Chapter 1: Trends in implementation of institutional principles highlighted in SDG 16
This chapter will introduce the rest of the report. Its main goals will be to define the scope of the report, present the analytical framework, introduce the main research questions, and present the outline and focus of the rest of the report.
The chapter will start with a presentation of the analytical framework will follow the introductory part of the present document, adding relevant detail and references from the literature. It will describe in more detail the concepts in each of the three “boxes” of Figure 1, and their relationships – including synergies and tensions. For example, a wide literature has focused on the relations among principles for institutions such as participation, transparency and accountability.
The next section of the chapter will aim to summarily illustrate the status of various institution-related components of SDG 16, seen from a global perspective. This section will stay at the meta level, not focusing on the value of SDG 16-related indicators, but trying to synthesize ongoing efforts, both in terms of development of institutions at different levels (international and national) that aim to address the dimensions that define the scope of the report (effectiveness, transparency, accountability, anti-corruption, inclusiveness of decision-making processes, access to information, non-discrimination), and in term of efforts to measure progress on these dimensions.
The last section of the chapter will introduce the rest of the report.
- What have been major international, regional and national instruments put in place over the past 30 years to address SDG 16 principles relative to institutions such as transparency, accountability, anti-corruption, inclusiveness of decision-making processes, access to information, and non-discrimination?
- Where are current efforts to measure progress on institutional aspects of the SDG focusing?
- What are theoretical and methodological issues related to measuring SDG 16, and how do they impact efforts to monitor SDG 16?
- Where are gaps in coverage? Where do available indicators provide an incomplete picture of relevant dimensions or trends?
Chapter 2: Addressing corruption
The chapter will focus on concrete ways in which countries have identified corruption risks and addressed corrupt practices at the systemic level and in different sectors. All SDG areas will be used to illustrate the chapter. In addition, the chapter will focus more specifically on SDG3 (health), SDG 4 (education), SDG 6(water), SDG 9 and 11 (infrastructure), and SDG 12 (natural resources management).
The chapter will consider both preventive and punitive anti-corruption strategies and measures, with a focus on public administration and the public sector. The chapter will highlight obstacles to and opportunities for effective anti-corruption reform and implementation of anti-corruption strategies. Commonalities and differences in approaches to fighting corruption in various sectors will be highlighted in order to illustrate the sector-specificity of institutional arrangements. The chapter will also consider how countries are monitoring and measuring progress on anti-corruption and the effectiveness of anti-corruption strategies.
- How does anti-corruption relate to other institutional principles highlighted by SDG 16?
- What are current efforts to identify and assess corruption risks? How are countries addressing corruption risks in different sectors and at the systemic level?
- What international (both global and regional) instruments have been put in place to address corruption in different SDG areas (considering all relevant levels)? How have they performed?
- What national instruments have been put in place to address corruption (both prevention and sanction) in the public service at the national level (including local). Are these efforts aligned to initiatives to advance SDG16?
- Is there a need for more integration across initiatives that aim to address corruption in different sectors and at different levels?
- As a whole, are current efforts to curb corruption well aligned with the “needs” that stem from the available evidence across SDG areas? What areas for improvement can be identified?
- How are countries monitoring and measuring progress and assessing the effectiveness of anti-corruption reforms?
Chapter 3: Budget and planning processes as enablers of SDG implementation
This chapter would focus on how planning and budget processes can support institutions that foster SDG implementation. The interface between the international and national levels (through development aid, but also international law) would be examined in much more detail than was done in the WPSR 2018.
- How can planning and budget processes support institutional features such as transparency, accountability, anti-corruption, inclusiveness of decision-making processes, access to information, and non-discrimination?
- What have been innovative experiences in using planning and budgeting processes in different SDG areas?
- What information systems need to be associated with planning and budget processes in order to enable integrated approaches to sustainable development?
- How does the interface between national and supra-national planning and budgeting processes perform? How well is it aligned with the SDGs, and what may be directions for improvement?
Chapter 4: Risk management in public administration and the SDGs
The chapter will focus on the importance for public management of adopting uncertainty- and risk-informed perspectives across the whole set of SDGs. While this has been advanced as an important tenet of public management in areas such as health pandemics, financial crises, economic shocks, natural disasters and climate change, less attention perhaps has been put on area such as food and agriculture, ecosystem conservation, and others; and the implications for public institutions and public administration have likely not been fleshed out in a systematic way. Strategies put in place by public administration to address risk in various areas also have impacts on vulnerability and the most vulnerable groups in society.
The chapter will investigate the extent to which the incorporation of a risk perspective in public administration has changed or could change strategies, plans and policies in different areas. It will illustrate mechanisms and tools that exist today in public administration at different levels to identify and manage risk in different SDG areas; how countries are using them in different combinations, and point to relevant literature assessing the performance of such instruments (in a sense that will have to be defined), individually and as systems, in different contexts and circumstances; and collect expert advice on possible gaps and areas for progress.
All SDG areas will be used to illustrate the chapter. In addition, the chapter will focus more specifically on some among the following areas: SDG 2 (agriculture and food); SDG 3 (health); SDG 8 (economic shocks); SDG 6(water); SDG 14 (oceans); SDG 17 (financial crises); and the climate-land-energy-water nexus at the national level.
- Why is it important to incorporate uncertainty and risk management in public administration for the SDGs? How does it change strategies, plans and policies?
- What are major uncertainties and risks across SDG areas? Are there correlations among them? Do some of them warrant joint management?
- What is the status of development of risk-informed perspectives in public administration in different SDG areas at the national level?
- How do alternative strategies for managing risk affect vulnerable groups, and what are good practices in terms of including vulnerable groups in risk management processes?
- How can risk perspectives inform the management of nexus areas (e.g. climate, land, energy and water) and the associated synergies and trade-offs?
Chapter 5: Institutions for gender equality (SDG 5)
As a cross-cutting issue, gender equality has been the focus of much attention well before the adoption of the SDGs. In particular, institutional aspects of gender equality have been studied from multiple angles and disciplines. The array of instruments that are used to foster gender equality is vast, and ranges from constitutional and legal approaches, to regulatory approaches, to work within organizations, to attempts at shifting social norms, to the use of instruments such as gender-based planning and budgeting. Also, due to the cross-cutting nature of gender equality, actions in specific goal areas (e.g. access to water and sanitation, education, access to energy, poverty eradication, economic empowerment) also have important impacts on progress towards gender equality.
The chapter will take stock of the various instruments that have been used in different contexts, and map the literature from different disciplines that has examined how different types of institutions have performed, both individually and in combinations. This will be done both for core SDG 5 targets, and also for selected SDG targets that have a strong gender component.
- What are typical instruments used to promote gender equality in a systemic way at the national level, and how do they map to different principles highlighted in SDG 16?
- Based on the literature, what has been the effectiveness of various types of such institutions in different contexts?
- What are typical instruments used to promote gender equality in SDG target areas that have a strong gender component, and how do they relate to public administration?
- Based on available evidence, how have institutions in specific sectors been conducive to progress towards gender equality, individually and as a system?
- How broadly are cross-cutting gender tools (e.g. gender-based budgeting) used in different sectors, and how successful has their use been in terms of changing outcomes for women and girls?
- Are there common opportunities or challenges that can inform national efforts to empower women and achieve gender equality? How does context influence the effectiveness of institutional approaches in this regard?
- What specific recommendations could be put forward in order for public administration to effectively support gender equality?