What role for regional organizations in goal-setting global governance? An analysis of the role of the European Union and ASEAN in the Sustainable Development Goals

Marx, Axel; Pertiwi, Sukmawani Bela; Depoorter, Charline; Hoornick, Michiel; Mursitama, Tirta Nugraha; Otteburn, Kari; Arnakim, Lili Yulyadi

doi:10.1007/s43508-021-00027-6

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, the contribution and impact of other actors and governance arrangements, such as regional organizations (e.g. Marx et al, 2021) or multi-stakeholder partnerships (e.g. Koliev and Bäckstrand, 2022), on global follow-up and review processes remains understudied.…”

Section: Current Research Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoping article: research frontiers on the governance of the Sustainable Development Goals

Hickmann,

Biermann,

Sénit

et al. 2024

Glob. Sustain.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-Technical Summary. This article takes stock of the 2030 Agenda and focuses on five governance areas. In a nutshell, we see a quite patchy and often primarily symbolic uptake of the global goals. Although some studies highlight individual success stories of actors and institutions to implement the goals, it remains unclear how such cases can be upscaled and develop a broader political impact to accelerate the global endeavor to achieve sustainable development. We hence raise concerns about the overall effectiveness of governance by goal-setting and raise the question of how we can make this mode of governance more effective. Technical Summary. A recent meta-analysis on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has shown that these global goals are moving political processes forward only incrementally, with much variation across countries, sectors, and governance levels. Consequently, the realization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development remains uncertain. Against this backdrop, this article explores where and how incremental political changes are taking place due to the SDGs, and under what conditions these developments can bolster sustainability transformations up to 2030 and beyond. Our scoping review builds upon an online expert survey directed at the scholarly community of the 'Earth System Governance Project' and structured dialogues within the 'Taskforce on the SDGs' under this project. We identified five governance areas where some effects of the SDGs have been observable: (1) global governance, (2) national policy integration, (3) subnational initiatives, (4) private governance, and (5) education and learning for sustainable development. This article delves deeper into these governance areas and draws lessons to guide empirical research on the promises and pitfalls of accelerating SDG implementation. Social Media Summary. As SDG implementation lags behind, this article explores 5 governance areas asking how to strengthen the global goals. 10Thomas Hickmann et al.

show abstract

Section: Current Research Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoping article: research frontiers on the governance of the Sustainable Development Goals

Hickmann,

Biermann,

Sénit

et al. 2024

Glob. Sustain.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Together with other global players, UN entities have been playing prominent roles in handling complex global governance issues (Kjøndal, 2021; Marx et al., 2021), and have attracted more attention from China. Moving beyond the ‘keeping a low profile’ mantra laid out by Deng Xiaoping in the early 1990s, China has adopted a more activist foreign policy under Xi Jinping since 2013, favoring the UN as the center of the international system to display a more globalist stance and commitment to multilateralism (FMPRC, 2022).…”

Section: Empirical Observation: China's Funding MIX At the Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

A mixed funding pattern: China's exercise of power within the United Nations

Zhang,

Jing

2024

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

China's financial contributions to the United Nations have increased in tandem with its growing economic might. However, their composition differs from that of other large (Western) contributors, being predominantly made up of mandatory fees and to a much lesser degree of voluntary core and earmarked contributions. What types of power does China seek and exercise through these different funding modalities? This article uses the conceptual power framework developed by Barnett and Duvall to answer this question. We argue that China's UN funding strategy reflects a careful balance between its commitments as a ‘responsible great power’ contributing to multilateralism and its desire to expand its influence within the UN system. We suggest that China exercises compulsory and structural power through assessed contributions and acquires some limited institutional and structural power via voluntary core contributions, while its voluntary earmarked contributions relate, to varying degrees, to all four power types — compulsory, structural, institutional, and productive. We also discuss key reasons behind the limited nature of China's voluntary funding. Based on our analysis, we suggest that the overall increase in China's funding contributes to changes in China's favor but, so far, has not led to more substantive power shifts at the UN.

show abstract

“…The result of these experiments is the creation of new institutional mechanisms and initiatives. These new institutional instruments and mechanisms are characterised by varying degrees of effectiveness [14].…”

Section: Sustainable Development Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decent Work and Economic Growth in EU Countries—Static and Dynamic Analyses of Sustainable Development Goal 8

Bieszk-Stolorz,

Dmytrów

2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this research is a static geographic comparison of the degree of Sustainable Development Goal 8 (SDG8) implementation and to compare its dynamics for the European Union (EU) in the period of 2002–2021 with the consideration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The level of implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development objectives is monitored both jointly and individually. This research uses the COPRAS, the Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) and the hierarchical clustering methods. The study confirmed the geographical diversity in the degree of SDG8 implementation. Nordic countries have the highest degree of implementation, while Greece, Spain, Italy, Romania and Slovakia have the lowest. Some less-developed countries (Czechia, Poland and Malta) were in the cluster where the implementation improved, and some well-developed countries (France, Luxembourg and Portugal) were in the cluster in which the situation did not improve or improved at a low degree. It was not possible to identify geographical diversity in the dynamics of changes in the degree of SDG8 implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic caused the decline in the degree of SDG8 implementation. The added value of the study consists of comparing the dynamics of the degree of implementation of SDG8 using the DTW method. The obtained conclusions may help to create policies for EU countries in this regard.

show abstract

What role for regional organizations in goal-setting global governance? An analysis of the role of the European Union and ASEAN in the Sustainable Development Goals

Cited by 7 publications

References 32 publications

Scoping article: research frontiers on the governance of the Sustainable Development Goals

Scoping article: research frontiers on the governance of the Sustainable Development Goals

A mixed funding pattern: China's exercise of power within the United Nations

Decent Work and Economic Growth in EU Countries—Static and Dynamic Analyses of Sustainable Development Goal 8

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About