Power Behind the Plate: UNDP Framework Targets Inequality Across Global Food Systems

UNDP’s framework identifies nine major power asymmetries affecting food systems and offers a four-step approach to help governments understand who influences markets, resources and policy decisions. It calls for governments, development partners and businesses to address unequal power through inclusive policymaking, stronger competition, better access to finance and data, and continuous monitoring of changing power dynamics.

UNDP's 2026 Country-Level Power Mapping and Analysis: Methodology and Guidance Note, developed under the Food & Power Initiative, puts a politically sensitive but practical question at the centre of food-system reform: who has the power to shape decisions, markets and resources, and who is left out? Drawing on research and approaches associated with institutions including the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Wageningen University, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at the University of Sussex, the University of Waterloo, Middlebury College, the Australian National University and FAO, the report argues that technical solutions alone cannot transform food systems. Governments must also understand how economic influence, institutional authority, access to finance and control over policy agendas determine whether reforms succeed.

Nine Power Gaps Shaping Food-System Outcomes

UNDP identifies 9 major power asymmetries, organised into 3 broad areas. The first covers corporate concentration across agricultural inputs, food processing and manufacturing, and retail, supermarkets and digital platforms. When a small number of companies dominate markets, they can gain significant influence over prices, standards, technologies, supply chains and the choices available to farmers and consumers.

The second area covers unequal access to land and natural resources, finance and capital, and knowledge, technology and data. Smallholders, women, young people and other marginalised groups can face disadvantages when they lack secure land rights, affordable credit, technology, market information or access to research and extension services.

The third concerns inequalities in global trade and standards, climate and environmental governance, and national policymaking. International rules can restrict domestic policy choices, while national decision-making may favour groups with better financial resources, technical expertise or direct access to policymakers.

The report also identifies 4 forms of power. Visible power operates through laws, regulations and budgets. Hidden power determines which issues reach the political agenda and who gets access to decision-makers. Invisible power works through social norms, beliefs and dominant narratives. Systemic power is embedded in deeper structures such as concentrated markets, land tenure systems, trade arrangements, and historical inequalities.

Four-Step Roadmap for Governments and Policymakers

UNDP proposes a 4-step methodology for turning power analysis into practical policy action. The first step is preparation and scoping: governments and partners define the policy problem, establish objectives, conduct background research and build a multidisciplinary team. The second step maps stakeholders, their interests, influence and relationships.

The third step examines how power actually operates. Teams analyse who benefits from existing arrangements, who wants change, who may resist it and what resources different actors can use. The methodology recommends identifying around 5–10 priority stakeholders with particularly high influence or stakes in the issue.

The fourth step converts the findings into policies and programmes. Possible interventions include opening decision-making processes, strengthening producer organisations, expanding access to finance, improving transparency, supporting competition, building coalitions and reforming institutions.

This is not designed as a quick consultation exercise. UNDP estimates that comprehensive country-level power mapping could require around 4–8 months: approximately 1 month for desk research, 2–4 months for stakeholder mapping, consultation and analysis, and another 1–2 months for validation and strategy development.

For governments, the framework could be particularly useful when reforming agricultural subsidies, land policies, competition rules, food standards, public procurement or climate-related investments. It encourages policymakers to ask not only whether a reform is technically sound, but whether it is politically feasible and who can support, weaken or block implementation.

Economic Stakes for Development Partners and Business

The economic message is significant. Unequal access to finance can restrict investment by smaller producers, while market concentration can weaken bargaining power and competition. Limited access to technology and data can widen productivity gaps, and insecure land rights can discourage long-term investment. The report does not provide estimates of GDP, employment or income losses caused by these problems, so it should not be read as offering quantified economic forecasts.

For international development partners, the framework provides a way to assess the political economy surrounding grants, loans and technical assistance. Power mapping could be integrated into national food strategies, climate plans and sector reforms, particularly where investments involve politically sensitive areas such as land, subsidies, finance and market regulation.

Private companies face both risks and opportunities. Businesses operating in concentrated markets could face stronger scrutiny over competition, lobbying, procurement and market influence. UNDP points to possible measures including competition policies, market-price transparency, open-data systems and more inclusive public institutions.

But companies can also become partners in reform. Opportunities exist in inclusive supply chains, digital information systems, financial services for underserved producers, farmer-owned processing, transparent procurement and agroecological enterprises.

From Mapping Power to Delivering Lasting Reform

UNDP recommends prioritising interventions capable of producing wider, long-term effects. Inclusive food councils, for example, can institutionalise participation instead of relying on occasional consultation. Open-data platforms covering public budgets, land use and market prices can reduce information inequalities and strengthen accountability.

Governments should also anticipate resistance. Powerful groups benefiting from current arrangements may use formal lobbying, informal delays, control over narratives or market dominance to weaken reforms. Identifying such risks before implementation can help policymakers build coalitions, negotiate with affected groups and sequence reforms more effectively.

Finally, power mapping should not become a one-time report. Elections, economic shocks, climate events, new technologies and changing business alliances can rapidly alter influence. UNDP therefore recommends periodically updating the analysis, potentially annually or following major political or economic changes.

The broader message for governments, development institutions and businesses is straightforward: successful food-system transformation depends not only on finding better policies, but also on understanding who can deliver them, who can obstruct them and how institutions can distribute economic and political influence more fairly.