Governing the Interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals: Approaches to Attain Policy Integration

Tosun, Jale; Leininger, Julia

doi:10.1002/gch2.201700036

Cited by 301 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These SDGs, which took effect in January 2016, are applicable to all countries, regardless of development status. They build on the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (UN 2000), drawing on several years of multi-stakeholder consultations, including with the private sector, and intergovernmental negotiations (Tosun and Leininger 2017), and integrate targets from other conventions, such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of environment–human linkages

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Only 10 years remain to achieve all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) globally, so there is a growing need to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of action by targeting multiple SDGs. The SDGs were conceived as an 'indivisible whole', but interactions between SDGs need to be better understood. Several previous assessments have begun to explore interactions including synergies and possible conflicts between the SDGs, and differ widely in their conclusions. Although some highlight the role of the more environmentally-focused SDGs in underpinning sustainable development, none specifically focuses on environment-human linkages. Assessing interactions between SDGs, and the influence of environment on them can make an important contribution to informing decisions in 2020 and beyond. Here, we review previous assessments of interactions among SDGs, apply an influence matrix to assess pairwise interactions between all SDGs, and show how viewing these from the perspective of environment-human linkages can influence the outcome. Environment, and environment-human linkages, influence most interactions between SDGs. Our action-focused assessment enables decision makers to focus environmental management to have the greatest impacts and to identify opportunities to build on synergies and reduce trade-offs between particular SDGs. It may enable sectoral decision makers to seek support from environment managers for achieving their goals. We explore cross-cutting issues and the relevance and potential application of our approach in supporting decision making for progress to achieve the SDGs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of environment–human linkages

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, we distinguish between democratic (liberal and electoral democracy) and autocratic subtypes (closed and electoral autocracy). Earlier versions of our typology have already been used in scholarly work on democratic backsliding (Mechkova et al, 2017b), the Sustainable Development Goals (Tosun & Leininger, 2017), and political culture (Welzel, 2017), which further underscores the usefulness of the new RoW measures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes

Lührmann

Tannenberg

Lindberg

2018

PaG

311

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classifying political regimes has never been more difficult. Most contemporary regimes hold de-jure multiparty elections with universal suffrage. In some countries, elections ensure that political rulers are-at least somewhat-accountable to the electorate whereas in others they are a mere window dressing exercise for authoritarian politics. Hence, regime types need to be distinguished based on the de-facto implementation of democratic institutions and processes. Using V-Dem data, we propose with Regimes of the World (RoW) such an operationalization of four important regime types-closed and electoral autocracies; electoral and liberal democracies-with vast coverage (almost all countries from 1900 to 2016). We also contribute a solution to a fundamental weakness of extant typologies: The unknown extent of misclassification due to uncertainty from measurement error. V-Dem's measures of uncertainty (Bayesian highest posterior densities) allow us to be the first to provide a regime typology that distinguishes cases classified with a high degree of certainty from those with "upper" and "lower" bounds in each category. Finally, a comparison of disagreements with extant datasets (7%-12% of the country-years), demonstrates that the RoW classification is more conservative, classifying regimes with electoral manipulation and infringements of the political freedoms more frequently as electoral autocracies, suggesting that it better captures the opaqueness of contemporary autocracies.

show abstract

“…Theoretically it means that the SDGs should be implemented in a coordinated way taking into account their interlinkages and interdependencies. The literature on environmental policy integration mostly focuses on analysing the effectiveness of various ways of implementing integrated approaches (Jordan and Lenschow, 2010;Le Blanc, 2015;Persson, 2004;Runhaar et al, 2014;Stevens, 2018;Tosun and Lang, 2017;Tosun and Leininger, 2017). However this is beyond the scope of this paper, which examines how a more integrated view of development became reflected in the SDGs rather than how it could be operationalized.…”

Section: An Integrated Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Design of Environmental Priorities in the SDGs

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that the environment was extensively incorporated into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with broad and ambitious targets, reflecting environmental concerns throughout the SDGs. Many environment‐related targets – including some of the most important ones – were placed under ‘non‐environmental’ goals. The SDGs also adopted the view that economic growth can be made environmentally sustainable using ‘decoupling’ and ‘resource efficiency’ as key technological solutions. Governments rejected a more transformative objective ‘beyond GDP’, the concept of planetary boundaries, and strong implementation mechanisms. Most disappointing, the environmental elements in many targets were not included in indicators, or the indicators lacked ambition, or were watered down. Key factors in achieving the strong and integrated approach to environment and development at the level of goals and targets were: (1) the role of new ideas on the importance of the environment and an integrated approach to sustainable development which was promoted by the science and research community; (2) a group of norm entrepreneurs, who promoted these ideas; and (3) the institutional structure and working modalities of the Open Working Group (which drafted the text of the SDGs) whose special characteristics facilitated the final agreement. The dilution of the indicators resulted from a very different institutional structure and process with different actors and from the development focused legacy of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that had not resulted in sufficient capacity for thoroughly measuring environmental concerns.

show abstract

Governing the Interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals: Approaches to Attain Policy Integration

Cited by 301 publications

References 49 publications

Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of environment–human linkages

Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of environment–human linkages

Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes

The Design of Environmental Priorities in the SDGs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About