I think all the contributors to this discussion are agreed that it is policy-relevant research that provides a common identity amongst members. The differences that do exist revolve around the disciplinary orientation of that research, its supposed scientific status and how knowledge is conveyed to policy-makers. Such differences do not need to be legislated in or out of the GDN but can be accommodated under the principle of plurality. I am NOT suggesting that the GDN become a policy advocate for certain writers or adopt policy positions but there is often a need for further research to operationalise such thinking. In this regard, the GDN could be key to encouraging such research and drawing out the policy implications.
Capacity building is another feature of development.
Here the GDN can play a positive role in helping to strengthen existing institutes and networks. In turn, this helps cultivate local knowledge. By contrast, global development implies that the challenges of development are not restricted to only those countries or regions designated as being in the so-called developing world. Finally, GDN itself needs to be developed beyond the 7 core networks that have been essential to its genesis. Although these networks precede the GDN, they are not long established.