# Intermediation Work for Localization: The Role of a Place-Based and Multi-Stakeholder Meta-Organization

Ingrid Mazzilli, Héloïse Berkowitz, Sihem Mammar El Hadj

► To cite this version:

Ingrid Mazzilli, Héloïse Berkowitz, Sihem Mammar El Hadj. Intermediation Work for Localization: The Role of a Place-Based and Multi-Stakeholder Meta-Organization. Public Administration and Development, 2025, open access (Wiley). 10.1002/pad.70041. hal-05381707

HAL Id: hal-05381707

https://hal.science/hal-05381707v1

Submitted on 25 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

RESEARCH ARTICLE

OPEN ACCESS

# Intermediation Work for Localization: The Role of a Place-Based and Multi-Stakeholder Meta-Organization

Ingrid Mazzilli<fnref n="1" /> | Héloïse Berkowitz² | Sihem Mammar El Hadj³

**Correspondence:** Ingrid Mazzilli (ingrid.mazzilli@univ-amu.fr)

**Received:** 30 September 2024 | **Revised:** 15 October 2025 | **Accepted:** 6 November 2025

**Keywords:** development aid | localization | meta-organization | place-based | Senegal | sustainable practices

## ABSTRACT

Localization is the process of adapting and developing international aid to suit local contexts. Thus, localization involves paying attention to the relations between organizations and local actors receiving development aid. One key question that has not, as yet, been satisfactorily answered is how to collectively organize localization to empower local actors. Through an in-depth case study of an innovative development aid project in Senegal focusing on employment and skills ecosystems, this paper explores the impact of viewing localization as a meta-organized process on discussions about localization going forward. Our findings unpack the dynamics and processes of sustainable localization in development aid through a place-based and multi-stakeholder meta-organization. We show that this process is supported by *intermediation work*, carried out by a group of actors acting as transition intermediaries, who support the emergence of a shared vision during a collective project and enable sustainable collaborative transition dynamics to be engaged. Our results also highlight that the *intermediation work* happens in three sequences: (1) emerging localization; (2) intermediated localization; and (3) transformative intermediated localization. We contribute to the literature by highlighting that *intermediation work* is made possible through a set of key functions played by the meta-organization: (1) place direction-setting; (2) capacity mobilization; and (3) ecosystem orchestration.

## 1 | Introduction

Localization, which has been at the heart of the international aid agenda since the 2000s, is the process of adapting international aid to local contexts. It involves ensuring that aid reaches civil society directly, so that funds can be leveraged by local actors (Firchow and Wingender 2023, 341).

While works in political science have engaged in a theoretical discussion on the fundamentals of localization (Bonacker et al. 2016), relatively few works have focused on the concrete implementation of localization—that is “how” to localize (Firchow and Wingender 2023). Recent discussion about how to localize in development aid has found that localization should be implemented through multi-stakeholder partnerships with

local actors (Gerard 2023; Sever et al. 2025). Nevertheless, these works do not specify the nature of the partnerships or the way in which those partnerships should be organized.

Localization is also part of a broader trend that emphasizes a return to places and communities, reflecting a shift toward place-based approaches (Boorman et al. 2023; Pierce et al. 2011). This movement underscores a growing recognition of local contexts and local stakeholders in public policy and sustainability transitions (Coenen et al. 2012; Pachoud et al. 2022), knowledge creation (Cohendet et al. 2014) and development aid (Bonacker et al. 2016; Boorman et al. 2023; Firchow and Wingender 2023). Place-based approaches encourage practitioners and researchers to consider local contexts and to tailor their actions to directly address the issues faced by communities. Place-based initiatives

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). *Public Administration and Development* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

<footnote n="1">¹Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, LEST, Aix-en-Provence, France | ²LEST, CNRS, Aix Marseille Univ, Aix en Provence, France | ³University Catholique of West, COGI-GRANEM, Angers, France</footnote>
are guided by the principle of policy localization. Loeber et al. (2024, 3) emphasize that a “place-based” approach can facilitate comprehension of how individuals are impacted by decisions that are made on their behalf. They delineate place-based initiatives as non-state, bottom-up, and originating from the initiative of local actors (individuals and associations “on the ground”), rather than as “policy constructs.” These initiatives are grounded in a particular form of collaborative governance, wherein diverse groups of actors—comprising public agencies and non-state stakeholders—collaborate to formulate, moderate public policies or oversee the administration of public programs.

Research on how to put localization into effect has so far been conducted mainly in the field of humanitarian aid. More work is needed to understand how to implement localization in development aid. Indeed, the dynamics of development aid differ from those of humanitarian aid, in that the former involves supporting local actors and communities in the long run and can affect local policies aimed at improving social justice and equity (Humanitarian Coalition).¹ In development aid, the localization literature focuses on organizational and operational processes and barriers to localization (Bonacker et al. 2016)—for instance, in employment (Menzel 2016) or funding (Stanley and Connolly 2023). Studies highlight the importance of regional perspectives (Paczynska 2023) and the roles of intermediary actors (Gugerty et al. 2019; McNamara and Morse 2004; Wingender and Méndez 2023). However, few studies have closely examined the organizational forms of these intermediary actors involved in development aid. Without such an organizational analysis, we lack an understanding of how localization can be implemented in development aid, including a multi-stakeholder perspective. In this context, localization implies working with local actors so that they can themselves develop, change or support local policies to foster dignity and sustainability (Palmer and Warner 2022) within the framework of multi-stakeholder partnerships (Gillard 2023). Hence, a key challenge lies in understanding how to collectively organize the process of sustainable localization by means of a place-based and multi-stakeholder approach.

In the field of organization studies, recent works have argued that the concept of meta-organizations—that is organizations whose members are themselves organizations—offers valuable insights into how organizations create order among organizations, and enable a diverse array of actors to take joint decisions (Ahrne and Brunsson 2005; Berkowitz et al. 2020; Chaudhury et al. 2016; Garaudel 2020; Karlberg and Jacobsson 2015). Specifically, some works have shown the value of meta-organizations as intermediary actors, enabling members to collectively manage sustainability transitions (Chaudhury et al. 2016; Berkowitz and Bor 2024; Berkowitz and Souchaud 2024). Multi-stakeholder meta-organizations have been praised for their value in localizing sustainability transformations, because they facilitate joint decision-making among a variety of actors—for instance, in local fisheries (Berkowitz et al. 2020), indigenous governance (Fernandes and Lopes 2022), or regional clusters (Saniossian et al. 2022). While this approach is increasingly being used in management and organization studies, there has been little work done to date that has closely examined the value of such devices in development aid (Cheng et al. 2025) and in particular, in localization dynamics.

In this paper, we explore the impact of conceptualizing localization as a meta-organized process on ongoing discussions about localization.

We have carried out an in-depth case study of an experimental and innovative development aid project conducted between 2020 and 2021 in Senegal, aiming to identify the professional and skills requirements in two departments. Our results indicate that the place-based and multi-stakeholder organization supports *intermediation work*, which we empirically defined as activities carried out by a group of actors functioning as an intermediary actor, who support the emergence of a shared vision in a collective project and enable sustainable collaborative transition dynamics to be established. We also show that this intermediation work produced a shared definition of place, and empowered local actors. It also enacted a latent social skill ecosystem—that is “attempted to produce a strong synergy between education, training and workforce development in a variety of production settings, both high skill and at more foundational levels” (Spours 2019, 8).

Our results contribute to the literature on localization by showing that localization does not consist solely of a reallocation of financial flows, resources, or decision-making, but that it is rendered operational through specific organizational devices—in this particular case, a place-based and multi-stakeholder meta-organization. Literature on localization has so far neglected the value of taking an organizational perspective; we have addressed this issue by using meta-organization theory. We also contribute to the discussion on place-based and multi-stakeholder meta-organizations as transition intermediaries by highlighting their ability to engage in what we identified as *intermediation work*. This intermediation work is made possible through a set of key functions played by the meta-organization: (1) place direction-setting; (2) capacity mobilization; and (3) ecosystem orchestration.

## 2 | Literature Review: Development Aid and Meta-Organizations

### 2.1 | Challenges and New Perspectives on Localization in Development Aid

The concept having originated in the field of humanitarian aid (Lie 2024), localization means placing the populations affected by international aid directly at the heart of actions and decisions, and considering them as agents and decision makers (Spandler et al. 2022) and securing the quality and transparency of the funds allocated (Khan and Kontinen 2022). While humanitarian aid focuses on short-term life-saving actions (e.g., in the event of conflict or natural disasters), development aid focuses on supporting local actors in the long term, to develop infrastructure and local policies in the economic, social and political spheres (Riddell 2007). Thus, the dynamics of development aid consists of providing long-term support to local actors and communities, and formulating local policies that promote social justice and equity (Lie 2024).
Although practitioners and academics agree on the need to study the concrete implementation of localization, academic literature remains “flawed and incomplete” (Spandler et al. 2022). More work is needed to understand “how” to localize in the field of development aid. This is what we address in this paper. In the field of development aid, different kinds of localization have been identified (Baguios et al. 2021; Dissanayake 2024): firstly, “localization of resources (which follows the money)”; secondly, “localization of agency (which follows the decision-making)”; and thirdly, “localization of ‘ways of being’ (i.e., where practices, approaches and knowledge of local actors are adopted, even where unfamiliar to the donor).” Dissanayake (2024), following in the footsteps of Baguios et al. (2021), indicates that the localization of agency refers to “the process of transferring the control of and voice in decision making over foreign aid resources, policies and interventions to local actors and institutions” (5). These facets of localization overlap, but also indicate that the process of giving more local agency and thus empowering local actors is crucial.

Indeed, Novovic (2022) explains that localization does not mean that global policies need to be adapted through a local lens to “fit” local conditions, but instead that global systems are supposed to be adjusted to the local context. Localization is not about applying global goals; albeit sustainable goals. Instead, what is “local” can be understood as a social construct, allowing us to consider localization as a dynamic approach (Sever et al. 2025), which highlights the logics of construction and deconstruction inherent in it. From this perspective, “local” refers not to a fixed spatial area, but to a specific place, created by existing social relations that go beyond geographical boundaries (Roepstorff 2020, 291). The notion of place encompasses different facets such as location (the geographical location), a specific attachment (the sense of place through human experience of the physical place) and embeddedness in a local ecosystem (local institutions) (Kourula et al. 2024). Place-based initiatives are guided by the principle of policy localization and are defined as non-state, bottom-up, and originating from the initiative of local actors (individuals and associations “on the ground”), rather than as “policy constructs” (Loeber and Kok 2024, 3). Brinkerhoff (2025, 12) points out that local can be seen as “an activity embedded in networks of power and politics, where different groups of individuals interact.” The author also indicates that intermediary actors may play a role in a “transformative” development in the localization process. This “transformative” (rather than “decentralized”) process is “about challenging existing power structures[] those power structures may include local power and vertical relationships within a country” (12). Multi-stakeholder partnerships (Gerard 2023)—such as meta-organizations, as described later on—can act as intermediaries between local and national forms of power (Cheng et al. 2025; Gugerty et al. 2019; McNamara and Morse 2004; Wingender and Méndez 2023).

As a consequence, in our research, we will consider localization as a process (Brinkerhoff 2025; Sever et al. 2025) that includes its own characteristics:

- localization is specific in development aid, as it consists of supporting the evolution or change of local policies through sustainable practices and the allocation of

resources, the development of local agency and acknowledgment of place-based ways of being (Baguios et al. 2021; Dissanayake 2024);

- localization is viewed as a place-based process in which a geographical scope is socially constructed by individuals and collectives. This process is also “embedded in a complex system of actors (this involves sub-local and local actors, such as subcontractors, who are often rural and/or more informal community NPOs” (Burger et al. 2018) and is subject to deconstruction or reconstruction over time; and

- localization is operationalized through a multi-stakeholder organization, acting as a transition intermediary (Berkowitz and Bor 2024) involving transformative effects (Brinkerhoff 2025).

In the next section, we more specifically review how a meta-organization—a specific form of organization and intermediary actor—can foster sustainable localization.

## 2.2 | Meta-Organizations as Intermediary Actors to Operationalize Sustainable Localization

Research on sustainable transitions brings together a body of work that analyzes the socio-technical transitions associated with sustainability goals (reduction of greenhouse gases, biodiversity, circular economies, poverty reduction, social justice, etc.). As a result, researchers agree on the evolving and normative nature of the sustainable transition, which can be defined as “the comprehensive and systemic transformations that move socio-technical systems toward collectively envisioned sustainable futures, which themselves are continuously negotiated and redefined. These transitions emerge through the co-evolution of various societal subsystems, including economic, cultural, and institutional frameworks” (Wesche and Hendriks 2026).

Localization literature is no exception to the need to rethink analytical frameworks in light of the sustainable transition. Indeed, there has been a call to steer localization toward greater sustainability in practices and in academic research.

On the one hand, sustainable transition in the field of localization can be understood as seeking to achieve sustainability goals. For instance, in particular, sustainable practices have been engaged and experimented with through the setting of Agenda 21 and the “localization” of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Boorman et al. 2023; Jain et al. 2021; Novovic 2022; Sever et al. 2025). On the other hand, localization can also be considered in terms of a sustainable transition, developing sustainability practices implemented by stakeholders—for instance, supporting self-determination and dignity for local communities (Palmer and Warner 2022). Thus, sustainable localization—that is operationalizing localization in line with sustainable practices—means that localization operates as a process empowering local actors, civil society and global communities, in a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder and place-based form of governance, making decisions for themselves that engage a “normative directionality” toward sustainability (Köhler et al. 2019).
In this vein, transition intermediaries in the form of meta-
organizations are precisely well equipped to foster forms of
multi-stakeholder governance supporting sustainable practices
(Berkowitz and Bor 2024; Berkowitz and Souchaud 2024; Bor
and O'Shea 2022; Valente and Oliver 2018). Meta-organizations,
as discussed earlier, are organizations whose members are
themselves organizations (Ahrne and Brunsson 2008; Berkowitz
et al. 2020; Garaudel 2020; Laviolette et al. 2022; Saniossian
et al. 2022). There is a growing body of literature that empha-
sizes the importance and the value of this simple definition.
Ahrne and Brunsson (2005, 2008) pioneering work, and the
community in organization studies and international relations
that has grown in their wake, argues that most social sciences
have neglected the theoretical implications of “meta-organiza-
tion.” Most approaches in social sciences either do not analyze
the organizational aspects of the phenomena they study, or
when they do look at organizations, they mostly assume that all
organizations are made up of individuals (Ahrne and
Brunsson 2008).

The field of international relations and global governance is filled with many different meta-organizations, though few works use that concept when studying them, from standard organizations to the European Union and the G20 (Ahrne et al. 2019; Boström 2006; Garaudel 2020; Kerwer 2013; Koch 2024). Steering committees like the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR) (see Deloffre 2022), whose members are some of the world's leading humanitarian organizations, can be considered meta-organizations. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee, on the other hand, which is also a steering committee (ibid), rather places emphasis on membership made up of executive heads of organizations to formulate policy in response to humanitarian crises. In this case, the individuals are more important than the organizations they represent as the members. These two examples illustrate that distinguishing between organizations and meta-organizations can have value in global governance and world politics. One could assume, for instance, that constitutive steering practices (Deloffre 2022) might differ slightly between the two, or involve another level (that of the meta-level actor).

What does being a meta-organization entail? Being a meta-
organization means (1) being an organization; (2) having orga-
nizations as members; and (3) being associative (see Ahrne and
Brunsson 2008; Berkowitz et al. 2022). Here, we use a decisional
organization approach and define organization as a decided social
order: that is, the stabilization of social relations through de-
cisions (Ahrne and Brunsson 2005; Grothe-Hammer et al. 2022).
This means that meta-organizations are formal organizations
rather than emergent or non-decided forms of organizations; they
are different “from both traditional organizations constituted of
individuals (e.g., firms, associations, clubs and administrations)
and networks or institutions” (Ahrne and Brunsson 2008; Berko-
witz et al. 2022; Coulombel and Berkowitz 2025). The members of
meta-organizations are themselves organizations, and operate in
concert with other organizations, rather than supplanting or
replacing them. Unlike informal organizations, formal organi-
zations such as meta-organizations can decide on their own
membership, mechanisms of hierarchy or central power, sets of
rules, and systems of monitoring and sanctions (Berkowitz
et al. 2022). Finally, meta-organizations are voluntary

associations (Ahrne and Brunsson 2008), formed by their mem-
bers in order to pursue a collective goal (Roux and Lecocq 2022).

Meta-organizations come with different forms and functions. Some meta-organizations are created by rather homogeneous organizations with similar interests at a national or international level. This is typically the case of trade associations or some international organizations (Ahrne and Brunsson 2008). Other meta-organizations may be rather heterogeneous, with organizations brought together by belonging to the same place. For instance, place-based, multi-stakeholder meta-organizations may bring together a variety of members from different spheres or domains of society, like fisheries co-management committees in Catalunya (Berkowitz et al. 2020). Here, we focus on place-based, multi-stakeholder meta-organizations as organized intermediaries for localization.

In this research, we ask how a place-based multi-stakeholder
meta-organization can serve as an intermediary for a sustainable
localization process, understood as a process empowering local
actors, civil society and global communities.

3 | Methodology

To investigate this question, we use a qualitative approach and
an in-depth case study in order to better understand the unique
context and its specificity (Yin 2014). We focus on a case study
of a Local Jobs and Skills project initiated by a French
NGO—which we call “NGO SO-DEV” (Social Development) in
this paper—in Senegal in 2020–2021.

## 3.1 | Empirical Setting

The Local Jobs and Skills Project (called LJS Project) was part of an extensive job development program, whose objective was to strengthen the vocational and technical training system and to support mechanisms for the integration of young workers in Senegal. This program was initiated by the French NGO SO-DEV and was based on broad cooperation with local partners, running from 2019 to 2022. It started in the context of decentralization of public policy in Senegal (see Act III of decentralization, passed in 2013). The LJS project is one of the numerous work packages around which the program is structured. The LJS project's goal was to experiment with a methodology meant to assess job and employment opportunities in two rural areas in Senegal, using an innovative strategic workforce planning perspective and a collaborative approach at a local level. Two departments of Senegal were chosen by the NGO SO-DEV to test the methodology over a period of 12 months (October 2020 to October 2021): the department of Louga, in the north, and the department of Kaolack, in the center of Senegal.

The LJS project was coordinated by two NGO SO-DEV project
coordinators—one located at the NGO head office in Paris
(France), and the other in Dakar, Senegal. Their role was to
organize the conditions for carrying out the activities in the field
and to manage two local NGO teams based in Louga and Kaolack.
Each departmental team was composed of one local coordinator
<table><caption>TABLE 1 | Dimension of analysis and elements studied.</caption><thead><tr><td>Dimension of the analysis</td><td>Elements studied</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Meta-organizational dimensions</td><td>— Membership composition (members involved in different steering committees)</td></tr><tr><td>Place dimensions</td><td>— Decision-making attribution and processes</td></tr><tr><td>Local policy dimensions</td><td>— Geographical scope of the project</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>— Local partners who were consulted</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>— Type of knowledge and information used to feed into recommendations</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>— Decisions taken to develop the department</td></tr></tbody></table>

and two or three technical assistants. In both departments, the project aimed to bring about cooperation between local authorities, administrations, employers, cooperatives and citizens in the field of training, employment and youth integration. The aim of the LJS project was to provide a better understanding of which jobs and professional skills needed to be developed, and at the same time, provide greater coordination among the organizations involved in education, training, and employment of youths. In this sense, the LJS project aimed to organize and sustain a skills ecosystem. Spours (2019, 8) presents the skills ecosystem as an attempt “to produce a strong synergy between education, training and workforce development in a variety of production settings, both high skill and at more foundational levels.” This configuration places the attention on interactions between multiple actors and calls for the analysis of “context and connectors, be they individuals or organizations” and “what brings people into cooperation” instead of competition (Wedekind et al. 2021, 350). This is the approach we use in this paper.

## 3.2 | Data Collection

The NGO SO-DEV has a long tradition of working with academic researchers, so in this case, they asked a researcher in management and organization studies to join the team. Thus, as a researcher, one co-author had the opportunity to observe and participate in the LJS project from beginning to end. As a member of the consultant team, their role was to offer scientific support, to observe, to question, to collect data throughout the project in order to document the findings of this experimental program and to write reports that could be passed to other teams working on other regions of Senegal.

The data collection occurred at different stages of the project over a period of 15 months and consisted of observations, interviews and documents. More precisely, the data collection was organized as follows:

- presentation materials, documents and meeting reports produced by the NGO (cf. Supporting Information S1: Appendix 1).

- participation of one researcher in 16 online meetings (33 h) organized by the consultant team over a period of 15 months, with active participation and feedback of the NGO team (cf. Supporting Information S1: Appendix 2), with note taking.

- 9 semi-structured interviews (550 min) conducted by the researcher with the project coordinators, the local coordinators and some institutional partners of the project. Project coordinators and local coordinators were interviewed twice—once 6 months after the project kick-off (May–June 2021), and a second time at the end of the project (December 2021–January 2022) (cf. Supporting Information S1: Appendix 3).

## 3.3 | Analytical Strategy

Working in successive phases, we developed a comprehensive understanding of the evolutions and dynamics of the case. Firstly, we reviewed and analyzed the materials collected by the first author. We did so several times, and held regular meetings to discuss key organizational elements, sequences and shifts. Then, to further analyze the data, we constituted a narrative as an organizing device (Langley 1999). This allowed us to identify patterns in the history of the case—in particular, three sequences. We fleshed out the analysis of the sequences by grounding them in a place-based meta-organizational approach. This means that for each of them, we studied (1) the meta-organizational dimensions of the collective of organizations involved (membership and organization of decisions); (2) the place dimensions (geographical scope of the project and local partners who were consulted); and (3) the local-policy dimensions (type of knowledge and information used to feed into recommendations, and decisions taken to develop the department) (Table 1).

In the next section, we present the three identified sequences using the three dimensions of analysis: meta-organizational, place and local policy dimensions.

# 4 | Findings: The Meta-Organized Localization Process as *Intermediation Work*

The main purpose of the LJS project was to use an experimental methodology to identify and characterize which categories of jobs could be viewed as a stable source of employment for young workers, on the basis of local economic activities, and therefore which skills ought to be promoted through vocational training. The LJS project was designed by the NGO in such a way as to ensure that the information collected about the economic context and employment opportunities were suited to the local
needs. We combined three dimensions of analysis (meta-organization, place and policy) to conceptualize the localization process as *intermediation work*, divided into three sequences: (1) emerging localization, characterized by the lack of a formal, organized intermediary actor, and a latent skills ecosystem; (2) intermediated localization, characterized by the development of an intermediary actor in the form of a place-based, multi-stakeholder meta-organization and the emergence of a collectively decided (“meta-organized”) skill ecosystem; and (3) transformative intermediated localization, where the meta-organization lays the groundwork for a transition to a desirable future through a shared definition of place. In the next section, we present the three identified sequences using these dimensions. Table 2 below offers an overview of the elements we observed to develop our analysis and illustrates the intermediation work undertaken.

## 4.1 | Emerging Localization

Our findings show how emerging localization occurred during this first sequence. In this subsection, we describe the reasons why the local teams started to envisage a form of multi-stakeholder organization, although it was not considered necessary from the start. The analysis of the local dimensions then shows that the administrative scope of the entire department proved not to be relevant, and was called into question. Then, we highlight how the local teams began to perceive the project not only as a simple pre-diagnostic exercise, but as a network of employers and local organizations with whom it would be necessary to work with to complete the LJS project.

During this first sequence, the meta-organizational dimensions were absent. Working relationships were initially established directly between the NGO SO-DEV, based in Paris and Dakar, and their local teams based in the main towns of the two departments. At this stage, a multi-stakeholder meta-organization

was not considered as a possible way of organizing and leading the LJS project. Nevertheless, the NGO's local teams had already identified the main local actors engaged in training, in professional integration and the main employers in each department. All the actors and organizations involved in training, integration and employment were classified into eight categories: Public organizations (Governor, Prefect, Sub-prefect, Departmental and municipal councils, youth council); Technical services (vocational training centers, Regional Development Agency, Regional Youth Inspectorate, local structures to help young people to integrate, etc.); Consular chambers (Chamber of Trades, Chamber of Commerce); Civil society (NGOs, Associations, Federations, Networks); Private sector (cooperatives, companies); Youth support programs and projects; Funding organizations (microfinance institutions, banks); Media broadcasting information and awareness-raising messages to young people (TV and community radio stations).

For the place analysis, the local teams referred to an administrative perimeter—the two administrative departments of Louga and Kaolack. After a few weeks, the local teams started to question this administrative scope, which soon began to be seen as “too large” and “too vague” to work on. The scope of the department was not appropriate to engage a clear understanding of which jobs should be developed in the future, even though the NGO’s coordinators viewed the department as being “local.” In parallel, at this stage, the commission from the NGO SO-DEV was to assess employment opportunities at the department level and to test feasibility in Senegal; there was no demand for the project to adopt a bottom-up approach.

For the local policy analysis, from the very first meeting, the local teams realized that conducting a pre-diagnostic analysis, identifying the local organizations involved in training and professional integration, would not be sufficient to determine which jobs held promise and should be areas for development. The pre-diagnostic study had been built on official reports and on some interviews conducted with key local actors. Some

<table><caption>TABLE 2 | Synthesis of the element observed.</caption><thead><tr><td>Dimensions/Sequences</td><td>Sequence 1: Emerging localization</td><td>Sequence 2: Intermediated localization</td><td>Sequence 3: Transformative intermediated localization</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Meta-organizational analysis</td><td>Identification of potential members<br/>No formal multi-stakeholder meta-organization</td><td>Emergence of multi stakeholder meta-organization<br/>Creation of a steering committee and technical committee</td><td>Membership and decision-processes of the meta-organization stabilized</td></tr><tr><td>Place analysis</td><td>Place is understood as an administrative perimeter (the departmental level)<br/>Identification of local actors to be consulted at the departmental level</td><td>Place is considered as being both set at administrative level and collectively decided upon: a district-level type of action is chosen<br/>Local actors to be consulted have been contacted</td><td>Place is viewed as a multi-faceted project, comprising social dimensions, sectoral and job opportunities, and most of all, potential future collaborations between local organizations</td></tr><tr><td>Local policy analysis</td><td>Overview of socio-economic analysis of each department based on documents and interviews with key local actors</td><td>Information and data supplemented through working with local actors<br/>Collective decision to focus on four to five priority sectors in each department</td><td>Identification of employment needs in each district through diverse consultations<br/>Identification of the number of potential trainees in promising and key jobs with local partners</td></tr></tbody></table>
information was missing, but it was not clear what additional information needed to be collected. Above all, what should the project's scope be? What was the study area (the whole department? All economic sectors?)? What counted as a promising job in each department? What were the key organizations to be studied? Indeed, one of the significant challenges raised by the LJS project was twofold: firstly, there was a lack of reliable and up-to-date data for the department (such as figures and statistics or qualitative trends) which would have been helpful in identifying which sector of activity was most important in each department studied. Secondly, although many organizations were already active in the field of employment, none of them had endorsed coordination at the department level. Moreover, both Louga and Kaolack are mainly characterized by a high level of agricultural activities, and by a strong informal work sector. In order to make further choices, it was necessary for local teams to gain a deeper understanding of the local area, the leading organizations within it, and its needs in terms of employment. The pre-diagnostic analysis was insufficient, so it was decided to expand the project team, to start working with key partners and to build a participative tool to ensure that decisions would be based on the needs of the community and of local employers. After a few weeks, the local teams and their coordinators agreed to enlarge the LJS project and put together a multi-stakeholder committee.

## 4.2 | Intermediated Localization

During this second sequence, the intermediation of the localization process begins with the emergence of a multi-stakeholder meta-organization, including members as part of the governing body. The project coordinators agreed to organize the project as a meta-organization, as it had been recognized that more information concerning job opportunities needed to be collected. The multi-stakeholder form of meta-organization seemed to be a suitable way of accessing more authoritative sources of information on employers' needs. The project coordinators and the local teams in Louga and Kaolack proposed to set up an extended Steering Committee led by the NGO SO-DEV but also based on a partnership approach. This meta-organization and way of working was then presented and discussed with the NGO's management and funders, because it involved implementing a working method that would take a few weeks longer than expected. The establishment of the meta-organization was at stake, partly because this work would require additional time to achieve results. Furthermore, the formation of various committees and working groups would require additional effort on the part of local teams to identify and contact potential members of the meta-organization. However, as the working method was considered innovative and likely to be effective in collecting delocalized information about skills and job needs in each department, the format of a place-based, multi-stakeholder meta-organization was chosen and considered an experiment. Hence, the partner organizations to be involved in the project (public organizations, technical services, consular chambers, civil society, youth support programs and projects, cooperatives and local employer representatives) would gradually be brought on board as contacts were made.

In order to identify potential partners to be involved in the meta-organization, the local teams used the pre-diagnostic as a basis for meetings with those local players, enabling them to fill in any missing information. Then, both the LJS coordinators and local teams agreed to set up a Steering Committee at each departmental level, to validate strategic decisions and future actions. In addition, a Technical Committee was created to interface between the Steering Committee and the working groups at each sub-departmental level. The Technical Committee regularly consulted the Steering Committee on the main orientations of the project, worked with the community groups and regularly informed them of the decisions validated by the Steering Committee. This complex but decentralized form of meta-organization was set up according to local conditions and needs in each department in order to ensure feedback and information from various local stakeholders' representatives.

The analysis of the place dimensions indicates that, at this point, the perspective of the administrative department had begun to shift into a “collectively constructed place,” as more local organizations were seen to be concerned by or involved more directly in the project. More specifically, the ties between key local actors had been identified and this group of actors came to be viewed as an appropriate scope of action for the LJS project.

Regarding the local policy analysis, the local teams, supported by the new governance body established by the meta-organization, started to make strategic choices concerning the priority economic sectors on which the project would focus. Each team in the two departments had finally succeeded in filling in the data and information needed to define the priority target economic sectors. In Louga, five priority sectors were selected, considered to present the most job opportunities for young people: market gardening, aquaculture, plumbing, breeding, and food transformation. In Kaolack, the organization chose to work on four priority sectors: market gardening, aviculture, food transformation, and salt production. However, more precise information was still lacking—for instance: the jobs with potential (which jobs?) and the needs (how many?); and the number of young people in training or looking for work (whether at school or not) in these two departments. More work with local actors was still needed in order to make decisions about which jobs to develop, as explained in the next subsection. The format of the multi-stakeholder meta-organization made it possible to compile information and data from the department, thanks to the presence of local actors on the various Steering Committees, at different levels (district level, then departmental level), and to make choices according to their communities' priority needs. The meta-organization also started to provide local actors with an alternative representation of these two departments in terms of the sectors considered to be fundamentally important in the areas.

## 4.3 | Transformative Intermediated Localization

The third sequence is what we refer to as “transformative intermediated localization,” meaning the conditions for transitioning to a desirable future have been established. Indeed, the actors agreed on which “place” was pertinent for their actions.
That place, decided upon collectively, started to be viewed as a multifaceted project comprising social, sectoral, and job opportunities, and also potential future collaborations between local organizations.

In terms of analysis of the meta-organization, it had taken 15 months for the local teams to stabilize their organization: local project managers had succeeded in convincing local key organizations to be part of the project, whether as a member of the governance bodies (in the Steering Committees or Technical Committees) or as a participant in various sub-departmental working groups organized throughout the course of the project.

In relation to the place dimension, the local context—which had, at the beginning of the project, been synonymous with the administrative department—revealed some potential. The place began to be perceived as a place-based skills ecosystem, encompassing opportunities being sustained by potential future collaborations with many local stakeholders, such as local public actors, technical services, leading private employers or cooperatives, etc. The local teams had also organized consultations with an extended group of local organizations in order to collect better information about their needs and the way they foresaw the future of each priority sector in terms of job development. Local authorities were also strongly involved, and follow-up interviews by the research team showed that they had a genuine interest in the LJS project.

In terms of local policy, additional decisions were made by the Technical Committees and validated by the Steering Committees to define “promising” jobs and the number of young people looking for a job. The Committees in Louga selected sixteen “promising jobs,” spread across the five priority sectors collectively chosen. For each job, the local teams also estimated the number of young workers that could be employed within the next few years. For instance, five jobs were identified as “promising” in the market gardening sector: agro-supplier, tree-nursery worker, greenhouse vegetable grower, market garden equipment operator, and maintenance agent. The local team also estimated that around 2000 young workers would be needed for these jobs for the next few years. The team in Kaolack used the same methodology and identified, for example, that around 1500 young workers could be directed into the salt production sector and could be trained for five promising jobs: quality salt production technician, packaging agent, tricycle driver, iodization operator and machine operator. Finally, only at the end of these consultations, the analysis was completed and the necessary data to make the decisions about promising jobs had been collected. In each department, both local teams had produced a list of key jobs to be targeted for each priority sector and had estimated the number of young people who needed to be trained in or directed toward these jobs for the next few years.

From a localization perspective, our results show that the problem of local employment could not be solved by a simple diagnostic of job opportunities by a single actor—especially a global governance actor or an NGO, both of which may be disconnected from the local context, and therefore prevent local stakeholders from engaging. Indeed, the initial request by the NGO was to carry out a straightforward department-wide

diagnostic to identify job sectors toward which institutions could guide unemployed young people. However, the project evolved as the NGO project coordinators recognized the need for an organized, place-based multi-stakeholder approach, fostering collectively managed cooperation among local actors at both the department and district levels. This shift required extensive collaboration between organizations from various domains—that is public, private, associative organizations and third sector—which took several months.

Our findings shed light on the functions of meta-organizations as intermediary actors that support an *intermediation work* divided into three sequences, which is necessary in order to implement sustainable localization.

## 5 | Discussion: Significance of Meta-Organizations for Sustainable Localization

The objective of this paper was to understand whether and how meta-organizations can implement sustainable localization in development aid. We investigated this question through an in-depth case study of an experimental and innovative development aid project conducted between 2020 and 2021 in Senegal by an NGO. We analyzed the evolution of the localization process and the form and role of the meta-organization, and empirically defined *intermediation work* as activities carried out by a group of actors acting as transition intermediaries, who support the emergence of a shared vision during a collective project and enable the initiation of sustainable collaborative transition dynamics. We showed that this *intermediation work* happens in three sequences: (1) emerging localization, where there is no formal, organized intermediary actor; the local scope focuses on an administrative perimeter; and the local skills ecosystem exists only in a latent form, with no political decision to guide local stakeholders toward desirable jobs; (2) inter-mediated localization, where an intermediary actor emerges in the form of a place-based, multi-stakeholder meta-organization, that is a meta-organization that brings together organizations from different domains and that emerges in a grassroots manner to coordinate local stakeholders, contributing to the emergence of a collectively defined or “meta-organized” skills ecosystem, but that remains mostly latent, because data and information are still required in order to guide and build local policies; and (3) transformative intermediated localization, where the meta-organization plays an active role in creating conditions to transform how local actors envision their place, gives strategic direction to the skills ecosystem, and supports local policy for job transitions.

Our paper makes several contributions to the literature on the localization of development aid and to meta-organization studies. Localization has been on the agenda of literature in development aid for some time, but concerns persist regarding its concrete implementation (Spandler et al. 2022). In particular, the literature has called for more work on how to organize localization, which actors to involve in this process and how (Firchow and Wingender 2023; Gerard 2023; Sever et al. 2025), with an emphasis on intermediary actors (Brinkerhoff 2025; Gugerty et al. 2019; McNamara and Morse 2004; Wingender and
Méndez 2023). In this paper, we focus on meta-organizations as localization intermediaries. We contribute to these debates by unpacking the dynamics of the meta-organizing process of localization through a place-based, multi-stakeholder meta-organization. This type of meta-organization emerges through grassroots, bottom-up process, and involves local organizations from various domains of society (e.g., civil society, economic sectors, and public administration). “Local” is often approached as a level of analysis where decisions are taken. Here, we develop a perspective whereby “local” involves a shared definition of place and localization is itself an embedded process co-constructed by actors. We suggest that sustainable localization in development aid therefore presents (1) organizational dimensions—that is determining who is to participate and how that participation is organized and decided upon; (2) a place dimension, anchoring and clarifying the place, and constructing a skill ecosystem; and (3) a local policy dimension—that is decisions to be made about local-policy orientation based on a shared definition of place.

While the literature on meta-organization increasingly focuses on meta-organizations as valuable transition intermediaries to tackle and collectively address complex societal problems (Berkowitz et al. 2020; Berkowitz and Bor 2024; Chaudhury et al. 2016; Coulombel and Barron 2024; Fernandes and Lopes 2022; Saniossian et al. 2022), few works have examined their potential to localize development aid. One contribution of our paper, therefore, lies in empirically showing how a meta-organization can emerge in a specific place and be designed to act as a localization intermediary. Recently, research has begun to investigate the interrelations between meta-organizations, places, territories and transitions (Gadille et al. 2013), intersecting with debates on localization (Bonacker et al. 2016; Firchow and Wingender 2023) and place-based approaches for transitions (Coenen et al. 2012; Pierce et al. 2011). We contribute to these debates by analyzing how the meta-organization facilitates localization by supporting an intermediation work divided into three sequences, ultimately transforming the definition of place shared by the partners involved. Supported by intermediary actors, *intermediation work* is made possible through a set of key functions fulfilled by the meta-organization: (1) place direction-setting; (2) capacity mobilization; and (3) ecosystem orchestration.

Some valuable lessons can be taken from this case study for decision-makers and practitioners aiming to support sustainable localization in development aid through a place-based, multi-stakeholder meta-organization. Firstly, what we observe is that the process must go beyond mere participatory diagnostics and consultation: it requires a structured, long term and place-based (i.e., context-specific and grassroots) organizational effort that empowers local organizations. The objective is not only to enable them to voice their concerns but also to actively co-construct a shared definition of their place and the governance structure that supports it. The meta-organization serves as such an intermediary as we mentioned above, that supports intermediation work, requiring time and involvement from different partners. However, this work also demands more than applying one-size-fits-all solutions: rather, it requires a deliberative, participatory process in which tools are discussed, created, adapted and iteratively reconfigured based on the needs of local organizations. Secondly, the meta-organization plays a

coordinating role in enacting the shared definition of their place, both by mapping actors, and by reconfiguring local skill ecosystems and building collective capacities. This is not about consultations or decentralizing project management, but building grassroots capacities for transforming the place in the direction of toward co-constructed and collectively envisioned outcomes. In that sense, it is essential that the meta-organization be structured into various committees.

Although our work has helped to demonstrate the role of meta-organizations in sustainable localization, we have also identified some major challenges. The first lies in the time needed to set up this type of organization, which is not always feasible and can lead to additional costs in project management. On the other hand, local teams have to invest a great deal of effort in mobilizing stakeholders, which can lead to work overload and a partial refusal to develop this type of partnership. Furthermore, the participation of local partners in the meta-organization is not always guaranteed on a continuous basis, which can put at risk call into question the intermediation work at any time. Finally, our observation was time-limited and our theoretical contribution is to have shown the possible start of the transformation of localization, but a longer presence in the field would have been necessary in order to confirm that the transformation did indeed take place in the long run.

This research relied on a single in-depth case study, providing rich but bounded empirical material. While this allowed us to trace the emergence and structuring of a place-based, multi-stakeholder meta-organization, more research is needed to understand the longer-term intermediation work and specificities of empowering local organizations, relative to varying places.

To do this, we believe it would be fruitful to develop comparative methodologies, comparing cases with and without meta-organizations, in order to observe the differences. More procedural and transitional methodologies are needed to capture the interrelations between organizational apparatus, places and transition trajectories. For instance, it could be helpful to develop tools like collaborative chronosystemic timelines, as used in geography, to study the historical construction of place from a multi-stakeholder perspective (Elissalde 2000; Hirczak and Janin 2022). However, the addition of the meta-organizational perspective creates interesting challenges—for instance, the question of how to differentiate between the members' and the meta-level actor's valuation of the place, and the different effects and feedback loops that operate between all these dimensions. How can researchers trace the multi-directional effects, feedback loops, tensions and conflicts between different organizational layers, multiple local actors and changing places? Addressing these questions will require interdisciplinary dialogue across development aid, organization studies, and geography.

## 6 | Conclusion

This study analyzed how sustainable localization can be implemented collectively. Building on an in-depth case study of a project led by an NGO in two areas of Senegal, we examined a collaborative approach at the local level to test a methodology
meant to assess job and employment opportunities using an innovative strategic workforce planning perspective. We developed a theoretical framework based on localization as a dynamic and social process in which the “place” evolves and is socially defined, as well as on characteristics of meta-organization as intermediary actors. This framework was useful for considering how the project was built, especially in terms of how the meta-organization emerged, how the place was socially constructed in response, and what kind of decisions were made to influence or moderate local policies about jobs and skills development.

Our results reveal the dynamics and processes of sustainable localization in development aid. We do this through a place-based, multi-stakeholder, meta-organizational approach. We demonstrated that this process is supported by intermediary work that empower local actors. The meta-organization facilitates the development of a shared vision during collaborative projects and enables sustainable, collaborative transition dynamics. We emphasize the occurrence of *intermediation work* in three distinct sequences: emerging localization, intermediated localization, and transformative intermediated localization. We argue that sustainable localization is a multi-stakeholder process. Additionally, we contribute to the existing literature by pointing out that intermediation work is made possible by a set of key functions played by the meta-organization, such as direction setting, capacity mobilization, and ecosystem orchestration.

## Acknowledgments

The first author of this document was involved as a consultant and received financial support from the NGO to carry out a consultancy activity. This work received support from the ANR: ANR-22-CE26-0004. We would also like to thank the guest editors of the special issue, Maryam Z. Deloffre and Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff, as well as the anonymous reviewers, for their helpful advice and guidance throughout the review process.

## Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

## Data Availability Statement

Research data are not shared.

## Practice Impact Statement

This paper explores the impact of viewing localization as a meta-organized process through an in-depth case study of a development aid project in Senegal focusing on employment and skills ecosystems. Our findings help us understand how to organize a multi-stakeholder and place-based project in a sustainable way, based on local players and community needs.

## Endnotes

## References

Ahrne, G., and N. Brunsson. 2005. "Organizations and Meta-Organizations." *Scandinavian Journal of Management* 21, no. 4: 429-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2005.09.005.

Ahrne, G., and N. Brunsson. 2008. *Meta-Organizations*. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ahrne, G., N. Brunsson, and D. Kerwer. 2019. "The Partial Organization of International Relations: International Organizations as Meta-Organizations." In *Organization Outside Organizations. the Abundance of Partial Organization in Social Life*, edited by G. Ahrne and N. Brunsson, Éds, 390-418. Cambridge University Press.

Baguios, A., M. King, A. Martins, and R. Pinnington. 2021. "Localisation as a Journey Towards the Goal of Locally Led Practice." In *Are We There Yet? Localisation as the Journey Towards Locally Led Practice: Models, Approaches and Challenges*, 8-16. ODI. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep51398.8.

Berkowitz, H., and S. Bor. 2024. "Meta-Organizations for Sustainability Transformations: Navigating Tensions Between Imperatives of Transition and Meta-Organizationality." *Journal of Organizational Sociology* 2, no. 1: 29-58. https://doi.org/10.1515/joso-2023-0001.

Berkowitz, H., N. Brunsson, M. Grothe-Hammer, M. Sundberg, and B. Valiorgue. 2022. "Meta-Organizations: A Clarification and a Way Forward." *M@n@gement* 25, no. 2: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.8728.

Berkowitz, H., L. B. Crowder, and C. M. Brooks. 2020. "Organizational Perspectives on Sustainable Ocean Governance: A Multi-Stakeholder, Meta-Organization Model of Collective Action." *Marine Policy* 118: 104026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104026.

Berkowitz, H., and A. Souchaud. 2024. "Filling Successive Technologically-Induced Governance Gaps: Meta-Organizations as Regulatory Innovation Intermediaries." *Technovation* 129: 102890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102890.

Bonacker, T., J. von Heusinger, and K. Zimmer. 2016. *Localization in Development Aid: How Global Institutions Enter Local Lifeworlds*. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=fDklDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=localization+development+aid&ots=_KBBS4AfNu&sig=CWFdM6dZKUQ24jkIB0EfwqSP3qo.

Boorman, C., B. Jackson, and I. Burkett. 2023. "SDG Localization: Mobilizing the Potential of Place Leadership Through Collective Impact and Mission-Oriented Innovation Methodologies." *Journal of Change Management* 23, no. 1: 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2023.2167226.

Bor, S., and G. O'Shea. 2022. "The Roles of meta-organizations in Transitions: Evidence From Food Packaging Transition." In *Clusters and Sustainable Regional Development: A Meta-Organisational Approach*, edited by E. Lupova-Henry and N. F. Dotti, 143-159. Routledge.

Boström, M. 2006. "Regulatory Credibility and Authority Through Inclusiveness: Standardization Organizations in Cases of Eco-Labelling." *Organization* 13, no. 3: 345-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406063483.

Brinkerhoff, J. M. 2025. "Toward a Framework for Understanding Localization in Its Institutional Context: A Systems Perspective for Incorporating Local Values." *Public Administration and Development: pad*.2082 Onlinefirst. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2082.

Burger, R., T. Owens, and A. Prakash. 2018. "Global Non-profit Chains and the Challenges of Development Aid Contracting." *Nonprofit Policy Forum* 9, no. 4: 20180026. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2018-0026.

Chaudhury, A. S., M. J. Ventresca, T. F. Thornton, et al. 2016. "Emerging Meta-Organisations and Adaptation to Global Climate Change: Evidence From Implementing Adaptation in Nepal, Pakistan and Ghana." *Global Environmental Change* 38: 243-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.011.

Cheng, K. R., E. Finchum-Mason, and M. Kay Gugerty. 2025. "Coordinating Civil Society? How NGO Associations Navigate Transnational Collaboration." In *A Relational Approach to NGOs in Global Politics: Beyond Cooperation and Competition* (Oxford, 2025; Online Edn, Oxford

<footnote n="1">¹ Humanitarian Coalition: https://www.humanitariancoalition.ca/from-humanitarian-to-development-aid.</footnote>
Academic, 21 Apr. 2025), edited by M. Z. Deloffre and S. Quack. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780198942757.003.0012.

Coenen, L., P. Benneworth, and B. Truffer. 2012. "Toward a Spatial Perspective on Sustainability Transitions." *Research Policy* 41, no. 6: 968-979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014.

Cohendet, P., D. Grandadam, L. Simon, and I. Capdevila. 2014. "Epistemic Communities, Localization and the Dynamics of Knowledge Creation." *Journal of Economic Geography* 14, no. 5: 929-954. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu018.

Coulombel, P., and A. Barron. 2024. "Continuity and Change in Spin-off Meta-Organizations: An Imprinting Perspective." *M@n@gement* 27, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.2024.8888.

Coulombel, P., and H. Berkowitz. 2025. "One Name for Two Concepts: A Systematic Literature Review About Meta-Organizations." *International Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging* 27, no. 2: 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12385.

Deloffre, M. Z. 2022. "The Power of Doing: Constitutive Steering Practices and the Making of Steering Committees." *International Studies Review* 24, no. 4: 13-16. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac054.

Dissanayake, R. 2024. "Defining Localization in Practice." In *Localization in Theory and Practice*, 2-5. Center for Global Development. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep64437.4.

Elissalde, B. 2000. *Géographie, Temps et Changement Spatial*, 224-236. L'Espace géographique.

Fernandes, J. A. L., and F. D. Lopes. 2022. "Matrioskas na floresta - uma agenda de pesquisa sobre Meta-Organizações na Amazônia." *NAU Social* 13, no. 24: 887-903. https://doi.org/10.9771/ns.v13i24.45423.

Firchow, P., and L. Wingender. 2023. "Introduction to Special Issue: Localization and the Aid Industry." *Negotiation Journal* 39, no. 4: 341-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12447.

Gadille, M., D.-G. Tremblay, and A. Vion. 2013. "Territorialized Meta-Organization, the Engine of Collective Learning." *Papers in Political Economy* 48. http://journals.openedition.org/interventionseconomiques/2156.

Garaudel, P. 2020. "Exploring Meta-Organizations' Diversity and Agency: A Meta-Organizational Perspective on Global Union Federations." *Scandinavian Journal of Management* 36, no. 1: 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2020.101094.

Gerard, K. 2023. "Doing Aid Chains Differently: Evaluating the Potential of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships." *Development Policy Review* 41, no. 1: e12652. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12652.

Grothe-Hammer, M., H. Berkowitz, and O. Berthod. 2022. "Decisional Organization Theory: Towards an Integrated Framework of Organization." In *Research Handbook on the Sociology of Organizations*, edited by M. Godwyn, 30-53. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Gugerty, M. K., P. Biscaye, and C. Leigh Anderson. 2019. "Delivering Development? Evidence on Self-Help Groups as Development Intermediaries in South Asia and Africa." *Development Policy Review* 37, no. 1: 129-151-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12381.

Hirczak, M., and C. Janin. 2022. "Intelligence Collective et (ré)ancrage des connaissances face au changement : Quel rôle dans la transition alimentaire territoriale? L'exemple de Vivre Bio en Roannais." *Pour* 244, no. 3: 189-199. https://doi.org/10.3917/pour.244.0189.

Jain, A., J. Courvisanos, and N. Subramaniam. 2021. "Localisation of the Sustainable Development Goals in an Emerging Nation." *Public Administration and Development* 41, no. 5: 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1960.

Karlberg, E., and K. Jacobsson. 2015. "A Meta-organizational Perspective on the Europeanization of Civil Society: The Case of the Swedish Women's Lobby." *Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and*

Nonprofit Organizations 26, no. 4: 1438-1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9463-0.

Kerwer, D. 2013. "International Organizations as Meta-Organizations: The Case of the European Union." *Journal of international organizations studies* 4, no. 2: 40-53.

Khan, A. K., and T. Kontinen. 2022. "Impediments to Localization Agenda: Humanitarian Space in the Rohingya Response in Bangladesh." *Journal of international humanitarian action* 7, no. 1: 14-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-022-00122-1.

Koch, M. 2024. *International Groups as a New Type of International Meta-Organizing*. EGOS.

Köhler, J., F. W. Geels, F. Kern, et al. 2019. "An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions." *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions* 31: 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.

Kourula, A., P. Georgallis, I. Henriques, and J. Mair. 2024. "Introduction to the Special Issue on the Role of Place in Sustainability: Key Trends and Agenda for Future Research." *Organization & Environment* 37, no. 3: 363-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/10860266241283157.

Langley, A. 1999. "Strategies for Theorizing From Process Data." *Academy of Management Review* 24, no. 4: 691-710. https://doi.org/10.2307/259349.

Laviolette, E. M., S. Arcand, M. Cloutier, and L. Renard. 2022. "Same But Different: Meta-Organizations and Collective Identity Dynamics." *M@n@gement* 25, no. 2: 45-59. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.4228.

Lie, J. H. S. 2024. "Bottom-Up Development as Framed Freedom: Developmentality and Donor Power." *Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne d'Études du Développement* 45, no. 4: 613-633. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2024.2367993.

Loeber, A. M. C., and K. P. W. Kok. 2024. "Exploring the Functions of Place-Based Intermediation in the Governance of Sustainability Transitions." *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions* 52: 100869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100869.

McNamara, R. S. N., and S. Morse. 2004. "Voices From the Aid 'Chain': The Personal Dynamics of Care." *Social & Cultural Geography* 5, no. 2: 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360410001690240.

Menzel, A. 2016. "From (Un)Employment to Employability: Localized Neoliberal Norms and the Politics of Proper Progress in Sierra Leone." In *Localization in Development Aid: How Global Institutions Enter Local Lifeworlds*, edited by T. Bonacker, J. von Heusinger, and K. Zimmer, 1st ed., 220-242. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315562049.

Novovic, G. 2022. "Can Agenda 2030 Bring About 'Localization'? Policy Limitations of Agenda 2030 in the Broader Global Governance System." *Development Policy Review* 40, no. 4: e12587. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12587.

Pachoud, C., K. Koop, and E. George. 2022. "Societal Transformation Through the Prism of the Concept of Territoire : A French Contribution." *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions* 45: 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.10.001.

Paczyńska, A. 2023. "Emerging Donors' Engagements in Africa: China, India, and the Localizing Peacebuilding and Development Interventions." *Negotiation Journal* 39, no. 4: 481-505. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12443.

Palmer, T. G., and M. Warner. 2022. *Development With Dignity: Self-Determination, Localization, and the End to Poverty*, 203. Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

Pierce, J., D. G. Martin, and J. T. Murphy. 2011. "Relational Place-Making: The Networked Politics of Place." *Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers* 36, no. 1: 54-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00411.x.
Riddell, R. C. 2007. *Does Foreign Aid Really Work?* Oxford University Press.

Roepstorff, K. 2020. "A Call for Critical Reflection on the Localisation Agenda in Humanitarian Action." *Third World Quarterly* 41, no. 2: 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1644160.

Roux, B., and X. Lecocq. 2022. “A Necessary Evil: The Role of the Secretariat in Effective Meta-Organizations. Lessons From the mUlti-Level Study of a Business Cooperative.” *M@n@gement* 25, no. 2: 60–76. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.4227.

Saniossian, J., X. Lecocq, and C. Beaucourt. 2022. “Meta-Organizations in the Making. A Multiple Case Study of Multi-Stakeholder Meta-Organizations for Social Innovation.” *M@n@gement* 25, no. 2: 27–44. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.4202.

Sever, S. D., E. Tok, and A. L. Sellami. 2025. "Sustainable Development Goals in a Transforming World: Understanding the Dynamics of Localization." *Sustainability* 17, no. 6: 2763. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062763.

Spandler, K., K. Roepstorff, and S. Maitra. 2022. “Localization and the Politics of Humanitarian Action.” In *Frontiers in Political Science*, Vol. 4: 1013187. Frontiers Media SA. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2022.1013187/full.

Spours, K. 2019. *A Social Ecosystem Model: Conceptual Developments and Implications for VET*. UCL Institute of Education.

Stanley, A., and L. Connolly. 2023. “Implications of Time on Donor Behavior and Processes in Relation to Localization.” *Negotiation Journal* 39, no. 4: 455–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12446.

Valente, M., and C. Oliver. 2018. “Meta-Organization Formation and Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa.” *Organization Science* 29, no. 4: 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1191.

Wedekind, V., J. Russon, P. Ramsarup, D. Monk, L. Metelerkamp, and S. McGrath. 2021. “Conceptualising Regional Skills Ecosystems: Reflections on Four African Cases.” *International Journal of Training and Development* 25, no. 4: 347–362–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12251.

Wesche, J., and A. Hendriks, 2026. *Introduction to Sustainability Transitions Research*. Cambridge University Press.

Wingender, L., and M. L. Méndez. 2023. “What About the Middle? Thinking Systematically About Localization.” *Negotiation Journal* 39, no. 4: 507–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12445.

Yin, R. K. 2014. *Case Study Research Design and Methods*. 5th ed.: 282. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.3138/CJPE.30.1.108.

**Supporting Information**

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section.

**Supporting Information S1:** pad70041-sup-0001-suppl-data.docx.