Cited by 28

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The emerging accountability regimes for the Sustainable Development Goals and policy integration: Friend or foe?

Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Sylvia, Dahl, Arthur L, Persson, Åsa·2018·Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

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

Crossref · 10.1177/2399654418779995

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 72

  1. 10.1108/JHOM-10-2013-0220 · DOI
  2. 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.
  3. Blagescu M, 2005, Pathways to Accountability: The GAP Framework
  4. 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
  5. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1007/s11077-016-9248-y · DOI
  8. Dahl AL, 2007, Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment. SCOPE, 67, 163
  9. 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.
  10. Dubnick M, 2005, Public Performance & Management Review, 28, 376
  11. Dubnick MJ, 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability
  12. Dutra PH, 2016, Journal of Government Auditing, 43, 12
  13. Espey J, Walęcik K, Kühner M (2015) Follow-up and Review of the SDGs: Fulfilling Our Commitments . Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Halpern C, 2008, A Mainstreaming: Analysis of a Policy Instrument. New Modes of Governance Project Policy Brief
  17. Heidelberg RL (2017) Political accountability and spaces of contestation. Administration & Society 49(10): 1379–1402 · DOI
  18. 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
  19. Hyvarinen J, 2015, Monitoring Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 10.1002/eet.539 · DOI
  23. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, 2015, Global Climate Policy Conference, New Delhi
  24. 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.011 · DOI
  25. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, 2017, Climate Policy
  26. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen SI, 2016, Climate Policy
  27. 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01062.x · DOI
  28. Kindarnay S, 2015, Establishing a Workable Follow-up and Review Process for the Sustainable Development Goals
  29. Klijn EH, 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability
  30. 10.1080/09644010412331308254 · DOI
  31. Liberatore A, 1997, The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice within the European Union
  32. 10.7228/manchester/9780719069024.001.0001 · DOI
  33. Mansbridge J, 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability
  34. Mashaw JL, 2006, Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, 115
  35. 10.1038/534320a · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1080/1523908032000171648 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.09.003 · DOI
  38. 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
  39. 10.1002/pad.1624 · DOI
  40. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262015912.001.0001 · DOI
  41. Ocampo JA, 2015, A Post-2015 Monitoring and Accountability Framework
  42. 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.003 · DOI
  43. Olsen JP, 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability
  44. 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00379.x · DOI
  45. 10.1007/s10784-009-9110-1 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.008 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.029 · DOI
  48. 10.1111/reel.12150 · DOI
  49. 10.1007/s10784-014-9254-5 · DOI
  50. Peters BG, 2015, Pursuing Horizontal Management. The Politics of Public Sector Coordination
  51. 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00720.x · DOI
  52. 10.1177/135638902401462420 · DOI
  53. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01080.x · DOI
  54. 10.1007/s10113-017-1259-5 · DOI
  55. 10.1007/s11115-008-0053-8 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.01.001 · DOI
  57. Stafford-Smith M, 2016, Sustainability Science
  58. 10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00243.x · DOI
  59. 10.1080/07036330701694873 · DOI
  60. United Nations, 2015, Preparations of the Secretary-General Report on Follow-Up and Review Synthesis of Member States’ Comments
  61. United Nations Environment Programme, 2012, Measuring Progress. Environmental Goals and Gaps
  62. United Nations General Assembly, 2012, Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 66/288 the Future We Want
  63. 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
  64. United Nations General Assembly, 2016, 70/299. Follow-up and Review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the Global Level
  65. 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
  66. 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.008 · DOI
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 10.1162/GLEP_a_00085 · DOI
  70. Warren ME, 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability
  71. 10.1111/1467-8500.00266 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Young OR, 1999, Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Science Plan

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Dahl, A. L., & Persson, Å.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research, The Netherlands
  • International Environment Forum, Geneva
  • Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden
Venue
Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space
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