Advertisement

Laying Out Actors and Dynamics in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

  • Joachim Monkelbaan
Chapter
Part of the Sustainable Development Goals Series book series (SDGS)

Abstract

This chapter explores the question “who is involved in governance for the SDGs?” and is based on the analytical elements from Chap.  2. In that sense, this chapter is a bridge between the theories in the previous chapter and the specific case studies in the next chapter. This chapter lays out the wide range of actors (in the sense of stakeholders), interests and discourses that need to be involved in achieving the SDGs. The interviews and observations that this chapter is based on shed a critical light on the functioning of and interaction between different stakeholders involved in governance for the SDGs. Two main types of actors and institutions were identified early on this research. The first type traditionally operates at one level on a specific geographical or jurisdictional scale (local governments, national governments and international organizations) as discussed in Sect. 3.1. The second type typically operates in a non-traditional, ‘multilevel’ mode (e.g. networks and corporations) or is not limited to act at specific levels (e.g. academics and powerful individuals) and is described in Sect. 3.2.

Keywords

Stakeholders Cities Governments International organizations Media Academia Corporations Non-governmental organizations Citizens 

References

  1. Açıkgöz Ersoy B (2011) Globalization and global public goods. In: Pachura P (ed) New knowledge in a new era of globalization. InTech, Rijeka, pp 225–242Google Scholar
  2. Ansell CK (2011) Pragmatist democracy: evolutionary learning as public philosophy. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arias-Maldonado M (2007) An imaginary solution? The green defence of deliberative democracy. Environ Values 16:233–252.  https://doi.org/10.3197/096327107780474573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bamber P, Fernandez-Stark K, Gereffi G, Guinn A (2014) Connecting local producers in developing countries to regional and global value chains. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development), ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Bättig MB, Bernauer T (2008) National institutions and global public goods: are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? Int Org 63:281–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaty R, Lipsey R, Elsie S (2014) The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: it works. The Globe and MailGoogle Scholar
  7. Beeson M (2010) The coming of environmental authoritarianism. Environ Polit 19:276–294.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903576918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biermann F, Abbott KW, Andresen S et al (2012) Transforming governance and institutions for global sustainability: key insights from the earth system governance project. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4:51–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brockington D (2009) Celebrity and the environment: fame, wealth and power in conservation. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruyninckx H, Happaerts S, Van den Brande K (2012) Sustainable development and sub-national governments: policy-making and multi-level interactions. Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bulkeley H, Andonova L, Betsill MM et al (2014) Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bulkeley H, Newell P (2010) Governing climate change. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Carson RT, Louviere JJ, Wei E (2010) Alternative Australian climate change plans: the public’s views. Energy Policy 38:902–911.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CCLG (Cities Climate Leadership Group) (2017) C40 cities. http://www.c40.org. Accessed 14 Mar 2017
  16. CEMR (The Council of European Municipalities and Regions) (2014) Local and regional Europe. In: CCRE/CEMR: Local and Regional Europe. http://www.ccre.org/. Accessed 12 Mar 2016
  17. Charnovitz S (2002) A world environment organization. Dissertation, United Nations UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Clapp J, Meckling J (2013) Business as a global actor. In: Falkner R (ed) The handbook of global climate and environment policy. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 286–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen J, Sabel CF (1997) Directly-deliberative polyarchy. Eur Law J 3:313–342.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0386.00034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Costanza R, McGlade J, Lovins H, Kubiszewski I (2014) An overarching goal for the UN sustainable development goals. Solutions 5:13–16Google Scholar
  21. Dam R, Siang T (2017) 5 Stages in the design thinking process. In: The Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process. Accessed 16 Aug 2017
  22. Dangerman J (2013) The energy system, lock-in and adaptation. Dissertation. Radboud University NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  23. Djalante R, Holley C, Thomalla F (2011) Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-011-0015-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Driessen PPJ, Dieperink C, Van Laerhoven F et al (2012) Towards a conceptual framework for the study of shifts in modes of environmental governance: experiences from the Netherlands. Environ Policy Gov 22:143–160.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dryzek JS (1996) Democracy in capitalist times: ideals, limits, and struggles. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Dryzek JS (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Elgert L (2011) The politics of evidence: towards critical deliberative governance in sustainable development. Dissertation, LSE (London School of Economics and Political Science)Google Scholar
  28. European Commission (2007) Beyond GDP: measuring progress, true wealth, and the well-being of nations. In: Energy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/beyond_gdp/index_en.html. Accessed 12 Mar 2016
  29. European Commission (2017) Covenant of Mayors, commited to local sustainable energy. http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/index_en.html. Accessed 10 May 2017
  30. European Court of Justice (2001) C-379/98Google Scholar
  31. Frantzeskaki N, Castan Broto V, Coenen L, Loorbach D (2017) Urban sustainability transitions. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Friedman TL (2009) Our one-party democracy. The New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  33. Geden O (2015) Policy: climate advisers must maintain integrity. Nature 521:27–28.  https://doi.org/10.1038/521027aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Genschel P, Zangl B (2008) Transformations of the state: from monopolist to manager of political authority. University of Bremen, BremenGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldstein J, Keohane RO (eds) (1993) Ideas and foreign policy: beliefs, institutions, and political change. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  36. Gregory R, Failing L, Ohlson D, Mcdaniels TL (2006) Some pitfalls of an overemphasis on science in environmental risk management decisions. J Risk Res 9:717–735.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870600799895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hajer MA (2000) Politiek als vormgeving. Dissertation, UVA (University of Amsterdam)Google Scholar
  39. Hajer MA (2011) The energetic society: in search of a governance philosophy for a clean economy. PBL (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency), The HagueGoogle Scholar
  40. Hale T, Held D (2011) Handbook of transnational governance: institutions and innovations. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Hassal G (1991) Contemporary governance and conflict resolution: a Bahá’í reading. In: Lerche CO (ed) Emergence: dimensions of a new world order. Bahá’í Publishing Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Hawken P, Lovins AB, Lovins LH (1999) Natural capitalism: the next industrial revolution. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Hayek FA (1960) The constitution of liberty. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  44. Heifetz RA (1994) Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Hendriks CM, Grin J (2007) Contextualizing reflexive governance: the politics of Dutch transitions to sustainability. J Environ Planning Policy Manage 9:333–350.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080701622790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hickel J (2017) The Paris climate deal won’t save us: our future depends on de-growth. The GuardianGoogle Scholar
  47. Holzscheiter A (2005) Discourse as capability: non-state actors’ capital in global governance. Millennium J Int Stud 33:723–746.  https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298050330030301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hooghe L, Marks G (2001) Multi-level governance and European integration. Rowman and Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  49. Hurst D (2014) Climate unity dealt blow as Australia and Canada put business first. The GuardianGoogle Scholar
  50. ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) (2015) Introducing a new global goal for cities and human settlements. ICLEI, BonnGoogle Scholar
  51. ICSU (International Council for Science) (2017) A guide to SDG interactions: from science to implementation. International Council for Science, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2017) Climate, environment, and the IMFGoogle Scholar
  53. In’t Veld RJ (ed) (2010) Knowledge democracy: consequences for science, politics and media. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. IPCC (Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change) (2014) Mitigation of climate change. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  55. Jasanoff SS (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc Stud Sci 17:195–230.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030631287017002001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jasanoff SS (1990) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Jungcurt S (2013) Taking boundary work seriously: towards a systemic approach to the analysis of interactions between knowledge production and decision-making on sustainable development. In: Meuleman L (ed) Transgovernance: advancing sustainability governance. Springer, New York, pp 255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kaaronen R (2016) Scientific support for sustainable development policies: a typology of science: policy interfaces with case studies. Sitra, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  59. Karlsson SI, Jollands N (2013) Human security and energy security: a sustainable energy system as a public good. In: Dyer H, Trombetta MJ (eds) International handbook of energy security. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 507–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen SI, Jollands N, Staudt L (2012) Global governance for sustainable energy: the contribution of a global public goods approach. Ecological Economics 83(C):11–18. ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Keohane N, Revesz RL, Stavins RN (1998) The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. Harvard Environmental Law Review 22:313–367Google Scholar
  62. Keohane RO, Victor DG (2011) The regime complex for climate change. Perspect Polit 9:7–23.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710004068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Khanna P (2010) Beyond city limits: the age of nations is over, the new urban age has begun. Foreign PolicyGoogle Scholar
  64. Klein N (2014) This changes everything: capitalism vs. the climate. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Kolk A, Pinkse J (2007) Multinationals’ political activities on climate change. Bus Soc 46:201–228.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650307301383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lange P, Driessen PPJ, Sauer A et al (2013) Governing towards sustainability: conceptualizing modes of governance. J Environ Planning Policy Manage 15:403–425.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.769414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lenzner R (2014) The ten reasons why there will be another systemic financial crisis. ForbesGoogle Scholar
  68. Leiserowitz AA (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Change 77:45–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Loorbach D (2014) To transition! Governance panarchy in the new transformation. Dissertation, Erasmus University RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  70. Lovelock J (2009) The vanishing face of Gaia: a final warning. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Mazzucato M (2013) The entrepreneurial state: debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. McKinsey (2014) Economic opportunities in a low-carbon world. In: UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/press/news_room/newsletter/guest_column/items/4608.php. Accessed 12 Aug 2016
  73. Meadowcroft J (2009) What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sci 42:323–340.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9097-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Meadows D (1998) Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland Four CornersGoogle Scholar
  75. Merton RK (1973) The normative structure of science. In: Merton RK (ed) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  76. Mims C (2011) Is China’s quasi-dictatorship better prepared for the 21st century than our mess of a democracy? GristGoogle Scholar
  77. Morgan J, Weischer L (2012) Two degrees clubs: how small groups of countries can make a big difference on climate change. http://www.wri.org/blog/2012/10/two-degrees-clubs-how-small-groups-countries-can-make-big-difference-climate-change. Accessed 29 Dec 2016
  78. Nazal S (2015) 5 Things civil society and the SDGs can do for each other. In: Asian development. https://blogs.adb.org/blog/5-things-civil-society-and-sdgs-can-do-each-other. Accessed 1 Oct 2017
  79. Neumayer E (2001) The human development index and sustainability: a constructive proposal. Ecol Econ 39:101–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00201-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Norton BG (2015) Sustainable values, sustainable change: a guide to environmental decision making. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  82. O’Riordan T (2004) Environmental science, sustainability and politics. Trans Inst Br Geogr 29:234–247.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2004.00127.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Petherick A (2014) Seeking a fair and sustainable future. Nat Clim Change 4:81–83.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Petsonk A, Keohane NO (2015) Creating a club of carbon markets: implications of the trade system. WEF (World Economic Forum)/ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  85. Pielke RA (2013) Planetary boundaries as power grab. In: Pielke Jr.’s R (ed) Blog: Science, innovation and politics. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.nl/2013/04/planetary-boundries-as-power-grab.html?spref=tw. Accessed 13 Apr 2017
  86. Potoski M, Prakash A (eds) (2009) Voluntary programs: a club theory perspective. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  87. Prime Minister’s Office (2016) National report on the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development Finland. Prime Minister’s Office, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  88. Rand M (2011) The “necessity” of democracy for sustainable development: a comparison between the U.S.A. and Cuba. Consilience J Sustain Dev 5:151–167Google Scholar
  89. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM et al (2017) World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. BioScience bix125.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. RobecoSAM (2013) Country sustainability ranking. In: Robeco SAM (ed). http://www.robecosam.com/en/sustainability-insights/about-sustainability/country-sustainability-ranking/. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
  91. Sabel CF, Victor DG (2015) Governing global problems under uncertainty: making bottom-up climate policy work. Clim Change 1:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1507-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (2012) Experimentalist governance. In: Levi-Faur D (ed) The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169–185Google Scholar
  93. Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (2010) Experimentalist governance in the European Union: towards a new architecture. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  94. Sassen S (2011) Saskia Sassen on sociology, globalization, and the re-shaping of the national. Theory TalksGoogle Scholar
  95. Seedcap AB (2016) Innovation infographics. In: Lean ventures. http://leanventures.se/publications/innovation-infographics/. Accessed 30 Oct 2017
  96. Sen AK (2003) Why democratization is not the same as westernization: democracy and its global roots. New Repub 1:28–35Google Scholar
  97. SESAC (Sustainable Energy Systems in Advanced Cities) (2017) 2020 Horizon. In: European Union: sustainable energy systems in advanced cities. http://www.2020-horizon.com/SESAC-Sustainable-Energy-Systems-in-Advanced-Cities%28SESAC%29-s13371.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
  98. Shearman DJC, Smith JW (2007) The climate change challenge and the failure of democracy. Praeger Publishers, WestportGoogle Scholar
  99. Simmons BA, Martin LL (2002) International organizations and institutions. In: Carlsnaes W, Risse T, Simmons BA (eds) Handbook of international relations, 1st edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 192–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Soto J (2015) The weakening of representative democracy: outlook on the global agenda 2015. WEF (World Economic Forum), ColognyGoogle Scholar
  101. Steele B (2014) A carbon tax that’s good for business? The GuardianGoogle Scholar
  102. Stehr N (2013) An inconvenient democracy: knowledge and climate change. Soc Sci Public Policy 50:55–60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-012-9610-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Stehr N (2015) Climate policy: democracy is not an inconvenience. Nature 525:449–450.  https://doi.org/10.1038/525449aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stelter B (2012) No place for heated opinions. The New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  105. Stiglitz JE, Sen AK, Fitoussi JP (2009) Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  106. Stirling A (2014) Emancipating transformations: from controlling “the transition” to culturing plural radical progress. STEPS Centre, University of Sussex, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  107. Supreme Court of the Unites States (2007) Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et alGoogle Scholar
  108. The Economist (2013) Democracy index 2012: democracy at a standstill. The Economist Intelligence Unit, LondonGoogle Scholar
  109. Thorpe L (2012) Coca-Cola enterprises: creating a water sustainable business. The GuardianGoogle Scholar
  110. Turnbull S (2000) Corporate governance: theories, challenges and paradigms. Gouvernance: Revue Internationale 1:11–43Google Scholar
  111. UN Global Compact (2010) A new era of sustainability: CEO reflections on progress to date, challenges ahead and the impact of the journey toward a sustainable economy. AccentureGoogle Scholar
  112. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2009) Charting a new low-carbon route to development: a primer on integrated climate change planning for regional governments. UNDP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  113. UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) (1998) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental mattersGoogle Scholar
  114. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2012) 21 Issues for the 21st century: results of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues. UNEP, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  115. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2015) Decision CP.20: Lima call for climate actionGoogle Scholar
  116. UN-HABITAT (2014) Background paper for World Habitat Day 2014Google Scholar
  117. Van Asselt H (2014) The fragmentation of global climate governance: consequences and management of regime interactions. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Victor DG (2015) The case for climate clubs. ICTSD (International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development)/WEF (World Economic Forum), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  119. WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) (2017) SDG compass: the guide for business action on the SDG’s. WBCSD/GRI/UNGC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  120. Weber M, Driessen PPJ, Runhaar HAC (2011) Drivers of and barriers to shifts in governance: analysing noise policy in the Netherlands. J Environ Planning Policy Manage 13:119–137.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2011.572657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. WEF (World Economic Forum) (2014) Global risks 2014. WEF, ColognyGoogle Scholar
  122. WEF (World Economic Forum) (2015) Global risks 2015. WEF, ColognyGoogle Scholar
  123. Weibust I, Meadowcroft J (eds) (2014) Multilevel environmental governance: managing water and climate change in Europe and North-America. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  124. Wood MC (2009) Atmospheric trust litigation. In: Burns WCG, Osofsky HM (eds) Adjudicating climate change: state, national and international approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 99–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Worldwatch Institute (2013) State of the world 2013: is sustainability still possible?. Island Press, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Yu H, Robinson DG (2012) The new ambiguity of open government. UCLA Law, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  127. Zane JP (2015) Democracy and the challenges imposed by freedom. The New York TimesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim Monkelbaan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations