisations should lead or support. Strengthening pooled funding, aligning it with comparative advantage, and reinforcing country platforms can further reduce duplication and promote co-ordinated action.

The recommendations presented below are situated within the framework of the UN80 initiative and are directed towards strengthening UN entities and inter-agency reform processes.

Some of these recommendations are not new and have been raised in several system-wide evaluations. However, given the persistent weaknesses in management response, follow-up and reporting on system-wide evaluations, it is worth recalling them here.

Although the brief has drawn on experiences from MDBs and vertical funds to enrich the analysis and situate the analysis in the broader multilateral system, these institutions operate under distinct governance arrangements and reform agendas. Consequently, the recommendations are not intended to prescribe actions for them, but rather to inform reforms within the UN development system.

For the UN80 Steering Committee

Relevant UN80 work packages: #2: New Humanitarian Compact: #3: UNDP / UNOPS: #4: UNFPA; #5: UNCT reconfiguration; #6: Regional reset; #9: Human rights group; #17: Training and research; #25: UNAIDS: #27: Environment.

· Map comparative advantage across the UN system using a common approach such as the one proposed in this brief, identifying where strengths could be consolidated, and what functions might not be pursued in the future. Such mapping could be applied at the global and country levels, the latter allowing for differentiated configurations adapted to context.

· Should mergers and other reconfigurations take place, ensure that these decisions preserve critical capacities (e.g. specialised logistics, convening power, normative leadership), avoiding bloated entities with diluted comparative advantage.

· Design transition strategies for sunsetting entities that maintain continuity of essential functions and safeguard stakeholder communities.

For UN entities

· Embed a common approach to comparative advantage:

o   Adopt and apply a common, relational approach to defining comparative advantage, such as the one proposed in this brief. This includes identifying both areas of strength and areas to be explicitly deprioritised.

o   Embed this analysis in strategic plans, programmes of work and budget, operational frameworks, and performance systems – making collaborative delivery a corporate priority.

o   Integrate comparative advantage into partnership frameworks and proposals, stating where the entity leads, contributes, or steps back.

· Align resources behind collaboration based on comparative advantage:

o   Define a clear division of labour at the country level within the UN and with other stakeholders and determine and review resource decisions based on a clear analysis of comparative advantages and evolving country needs, for example, through UNSDCFs and Humanitarian Response Plans.

o   Establish internal checks to ensure project grant uptake aligns with a clear and consistent analysis of the organisation’s comparative advantage.

o   Actively use and advocate for pooled funding instruments and multi-entity programmes that align with agreed roles and reduce duplicate pipelines.

o   Participate actively in joint programming mechanisms aligned with agreed roles and collaborative objectives, aligned with a clear and consistent analysis of comparative advantage.

o   Use common and interoperable systems (e.g. system-wide evaluations, joint evaluations, mutual recognition) to reduce fragmentation and duplication of core functions. 

· Strengthen accountability:

o   Link staff incentives to collaboration based on the organisation's comparative advantages, integrating inter-agency collaborative behaviours into the performance appraisal system.

o   Develop and apply shared metrics of collaboration for collective results, based on previously identified areas of comparative advantage, incorporating them into individual MEAL systems.

o   Participate in mutual accountability mechanisms (e.g. common indicator frameworks, joint and system-wide reviews and evaluations) with clear roles and responsibilities tied to collective goals.

o   Strengthen system-wide evaluations and management responses, including follow-up and reporting of progress.

For MOPAN members and other Member States

· Systematic articulation of comparative advantage:

o   Require multilateral partners to clearly articulate and demonstrate their comparative advantage from a system-wide perspective in funding agreements, strategic planning, programmes of work and budgets, and other organisational actions, referencing agreed institutional or country-level configuration and role allocation.

o   Promote analysis of comparative advantage that considers differences depending on country contexts, therefore resulting in divergent organisational configurations at the country level of those specificities.

· Promote co-ordination based on comparative advantage:

o   Provide political backing and resources to co-ordination mechanisms (e.g. RCs, UNCTs, Clusters) to enforce coherent team configurations based on a common analysis of comparative advantages.

o   Promote and support country platforms bringing the UN system together with national actors, MDBs and vertical funds, to ensure coherent co-ordination and delivery based on respective comparative advantages.

· Align funding with comparative advantage:

o   Require that project and programme funding align with country-level system-wide strategic frameworks and reflect comparative advantages.

o   Increase the share of pooled funds at the country level and make pooled contributions more attractive than single-donor project earmarks, for example by offering simplified reporting and visibility arrangements. This would counteract the trend of agencies chasing earmarks by expanding their roles to secure visibility.

· Strengthen accountability:

o   Measure collective results, requiring entities to report against both organisational and system-wide outcomes. For example, donors could request that UN agencies present their contributions to shared UNSDCF or HRP targets and increase their scrutiny of inter-agency collaboration in governing bodies and donor groups.

o   Commission and finance joint and system-wide evaluations, and strengthen follow-up and reporting mechanisms, signalling that collective impact and performance based on clearly defined and analysed comparative advantage from a relational perspective – rather than individual agency output – is the metric of success.

o   Support harmonisation of management tools (e.g. unified reporting standards and data platforms) to reduce fragmentation and enable collaborative operations. 

[1] This brief will be particularly relevant for the following work packages of the UN80 Action Plan: WP#2: New Humanitarian Compact, WP#3 UNDP/UNOPS, WP#4 UNFPA/UN Women, WP#5 UNCT reconfiguration, WP#6 Regional reset, WP#7 Joint knowledge hubs, WP#8 Expertise on-demand, WP#25 UNAIDS, WP#26 Other merger review, WP#27 Environment, WP#28 Other realignments, WP#9 Human rights group, WP#10 Senior management co-ordination forums, WP#11 Special envoy review, WP#12 Regional integrated platforms and WP#18 Funding mechanisms.