Accountability and governance in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in a developing country context: evidence from Tanzania

Abstract

PurposeThis paper examines the accountability and governance mechanisms and the challenges in a multi-stakeholder partnership seeking to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a developing country (DC), namely Tanzania.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on work on the shift from government to governance to meta-governance to examine the SDGs framework's governance regime. The data stems from documentation, focussed group discussions and face-to-face interviews with key stakeholders involved in the localisation of SDGs in Tanzania.FindingsDespite the emphasis given by promoters of SDGs on the need for multi-stakeholder engagement, and network and market-based governance, Tanzania's hierarchical governance framed in national legislations dominated the localisation of the SDGs. The national-level meta-governance structures were somewhat dysfunctional, partly due to a lack of well-designed coordination mechanisms for collaborative engagement with key stakeholders. The limited involvement of different meta-governors, and particularly network and market-based governance arrangements, has had severe implications for achieving the SDGs in DCs in general and Tanzania, in particular.Practical implicationsThe paper calls for a more explicit SDG policy and strategy, alongside strengthening institutional structures and related governance arrangements in Tanzania, to promote the realisation of the SDGs. For the SDGs framework to succeed, the authors suggest that, in addition to adopting SDG friendly policies, the Tanzanian government should devise plans for financial resources, strategies for empowering and engaging with key stakeholders and promote an integrative governance system that underpins accountability at the local level.Originality/valueFocussing on Tanzania, the paper sheds light on how context in DCs, interactions between state and non-state actors, modes of governance and accountability mechanisms shape the localisation of SDGs and realising the SDGs' agenda. The implementation in Tanzania focussed on priorities in the development plan, thereby neglecting some important SDGs. This raises doubts about the possibility of meeting the SDGs by 2030. The localisation of SDGs remained within the top-down governance structure, as Tanzania's government failed to enact the policy and strategy for multi-stakeholder partnership consistent with the SDGs' principle of “leave no-one behind”. Consequently, meta-governors' efforts and ability to monitor and demand accountability from the government was constrained by the political context, the governance system and regulations enacted to side-line them.

Complexing Governance Styles: Connecting Politics and Policy in Governance Theories

“…Governments' roles and the way they choose to act (or not) in society are not disconnected from the political dimension, with variations in governance styles depending on the convergence between politics and policy. Whether elected officials, autocrats, or state bureaucracies, political leadership is an essential attribute, which shows that the connections between politics and policy depend on patterns of interaction between governments and society (Lauwo et al, 2022) to define the governance style. The governance theory can gain more analytical strength if it understands how hierarchies, markets, and networks act to design policies considering the political regime's dynamics (which can be pluralist or populist) and the bureaucracies' political dynamics (which can be interactive or noninteractive with society).…”

Hacia la divulgación de información de sostenibilidad en el sector público

“…Sin duda el esfuerzo de las administraciones para llegar a esta meta forma parte de su cooperación con la sostenibilidad y requiere una rendición de cuentas a los ciudadanos sobre dichas acciones (Agliata et al, 2022), la cual es fundamental para la buena gobernanza (Bowen et al, 2017;Lauwo et al, 2022). Por eso, las administraciones han comenzado a proporcionar información sobre el cumplimiento de los ods.…”

“…Guerrero-Gómez et al (2021) analizan una muestra de gobiernos locales en América Latina, evidenciando que algunos factores, como el tamaño de la población, el nivel educativo, el desempleo, la calidad de la legislación y la corrupción política, influyen en la transparencia relacionada con el cumplimiento de los ods. Lauwo et al (2022) examinan cómo se han implementado los ods en Tanzania, considerando en particular los mecanismos de gobernanza y rendición de cuentas, y revelan que las estructuras verticales formales han creado un entorno difícil para las colaboraciones de múltiples partes interesadas y han sido un obstáculo para la localización de la rendición de cuentas. Además, señalan que la falta de sistemas de reporte y rendición de cuentas ha limitado la implementación de los ods en el país.…”

“…Los recientes desarrollos que están teniendo lugar a nivel internacional plasman la relevancia de la información de sostenibilidad en el ámbito de las administraciones, y la necesidad de llevar a cabo un proceso de normalización, similar al que está teniendo lugar en el sector empresarial (Manes Rossi et al, 2020;Stefanescu, 2021). Asimismo, el compromiso de las administraciones públicas con la Agenda 2030, aprobada por la Organización de Naciones Unidas (onu) en 2015, y los 17 Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ods) contenidos en ella (onu, 2015), requiere que las administraciones den cuenta de su contribución al cumplimiento de los mismos, haciendo todavía más relevante la información sostenible (Kaur y Lodhia, 2019;Guerrero-Gómez et al, 2021;Lauwo et al, 2022).…”

Governing the Interlinkages between the SDGs

“…Although most of the examples in this section are from EU countries, the non-normative definitions of the analytical and design concepts of governance, governance frameworks and metagovernance make them a good basis for tailor-made application in many different national political-administrative cultures and traditions, as research has shown. Metagovernance has been analyzed in Australia (Eberhard, 2018), Canada (Doberstein, 2013), China (Li, Homburg, de Jong, and Koppenjan, 2016), Colombia (Bonivento, 2014), Kenya (Beisheim et al, 2018), Nigeria (Agu, Okeke, and Idike, 2014), Tanzania (Lauwo, Azure, and Hopper, 2022), and The Netherlands (Hooge, Waslander, and Theisens, 2021), for example. In addition, there are examples of comparative research using a metagovernance lens on Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, China, and South Africa (Pahl-Wostl, 2019), on Chile, China, Denmark, Netherlands, Portugal, and Vietnam (Monteiro, do Rosário Partidário and Meuleman, 2018), and England, The Netherlands and Germany (Meuleman, 2008).…”