The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The emerging accountability regimes for the Sustainable Development Goals and policy integration: Friend or foe?
Abstract
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and the full Agenda 2030 in which they are embedded are aspirational and intended to be both transformational and integrative in a number of ways. The need for integration across policy domains is stressed throughout the agenda. The Sustainable Development Goals are also accompanied by an emerging system for follow-up and review centered on a long list of indicators that are intended to enable countries to be accountable towards their citizens. There is, however, in the accountability literature indication that some accountability mechanisms can be counterproductive for integrative policies. This paper is centered around the question whether an accountability regime, and if so how, is compatible with a high degree of policy integration both conceptually and in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals. We approach this question through looking both at the literature on integrative governance and some of the central concepts it covers such as (environmental) policy integration and mainstreaming, and the accountability literature. This enables us to provide an analytical framework for evaluating the potential of the emerging accountability regimes for the Sustainable Development Goals to enhance more integrated policy making and action. We conclude that there are little or no strong hierarchical elements of accountability relationships at the global level which can be good news for more integrative policies – but only if there is a strong sense of shared responsibility among actors at all levels, available information on the types of behavioural efforts that support integration, and accountholders that take an active interest in integration. At the national level, there may be hierarchical accountability mechanisms with sanction possibilities that may discourage integration. Here, those who hold actors to account can counteract this if they have deeper understanding of the underlying interlinkages among the goals and targets, and based on this, engage in accountability mechanisms.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Additionally, accountability is a fundamental principle of good governance, including natural resource governance of which the CE is a component.”
From A qualitative examination of how accountability manifests itself in a circular economy (2023) · cites this paper as Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., 2018
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 72
- 10.1108/JHOM-10-2013-0220 · DOI
- Besheim M (2015) Reviewing the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals and Partnerships. A Proposal for a Multi-level Review at the High-level Political Forum . Berlin: Stidrunf Wissenschaft und Politik.
- Blagescu M, 2005, Pathways to Accountability: The GAP Framework
- Bovens M, Goodin RE, Schillemans T (2014a) Chapter 1. Public accountability. In: Bovens M, Goodin RE and Schillemans T (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI
- 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11077-016-9248-y · DOI
- Dahl AL, 2007, Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment. SCOPE, 67, 163
- Dahl AL (2015) Resource efficiency improvements and marine resources management in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Paper presented at the International Resource Panel Scoping Workshop on Marine Resources, UNEP, Paris, 14–15 April 2015.
- Dubnick M, 2005, Public Performance & Management Review, 28, 376
- Dubnick MJ, 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability
- Dutra PH, 2016, Journal of Government Auditing, 43, 12
- Espey J, Walęcik K, Kühner M (2015) Follow-up and Review of the SDGs: Fulfilling Our Commitments . Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
- Halle M, Wolfe R (2015) Architecture for Review and Follow-up of the SDGs: Options for the High-Level Political Forum . International Institute for Sustainable Development.
- Halle M, Wolfe R (2016) Follow-Up and Review for the 2030 Agenda: Bringing Coherence to the Work of the HLPF . Winnipeg, Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
- Halpern C, 2008, A Mainstreaming: Analysis of a Policy Instrument. New Modes of Governance Project Policy Brief
- Heidelberg RL (2017) Political accountability and spaces of contestation. Administration & Society 49(10): 1379–1402 · DOI
- Hulme D (2009) The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): A Short History of the World's Biggest Promise . Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester, 55. · DOI
- Hyvarinen J, 2015, Monitoring Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals
- ICSU and ISSC (2015) Review of Targets for the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective . Paris: International Council for Science and International Social Science Council.
- IISD (2016) Summary of the 2016 meeting of the high-level political forum on sustainable development: 11–20 July. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 33(27): 1–19.
- 10.1002/eet.539 · DOI
- Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, 2015, Global Climate Policy Conference, New Delhi
- 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.011 · DOI
- Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, 2017, Climate Policy
- Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen SI, 2016, Climate Policy
- 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01062.x · DOI
- Kindarnay S, 2015, Establishing a Workable Follow-up and Review Process for the Sustainable Development Goals
- Klijn EH, 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability
- 10.1080/09644010412331308254 · DOI
- Liberatore A, 1997, The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice within the European Union
- 10.7228/manchester/9780719069024.001.0001 · DOI
- Mansbridge J, 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability
- Mashaw JL, 2006, Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, 115
- 10.1038/534320a · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/1523908032000171648 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.09.003 · DOI
- Nilsson M, Zamparutti T, Petersen JE, et al. (2012) Understanding Policy Coherence: Analytical Framework and Examples of Sector -Environment Policy Interactions in the EU. Environmental Policy and Governance 22(6): 395–423. · DOI
- 10.1002/pad.1624 · DOI
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262015912.001.0001 · DOI
- Ocampo JA, 2015, A Post-2015 Monitoring and Accountability Framework
- 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.003 · DOI
- Olsen JP, 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability
- 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00379.x · DOI
- 10.1007/s10784-009-9110-1 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.008 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.029 · DOI
- 10.1111/reel.12150 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10784-014-9254-5 · DOI
- Peters BG, 2015, Pursuing Horizontal Management. The Politics of Public Sector Coordination
- 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00720.x · DOI
- 10.1177/135638902401462420 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01080.x · DOI
- 10.1007/s10113-017-1259-5 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11115-008-0053-8 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.01.001 · DOI
- Stafford-Smith M, 2016, Sustainability Science
- 10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00243.x · DOI
- 10.1080/07036330701694873 · DOI
- United Nations, 2015, Preparations of the Secretary-General Report on Follow-Up and Review Synthesis of Member States’ Comments
- United Nations Environment Programme, 2012, Measuring Progress. Environmental Goals and Gaps
- United Nations General Assembly, 2012, Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 66/288 the Future We Want
- United Nations General Assembly, 2015, Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. 70/1. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- United Nations General Assembly, 2016, 70/299. Follow-up and Review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the Global Level
- United Nations General Assembly, 2016, Report of the Secretary-General on Critical Milestones towards Coherent, Efficient and Inclusive Follow-up and Review at the Global Level
- 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.008 · DOI
- Visseren-Hamakers IJ (2018a) A framework for analyzing and practicing Integrative Governance: The case of global animal and conservation governance. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space . 36(8): 1391–1414. · DOI
- Visseren-Hamakers IJ (2018b) Integrative Governance: The relationships between governance instruments taking center stage. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space . C: Politics and Space. · DOI
- 10.1162/GLEP_a_00085 · DOI
- Warren ME, 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability
- 10.1111/1467-8500.00266 · DOI · Paper page
- Young OR, 1999, Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Science Plan
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A qualitative examination of how accountability manifests itself in a circular economy
Kwarteng, A., Agyenim-Boateng, C., & Simpson, S. N. Y. (2023) · Journal of Global Responsibility · doi:10.1108/jgr-12-2021-0107 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Dahl, A. L., & Persson, Å.
- Affiliations
- Wageningen University & Research, The Netherlands
- International Environment Forum, Geneva
- Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden
- ORCID
- Dahl, Arthur L
- Venue
- Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-06-25
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1371-1390
- ISSN
- 2399-6544
- 2399-6552
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The emerging accountability regimes for the Sustainable Development Goals and policy integration: Friend or foe? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/2399654418779995
- The paper
- Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Dahl, A. L., & Persson, Å. (2018). The emerging accountability regimes for the Sustainable Development Goals and policy integration: Friend or foe? Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418779995