Policy support, effectiveness and legitimacy in the localization of Sustainable Development Goals

Policy support, effectiveness and legitimacy in the localization of Sustainable Development Goals 1

F. J. Granados, A. Noferini Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI) June 2020

Study commissioned by the Generalitat of Catalonia (through its Agency for Development Cooperation) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Conducted by F. J. Granados (IBEI) and A. Noferini (UPF, UAB), researchers at the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI).

Correspondence to: fgranados@ibei.org; andrea.noferini@upf.edu The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, UNDP, Generalitat de Catalunya or IBEI. Please note that quotations or excerpts from the study may be reproduced on condition that the source is indicated.

Copyright © Generalitat de Catalunya, UNDP 2019 All rights reserved Published in Spain

1

This document is a summary version of the study by the same authors titled “Subnational governments and the 2030 Agenda: Strengthening policy effectiveness and legitimacy with the localization of the Sustainable Development Goals” (UNDP and Generalitat de Catalunya, 2019).

1

Abstract The implementation of the 2030 Agenda relies on a form of global governance characterized by weak institutional arrangements and the absence of legal binding commitments and formal enforcement incentives. The resulting policy framework within countries for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is prone to low policy support from political authorities and stakeholders and, hence, also to insufficient implementation and policy failure. Three policy elements can contribute to enhance policy support by strengthening the effectiveness and legitimacy of policies processes: (a) institutional coordination of different government levels and policy domains; (b) stakeholder participation in the negotiation of policy preferences and contributing policy resources; and (c) policy monitoring as a foundation of keeping political authorities accountable. We examine how the localization of policy processes involving subnational entities in the implementation of the SDGs can enhance the contribution of these three elements to generate higher policy support and successful policies. The analysis is structured along the classical stages of the policy-cycle (agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation and evaluation) and aims at guiding further research on the topic and be considered as an argumentative tool for policymaking.

2

Index

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 2. Analytical framework ................................................................................................ 5 2.1. Policy support, effectiveness and legitimacy ...................................................... 5 2.2. The policy-cycle approach .................................................................................. 9 2.3. Localization of the SDGs................................................................................... 13 3. Key policy elements in the localization the 2030 Agenda......................................... 15 3.1. Institutional coordination and the localization of the SDGs .............................. 16 3.2. Stakeholder Participation and the localization of the SDGs .............................. 19 3.3. Monitoring and the localization of the SDGs .................................................... 23 4. Legitimacy and effectiveness gains of the localization across the policy process ..... 28 4.1. Institutional coordination gains ....................................................................... 29 4.2. Stakeholder participation gains........................................................................ 34 4.3. Monitoring gains.............................................................................................. 38 5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 41 6. References .............................................................................................................. 44

3

1. Introduction The 2030 Agenda invokes a set of internationally shared principles and values that countries should apply in the definition of policies to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It aspires to be transformational in regards to policymaking and policy impacts by appealing to the coordination of government levels, the integration of policy domains, inclusive stakeholder participation, and policy monitoring as foundation for accountability. Unlike other global governance efforts, the 2030 Agenda relies on a novel form of international governance characterized by weak institutional arrangements and the absence of legal binding commitments and formal enforcement incentives. This governance context can result in low policy support for the implementation of the SDGs at the country level and, hence, in insufficient implementation and policy failure. Under this circumstance, fostering policy effectiveness and policy legitimacy can drive policy support of relevant stakeholders and the political authorities competent to deliver SDGs policies, hence, resulting in a successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

Stakeholder participation, monitoring and institutional coordination are central policy elements in the 2030 Agenda. We suggest that obtaining and maintaining constant policy support for the long-term implementation of the 2030 Agenda is more feasible if the effectiveness and legitimacy of the policy process is strengthened by (a) observing the preferences of stakeholders in the definition of SDG policies and making them participant of the policy process, (b) setting monitoring systems that contribute to the accountability of the political authorities responsible of implementing SDGs, and (c) fostering the appropriate institutional coordination among government levels and policy domains involved in policies of a multi-sectoral character.

Stakeholders support policy processes that rely upon inclusive participation and upon monitoring systems that enable accountability of the public institutions involved in the processes. Both of these policy elements strengthen policy effectiveness and legitimacy and favor stakeholders’ commitment towards transformative policy processes. Based on an electoral calculation, governments are expected to support policy processes that stakeholders perceive as legitimated and effective. Moreover, governments find convenient to increase their political commitment to policy processes legitimated by inclusive stakeholder participation and likely to result in high effectiveness policies thanks to the contributions of stakeholders to the policy process.

Our analysis focuses on examining how the localization of policy processes for the (national) implementation of the SDGs can enhance the role of stakeholder participation, monitoring and institutional coordination in the strengthening of policy effectiveness and legitimacy and, hence, in fostering the commitment of political authorities and stakeholders to create policies that implement the SDGs. Localization of the policy process refers to the active involvement of subnational governments (SNGs) and local stakeholders in the definition, implementation and monitoring of SDG policies. It allows a higher sensitivity towards the contextual social, economic and 4

political characteristics of a particular territory, enhances stakeholder participation, and makes accountability a more salient issue. The analysis is structured considering how the policy elements of stakeholder participation, monitoring and institutional coordination can increase policy support at each of the four policy-cycle stages: agenda setting, decision making, implementation and evaluation.

The following section considers the topics of policy support, its relationship with policy effectiveness and legitimacy and the policy-cycle approach all them referred to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Section three considers the policy aspects of institutional coordination, stakeholder participation and policy monitoring in the context of the 2030 Agenda and its subnational localization. The fourth section examines—specifically for each policy-cycle stage—how the localization of each of those three policy aspects can enhance policy support by strengthening policy effectiveness and legitimacy. The analysis can guide further research on the topic and be considered a reference for the policymaking of localizing the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. A final section states general conclusions of the study.

2. Analytical framework The key conceptual elements of the analysis presented in this document are policy support, effectiveness and legitimacy, the policy-cycle approach, the localization of the policy processes, and how the 2030 Agenda addresses the policy aspects of institutional coordination, stakeholder participation and monitoring. This section presents them in turn.

2.1. Policy support, effectiveness and legitimacy The 2030 Agenda invokes a set of internationally shared principles and values that countries should apply in the definition of policies to implement the SDGs. In regards to policymaking, it appeals to the coordination of government levels, the integration of policy domains, inclusive stakeholder participation, and policy monitoring as foundation for accountability. Unlike other global governance efforts largely based on a top-down approach, the 2030 Agenda relies on “governance through goals”, a novel form of governance defined by weak institutional arrangements and the absence of legal binding commitments and formal enforcement incentives (Young 2017; Biermann et al. 2017; Kanie and Biermann, 2017; see also Jones, 2017 and Persson et al., 2016; Karlsson‐Vinkhuyzen and Vihma, 2009). Under this governance paradigm, the success

5

of the 2030 Agenda, and it is the basic policy support driver of an international society of sovereign countries not legally bound to development commitments. 2 The implementation of the 2030 Agenda benefits from the legitimacy conferred by the broad international consensus around the SDGs. Nevertheless, it faces the key challenge of ensuring a constant long-term policy support from national political authorities and stakeholders. Enforcing political decisions is difficult without a formal sanctioning system (Dahl, 1989; Peters, 1986); under this circumstance, it becomes necessary to strengthen alternative drivers of policy support, such as policy effectiveness and policy legitimacy. Fostering political support becomes even more relevant in the implementing the SDGs because, besides putting forward a set of development goals, the 2030 Agenda aspires to be transformational in regards to policymaking, proposing multi-level, multi-sector and multi-actor governance reforms that may diverge from the extant government and administrative structures and the policy dynamics of the countries.

Our analysis examines how the localization of the 2030 Agenda can take advantage from the policy capabilities of subnational governments and local stakeholders to strengthen the effectiveness and legitimacy of the policy process, thus, resulting in higher policy support for the implementation of SDGs. Potential effectiveness and legitimacy gains are presented in regards to four policy-cycle stages: agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. The core argument of the study suggests: (a) reaching and maintaining a persistent policy commitment to the longterm implementation of the SDGs is more feasible if the policy process generates highly effective and legitimate policies; (b) these two policy characteristics can be fostered if policies are both determined according to local stakeholders’ preferences and sensitive to the development needs and the social, economic and political characteristics of specific territories; (c) which can be better done when the policy process is localized at the subnational level.

The analysis is structured in base to three policy aspects underscored in the definition of the 2030 Agenda that are fundamental to examine how the localization of the policy process can favor policy effectiveness and legitimacy: (a) institutional coordination, understood as mechanisms to pull and organize policy resources and political will from different government levels, administrations and other public actors; (b) stakeholder participation aimed at an inclusive, plural and open policy preference negotiation and attaining policy resource contributions; and (c) monitoring of the policy process and its outcomes, which allows for the accountability of the political actors that participate in the process. This and the following section develop the conceptual elements we have just outlined and are graphically summarized in Figure 1.

2 Unlike the loose international institutional framework described, national political systems present formal intergovernmental and legal structures that must be considered in regards to within-country policy support to implement the 2030 Agenda.

6

Localization of Policy Process

Institutional Coordination

Policy Effectiness and Letigimacy

Stakeholder Participation Monitoring

Policy Support

Figure 1

Policy legitimacy Legitimacy is considered a prerequisite of political authority (Beetham 1991; George 1980; Buchanan 2002). Different types of legitimacy have been defined according to their source (Beetham and Lord 1998; Dahl 1989, 1998; Scharpf 1999; O’Donnell 2004).

Input legitimacy relies on the ‘government by the people’ idea; legitimate authoritative decisions result from a negotiation process that considers people’s preferences; it focuses on the processes informing political decisions and policymaking dynamics.

Output legitimacy relies on the idea of ‘government for the people’; a policy is legitimate if it performs well to the benefit the public; it focuses on the consequences of the decision-making process and on policy accountability rather than on the decision process itself. 3 Recent studies (Schmidt 2013; Jagers et al. 2016; also Dryzek 2001) on newer governance systems (with multiple participant stakeholders or spanning multiple government levels) define a “throughput” legitimacy based on the quality of the inclusion of actors in the policy process, the policy interactions and policy procedures. This form of legitimacy is associated to deliberative practices broadening stakeholder participation throughout fair, open, inclusive and transparent governance processes.

Regulatory governance studies based on the principal-agent approach consider accountability (and transparency) to examine authority delegation (Majone, 1994, 1997; Scott 2000). Majone (1997) indicates that public sector reforms and network governance models emphasize accountability and a change from input to output legitimacy since the latter is closely associated the evaluating policy outcomes for accountability. Institutionalized accountability processes are also associated to policy Output legitimacy relates to Beetham and Lord’s (1998) definition of efficacy-based legitimacy, which results from the capability of a political system to obtain policy results aligned with the demands of the citizenry and the average voter (i.e., it adopts Hume’s approach to government’ legitimacy based on its efficacy to generate good political and economic performance. Beetham and Lord’s (1998) define two other legitimacy forms: procedural legitimacy refers to the methods used to select or elect the main political actors; the higher the freedom and the more direct these methods are the higher the legitimacy; social legitimacy refers to the citizenry’s feeling of belonging to a political community, which affects its moral-based obedience, norm accomplishment and willingness to participate and get involved in political processes.

3

7

effectiveness because they increase authorities’ incentive to be politically effective (O’Donell, 2004). Analogously to legitimacy, Patil et al (2014) differentiate between an input accountability focused on the efforts to achieve outcomes, and an output accountability focused on the effectiveness of those efforts to actually delivering the expected policy outcomes. The 2030 Agenda encourages both input accountability about the “means of implementation” of the SDGs and outcome accountability on the attainment of the SDGs.

Policy effectiveness Policy effectiveness refers to the extent that a public policy attains its objectives (Peters 2012) and, as indicated above, confers policy legitimacy (i.e., output legitimacy). In turn, policies that effectively satisfy citizens’ needs result in a higher degree of policy support, which facilitates the compliance of policy actors.

Effectiveness is achieved improving the policy design, which not only involves assessing the nature, urgency and priority of a policy issue, the channels available to negotiate interests and the preferred governance styles but also defining formal and informal mechanisms and incentives to mobilize public and private policy resources; that is, ensuring policy support (Meny and Thoening, 1992).

The implementation of the 2030 Agenda is a process aimed at combining universal principles with heterogeneous local preferences and territorial contexts with diverse institutional settings and socioeconomic conditions.4 Since countries and subnational territories differ regarding their initial positions, governance styles and preferences, the common and universal SDG targets must be translated in “differentiated” ways to adapt them to particular territorial contexts (Meuleman, 2018). Under these circumstances, designing effective policies to implement the SDGs becomes particularly challenging (Nilsson et al. 2016). Attaining the 2030 Agenda demands going beyond “governance as usual”, not only because the implementation of the 2030 Agenda implies dealing with intersecting and interlinked policy goals, but (mainly) because it poses the challenge of how to combine successfully different governance approaches “on the ground”. That is, choosing the situational best tailor-made combination of hierarchical, network and market governance styles depending on the available opportunities (and limitations) posed by a specific territory and its policy actors. 5

This heterogeneity in governance is defined as “metagovenance” in works like Meuleman (2018) and Meuleman and Niestroy (2015). The European Union is characterized as a major supranational instance of multi-level metagovernance governing a wide range of complex and interrelated problems.

5 Formally, governance is a method/mechanism for dealing with a broad range of problems/conflicts in which actors regularly arrive at mutually satisfactory and binding decisions by negotiating with each other and cooperating in the implementation of these decisions (Schmitter, 1997). Governance styles 4

8

In sum, the particular ways to implement the SDGs in a specific context are determined by the diverse institutional capacities and the preferences of countries and subnational territories in establishing an enabling environment for flexible, inclusive and effective combinations of governance styles (i.e., some degree of coordinated governance).

Apparently contrasting approaches (e.g., bottom-up versus top-down modes, cooperative versus market-oriented methods, (strong) leadership versus (decentralized) ownership) are not contradictory but mutually enforcing and can be reconciled to be implemented in particular policy situations (Meuleman and Niestroy, 2015; Christopoulos, Horvat and Kull, 2012).

2.2. The policy-cycle approach The policy-cycle approach allows assessing and explaining possible gaps and shortcomings of public policies that can affect the effectiveness and legitimacy of the policy. 6 It usually divides the policy process into the four stages presented below: agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation and evaluation (Anderson 1975, Peters 1986, Bates and Eldredge 1980, Hogwood and Gunn 1984). This division into observable components allows a systematic analysis of the policymaking process that differentiates the role of the actors involved at each stage (Sutton 1999, Scharpf 1999). 7 This is particularly helpful to analyze policies implementing the SDGs that are characterized by multi-actor and multi-level governance models in which the compromise and responsibility of the participants vary along the stages of the policycycle (Bexell and Jonsson 2017). The policy-cycle approach allows considering how the policy support of the policy involved in a policy process is driven by different forms of legitimacy: input legitimacy during the initial decision-making stage, throughput legitimacy during the implementation stage, and output legitimacy during the evaluation of the policy results (Jagers et al. 2016).

The stage of policy agenda setting involves prioritizing among different social needs, selecting which problems to tackle according to their importance and urgency.

Government institutions seeking to achieve the SDGs need to inform, engage listen to can be defined as the processes of decision-making and implementation, including the manner in which the organizations involved relate to each other. Three ideal-typical (in Weberian sense) governance styles are usually distinguished: hierarchical, network and market governance.

6 Here, a public policy is a process by which a government assumes the control over a policy issue in a defined territory (e.g., village, township, province, region) and in relation to specific social groups and stakeholders (e.g., consumers, families, companies) applying different instruments (e.g., public funds, public-private partnership, service-contracts) to achieve some expected goals.

7 The policy-cycle approach presents obvious limitation in regards to its validity. This is particularly the case in the lesser developed and endowed policy environments usually found in weak democratic systems and low-income economies, in which political and economic elites usually adopt a dominant position in the policymaking process.

9

and mobilize citizens, providing formal and structured forums for debate among stakeholders and improving coordination mechanisms for the negotiation of interests.

The definition of the policy agenda gains effectiveness and legitimacy when citizens and stakeholders, sufficiently and critically informed, can openly negotiate their preferences.

The targeted audiences of information vary depending on the stakeholders and actors involved in particular territories and policy issues. Three groups are particularly relevant to implement the SDGs at the domestic level: citizens, politicians, and civil servants at the technical level. Although the public awareness appears to be on the rise after five years from the official announcement of the SDGs, these are still considered opaque, unknown and too abstract among large and generic audiences. In a recent survey conducted on more than 26.000 individuals from 174 countries, less than half of the respondents worldwide affirmed to know the SDGs. 8 The average awareness score of the SDGs is just under 50%, with the European Union having a somewhat higher value of 56%.

Politicians also appear insufficiently informed about the salience and relevance of the SDGs for their political agendas. Political elites, mainly in low and medium income countries, are not yet fully aware of the SDGs. At the moment there are very few cases of politicization of the SDGs, meant as their inclusion in the electoral programs of parties. Including the SDGs framework in the official agenda of political parties is an innovative step towards a more effective, accountable and legitimated implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

Public officials of a technical level —the real ‘executors’ of many public policies— perceive the SDGs as too conceptual and vague. The administrative structures of many governments consider the SDGs as global interests very much linked to international cooperation, and sectoral departments may present resistance to change extant sectoral-based policy dynamics. Moreover, to the extent that the power within a government is dispersed, conflicting agendas among sectorial administrative units can undermine policy coherence. 9

“Report of Results; Global Survey on Sustainability and the SDGs: Awareness, Priorities, Need for Action” (January, 2020) available at https://www.globalsurvey-sdgs.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/20200205_SC_Global_Survey_Result-Report_english_final.pdf. For a previous survey on SDG awareness see OECD (2017a).

9 The ‘internalization’ of SDGs into the administrative and political structure of governments is an important task because of these two reasons: (a) the SDGs framework is usually introduced in the country administration via the department in charge of regional external relations or international affairs, and sometimes these departments encounter serious problems to mainstream the SDGs across sectoral departments; (b) the SDGs must be explained to civil servants because, as indicated by analyses of EU Cohesion policy, training and information-sharing activities among civil servants increase public officials’ ownership and commitment towards policies and, therefore, their favorable attitude towards administrative change.

8

10

The second stage of the policy-cycle refers to policy formulation, which involves selecting appropriate governance mechanisms and policy instruments to achieve some expected policy goals. In regards to the 2030 Agenda, upon critically reviewing extant governance structures, governments and stakeholders are co-responsible for the design of the institutional setting (institutions and processes) used to implement the SDGs. Internal committees, task forces, working groups and the alike can be created or adapted to coordinate and strengthen the policy-making process. When goals integrate different sectoral policy issues and affect multiple stakeholders policy formulation becomes more complex and actors’ positioning on the selection of appropriate policy instruments can diverge, resulting in an unclear distribution of tasks and responsibilities that can negatively affect the implementation and accountability of the policy.

Depending of their degree of autonomy, SNGs can dispose of a different pool of policy instruments that define their capability of policy formulation. These include economic tools (taxes, spending, incentives), legal norms (laws, decrees, regulations) or voluntary self-regulation. The process of alignment, adaptation and/or inclusion of SDGs into subnational territorial strategies and frameworks has followed different forms (see section 3.1 on institutional coordination). Many national and subnational governments have formally included the 2030 Agenda as part of their political and development programs. Some national and regional parliaments have officially approved long-term strategies to implement the SDGs that enhance the political nature of the agreement. In other cases, the strategy consists mainly in a programmatic document that lacks legal obligation. The involvement of parliaments strengthens horizontal public scrutiny and accountability, which helps to cope with criticisms that claim that the SDGs are exclusively a government-driven exercise. 10 Parliaments fulfill a central role in advancing the SDGs by adopting enabling legislation (e.g., budgetary laws, regulations). They also contribute to improve the quality of the debate among diverse constituencies and contribute to commit domestic political actors to no-partisan and long-term development strategies.

The policy cycle stage of implementation is, according to Hogwood and Gunn (1984), the real test of the power of governments. Public policy research suggests that there may be more than a hundred variables affecting the implementation of a policy.

Implementation failures usually occur because, to execute approved policies, policymakers and governments must rely on a complex and dense networks of variegate actors such as a different government level, public agencies, civil servants For review of the role of parliaments in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, see “Parliament's Role in Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: a Parliamentary Handbook� (edited by GOPAC and UNDP). Available at: https://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Democratic%20Governance/Parliamentary%20Devel opment/parliaments%20role%20in%20implementing%20the%20SDGs.pdf 10

11

and the private sector and civil society. Implementation cases in which a single executive, independent and autonomous agency is responsible for the execution of an entire policy are exceptional, particularly in the context of the integrative and holistic policy approach associated to the SDGs. To the extent that the implementation of the 2030 Agenda relies upon the participation of many and diverse actors, understanding the relationship between policymakers and policy-deliverers becomes crucial in order to improve policy effectiveness. When the number of actors is high and policy-issues are complex, the distribution of tasks is always difficult and communication and coordination costs tend to increase. Even assuming that communication channels work properly, policy instructions can be easily misinterpreted, partially understood and even ignored by actors with particular agendas and interests. This means to recognize that policydeliverers can present different degree of discretion in applying policy instructions depending on their own interests and agendas.

The evaluation of a policy is the final stage of the policy-cycle. It relies on the monitoring of the policy outcomes and the assessment of the expected impacts. 11. The evaluation of policy impacts is usually a challenging activity that requires a considerable amount of data and deep methodological expertise, for example, to be able to analyze how much of the observed impact can be attributed to the policy, discarding possible spurious effects. Governments and public administrations present different degrees of commitment with regard to policy evaluation depending on their institutional cultures. Many low and medium income countries have only an incipient institutionalization of the evaluative policy task and lack a proper evaluation culture.

The evaluation of the impact of policies aimed at attaining SDGs is still scarce because many have not been fully implemented and/or more time is needed before impacts on beneficiaries become evident.

Monitoring refers to the collection and analysis of information about a program, a project or a policy, usually initiated while this is still ongoing. It accomplishes two main goals: controlling whether policy actions have been correctly executed and have produced the expected outcomes, and gathering relevant data for their adjustment and improvement. Monitoring is a fundamental component of accountability systems. 12 The indicator-based monitoring system of the 2030 Agenda may be difficult The specialized public policy analysis literature differentiates between policy outcomes and impacts.

(Meny and Thoening, 1992).

12 The UN General Assembly (2010, p.5) defines accountability as "the obligation of the Organization and its staff members to be answerable for delivering specific results that have been determined through a clear and transparent assignment of responsibility, subject to the availability of resources and the constraints posed by external factors. Accountability includes achieving objectives and results in response to mandates, fair and accurate reporting on performance results, stewardship of funds, and all aspects of performance in accordance with regulations, rules and standards, including a clearly defined system of rewards and sanctions." Accountability mechanisms range from those that incentivize 11

12

to implement by some national governments—and weak SNGs—without deploying additional human and financial resources or without the support from international institutions or national ones in the case of the SNGs.

2.3. Localization of the SDGs For the purposes of the present report, localizing the SDG means “taking into account sub-national contexts in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda, from the setting of goals and targets, to determining the means of implementation and using indicators to measure and monitor progress”. 13 Localization refers both to how SNGs can support the achievement of the SDGs through bottom up actions, and how the SDGs provide a framework for local development policy. Localization is also linked to three themes: whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches, territorial approach to local development and subsidiarity.

Firstly, the whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches emphasize the need to frame policymaking processes in an integrated way involving all government levels and members of society (Gold V, 2019). This implies that subnational governments and members of a society effectively take part in all stages of the policycycle. Secondly, localization recognizes local development as an endogenous and spatially integrated phenomenon, conferring primary responsibility for its planning, managing and financing to local authorities (European Commission, 2016; 2018). 14 Finally, localization relies upon the concept of subsidiarity, according to which responsibilities for public policies should be exercised by the elected authorities that are closest to citizens.

The definition of localization assumed in this document does not exclusively refer to implementing SDG targets at the local level. Localizing also refers to an ongoing political and policy process aimed at applying the universal principles of the 2030 compliance (e.g., peer-pressure, reputation loss, dispute arbitrations) to the sanctioning of failure according to regulated sanctions or vote losses in electoral processes (Jones, 2017).

13 Statement adopted by the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments at the Local and Regional Authorities Forum, in the HLPF of June 2018. See also UN Habitat (2016). Localization seems to be still a contested concept. An exhaustive clarification of the concept is outside the goal of the present report, but two definitions follow from the applied literature and used by international organizations.

The European Parliament refers to the term ‘localization’ as a key facet of multi-level governance, meaning the process of defining, bringing about and overseeing local strategies to achieve the SDGs at local, national and global levels (available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/607258/EPRS_IDA(2017)607258_EN.pdf) The OECD (2018) links localization to the territorial dimension of the SDGs making reference to how to transform, adapt, and convey the general SDGs framework (with its aspirational character) to the preferences of local constituencies and to the policy capabilities of public administrations and other stakeholders involved (available at http://www.oecd.org/cfe/territorial-approach-sdgs.htm).

14 DEVCO, 2016, Supporting decentralization, local governance and local development through a territorial approach'

13

Agenda (e.g., the premise of “leaving no-one behind”, the right-based approach, the “right to the city” principle) to particular territories. Hence, localizing the SDGs also about political will, co-creation of effective public policies with communities, and finding solutions at the territorial level to global challenges. Taking into account the heterogeneity of SNGs —not only across but also within countries and even within regions— localization is expected to be to be locally and territorially sensitive: there can exist as many localization styles as there are territories and levels of government. .

Subnational governments are decentralized public authorities below the central government level with own responsibilities and some degree of autonomy in the provision of public goods to the population of a particular territory.15 The OECD accounts for a total of 522.629 SNGs (included more than 250.000 units just in India; OECD, 2016a). 1.700 of those SNGs are defined as regions or federated units (i.e., state levels in federal arrangements). Our analysis focuses mainly on this more reduced group of public authorities placed in an intermediate position between local and national governments, that own a set of legislative and executive powers responsible for authoritative decision-making and that act over a specific territory with a significant population, usually greater than 150.000 people (Gary, Hooghe and Schakel, 2010, 2017). .

Subnational governments are full contributors to the 2030 Agenda. They participate in the definition of international development goals, implement them in their territory and contribute to monitor their progress. SNGs are formally included at the UN HighLevel Political Forum as one of the “Major Groups and other Stakeholders” participants in the forum (they form the Local Authorities Major Group - LAMG). This membership grants them several benefits over a “normal” observer status, such as the right to make written or oral contributions in the official meetings. Overall, the international political scenario is more positive today for SNGs than a couple of decades ago and their participation in global policymaking is now an uncontested phenomenon (Grasa and Sanchez Cano, 2013). In multilevel and supranational polities —as the European Union— scholars and practitioners have paid attention to the role of SNGs, not as mere executors of policies designed elsewhere, but also as providers of higher policy legitimacy and promoters of policy innovation at the territorial level (Tatham, 2015). .

It is usually claimed that SNGs are directly involved in many SDGs-related policy sectors (particularly SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12, 15 and 17). Research has indicated that the implementation of 65% of the SDG targets would be at risk if local urban stakeholders are not involved (Misselwitz et al. 2016). From a governance perspective, SNGs contribute to define and implement (more) effective and legitimated public policies thanks to their intermediate position: below the central state and above the municipal level. SNGs can strengthen coordination and collaboration with upper and lower levels of government to address contemporary challenges such as urbanization, demographic 15 This report relies on the definition of subnational governments provided by Marks, Hooghe and Schakel (2010, 2017). For a more detailed definition based on the notion of autonomy see Boex and Yilmaz (2010) and Eaton and Schroeder (2010).

14

pressures, climate change, conflicts, technology impacts (GOLD V Report, 2019). They contribute to set transformative and innovative policy frameworks referred to several sustainable development fields. 16 Importantly, SNGs are governmental actors with legal and fiscal mandates and prescribed responsibilities toward their citizens. Unlike other major groups or constituencies that defend particular interests (such as interest groups, advocacy coalition or NGOs), SNGs are democratically elected authorities that advocate for the interests of all citizens in their jurisdiction. In their case, their proximity to citizens reinforces their democratic legitimacy as can guarantee the inclusion of local preferences in the complex process of implementing the SDGs. After five years from the start of the 2030 Agenda, SNGs have available several toolboxes, roadmaps and agreed practices aimed at facilitating the localization of the SDGs. 17 Despite the availability of these practical guidelines, the implementation of the 2030 Agenda is expected to pose relevant challenges to regional and local governments. Policy reforms are often controversial and —when they are complex or poorly explained— resistances and obstacles are likely to appear. At the domestic level, reforms are generally prompted by central governments who are asked to adapt integrative and territorially sensitive governance approaches (UNDP, 2018). In institutional contexts where SNGs poorly participate to the domestic policymaking, policy coherence and the negotiation of territorial preferences may be deficient. SNGs also vary notably according to their degree of autonomy (Hooghe at al., 2001).

Although decentralization processes have advanced all across the world, in some cases, powers delegated to the SNGs are limited, resulting in scarce political, fiscal or administrative autonomy. In these contexts, subnational claims for higher levels of inclusion and participation in the domestic implementation of the 2030 Agenda do not mirror real power to deliver the SDGs.

3. Key policy elements in the localization the 2030 Agenda This section presents arguments in the 2030 Agenda referred to the three policy elements considered in the analysis because of their potential contribution to enhance policy support strengthening the effectiveness and legitimacy of the policy process: institutional coordination, stakeholder participation and monitoring. They are The breakdown of SNGs’ expenditure on economic functions confirms the close relation between the responsibilities assigned to SNGs and SDGs. Education —a main area of human development— represents nearly 22% of SNGs’ total spending, economic affairs and transportation (13,8%), social protection (12,5 %), and health (9,4%) (OECD, 2016a).

17 See, for example, the Rapid Integrated Assessment (RIA) supported by the UNDP (UNDP, 2017) and the roadmap provided by the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments (2018) 16

15

examined also in regards to the subnational localization of the implementation of SDGs. 3.1. Institutional coordination and the localization of the SDGs Institutional coordination is regarded here as referring to the formal ways of coordination among governments and public administrations (mainly, local, regional and central governments) to implement the 2030 Agenda. Institutional coordination is a key component of the multi-level governance approach, which conveys a decisionmaking scenario characterized by a plural process of interest negotiation that is vertically and horizontally integrated. 18 The 2030 Agenda underscores the importance of strengthening institutional frameworks for sustainable development at the national and subnational levels. The chosen institutional design and the coordination mechanisms can impact how policy responsibilities are allocated among various government levels and, consequently, on the legitimacy, effectiveness and accountability of the policy process. Three main elements linked to institutional coordination and the SNGs in regards the implementation of the 2030 Agenda are considered here: (a) policy coherence, (b) institutional change/adaptation, and (c) the need to strengthen the institutional relationship between regional and local governments.

Coordination among institutions is vital to achieve policy coherence, which in the field of development policy is fundamentally considered an approach for the integration of the economic, social, environmental and governance dimensions of sustainable development at all stages of domestic and international policy processes (OECD, 2014).

SDG Target 17.14 explicitly calls for governments to enhance the policy coherence of sustainable development as an essential criterion to implement all SDGs. The concept of policy coherence presents a horizontal and a vertical dimension that is relevant in regards to the 2030 Agenda (O’Connor et al., 2016).

Horizontal policy coherence refers to institutional arrangements that may facilitate integration among policy-sectors, which is likely necessary given the integrative nature of the development issues the SDGs refer to and the cross-sectoral (positive and negative) externalities that may occur during their implementation (Stevens and Kanie, 2016; Stevens, 2018). In these institutional arrangements, usually, there is greater representation of the ministries of environment, transportation, natural resources and the planning and finance-related ministries and lesser—although wanting— representation of ministries associated with social, educational, housing and The original concept of multi-level governance has been used by scholars in diverse ways (Hooghe at al., 2001, 2003). For a review of the literature see Stephenson (2013) and Piattoni (2009).

18

16

transversal policy issues (e.g., gender, transparency, digitalization). Deciding which institution should lead and impulse the coordination of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda at the domestic level is an unclear and a context-sensitive task. In some countries, the coordination of responsibilities has been assigned to the highest political level, i.e., prime ministries’ offices or cabinets, in order to capitalize on their political power to impose decisions upon line-ministries or sectoral agencies. In other countries, instead, centralized coordination tasks have been delegated to public agencies that are accountable to parliamentary assemblies. Currently it is a universally accepted priority to ‘break down silos’ among administrative bodies in order to modernize public administrations, finding the appropriate specific solutions for each country-specific particular condition. These transformations, though, can lead to ineffectiveness and loss of transparency and accountability if merging ministries is unjustified or the delegation of powers to public agencies is unclear, especially, when the rule of law and the quality of institutions in the country are low.

Vertical policy coherence refers to the integration of different territorial interests and preferences in the domestic policymaking process. The structure of the state (centralized versus federal), the political culture and climate in a country, and its particular socioeconomic characteristics and organizational factors can generate specific opportunities or barriers to attain vertical cooperation. Evidently, there are no unique solutions to foster collaboration within countries. In federal countries, the second chamber usually guarantees the representations of subnational preferences. In centralized states, the representation of regional/federated units in the national policymaking is usually weaker and dependent on the quality of intergovernmental relations.

Some studies have shown that national governments are increasingly recognizing the role of SNGs in the implementation of development policies (HLFP, 2018). There are a few cases of vertically integrated and inclusive institutions for the representation of regional interests in the domestic political arena, mainly referred to the environmental sector of (usually) federal states. However, at the present, ‘whole-of-government’ approaches and coordination mechanisms are usually functioning more as interagency or inter-ministerial collaboration rather than as effectively integrated levels of government. In these contexts, vertical relations are still dominated by the central government, and regional governments’ participation (with some exceptions) is mainly adaptive —if not passive. After all, the experience has shown that multilevel governance mechanisms cannot be easily introduced in national and sub-national contexts (HLPF, 2018).

In many countries, the coordination mechanisms created to implement the 2030 Agenda have needed institutional change and/or adaptation. Three main trends have been observed (HLFP, 2018): 17

a) The creation of a new institution such as consultative councils, inter-ministerial committees, technical commissions or agencies (e.g., Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, Benin, Colombia, Spain, The Netherlands). b) The use of pre-existing institutions such as a National Council for Sustainable Development (e.g., Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Moldova, Moldova) or some similar body as, for example, a Economic and Social Council (Greece), or a State-Regions Committee (Italy). c) The lack of institutionalization: SNGs involvement is channeled through ad-hoc meetings or sectorial punctual consultations.

Regardless of the formal structure that these institutions assume, their main goal is to advise central governments about SDG related issues and coordinate sectorial ministries and the involvement of SNGs and stakeholders in the domestic implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Challenges and obstacles have been identified: (a) in some cases, the national institution responsible for coordination has neither the power nor the legal mandate to impose itself over (or sanction) actors’ misbehavior; (b) being just consultative bodies, institutions for coordination usually face difficulty in getting their recommendations accepted or considered seriously by the government.

In regard to the latter, the experience on the functioning of the National Councils for Sustainable Development advices to strengthen the influence of this sort of consultative bodies, requiring that their recommendations receive a response from the government within a stated period, also that they be consulted on certain issues, or that their reports are reviewed by parliamentary committees or similar structures within the legislature (OECD, 2017d; OECD, 2017c).

With nearly 54% of the world’s population living in cities —potentially two-thirds by 2030—collaboration mechanisms between regions and cities becomes fundamental to address the implementation of the 2030 Agenda as well as the New Urban Agenda adopted at Habitat III.19 Urban settlements suffer some of the most serious negative impacts of unsustainable human and economic activities, such as stark socioeconomic inequalities, social exclusion, extreme poverty, unemployment, poor environmental conditions, and the high production of greenhouse gas emissions.

Urban structures vary notably across the world. Some large global cities are already among the most prominent actors in the localization of SDGs. Based on their size and budget, some cities resemble national states. However, many municipalities are still rural, underfinanced and often lacking administrative capacities to deliver the SDGs.

Since Goal 11 directly refers to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, many authors have centered exclusively on the role of cities in achieving Goal 11. Here we adopt a different perspective that highlights the role of regional governments and their relations with local governments in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

19

18

The subsidiarity principle can operate in a particularly effective way in these contexts.20 In regards to the institutional coordination between regional governments and cities (i.e., local and supra-local governments) it can serve multiple valuable policy objectives. Generally, it promotes greater territorial cohesion and an integrated perspective of the combined impacts of the different policy actions that different institutions adopt to implement the SDGs (Nrg4SD and University of Strathclyde, 2018). The higher proximity between local and regional governments enables the definition of territorially integrated strategies that can capture the interconnected effects that the different policies undertaken by different administrations may have within a particular geographical area. The linkage between urban and rural areas as well as innovative governance and policy solutions (e.g., metropolitan governance structures, regional funding schemes) are more likely to be established when the coordination between regional and local administrations is channeled through formal mechanisms. Regional governments can provide the support that small municipalities need to develop local plans and strategies to implement the SDGs. Regions can promote capacity-building activities, raising awareness campaign, workshops, training activities, memorandum of understanding and other policy instruments; reaching larger audiences than if these actions are solely undertaken by local administrations. 21

3.2. Stakeholder Participation and the localization of the SDGs Implementing the 2030 Agenda requires policy support from stakeholders (citizens, public and private sector entities) contributing multiple policy resources (World Bank 1996, UN 2008, OECD 2015, Schmidt-Traub and Sachs, 2015). 22 Researchers and practitioners emphasize the importance of adopting a participatory approach in the making of development policies, especially those designed for a transition towards In its generic definition, the principle of subsidiarity suggests that a policy should be planned and implemented at the action level that is closest to the problem being tackled. Therefore, supra-national and national governments should only address issues that cannot be best addressed by a local government, community or at the individual level.

21 The following examples of regional cooperation with local governments are illustrative. The provincial government of Santa Fe in Argentine developed a strategic plan in partnership with cities to promote instruments for local planning that are aligned to those included in the regional policy. In the development of the urban agenda, the regional government of Catalonia has recently started to define a participatory framework for the inclusion of local governments. For this objective, a multi-sector and multi-actor collegial body has been created (an “Urban Assembly”) participated by all levels of government and representatives of civil society and the private sector. The government of the Basque Country has established an official network (Udalsarea 21) that brings together 183 municipalities of the region in the pursuit of finding sustainable solutions for common goals. In Brazil, the state of Paraná supported nearly 400 municipalities by providing organized training sessions for the integration of the SDGs framework into local public administrations.

22 Although citizenry considered as “general public” often refers to an unstructured and unorganized collection of individuals, some authors considers it as a particular form of stakeholder (Luyet et al 2012).

20

19

sustainability (Bohunovsky et al., 2011; Vervoort et al., 2014). Localizing the policy processes to implement SDGs can favor the involvement of stakeholders by increasing the proximity of the policy process to them, thus, facilitating policy consultation and cooperation with SNGs, thus, contributing to improve the effectiveness of policy processes and the resulting policies. 23 Localizing the SDG policies can favor stakeholders’ policy support because they are more likely be defined specifically targeting local constituencies and communities, which motivates local stakeholders’ interest in the policy and confers higher visibility to their participation. Their higher interest in the policy would also increase their concern about improving the effectiveness of the policy and keeping policymakers accountable. These processes would foster stakeholders’ policy support and make the responsible government more attentive to the policy process.

The 2030 Agenda recommends tackling complex development issues adopting a multisectoral integrated policy approach. This type of approach benefits from governments’ cooperation with stakeholders possessing complementary capabilities and resources (e.g., information on policy preferences, formal knowledge, human capabilities and expertise, technologies, financial contributions). 24 Cooperation with resourceful stakeholders becomes particularly relevant in case of governments facing outstanding development problems with scarce public resources. SDG 17 (“Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development”) recognizes the importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships to mobilize policy resources. It encourages the creation of integrated coalitions of governments, civil society and the private sector working to implement the 2030 Agenda. Governments should lead the management of these partnerships, coordinating contributions to the action plan, balancing participants’ interests and fostering mutual cooperation to increase the effectiveness of the partnership in attaining its objectives.

For example, the Barcelona Provincial Council has designed the “Municipal Libraries Network Supporting SDGs” program to support the local implementation of SDGs using its municipal libraries network. The program aims at raising public awareness towards the SDGs and —more significant— promoting the role of libraries and librarians as local agents of cultural, educational and economic transformation in their community, impacting directly on people’s lives thanks to the closeness of public libraries to many citizens. The SDG targets considered in the program refer to lifelong learning opportunities, gender equality and women empowerment, job creation and entrepreneurship, and the fostering of effective, accountable, inclusive and participatory policy decision-making. The program is developed in the context of the International Advocacy Program (IAP) of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). More information at https://www.diba.cat/documents/16060163/189231108/The+Municipal+Libraries+Network+Supporting +Sustainable+Development+Goals/def46e8f-393f-489f-9855-cac0c21ddab4 24 Specific programs of SNGs implementing SDGs with an outstanding stakeholder participation component can be found in: www.provincia.tn.it (Trento, Italy); www.antioquia.gov.co (Antioquia, Colombia); www.gana.nariño.gov.co (Nariño, Colombia); www.cooperaciovalenciana.gva.es (Valencia, Spain); www.colonia.gub.uy (Colonia, Uruguay); www.irekia.euskadi.eus/es/debates/946?stage=presentation (Basque Country, Spain); see also http://www.regionsunies-fogar.org/en/activities/regional-best-practices-database 23

20

Our analysis focuses on how countries may increase policy support to the 2030 Agenda capitalizing on SNGs potential to (a) adjust the SDGs to local circumstances, (b) know about local stakeholders’ capabilities (thanks to their proximity and close access to them), and (c) encourage and coordinate participation of complex multi-stakeholder partnerships. 25 These three elements should favor policy effectiveness. SNGs’ capability to foster the involvement of local stakeholders in the policy process should favor stakeholders’ policy comprise and policy acceptance and ownership sense, which should also arise their concern for policy accountability processes and favor policy legitimacy.

SNGs can also foster more stakeholder participation than national governments because of emotional reasons. Citizens in a region or municipality may present a close affinity with their subnational government because of cultural or political identity reasons, a sense of community and social bond with those in the subnational territory, or their active participation in subnational civil associations. Such affinity can be reinforced by the circumscribed benefits that a SNG’s policies provide to those in its territory as well as by citizens’ interpretation of policy results as a community triumph—despite the universalistic character of the 2030 Agenda. In consequence, SDGs that require strong citizenry involvement may particularly benefit from localizing their implementation, particularly if the policy impacts are fundamentally local.

Stakeholder participation can be considered in relation to monitoring and accountability. Apart from the technical challenge of collecting and evaluating monitoring indicators, governments may be reluctant to set a monitoring system that will be used to keep them accountable. Therefore, it is possible to define an important form of stakeholder participation consisting in the public demand of creating effective monitoring systems to assess the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. This demand can be more likely manifested if referred to monitoring SNGs because stakeholders tend to be more motivated both to learn about the effectiveness of polices focused on impacting specifically their territory and keep accountable the SNGs responsible of these policies.

Localizing the SDGs may induce within-country territorial inequalities associated to stakeholder participation to the extent that subnational territories vary in the policy resource endowments possessed and contributed by their citizens, civil associations, firms, research institutions and the like. These differences could create wellbeing inequality among citizens from different territories associated to cross-regional Some structural aspects can favor regions’ capability to create and manage multi-stakeholder partnerships with local stakeholders: (a) regions’ administrative relations with and knowledge about local stakeholders allows them to choose the most appropriate ones for each policy (mapping stakeholders and learning about their policy assets and network of relationships can foster that knowledge); (b) regions’ intermediate dimension (between that of a country and its municipalities) allows regional governments to deal efficiently with a significant pool of policy actors; (c) the intermediate position of regional governments in the institutional structure of states (between the national and local governments) is appropriate to assume the coordination of partnerships with a multilevel set of policy actors (e.g., national ministries and research institutions, regional hospitals and business associations, local advocacy groups and governments).

25

21

differences in their progress implementing the SDGs—particularly if these differences are not offset by inter-territorial cooperation and compensatory state mechanisms.

Cross-regional inequality in SDG progress can also result from differences in leadership and policy resource endowments across SNGs. SNGs should have enough leadership capability and own resources to avoid overdependency on contributions from private stakeholder or powerful social groups.

Otherwise, the policymaking process can be prone to abide to particularistic interests.

To avoid subverting 2030 Agenda principles such as “leaving no one behind” or the prioritization of policies impacting social groups with most urgent needs, governments should be able to align private stakeholders’ interests with the general public interest and set institutional warranty mechanisms to preserve the representation of the of politically week groups, as well as to prevent corruption and government cooptation. A specific potential harm of localizing the implementation of SDGs is the risk of disaggregating the political power of the country’s public administration or of civil groups advocating cross-territorial public interests (e.g., labor rights, environmentalism, consumer rights), thus, weakening their political negotiation capability versus other actors (e.g., large corporations).

The 2030 Agenda confers the private firms and important stakeholder role because of the relationship of their activity with many SDGs and their potential resource contributions to its implementation (UNCTAD 2014), e.g., generating tax revenues and job incomes, with philanthropy and responsible corporate citizenship, supplying “bottom of the pyramid” markets (Kolks et al., 2014; Prahalad and Hammond, 2002).

Firms can align their corporate social responsibility to the SDGs, particularly, in regards to environmental sustainability, social inequalities, poverty amelioration (UNCG, 2013; Kolks, 2016). 26 As SDG 16 indicates, firms—cooperating with global IGOs and other stakeholders—can help to strengthen institutions associated to peace, justice and social inequality amelioration, thus, contributing to social stability and the fair rule of law, both of which are also key pillars for the progress of the private sector itself. In order to foster social stability, firms need to reconcile their self-interest with sustainable social institutions and fair economic structures. They should also support good governance mechanisms aimed at preventing corruption, which diverts funds that otherwise could be devoted to inclusive development, poverty amelioration and other SDGs (SDG Found, 2017).

SNGs’ proximity to the local communities where firms specifically locate their core activity within a country confers them the enhanced capability to manage multistakeholder partnerships aimed at preventing or coping with negative externalities associated to business activities (e.g., environmental damage, displacement of local SDG Found (2017) describes cases of multinational corporations that align their CSR to the SDGs (particularly SDG 16, but also to most others), support international CSR initiatives (e.g., ILO Tripartite Declaration, UN Global Compact) and collaborate with SDG foundations (e.g., SERES, PVBLIC Foundation, Forética). Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), UN Global Compact and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) have defined the “SDG Compass” guide for business action referred to the SDGs. Forética has created a guide of state-owned enterprise contributions to the SDGs. 26

22

populations) as well as to control corporate selfish actions that may cause distrust, social conflict and unrest in local communities (e.g., abusive labor conditions, discriminatory hiring, occupational risks and diseases, damage to businesses operating in other economic sectors). SNGs can also be instrumental in dealing with the small and middle size firms located in their territory, particularly if the national government focuses on larger multinationals with decision centers located in the nation’s capital or abroad. They are also instrumental in connecting firms in their territory (particularly the newcomers) with its educational and research institutions, thus fostering innovation cooperation, professional synergies and entrepreneurship.

Economic actors that operate under “Social and Solidarity Economy” (SSE) principles pursue a “transformative localization” of the SDGs that contributes to change economic, social and political structures that underpin inequality and poverty. 27 SSE associates the “leaving no one behind” principle to localized structural transformations “everywhere and for everyone”. The UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD, 2017) considers that a SSE approach allows avoiding three potential mistakes in the implementation of the SDGs: (a) uneven development caused by national strategies that disregard local specificities referred to needs and conditions and that also dismiss local stakeholders; (b) lack of governance institutions to include a broad representation of social groups and limit the unduly influence (via formal or informal relationships) of local elites in the implementation of SDGs; and (c) a local development approach that ignores negative externalities over neighboring territories and disregards the “SDGs for all” solidarity principle that suggest that all territories in a country should benefit from the economic activity undertaken in its jurisdiction. SNGs are well suited to prevent the two first pitfalls implementing inclusive participatory mechanisms. Regarding the third pitfall, SNGs can establish systems of inter-municipal solidarity and national governments can also do so in regards to inter-regional solidarity (see Utting and Morales 2016).

3.3. Monitoring and the localization of the SDGs Policy monitoring involves tracking a policy process to improve the effectiveness of its definition and implementation and assess the achievement of expected policy outcomes and impacts, thus, being a fundamental enabler component of the accountability of policymakers and implementers. The 2030 Agenda defines global and national SDG monitoring layers. Global monitoring is based on 232 Global Monitoring Indicators (GMIs) to be tracked in every country and globally reported at the High-level Political Forum as part the Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) to assess SDG progress

27 Social and Solidarity Economy refers to “economic activities guided by principles of cooperation, solidarity, self-management, and which prioritize social and, often, environmental objectives beyond the profit motive” (UNRISD, 2017 p. 1).

23

at the national and sub-national levels. 28 The Global SDG Indicator Framework recognizes the national ownership of the monitoring process. GMIs rely on data produced by national statistical offices, harmonized to ensure cross-country comparability and global standards. Global monitoring is key for the “peer-pressure / naming and shaming” mechanism fostering the commitment of countries to implement the SDGs, based on fearing peer-disappointment and reputational damage within the international society in case of non-compliance with the benchmarks that countries have pledged to accomplish (Young, 2017; Biermann et al, 2017; Kanie and Biermann, 2017). 29 National Monitoring is based on GMIs, but countries can develop and implement Complementary National Indicators (CNIs) adjusted to their particular national needs, priorities and monitoring capability. Countries decide the number, nature, timing, collection method, international comparability and disaggregation level of their CNIs. Accountability is a cross-cutting issue in the 2030 Agenda. A target in SDG 16 refers to the creation of effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The broad consensus achieved during the negotiation of the 2030 Agenda should help to overcome the potential reticence of countries to set effective accountability systems, which should be led by national governments, based on evidence-based criteria and engage stakeholders. Specifically, national governments are responsible of providing (voluntary) systematic “follow-up and review” of their SDG progress in order to offer accountability to citizens (UN-GA 2015, paragraphs 45, 47, 48). 30 The 2030 Agenda’s emphasis on multi-stakeholder partnerships also demands forms of “mutual/collective accountability” among partners that are based on peer-pressure and reputational damage (rather than enforcement) mechanisms that operate better in localized contexts of policy responsibility than at the more diffuse national one (OECD 2015, p.

Officially into effect since July 2017, GMIs were developed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG indicators (IAEG-SDGs) and yearly refined and comprehensively reviewed by the UN Statistical Commission in 2020 and 2025. The Cape Town Global Action Plan for Sustainable Development Data has set a framework to discuss, plan and implement statistical capacity building of national statistical systems for SDG monitoring.

29 SDGs can be understood as a set of norms at the softest end of a ‘hard-to-soft’ continuum because their low legalization degree –i.e., level of obligation, precision and delegation: no hard achievement obligations enacted as rules and commitments bound to international or domestic law; low precision in the definition of the 17 goals and many of the 169 targets, which are rather specified as vague and aspirational outcome targets; little evidence of authority delegation of the implementation of agreements to third parties –including courts, arbitrators, and administrative organizations (Persson et al, 2016; Karlson-Vinkhuyzen & Vihma, 2009). Because global peer-based accountability mechanisms are weak on responsibility, answerability and enforceability, their operation should be strengthened at the level of the EU, G20 and other supranational organizations.

30 Established SDG accountability practices are reviewed in Espey et al. (2015) and O’Connor et al.

(2016). Jones (2017) considers SDG accountability referred to development cooperation. Beisheim (2015) indicates that global accountability mechanisms are important because domestic parliaments and civil society organizations may lack sufficient political capability to hold national governments accountable. It also indicates that the mutual obligation that states have to each other in regards to universal goals with global effects (such as many SDGs) results in their self-interested pursue of reciprocal monitoring and accountability in order to avoid shared negative consequences (see also de Renzio 2006 regarding international aid accountability).

28

24

78; Jones 2017). 31 The localization of accountability processes (e.g., policy progress forums, peer-reviews, monitoring structures open to civil society participation) favors the effectiveness of the democratic control of the policy process because of citizens’ higher receptiveness to accountability and their higher political and participatory proximity to the policymaking process (Papadopoulos, 2007).

In political systems, accountability refers to mechanisms to (a) make politicians and bureaucrats to inform and publicly justify each decision they adopt and (b) make possible their sanctioning (Przeworski et al., 1999). Accountability is primarily considered from a vertical perspective where the citizenry makes governments responsible of their actions. It can also be considered horizontally, in the sense of the different institutions and organizations that constitute the institutional setting of a political system being accountable to each other (including accountability within government, between decision-makers and courts, between companies and regulators as well as between bureaucracies and the parliament). Accountability is associated to policy (output) legitimacy.

The 2030 Agenda has fostered the debate of improving the monitoring of development policies with novel and better quality data forms disaggregated by vulnerable groups and territories. A “data presentation revolution” (Woodbridge, 2015; see also Persson et al, 2016) consisting in improving the presentation of development data to policymakers and stakeholders —easier in localized monitoring systems— can improve the role of monitoring in policymaking, policy transparency and accountability, the understanding of SDG progress, and stakeholder participation. “Open data” systems, for instance, allow for the public availability of monitoring data, fostering accountability, policy ownership and stakeholder participation. 32 The 2030 Agenda encourages states to lead the territorial disaggregation of SDG monitoring adjusting the indicators to the specific development priorities and policy circumstances of subnational territories. 33 Territorially disaggregated data can better help SNGs in their policymaking as well as to identify within-country inequalities and ways to diminish these (a SDG 10 target). The Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD, 2017) recommends SNGs to set their SDG monitoring system (a) defining the most adequate indicators to their particular Collective action theory suggests that the diluted responsibility of broad coalitions of multiple stakeholders may lower policy effectiveness. Benner et al. (2004) indicate that multisectoral “public policy networks” of stakeholders from public, private and civil contexts must rely on well defined issuespecific accountability mechanisms (professional/peer accountability, public reputational accountability, market accountability, fiscal and legal accountability).

32 The strategy of the State of Jalisco (Mexico) for the public definition and follow up of monitoring indicators is innovative in regards to open data, specialized citizen participation and accountability at the subnational level (see https://seplan.app.jalisco.gob.mx/mide/panelCiudadano/inicio) 33 The 2030 Agenda support of territorial monitoring, with broad and regular multi-stakeholder participation and building on existing national and local follow-up and review processes, is stated in its foundational documents Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UNGA 2015) (points 77 and 79 in the “Follow-up and Review” chapter) and The Road to Dignity by 2030 (UN-SG 2014).

31

25

circumstanced and (b) still keeping harmonious coherence with the monitoring undertaken by the national government and other regions, so that it is possible the data aggregation needed to elaborate the VNRs. Nrg4SD also vindicates that UN agencies include subnational monitoring elements in their reporting frameworks, the participation of regional governments in the elaboration of VNRs (particularly of SNGs experienced in collecting data and analyzing indicators in their territory), and the involvement of subnational statistical offices in the planning and monitoring of the national SDG strategy.

Barnett and Parnell (2016) highlight the importance of localized monitoring at the city level because some sustainable development issues are shaped by urban processes that require a particularly close scrutiny. Cities are considered sites of development opportunity thanks to positive feedbacks between urban economic competitiveness, social cohesion, environmental sustainability and responsive governance. They are also spaces of specific territorial and relational forms of agency that (a) are available only to place-based embedded actors (e.g., local governments, local businesses, local civil associations) and (b) involve capabilities which appreciation requires sensitive local knowledge and, hence, that vary from place to place and issue to issue (MacLeod and Jones, 2007; Cox, 1997). The definition of localized monitoring indicators should consider such variation and benefit from big data analysis on micro-interactions of city life (Barnett and Parnell, 2016, p. 93).

Subnational monitoring can be inefficient in countries of small size, little internal diversity across their territory or limited resources to set a decentralized monitoring system. In these cases, it can be more efficient the concentration of monitoring resources in a national statistical office, which still can provide territorially disaggregated data to the SNGs. Wherever is appropriate, national governments can foster the territorial disaggregation of monitoring defining and implementing common protocols on reporting, metrics and indicators in order to harmonize and coordinate data across territories, achieving comparability and integration of subnational data and preventing double-counting.

Policy monitoring and accountability can favor policy effectiveness and legitimacy, particularly if citizens and other stakeholders play an active role in these processes.

Monitoring can generate policy results information that enhances policy transparency and public accountability if made publicly available (e.g., through “open data” systems). It can also foster policy effectiveness if the public presentation of the information is in a format that allows comparative benchmarking of policy results across the subnational territories in a country and, thus, allows citizens to assess the performance of their SNGs. 34 Citizens could rely on this comparative information to express their (un)satisfaction with the progress towards the SDGs achieved by their Comparative benchmarking should be easier for citizens in comparisons across subnational territories (regions, municipalities) than across countries because—most likely—they are more knowledgeable of political and socioeconomic differences across the regions of their country than about cross-country differences that must be factored in to assess correctly the progress achieved in the own territory relative to others.

34

26

SNG—supporting or penalizing it with their electoral decisions or other actions (e.g., demonstrations, survey responses). Consequently, SNGs would be compelled to improve the effectiveness of their policymaking. Stakeholders other than citizens (e.g., civil associations, firms, business associations, research institutions) can also rely on that comparative benchmarking to assess the performance of their SNG, deciding about their supporting actions towards it accordingly. Citizen and stakeholder’s awareness of that form of comparative benchmarking should increase the public demand of and attention to monitoring, particularly in regards to localized policy processes having a direct impact on their particular territory.

Monitoring can involve examining both the policy achievements (“outcome/impact monitoring”) and the policy process (“input/means monitoring”). The 2030 Agenda relies on both sorts of monitoring in regards to accountability: assessment of the efforts to achieve outcomes (“process/means accountability”) and of the effectiveness of these efforts in actually delivering outcomes (“outcome accountability”) (Patil et al 2014, p. 69). 35 Monitoring both “outcomes” and “means” complicates accountability because it blurs the benchmark against which to hold policymakers accountable.

Monitoring indicators can be defined either to act mainly as a management tool to define and implement policies or to serve as a report card of policy progress (SDSN, 2015). The latter is more suitable for accountability and comparative benchmarking, and the former usually needs the indicators to be adjusted to particular territorial circumstances, limiting their use to compare across territories and their harmonized aggregation to consider national and international trends.

The complexity that results from diverse resource contributions from multiple stakeholders to SDG policy processes (Schmidt-Traub and Sachs, 2015) can significantly complicate monitoring and become a reason to focus exclusively on policy results monitoring (outcomes/impacts)—similarly as it occurs in regards to development cooperation under the 2030 Agenda (OECD, 2016). 36 The subnational localization of the SDGs can simplify the stakeholders pool involved in a policy process, hence, diminishing the complexity of the resource contributions and clarifying the Most SDGs refer to achievements monitoring; the monitoring of implementation is considered (particularly in SDG 17 but also in others) fundamentally referred to measuring policy inputs from stakeholders (Jones 2017; Elder et al. 2016). Some SDGs can be understood as means to achieve higher goals of universal wellbeing (Elder et al. 2016, p.2). Persson et al. (2016) suggest that “behavior-based” monitoring reporting (i.e., on SDGs policy effort) should be emphasized over “outcome-based” monitoring reporting (i.e., on SDG progress) because of the limited effectiveness of the latter regarding development issues for which changes in outcome indicators are not observable from year to year, or other (insufficient) intervals. Evaluating the attribution of outcomes/impacts to particular contributed means is also a difficult methodological endeavor.

36 Jones (2007) provides a detailed analysis of development cooperation accountability in the context of the 2030 Agenda, indicating that emphasis on “outcome” accountability at the expense of accountability for “means contributions” may result in disregarding institutionalized cooperation commitments (e.g., 0.7% of GNI for aid cooperation). The OECD’s “Results based decision-making” approach to development cooperation (OECD, 2016b) emphasizes the achievement of SDG results by recipient countries at the expense of evaluating the inputs made by provider countries and their role in achieving those results. Ideally, outcome achievement and input provision should be considered a joint responsibility for which both recipient and provider countries should be accountable.

35

27

examination of policy responsibilities. In this regard, Jones (2017, p. 31) claims that 2030 Agenda should clarify the attribution of responsibility expected from different types of stakeholders with a more explicit specification of their expected contributions.

Policymakers implementing the SDGs may favor simple, single-variable indicators with straightforward policy implications, easy to compile, interpret, communicate, and align with their extant policy and monitoring frameworks (SDSN, 2015; Woodbridge, 2015).

A drawback of these particularistic indicators is their emphasis on a specific sectoral aspect, which is associated to a policymaking style that disregards the integration of sectoral policy departments often needed to tackle effectively the complexity of some sustainable development issues. Alternatively, an integrative policymaking style would need to rely on multi-functional indicators that inform about the progress of multiple policy goals all at once. These indicators also presents disadvantages: (a) provide too generic information for policymaking; (b) blur the extent to which different sectoral departments intervening in the policy should be kept accountable for the policy results; and (c) can make that policies are defined to the sole purpose of increasing performance against the umbrella indicator, ignoring aspects outside this one that should also be part of reaching the policy target (e.g., citizenship participation).

Finally, national governments that delegate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda to SNGs may prefer indicators on policy outcome/impacts in order to fulfill its compromise to present the VNRs and be able to keep SNGs accountable. On the contrary, the SNGs responsible of implementing the SDGs in their territory may prefer to devote their monitoring efforts to indicators that provide them insights for the policymaking process, which would also justify they are in charge of this monitoring task. Separating the roles of implementing a policy and monitoring its outcomes/results in two different government levels can favor the reliability and integrity of the monitoring process. 37 A higher government level monitoring a lower one can also favor the harmonization of indicators applied in the lower level territories required to perform comparative benchmarking across territories and to aggregate subnational policy results for the elaboration of VNRs.

4. Legitimacy and effectiveness gains of the localization across the policy process This section examines how the subnational localization of the policy process can catalyze the contribution of institutional coordination, stakeholder participation and monitoring to strengthen policy support by increasing policy effectiveness and

37 Research suggests that outcome accountability is often associated with agent mistrust and perceived opportunism, and process accountability is more prone to conformity at the cost of policy impact achievement (Jones 2017 p. 29; Patil et al. 2014, p. 74)

28

legitimacy. The analysis is structured along four policy-cycle stages: agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation and evaluation.

4.1. Institutional coordination gains Institutional coordination is a key policy issue throughout the entire policy-cycle. Its localization implies involving SNGs in the definition and selection of coordination mechanisms among different levels of governments, public administrations and other policy actors participating in the policy processes. In regards to the implementation of the SDGs, the localization of coordination mechanisms facilitates the negotiation and the prioritization of territorial preferences and the adjustment and combination of different policy actions. It also allows improving the selection of adequate strategies and policy instruments, facilitates a better implementation, and is crucial for the coordination of the monitoring of the country’s general progress towards the SDG. This section considers how the localization of institutional coordination throughout the different stages of the policy-cycle can result in more effective and legitimate policies aimed to implement the 2030 Agenda.

In the agenda setting stage, institutional coordination is basically centered on how to frame the national strategy for the implementation of the SDGs at the territorial level, how to prioritize multiple goals according to specific contexts and how to increase public awareness about the SDGs. The localization of institutional coordination improves effectiveness because it guarantees that policy issues from the (local) policy agenda that have been set according to local preferences and territorial development needs are present in the national SDG agenda or, at least, are coherent and aligned with this one. 38 In framing the national strategy for the implementation of the SDGs at the domestic level, a model of coordination attentive from the beginning of the policy process to subnational preferences will support the “leaving no one behind” principle because it allows uploading the interest of weak territorial actors and subnational governments in the national policy negotiation process. For smaller SNGs, coordination with national governments as well as with more active SNGs or national SNG associations also signifies an important stimulus to action. 39 Belgium is usually considered the most advanced case of vertical integration based on a highly decentralized institutional setting. The national SDGs strategy is fully inclusive of its three government levels. For example, the Flemish government, defining Vizier 2030, has directly contributed to the elaboration of Belgium’s federal strategy (http://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-skills-strategyflanders-9789264309791-en.htm). The Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities has assembled 50 practical awareness-raising examples to introduce the SDGs to a wider audience at the municipal level (see https://acor.ro/files/SDGs-in-your-municipality-50-practical-awareness-raising-examples-.pdf).

39 The Government of Nepal notes in a report on SDGs implementation that “as the localization of SDGs at the sub-national and local levels is critical for universal, equitable and inclusive outcomes, it is equally important to have political setups at these levels that are willing and capable of handling the development agenda”. Available here: https://www.undp.org/content/dam/nepal/docs/reports/SDG%20final%20report-nepal.pdf 38

29

In order to gain public support for new development policies, the SDGs framework must be acknowledged by citizens, policy makers and policy delivers. Awarenessraising campaigns constitute a powerful instrument for introducing the SDGs into domestic contexts and, particularly, for prioritized them in the policy agenda of a territory. 40 The localization of these campaigns from the initial stages of the policy process contributes to increase the quality of the debate about the prioritization of contrasting policy goals. Since central governments usually own most budgetary and financial resources, national-based campaigns aimed at increasing awareness among vast and generic audiences can be very effective or, at least, more effective than smaller campaigns established at the local level. Campaigns coordinated by more endowed SNGs and the international associations of SNGs also are very important to guarantee that no one is left behind —especially local governments with scarce resources. 41 In regards to policy awareness within the administration, an active and close collaboration between subnational and central governments appears to be associated to a higher SDG awareness level within public administrations, especially among public servants and technicians involved in SDGs-related sectors (Platforma, 2018).

In regards to policy legitimacy, a political system performs better if citizens engage in localized public debate and different government levels and constituencies can openly negotiate on the basis of the ‘debated’ preferences (Dahl 1989). Multilevel negotiations that consider local and national preferences are usually costly and dependent on institutional aspects such as the nature of intergovernmental relations and the political culture. As the debate on the SDGs approximates to territorial preferences the localization of coordination mechanisms among public administrations enhances the inclusiveness of the negotiation process. To the extent that local and regional governments participate in these negotiations and see their demands attended (or at least, debated), their policy ownership and commitment is indeed expected to increase. Therefore, localizing the debate on domestic policy priorities involving local politicians and/or regional and local assemblies can result in a more plural policy debates, also conferring higher democratic legitimacy to the resulting policy agenda.

The policy formulation stage focuses on defining the policy instruments and institutions that will be responsible on the ground for the domestic implementation of the SDGs. Policy formulation is context-sensitive and its localization guarantees that governance styles, institutions and instruments fit into the particular administrative Depending on the targets (citizens, politicians, civil servants) selected in these campaigns a vast array of tool options exist, such as engagement with the media (TV, radio, newspapers), cultural events, appointment of eminent individuals as SDG ambassadors or Champion Majors, conducting intensive SDG training for government officials, social media campaigns and the production and distribution of SDGrelated materials in national and local languages and for specific demographic groups.

41 For example, the Global Goals Municipal Campaign in the Netherlands has achieved that half of its municipalities inform about the SDGs, exchange policy practices, and participate in negotiations with national ministries.

40

30

and political culture of a territory. According to the concept of metagovernance (Meulemen, 2018), factors such as the degree of decentralization, asymmetries in political responsibilities, the characteristics of SNGs as well as the partisan politics between contrasting political majorities may condition the selection of preferred governance styles and also who is the “best positioned actor” to lead the implementation of SDGs at the domestic level.

By enhancing the coordination among government levels, the localization of institutional mechanisms permits the disaggregation of policy formulation aspects according to territorial preferences and demands. 42 Down-streaming the deliberative phase to the subnational level guarantees a better selection of the institutional design and policy instruments that can more properly function in each specific territorial context. Under this perspective, national strategies that include subnational policy preferences in the organizational design established to achieve the SDGs are likely to be more effective. If top-down approaches are more frequent in highly centralized countries, more participatory and bottom-up coordination mechanisms can be established in decentralized and federal institutional settings.43 A relevant applied literature on EU Cohesion policy claims, for example, that SNGs involvement in the definition of long-term planning strategies (e.g., European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund Operational Programs) had a positive effect on policy deliberation as well as on implementation. The development of the EU’s partnership principle —and the establishment of decentralized Managing Authorities, for example— can be considered as two of the main policy instruments according to which public authorities and different government levels have defined jointly strategic development plans and drafted operational programs on the basis of participatory and consensual policymaking procedures (Bauer, 2002; Thielemann, 1998; Jordana, Mota and Noferini, 2012).

The localization of policy formulation also enhances the legitimacy of the selected institutional design and the correspondent policy instruments. By reducing the political space (from national to subnational), localization improves the deliberative phase of the policy-making process. The larger the degree of delegation, the larger the potential For example, municipalities in South Africa, in consultation with their national association (SALGA), and under the responsibility of the National Ministry for Human Settlements, participated in the design of the Integrated Urban Development Framework, aimed at unlocking the potential of South African cities. In Italy, as part of the Italian National Strategy for Sustainable Development, the regions are invited to contribute to the definition of the national strategy on sustainable development and to report to the National ministry of Environment which, in turn, reports to the Presidency of the Council of Ministries.

43 Ecuador stands out in its ambitions at the subnational level, with a focus on creating a national decentralized system of participatory planning in order to move towards a pluri-national and intercultural state (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2012). Under this approach, for example, the government of Esmeraldas has developed its Provincial Climate Change Plan with the advice of the central government.

Equally relevant, the localization of SDGs in Cabo Verde focuses on the most vulnerable groups as a key integrated strategy in order to ensure the “no one left behind” principle. Developed in collaboration with the central government, Municipal Strategic Sustainable Development Plans (PEMDS) represent an example of bottom-up instrument for the local promotion of the SDGs. 42

31

problems of democratic legitimacy associated to the loss of citizens’ authority and control over the delegated issues (Dahl, 1998). As autonomous political systems within the state structure, subnational political arenas constitute deliberative spaces to which local constituencies can attach their preferences in regards to policy instruments and institutional coordination mechanisms. The participation of SNGs in the formulation of multilevel policies contributes to a root-based and decentralized policy approach that can enhance the legitimacy of multilevel policy-making scenarios. 44 Coordination systems attentive to subnational specificities are key for enhancing effectiveness and legitimacy along the implementation stage of the policy cycle.

Implementing the 2030 Agenda relies upon many and diverse actors, making the coordination among public administrations a precondition to reduce implementation failures. The localization of coordination mechanisms at the implementation stage allows better assessing the actors (policy deliverers) available across the national territory and contributes to the creation of a knowledge base that provides guidance to execute policy interventions across the country and locally. SNGs are policymakers with consolidated experience and great capabilities to execute complex programs, plans and policies possess. They can mobilize more effectively local resources and build capacities for an effective and responsive policy implementation in partnership with local governments and stakeholders.

When sufficiently endowed, regional or supra-municipal governments can, for example, attain greater economies of scale, exploit informational advantages and reach an “effective size” for relevant investment with local impacts. Regional governments are advantageously positioned to regulate sectors characterized by market failure (e.g., public utilities, health, education) and can implement SDG-related policy in basic policy areas such as education, tourism and culture, reaching large audiences at a relatively low marginal cost. 45 Localizing coordination mechanisms in the implementation of the SDG can foster policy innovation at the subnational level, where the application of pilot projects on policy initiatives tends to be easier than if performed at the national level (UNCTAD, 2017). 46 Based 'contracts' or agreements that define common priorities and co-financing schemes in a specific geographic area have been successfully introduced to improve cooperation and coordination among government levels. 47 In this regard, the experience of the Provincial Government of Azuay (Ecuador) illustrates how a coordinated planning can be achieved involving representative provincial and local institutions. In its Territory Vision 2019, the government of Azuay relied upon the active role of the People’s Provincial Parliament and the Cantonal and Community Assemblies to bring together different government levels in a wide range of sectors.

45 For example, the region of Valencia (Spain) has included the SDG framework in educational and teaching materials widely distributed in schools, libraries and other public venues. A similar approach has been taken by the state of São Paulo (Brazil), where the Secretariat of Education has partnered with the social business to produce e-books with a focus on the SDGs. 46 Some best practices can found at: https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/dtlstict2017d4_en.pdf 47 For example, the Australian federal government is using ‘City Deals’ to bring together their three levels of government and deliver long-term policy outcomes in cities and regions. Likewise, Colombia is 44

32

Institutional coordination in regards to the implementation stage of the policy-cycle can also confer higher legitimacy to the resulting policies. Institutional coordination can capitalize on SNGs’ embeddedness in the territorial level where most policy outcomes are expected to have an impact, which positions them favorably to enable territorial and actor-centered policy approaches in the implementation of SDG-related policies, both of them associated to the fostering of democratic legitimacy. Localizing the implementation of multi-actor policies can enhance policy co-ownership, coproduction and co-responsibility, therefore, strengthening policy legitimacy and the support of (sometimes difficult and costly) implementation processes that may require reforming the policy status quo. The proximity of SNGs to policy deliverers and local (public) actors facilitate the combination of resources devoted to implement policies at the territorial level and facilitates reaching a common understanding of the SDGs. Extant administrative relations between SNGs and implementers (more common at the local level) can likely increase their reciprocal commitment to implement the policies.

The evaluation stage of the policy-cycle consists in learning whether a policy has achieved its expected outcomes and impacts. Evaluation relies upon a monitoring system for the collection of relevant policy data, which should be local-specific if the policy results occur at this territorial level. Basically, the involvement in policy monitoring and evaluation of SNGs that act as primary policy providers (e.g., of local social services) improves the effectiveness of the evaluation of multi-level and multiactor policies. To become effective, their involvement should be coordinated with other institutional levels and actors relevant to the policies evaluated. The coordination among public administrations involved in policy evaluation processes increases policy effectiveness because it clarifies and homologizes their tasks in the processes and contributes to institutionalize evaluation as a good practice needed at all government levels.

Often relying upon the previous MDG framework, some SNGs have set up their own comprehensive monitoring systems.48 In these institutionally endowed contexts (e.g., with functioning subnational statistical offices) some policy evaluation is performed by the SNG on local policies and development progress. Institutionally weaker SNGs lack, promoting contracts between cities/regions and the national government in order to align national and local priorities and improve implementation. In Spain, the Basque Government has developed a framework for bonds linked to both green and social projects that allows linking these financial instruments to sustainability and social policies interventions.

48 Many countries have community-based monitoring systems (CBMS) to support the decentralization process, improve local governance, enable better targeting of policy programs and beneficiaries and empower local communities to participate in the policy process. CBMS have been used to monitor achievement of MDG targets at the municipal as well as district level. In the Philippines, for example, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) developed the MDG Monitoring System for the monitoring of the development projects being implemented and progress on the localization of the NDGs. More information available here: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2478Institutional_Coordination_Mechanis ms_GuidanceNote.pdf

33

on the contrary, the capability to collect local data for policy evaluation. Localizing institutional coordination in regards to policy evaluation can generate positive spillovers, which would enable that smaller SNGs improve their monitoring and evaluation tasks, thus, contributing to the overall national monitoring of the SDGs. In this sense, the localization of monitoring activities and the involvement of the SNG in the definition of local indicators can strengthen the institutionalization of monitoring and evaluation tasks, thus, creating the bases to enhance the effectiveness of SDG monitoring. Coordination can indeed secure a high level of political commitment and provide incentives for the collaboration between the data-producing institutions of the different government by preventing, for example, resistance to data-sharing. The lack of coordination among government levels can, on the contrary, result in the information gathered by local and regional governments not being used in (or useful for) national monitoring and reporting.

Finally, localizing and coordinating policy monitoring and evaluation activities across public institutions confer higher legitimacy to monitoring activities at the local level.

The participation and inclusion of the SNGs in the case of National Voluntary Reports represents a useful tool for maintaining constant political commitment from local authorities in correctly gathering and publishing data at the local level. SNGs can consider the evaluation of the SDGs, as well as their implementation in their territory, as more legitimate if they see the results of their territory disaggregated in the monitoring indicators that are considered in the national evaluation process.

4.2. Stakeholder participation gains Stakeholder participation can result in policy effectiveness benefits associated to improving the design of the policy and the better understanding and optimization of its implementation using local knowledge (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004) and contextualized social learning (Blackstock et al, 2007; Kő et al, 2013; Muro and Jeffrey, 2008). Kanter et al. (2016) consider the integration of academic and the industry and farmer local knowledge and expertise to define a sustainability policy. The stakeholder participation literature also indicates policy legitimacy benefits in the form of a better trust in the policy decisions (OECD, 2001) the consideration of diverse interests and opinions (Luyet et al, 2012) and the higher public acceptance of policy decisions based on the integration of local and scientific knowledge (Reed, 2008; Tippett et al, 2007). Scharpf (1999) indicates that the participatory openness that characterizes “network governance” forms fosters policy decisions that enjoy strong “output legitimacy” and higher public acceptance because the resulting policies tend to be more appropriate to the interest of the targeted stakeholders (although they can be questioned by stakeholders absent from the policy process).

The localization of SDGs allows for more proximity of local stakeholders to the policy process, thus, facilitating the incorporation of local knowledge, social learning and complex multiple interests. It also allows for a better coordination of cooperative 34

stakeholders, encouraging their dialogue and reciprocal learning (Jones, 2017).

Localization allows taking into consideration specific subnational cultural, political, legal and historical contexts that may importantly affect the success of the stakeholder participation process (Stenseke, 2009; Abelson et al., 2007; Irvin and Stansbury 2004).

This implies, though, that transposing best practice experiences of stakeholder participation to guide policies in different sociopolitical contexts does not guarantee their success because the local characteristics of best practice cases might not be replicated elsewhere (Luyet et al, 2012; Kanter et al., 2016). 49 Implementing a process of public participation in the policy process requires the identification and characterization of stakeholders based on their power relations, resources, political influence, implication, interests, salience and legitimacy (Luyet et al, 2012). Stakeholders must be organized into homogeneous groups, assigning them a specific degree of participation that considers the phase of the policy project and the resources available to manage their participation. Involving all possible stakeholders in a participatory process increases its complexity and cost, but initially unidentified or ignored stakeholders can negatively impact the policy project later on. Stakeholder involvement should start from the early stages of the policy process and remain active until its end. Offering stakeholders adequate information about the participatory process helps both to maintain their motivation and to prevent mistrust and frustration that could result in a failed participatory process. Evaluation of stakeholder participation allows learning how to improve future processes and assessing aspects of the process (e.g., transparency, representativeness, inclusiveness) and its impact and accountability aspects (Asthana et al, 2002; Blackstock et al, 2007).

Luyet et al (2005, p. 215; see also Arstein, 1969; Vroom, 2003; Van Asselt et al, 2001) presents several participatory techniques associated to different involvement degrees: information, consultation, collaboration, co-decision and empowerment —the latter consisting in delegating to the stakeholders the decision making over the project’s development and implementation. Localizing the policy process facilitates the task of attributing an involvement level to different stakeholders —for which the trust held on them should be considered— and the choice of participatory techniques —which depends on local cultural and social norms associated to stakeholder participation as well as on the stage of the policy-cycle. Early stakeholder involvement in a localized policy process aims at achieving three goals: (a) integration of local data and knowledge from local experts and practitioners; (b) fostering policy debate among stakeholders; and (c) generating stakeholder buy-in, which is crucial to overcome social and political roadblocks during the implementation (Kanter et al, 2016). A form of early citizenship participation in the policy process is the “participatory budgeting” Kanter et al. (2016) examine the successful multi-stake stakeholder participation in the definition and implementation of productivity and environmental policy targets in the Uruguayan beef sector and conclude that its replication elsewhere can be challenging because the uniqueness of some of the case’s features: economic and environmental incentives that made sustainable development a top government priority, a tight-knit group of well-coordinated stakeholders, and a strong stakeholder culture of collaboration and coordination.

49

35

institutionalized in municipal governments of some countries from the 1990s. It allows for the direct involvement of citizens in discussing and deciding the policy issues included and prioritized in the public budgeting and in the follow up of its execution, hence, favoring the accountability of the whole policy process (Sintomer et al, 2013).

The effectiveness and legitimacy gains associated to the localization of stakeholder participation in SNGs’ implementation of SDGs can strengthen their policy support.

The specification of these effects can be considered in regards to each stage of the policy-cycle. Regarding agenda setting, local stakeholder participation can enhance policy effectiveness providing relevant contextual information referred to which SDG targets should be included in the policy agenda and the reasons for their prioritization order within the agenda. Stakeholders acting on behalf of the interest of social groups that are defined as policy targets (e.g., immigrants associations, women’s advocacy groups, labour unions) can gain easier access to the subnational policymaking process to provide such information and advance their compromise with the eventual implementation process of the SDG targets they favor. Stakeholders that participate in the implementation of SDGs contributing policy information about development issues (e.g., academic and research institutions, environmentalist groups, health professional associations) can inform policymakers about objective reasons referred to particular aspects of the territory that would justify the inclusion and prioritization in the policy agenda of some SDG targets. They can also inform about how to adjust these targets to the contextual needs of the territory based on the data and information about the territory they professionally manage.

Provided that SNGs consider the suggestions received from local stakeholders during the definition of the policy agenda, these should support to greater extent the resulting agenda, especially if their particular claims and demands were included and prioritized but also if they sought their suggestions honestly considered during the definition of the agenda. Aligning the implementation of the SDGs with the policy goals and interests of local stakeholders can also favor participation in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and, therefore, their sense of ownership towards it and the subnational policies for its implementation. The honest consideration of the demands of local stakeholders in the process to decide the SDG targets included and prioritized in the policy agenda confers procedural legitimacy to their implementation, contributing to the overall legitimacy of the 2030 Agenda and increasing the policy support that local stakeholders consulted in the agenda setting stage give to the actions of SNGs for its territorial implementation.

Local stakeholder participation implementing the 2030 Agenda can also contribute to improve the effectiveness of the policy formulation stage of the policy process. SNGs can use information they have about stakeholders in their territory to assess the potential resource contributions and the policy support they can provide to implement a policy and, therefore, better adjust its formulation with the subsequent implementation supported by stakeholder participation. The policy formulation can also gain effectiveness adjusting it to the policy preferences and suggestions that local 36

stakeholders provided during both the agenda setting the policy formulation stages. In the latter, the preferences and suggestions will be considered with the higher level of specificity that is required to formulate the policy. The reduced political space between government and stakeholders in a subnational policy context allows a higher involvement of local stakeholders in the policy formulation, hence, improving the quality of the policy deliberation, strengthening their policy ownership sense and, therefore, conferring more legitimacy and stakeholders’ policy support to resulting formulation of the policies.

The participation of local stakeholders can improve the effectiveness of the implementation of subnational SDG policies contributing policy assets in the way originally defined during the policy formulation stage—in which they participated—or according to SNG’s additional requests of resources and cooperation to the stakeholders in case that a policy needs to be reformulated because of the change in the circumstances of the territory (e.g., unemployment growth, a refugee crisis, a drought that worsens famine). The proximity of local stakeholders to the territory and the target communities confers them a key role providing information about the ongoing process of the policy implementation. Local stakeholders can propose modifications in the implementation to correct detected policy deficiencies, deviations from the agreed policy goals and the implementation plan, as well as to confront unforeseen side-effects and externalities that result from implementing the policy. The ongoing involvement of local stakeholders in the implementation of SDG policies enhances their legitimacy and the policy support conferred to them. Policy legitimacy can also increase thanks to the higher quality information that SNGs have—relative to national governments—about the policy preferences of the local stakeholders present in their territory, which they can use during the (dynamic) policy implementation stage.

The participation of local stakeholders in SDG policies can increase the effectiveness of the evaluation of the resulting policies and the policy process itself. Local stakeholders are particularly interested in the evaluation of policies that specifically target them or their territory. They are motivated to demand monitoring mechanisms, participate in the evaluation process and use the evaluation results to keep accountable the responsible SNG. Local stakeholders can participate in the definition of monitoring indicators adjusted to the particular circumstances of the subnational territory and contribute to the data collection process. Their involvement in the evaluation of policies can improve its effectiveness both in regards to the rigor of the evaluation process and its accountability consequences, and SNGs can be particularly concerned about delivering policies that effectively satisfy the policy demands of their electoral constituencies. Finally, the involvement of local stakeholders in the policy evaluation stage is fundamental to confer legitimacy to the policy process because is indicative of a healthy openness of the policy process towards local policy actors external to the government and the administration, which helps to control the policy process and strengthens its accountability.

37

4.3. Monitoring gains Localizing policy monitoring can favor the effectiveness and legitimacy of subnational SDG policies, resulting in higher policy support to the 2030 Agenda. It can increase policy effectiveness by generating information that contributes to create policies adjusted to the particular circumstances and characteristics of a territory. Policy legitimacy is increased providing information to local stakeholders about both the policy process and its results. The higher proximity between SNGs and the constituencies targeted by localized policies can increase the effective of their associated accountability because local stakeholders can get more easily involved in evaluating the policy process, can better assess the policy results and are more interested in evaluating localized policies and SNGs than national-level policies aimed at broader territorial constituencies. The effectiveness and legitimacy advantages that result from localizing policy monitoring should be more significant when all the stages of the policy-cycle are localized, allowing for the potential benefits of the localization to ensue and accrue along all the stages (versus the opposite scenario of a territorially disaggregated evaluation of the impact of a national policy). Given the important human and technical resources necessary to set a monitoring system, its localization would be also more cost-efficient when SNGs assume a significant amount of SDG policies that can benefit in terms of effectiveness from the localized monitoring system.

HĂĄk et al. (2016) highlight the need to perform an expert and scientific conceptual follow up of the SDG targets in order to properly operationalize them and be able to define an appropriate framework for their monitoring. Being credibility, relevance and legitimacy (the so-called CRELE) the key quality determinants of monitoring indicators, the authors stress the importance of defining indicators with a strong “indicatorindicated factâ€? relation (see also Heink et al., 2015) in order to avoid wrong information on the level of target-achievement that might erode the legitimacy of the SDGs. The indicators defined should convey clear, unambiguous messages to policymakers as well as to the lay public. The scientific knowledge used to define the indicators and the information that these provide should contribute to the policy process since the early policy-cycle stages in order to maximize the effectiveness of the resulting policies. 50 During the agenda setting and policy formulation stages of the policy-cycle, indicator frameworks can help to identify and formulate issues and also set policy objectives that reflect sustainable development ideas, also facilitating a The approaches to develop indicator frameworks can be classified into policy-based approaches and conceptual approaches (Eurostat, 2014). The former use sustainable development strategies and other policy documents as the reference frame, organizing the framework according to strategic issues and emphasizing the salience-relevance of the assessed theme for the policy decision makers; the reference frame of the latter approach is independent from political priorities and is based on a model of sustainable development. A rigorous indicator framework should combine a conceptual approach and a policy-oriented approach, and both can be helpful for the different policy-cycle stages. Singh et al.

(2009) consider methods already developed, tested and used for the assessment of sustainable development.

50

38

successful operationalization of SDG targets. Indicators can also help to obtain the desired effects during the policy implementation stage of the policy-cycle and, at their more common use, also to evaluate the success of the policy and its revision (Eurostat, 2014).

Indicator frameworks defined with expert and scientific knowledge —with academia, indicators providers and statisticians assuming a relevant role as policy contributors— can support policy instruments and, thus, foster the legitimacy of the policies (Glaser, 2012). This sort of scientific and evidence-based legitimacy adds to forms of representative legitimacy (e.g., legislative and executive approval, stakeholder interest consultation). It is not common because decision makers tend to apply salience criteria in their usual adoption of particularistic or short-term strategic policy objectives (Hák et al. 2016). Expert participation in the definition of sustainability indicators should comply with the current trend that combines top-down and bottomup approaches, i.e., indicators defined, constructed, and assessed by experts that consider in their choices political and social preferences (Pissourios, 2013). A monitoring framework gains legitimacy when it is respectful of stakeholders’ divergent values and beliefs, unbiased, and fair in treating opposing views and interests, thus securing the credibility criterion (Cash et al., 2003; Parris and Kates, 2003).

The effectiveness and legitimacy gains associated to the localization of policy monitoring in SNGs’ implementation of SDGs can strengthen their policy support. The specification of these effects can be considered in regards to each stage of the policycycle. Localized monitoring can favor policy effectiveness during the agenda setting stage because the local choice of indicators defined and implemented specifically for a territory provide better information about both its extant situation regarding policy issues to be addressed (e.g. extent and urgency of development needs, number of people affected, local sociopolitical particularities) and the particular actions that could be undertaken in the territory (e.g., the convenience of alternative policy interventions, available policy resources to undertaken different actions). Therefore, localized monitoring information can help subnational policymakers to take better decisions about the policy issues that need to be included in the policy agenda, their prioritization in terms of importance and urgency, and the amount of public resources devoted to address them. The narrower territorial scope of a localized monitoring can also facilitate data disaggregation by vulnerable groups within the territory, which provides better information to address their specific development needs.

Setting the policy agenda taking into account quality data evidence from localized monitoring reinforces the objectiveness of the decision-making at this policy-cycle stage, therefore, enhancing the legitimacy of the agenda and the policies that will be pursued. Using locally specific data evidence should favor the consensus among subnational policymakers and stakeholders about the policy targets included in the agenda and their prioritization order. Localizing monitoring allows obtaining monitoring indicators of higher empirical validity because their definition and the data collection can be better adjusted to the sociopolitical circumstances of the territory 39

than in case of monitoring of a wider (national) analytical scope. This methodological advantage and the consequent higher precision in the policy decisions can protect policymakers from stakeholders’ criticisms referred to the definition of the policy agenda.

A localized monitoring can also improve the effectiveness of the policy formulation stage because indicators adjusted to monitor a subnational territory can provide better information on how to define appropriate development policies than if these are formulated relying on generic indicators defined to monitor the diverse development circumstances and capabilities found at different regions in a country. Localized monitoring can not only examine the development needs of a territory but also the resources and instruments available therein, which consideration is necessary during the formulation of policies. Subnational policymakers can design the system of localized monitoring taking into account contextual aspects relevant for policy formulation, such as the policy expertise, resources and capabilities available in the territory and the preferences of local stakeholders for a particular policy approach to deal with development issues. Similarly than in regards to the agenda setting stage, the legitimacy of the policy formulation process and the resulting policies should be strengthened if localized monitoring indicators deemed as particularly valid to learn about the specific policy and socioeconomic circumstances of a subnational territory are considered for the policy formulation. These indicators confer objectiveness to the decisions made in the formulation process, therefore, fostering consensus among stakeholders on the resulting policies being appropriate to deal with the development issues addressed.

The implementation stage of the policy-cycle can gain effectiveness from a monitoring focused on and proximal to a specific subnational territory, thus, allowing for an accurate and quick detection of relevant changes in the context of the policy during its implementation (e.g., an economic o humanitarian crisis, relevant factors unforeseen during the policy formulation, growth of the targeted population, shortage of the planned stakeholder contributions). Changes that would negatively affect the effectiveness of the policy if it would be implemented as originally formulated. Upon detecting a relevant change, the updated information from the localized monitoring process would allow adjusting the policy parameters or reformulating the policy thoroughly to adapt it to the new context. A close monitoring of the implementation of a policy also allows detecting (a) deviations from the goals consensually agreed during its formulation between government and stakeholders and (b) the manifestation of negative policy side-effects. Protecting the consensus about the adequacy of a policy is crucial to keep its legitimacy and realizing about and correcting those deviations and harms puts off risk of losing stakeholder policy support. Closely monitoring the implementation of a policy also helps in finding evidence of its positive progress and impacts, which can increase stakeholder support and, thus strengthen policy legitimacy.

40

Finally, localizing the monitoring of SDGs can importantly benefit the effectiveness of the evaluation of policies implementing them. A monitoring system specifically designed to obtain development and policy-related information specifically from a particular territory can better contribute to assess its policymaking processes and policy results. Localized monitoring also allows for a more effective accountability of the government responsible of, and other actors involved in, the policymaking process.

Monitoring indicators designed to evaluate a specific territory can provide a specific and accurate evaluation of the impact achieved by policies targeting the local communities and groups therein, which is a fundamental element in the accountability of the performance of the SNG responsible of those policies. Effective accountability processes based on localized monitoring and the participation of local stakeholders can strengthen the legitimacy of the policy process.

5. Conclusions The 2030 Agenda aspires to be transformational in regards to policymaking and policy outcomes. The universal character and inclusiveness of the process that shaped its definition has notably increased the perceived global legitimacy of the SDGs, and it is expected that these will be more successful than the Millennium Development Goals.

The hope is that stakeholders, governments and public administrations —who were able to participate in the definition of the 2030 Agenda introducing “their” goals— will be supportive, motivated and committed to its implementation. Subnational governments are full contributors to the 2030 Agenda. They participate in the definition of international development goals, implement them in their territory and contribute to monitor their progress. Despite the existence of implementation guidelines, the transformative character of the 2030 Agenda will likely pose important challenges to its implementation. Policy reforms usually find resistance and raise confrontation among social groups and policy actors that are somehow negatively affected or threatened by them. Therefore, attaining policy support becomes a central aspect in the implementation of the SDGs. The analysis has considered how the localization of the 2030 Agenda can take advantage from the policy capabilities of subnational governments and local stakeholders to strengthen the effectiveness and legitimacy of policy processes, thus, generating policy support for the implementation of the SDGs. The potential effectiveness and legitimacy gains of localizing policy processes have been considered in regards to four classic policy-cycle stages (agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation and evaluation), which has allowed examining different potential gains along the stages and associated to different policy actions and actors.

41

The analysis suggests that attaining and maintaining a persistent policy commitment to the long-term implementation of the 2030 Agenda is more feasible when policy processes generate highly effective and legitimate policies. Both of these policy characteristics arise when policies are determined according to local stakeholders’ preferences and sensitive to the particular development needs and the social, economic and political characteristics of specific territories. Our main argument contends that this form of policymaking can be better performed in policy processes localized at the subnational level. Therefore, the involvement of regional governments (also municipal ones) implementing the 2030 Agenda is not only justified because of their policy responsibilities in sectors concerning SDGs but also because of their comparative positional advantage to set localized policy processes that favor policy effectiveness and legitimacy.

Fostering policy support by improving policy effectiveness and legitimacy is particularly important in regards to the implementation of SDGs. The main argument of our analysis builds upon the key premise of the 2030 Agenda’s reliance for its implementation on a form of global governance —“governance through goals”— characterized by weak institutional arrangements and the absence of legal binding commitments and formal enforcement incentives. In this sort of policy framework, improving policy effectiveness and legitimacy becomes crucial to gain the policy support necessary to diminish the risk of insufficient implementation and policy failure of the SDGs. Importantly, within a “governance through goals” context, policy accomplishments rely fundamentally on establishing benchmarks that national governments pledge to accomplish, fearing peer-disappointment and reputational damage within the international society in case of non-compliance. Since this compliance mechanism must rely on the effective monitoring of countries’ policy efforts and progress towards the SDGs, the 2030 Agenda’s monitoring system and the policy accountability it enables are key policy elements in the implementation of SDGs. Our analysis has focused on three policy elements —all them central in the 2030 Agenda— that by fostering effectiveness and legitimacy can promote policy support: stakeholder participation, monitoring and institutional coordination. We have argued that obtaining and maintaining constant policy support to implement the 2030 Agenda is more feasible if policy effectiveness and legitimacy is strengthened by (a) observing the preferences of stakeholders in the definition of SDG policies and making them participant of the policy process, (b) setting monitoring systems that contribute to the accountability of the political authorities responsible of implementing SDGs, and (c) fostering the appropriate institutional coordination among government levels and policy domains involved in the creation of policies of a multi-sectoral character.

We believe that our analysis can further research on the topic and become a useful and innovative argumentative tool for policymakers. We have examined a set of policy benefits associated to the localization of policy processes that can be better achieved by subnational governments, thanks to their comparative advantage to adjust policies 42

to the specific development and policy circumstances of their specific territories as well as to their capability to involve local stakeholders along all the stages of the policy-cycle. The relevance of the contextual character of the implementation of SDG precludes us from offering specific “one-solution-fits-all� policy prescriptions valid to the wide variety of existing territories and subnational governments of different size, development level, policy resources, autonomy and competences or stakeholder composition. These differential factors can importantly constrain and affect the fate of a policy processes. Nevertheless, it is safe to suggest that any action from subnational governments towards fostering inclusive stakeholder participation, institutional coordination and policy monitoring will likely favor an implementation of the 2030 Agenda that yields more appreciated policy results.

43

6. References Abelson, J., Forset, P.G., Eyles, J., Casebeer, A., Martin, E., & Mackean, G. (2007). Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study. Social Science & Medicine 64, 2115-2128.

Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public Policy-Making [By] James E. Anderson. Praeger.

Arstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners 35, 216-224.

Asthana, S., Richardson, S., & Halliday, J. (2002). Partnership working in public policy provision: a framework for evaluation. Social Policy and Administration 36, 780-795.

Barnett, C., & Parnell, S. (2016). Ideas, implementation and indicators: epistemologies of the post-2015 urban agenda. Environment and Urbanization, 28(1), 87-98.

Bates, D. L., & Eldredge, D. L. (1980). Strategy and Policy: Analysis, Formulation, and Implementation. WCB/McGraw-Hill.

Bauer, M. W. (2002). The EU ‘partnership principle’: still a sustainable governance device across multiple administrative arenas?. Public Administration, 80(4), 769-789.

Beetham, D. (1991). Max Weber and the legitimacy of the modern state. Analyse & Kritik, 13(1), 34-45.

Beetham, D., & Lord, C. (1998). Political Legitimation and the European Union.

Bexell, M., & Jönsson, K. (2017, January). Responsibility and the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. In Forum for Development Studies (Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 13-29). Routledge.

Beisheim, M. (2015). Reviewing the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals and partnerships: A proposal for multi-level review at the High-level Political Forum (SWP Research Paper 1/2015). Berlin: German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

Benner, T., Reinicke, W., & Witte, J. (2004). Multisectoral networks in global governance: Towards a pluralistic system of accountability. Global Governance and Public Accountability, Government and Opposition, 39(2), 191-210.

Bertelsmann Stiftung, B. (Ed.). (2012). Transformation Index BTI 2012: Regional Findings Latin America and the Caribbean. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Biermann, F. (2017). A World Environment Organization: solution or threat for effective international environmental governance? Routledge.

Biermann, F., Kanie N. & Kim R.E. (2017). “Global Governance by Goal-Setting: The Novel Approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26:26-31.

Biermann, F. (2018). Global Governance in the “Anthropocene”. The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory, 467.

Blackstock, K.L., Kelly, G.J., Horsey, B.I. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60, 726-742.

Boex, J., & Yilmaz, S. (2010). An analytical framework for assessing decentralized local governance and the local public sector. Urban Institute Centre on International Development and Governance, 2010-06.

44

Bohunovsky, L., Jäger, J., Omann, I. (2011). Participatory scenario development for integrated sustainability assessment. Regional Environmental Change, 11(2), 271-284.

Buchanan, J. M. (2002). Fiscal equalization revisited. Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.

Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., ... & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 100(14), 8086-8091.

Christopoulos, S., Horvath, B., & Kull, M. (2012). Advancing the governance of cross‐sectoral policies for sustainable development: A metagovernance perspective. Public Administration and Development, 32(3), 305-323.

Cox, K. (ed.) (1997). Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the power of the local, Guilford Press, New York.

Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press. de Renzio, P. (2006). Promoting mutual accountability in aid relationships: Synthesis note.

London: Overseas Development Institute.

Dryzek, J. S. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political theory, 29(5), 651-669.

Eaton, K., & Schroeder, L. (2010). Measuring decentralization. Making Decentralization Work: Democracy, Development, and Security, 167-90.

Elder, M., Bengtsson, M., & Akenji, L. (2016). An optimistic analysis of the means of implementation for Sustainable Development Goals: Thinking about goals as means.

Sustainability, 8, 961-986.

Espey, J., Walęcik, K., & Kühner, M. (2015). Follow-up and review of the SDGs: Fulfilling our commitments. New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

European Commission (2018) ‘Delivering the sustainable development goals at local and regional level’ https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/delivering‐sdgs‐local‐regional‐level.pdf George, A. L. (1980). Domestic constraints on regime change in US foreign policy: The need for policy legitimacy. Change in the international system, 233-262.

Glaser, G. (2012). Policy: Base sustainable development goals on science. Nature 491(7422), 35-35.

Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments (2018) ‘Statement of the local and regional governments constituency gathered in the global taskforce’, https://www.global‐taskforce.org/sites/default/files/2018‐07/gtfstatement_HLPF_2018.pdf Grasa, R., & Sanchez Cano, J. (2013). Acción internacional y en red de los gobiernos locales: el caso de la ayuda para el desarrollo/Global and networking action of local governments: the case of development aid. revista cidob d'afers internacionals, 83-105 Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565-573.

Heink, U., Marquard, E., Heubach, K., Jax, K., Kugel, C., Neßhöver, C., Neumann, R., Paulsch, A., Tilch, S., Timaeus, J., & Vandewalle, M. (2015). Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities. Science and Public Policy, (5), 1-14.

45

High Level Political Forum (HLPF), 2018, Thematic Review, 2018 - Monitoring progress towards achieving the SDGs: Reviewing the progress in achieving the SDG and Better data for sustainable development.

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance. The American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233-243.

Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Marks, G. W. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Rowman & Littlefield.

Hooghe, L., Marks, G. N., & Schakel, A. H. (2010). The rise of regional authority: A comparative study of 42 democracies. Routledge.

Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford University Press, USA. Irvin, R.A. & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort?

Public Administration Review, 64 (1), 55-65.

Jagers, S. C., Matti, S., & Nordblom, K. (2016). How policy legitimacy affects policy support throughout the policy cycle.

Jones, T. M. (2017). Accountability for Development Cooperation under the 2030 Agenda.

Discussion Paper. Bonn: Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik.

Jordana, J., Mota, F., & Noferini, A. (2012). The role of social capital within policy networks: Evidence from EU cohesion policy in Spain. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(4), 642-664.

Kanie, N., & Biermann, F. (Eds.). (2017). Governing through goals: Sustainable development goals as governance innovation. MIT Press.

Kanter, D. R., et al. (2016). Translating the Sustainable Development Goals into action: A participatory backcasting approach for developing national agricultural transformation pathways. Global Food Security, 10, 71-79.

Karlsson‐Vinkhuyzen, S. I., & Vihma, A. (2009). Comparing the legitimacy and effectiveness of global hard and soft law: An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 3(4), 400-420.

Kő, A., Gábor, A. & Szabó, Z. (2013). Policy making improvement through social learning.

In International Conference on Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective (pp. 226-240). Springer.

Kolk, A. (2016). “The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 23–34.

Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M., & Rufin, C. (2014). Reviewing a decade of research on the ‘Base/Bottom of the Pyramid’ (BOP) concept. Business & Society, 53(3): 338–377.

MacLeod, G & Jones, M. (2007). Territorial, scalar, networked, connected: In what sense a ‘regional world’? Regional Studies Vol 41, No 9, pages 1171–1191.

Majone, G. (1994). The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), 77101.

Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of public policy, 17(2), 139-167.

46

Meny, I., & Thoening, J. (1992). Las políticas públicas (p. 280). Barcelona, España: Ariel SA. Meuleman, L. (2018). Conclusions: metagovernance as framework for SDG implementation.

In Metagovernance for Sustainability (pp. 293-312). Routledge.

Meuleman, L. & Niestroy, I. (2015). Common but differentiated governance: A metagovernance approach to make the SDGs work. Sustainability, 7(9), 12295-12321.

Muro, M. & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of environmental planning and management, 51(3), pp.325-344.

Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. and Visbeck, M. (2016). Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 534. nrg4SD. (2017). The Role of Regional Governments in the Monitoring of SDGs Reflections from nrg4SD around the global indicators framework. Brussels: nrg4SD. O’Connor, D., Mackie, J., van Esveld, D., Kim, H., Scholz, I., & Weitz, N. (2016). Universality, integration, and policy coherence for sustainable development: Early SDG implementation in selected OECD countries (Working Paper 2016, August). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

O’Donnell, G. (2004). Accountability horizontal: la institucionalización legal de la desconfianza política. Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 11, 11-31.

OECD. (2001). Citizen as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy Making. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC11520.htm.

OECD (2014), Better Policies for Development 2014: Policy Coherence and Illicit Financial Flows OECD. (2015). Development co-operation report 2015: Making partnerships effective coalitions for action. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2016). Development co-operation under the 2030 Agenda: Results and relevance: Discussion note by results team DAC, DCD, REED from August 2016. Paris; OECD. OECD (2016a), Subnational governments around the world Structure and finance. A first contribution to the Global Observatory on Local Finances.

OECD, 2017b, What People Know and Think About the Sustainable Development Goals Selected Findings from Public Opinion Surveys, OECD Development Communication Network (DevCom) June 2017 OECD, 2017c, OECD Survey on Planning and Co-ordinating the Implementation of the SDGs: First results and key issues, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD, 2017d, Getting Governments Organized to Deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals High Level Political Forum United Nations - New York, 18 July 2017 Summary Report and Next Steps, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD, 2018, "Country profiles: Institutional mechanisms for policy coherence", in Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2018: Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies, OECD Publishing, Paris.

47

Patil, S., Vieider, F., & Tetlock, P. (2014). Process versus Outcome Accountability. In M. Bovens, R. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds), The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Parris, T.M., & Kates, R.W. (2003). Characterizing and measuring sustainable develop-ment.

Annual Review of Environmen and Resources. 28, 13.1–13.28.

Persson, Å., Weitz, N., & Nilsson, M. (2016). Follow‐up and Review of the Sustainable Development Goals: Alignment vs. Internalization. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25(1), 59-68.

Papadopoulos, Y. (2007). Problems of democratic accountability in network and multi-Level governance. European Law Journal, XIII (4), 469-486.

Peters, B. G. (1986). American public policy: promise and performance. Chatham. NJ: Chatham House.

Peters, B. G. (2012). Governance as political theory. In Civil Society and Governance in China (pp. 17-37). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Piattoni, S. (2009). Multi‐level governance: a historical and conceptual analysis. European integration 31.2 (2009): 163-180.

Pissourios, I.A. (2013). An interdisciplinary study on indicators: a comparative reviewof qualityof-life, macroeconomic, environmental, welfare and sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators, 34, 420–427.

PLATFORMA and Council of European Municipalities and Regions (2018) ‘Sustainable development goals: How Europe's town and cities are taking the lead’, available here https://skupnostobcin.si/wp‐content/uploads/pulikacije/23696/platforma‐cemr‐sdg‐localisatio n‐en.pdf Prahalad, C. K. and Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the World’s Poor, Profitably. Harvard Business Review (September: 48-57) Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C., & Manin, B. (Eds.). (1999). Democracy, accountability, and representation (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.

Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417-2431.

Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61(1), 2-22.

Schmidt-Traub, G., & Sachs, J. (2015). Financing sustainable development: Implementing the SDGs through effective investment strategies and partnerships. New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

Schmitter, P. C. (1997). Civil society east and west. Consolidating the third wave democracies: Themes and perspectives, 2.

Scott, C. (2000). Accountability in the regulatory state. Journal of law and society, 27(1), 38-60.

SDG Found. (2017). Business and SDG 16. Contributing to Peaceful Just and Inclusive Societies.

Sustainable Development Goals Found.

48

SDSN. (2015). Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals.

Launching a data revolution for the SDGs. A report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9 (2), 189-212.

Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., Allegretti, G., Röcke, A., & Alves, M. L. (2013). Participatory budgeting worldwide. Dialog Global, (25), 1-93.

Stenseke, M., 2009. Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: lessons from Sweden. Land Use Policy 26, 214-223.

Stephenson, P. (2013). Twenty years of multi-level governance: “Where does it come from?

What is it? Where is it going?” Journal of European public policy 20.6, 817-837.

Stevens, C., & Kanie, N. (2016). The transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(3), 393-396.

Stevens, C. (2018). Scales of integration for sustainable development governance. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25(1), 1-8.

Sutton, R. (1999). The policy process: an overview. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Tatham, M. (2015). Regional voices in the European Union: subnational influence in multilevel politics. International Studies Quarterly, 59(2), 387-400.

Tippett, J., Handley, J.F., & Ravetz, J. (2007). Meeting the challenges of sustainable development e a conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Progress in Planning, 67, 9-98.

United Cities and Local Governments, 2019, GOLD V Report, The Localization of the Global Agendas,’ available here https://www.gold.uclg.org/reports/other/gold-v-report United Nations. ( 2015) “Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development”, https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2015/08/transforming‐our‐world‐the‐2030‐age nda‐for‐sustainable‐development/ UNCTAD. (2014). World investment report 2014. Investing in the SDGs: An action plan. New York/Geneva: United Nations.

UNCTAD (2017). New innovation approaches to support the implementation of the sustainable development goals, New York/Geneva: united Nations UN-GA. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 15 September 2015. New York. United Nations General Assembly.

UN-SG. (2014) The road to dignity by 2030: ending poverty, transforming all lives and protecting the planet. Synthesis report of the Secretary-General on the post-2015 sustainable development agenda.

UN Habitat, 2016, Roadmap for localizing the SDGs: implementation and monitoring at subnational level https://unhabitat.org/roadmap-for-localizing-the-sdgs-implementation-andmonitoring-at-subnational-level/ 49

UNDP. (2017). Rapid Integrated Assessment (RIA). Facilitating mainstreaming of SDGs into national and local plans. UNDP UNRISD. (2017). Localizing the SDGs through Social and Solidarity Economy. Research and Policy Brief, 24. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Utting, P. & Y. Morales. (2016). Políticas Públicas para la Economía Social y Solidaria: Hacia un Entorno Favorable: El Caso de Costa Rica. Turín: ILO. Van Asselt, M., Mellors, J., Rijkens-Klomp, N., Greeuw, S., Molendijk, K., Jelle Beers, P., & Van Notten, P. (2001). Building Blocks for Participation in Integrated Assessment: A Review of Participatory Methods. ICIS, Maastricht.

Vervoort, J.M., et al. (2014). Challenges to scenario-guided adaptive action on food security under climate change. Global Environmental Change, 28, 383–394.

Vroom, V. (2003). Educating managers for decision making and leadership. Management Decision, 41 (10), 968-978.

Young, O. R. (2008). The architecture of global environmental governance: bringing science to bear on policy. Global Environmental Politics, 8(1), 14-32.

Woodbridge, M. (2015). Measuring, Monitoring and Evaluating the SDGs. ICLEI Briefing Sheet, Urban Issues, 6.

50