Governance through Global Goals

Vijge, Marjanneke J.; Biermann, Frank; Bogers, Maya; Driel, Melanie van; Montesano, Francesco Saverio; Yunita, Abbie; Kanie, Norichika

doi:10.1017/9781108784641.012

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly some scholars call for more ‘hierarchization’ in sustainable development governance (Kim et al, 2020), going ‘beyond simple interplay management and orchestration by more structural change that establishes hierarchical orders among institutions and actors in global governance’ (Biermann & Kim, 2020, p. 9). And some suggest the HLPF could serve as a ‘focal point’ in that context (Vijge et al, 2020, p. 259).…”

Section: The Hlpf In the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The UN High‐Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: An orchestrator, more or less?

Beisheim

Fritzsche

2022

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The UN High‐level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) is at the heart of the UN's follow‐up and review of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Analysing the first full cycle of the HLPF (2016–19), we ask what and how the HLPF delivers. In the early debates on its mandate, experts suggested that the HLPF could be an orchestrator, arguing that it would likely have to rely upon indirect and non‐hierarchical forms of governance. Others asked for more or expected less. For the analysis of the HLPF's (orchestration) qualities, we study the proceedings of the HLPF and specifically the HLPF's review of SDG 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions, one of the most contested goals and therefore an interesting hard case. Taken together, DESA as the secretariat of the HLPF does indeed use orchestration to make the most out of the forum's mandate, both through convening and shaping third actors' activities. Political conflicts and limited resources, however, negatively impact what they can do and what the HLPF can deliver. The results of the UN's recent negotiations on the review of the HLPF's ‘format and organizational aspects’ (2020–21) did not change that.

show abstract

Section: The Hlpf In the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The UN High‐Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: An orchestrator, more or less?

Beisheim

Fritzsche

2022

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (also known as Brundtland Report), the dominant understanding of sustainable development has been that it consists of three dimensions: economic, social, and environmental (Purvis et al, 2019; World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Overcoming the “siloisation” of these three dimensions of sustainable development and their integration has since then been a central governance challenge and political priority (Bhaduri et al, 2015; Raworth, 2017; Tosun & Lang, 2017; van Soest et al, 2019; Vijge et al, 2020). Many terms for overcoming the silos of environmental, economic and social policies are used, often with overlapping meanings, ranging from “environmental policy integration” to “mainstreaming”, “nexus” approaches, “policy coherence”, or “integrative environmental governance” (e.g., Ahmed et al, 2022; Visseren‐Hamakers, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The notion of sustainability integration has found many divergent interpretations and operationalisations in both public and academic debate (Bhaduri et al, 2015; Boas et al, 2016; Lafferty & Hovden, 2003; Raworth, 2017; Tosun & Lang, 2017; van Soest et al, 2019; Vijge et al, 2020). Yet despite these different views, few scholars have so far examined how professionals in the field actually perceive and operationalise sustainability integration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing or prioritising for sustainable development? Perceptions of sustainability integration among professionals

Montesano

Biermann

Kalfagianni

et al. 2023

Sustainable Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effective integration of the environmental with the economic and social dimensions of sustainability will only succeed when the core problem perceptions of professionals in these fields adjust as well. Yet, while sustainability integration in general has been thoroughly researched, few studies have analysed the specific role of subjective understandings among professionals. This article bridges this gap by asking how professionals understand and operationalise sustainability integration. Which factors shape their perceptions and practices? We present the results of an online survey that was circulated to a diverse sample of professionals and then analysed using statistical methods. Responses from 508 participants show that sustainability integration is mostly perceived as a balance across all three sustainability dimensions rather than a hierarchy with the environment at its basis. However, perceptions also vary significantly across professional and geographical contexts. This signifies the need to better account for how individual circumstances affect processes of integration.

show abstract

“…We apply these concepts to the novel system of ‘indicator custodianship’ for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have been agreed by the United Nations (UN) in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Biermann et al, 2017; Vijge et al, 2020). The SDGs cover nearly all areas of global governance and so present the daunting challenge of coordinating the collection, processing, and reporting of data (Kanie, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International organisations as ‘custodians’ of the sustainable development goals? Fragmentation and coordination in sustainability governance

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely assumed that the fragmentation of global governance can affect coordination efforts among international institutions and organisations. Yet, the precise relationship between the fragmentation of global governance and the extent to which international organisations coordinate their activities remains underexplored. In this article, we offer new empirical evidence derived from the so‐called custodianship arrangements in which numerous international organisations have been mandated to coordinate data collection and reporting for 231 indicators of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These complex custodianship arrangements provide a fertile testing ground for theories on the relationship between fragmentation and coordination because the institutional arrangements for each of the 17 SDGs have emerged bottom–up with varying degrees of fragmentation. Through a comparative approach covering 44 custodian agencies and focusing on the most and least fragmented custodianship arrangements, we make three key contributions. First, we offer a novel operationalisation of institutional fragmentation and coordination. Second, we present empirical evidence in support of the claim that fragmentation negatively affects coordination. Third, we provide nuances to this claim by identifying factors that affect the strength of this relationship. Based on our analysis, we suggest further steps that might facilitate coordination in global sustainability governance.

show abstract

Governance through Global Goals

Cited by 23 publications

References 73 publications

The UN High‐Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: An orchestrator, more or less?

The UN High‐Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: An orchestrator, more or less?

Balancing or prioritising for sustainable development? Perceptions of sustainability integration among professionals

International organisations as ‘custodians’ of the sustainable development goals? Fragmentation and coordination in sustainability governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About