IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v13y2022i5p669-682.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

International organisations as ‘custodians’ of the sustainable development goals? Fragmentation and coordination in sustainability governance

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie van Driel
  • Frank Biermann
  • Rakhyun E. Kim
  • Marjanneke J. Vijge

Abstract

It is widely assumed that the fragmentation of global governance can affect coordination efforts among international institutions and organisations. Yet, the precise relationship between the fragmentation of global governance and the extent to which international organisations coordinate their activities remains underexplored. In this article, we offer new empirical evidence derived from the so‐called custodianship arrangements in which numerous international organisations have been mandated to coordinate data collection and reporting for 231 indicators of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These complex custodianship arrangements provide a fertile testing ground for theories on the relationship between fragmentation and coordination because the institutional arrangements for each of the 17 SDGs have emerged bottom–up with varying degrees of fragmentation. Through a comparative approach covering 44 custodian agencies and focusing on the most and least fragmented custodianship arrangements, we make three key contributions. First, we offer a novel operationalisation of institutional fragmentation and coordination. Second, we present empirical evidence in support of the claim that fragmentation negatively affects coordination. Third, we provide nuances to this claim by identifying factors that affect the strength of this relationship. Based on our analysis, we suggest further steps that might facilitate coordination in global sustainability governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie van Driel & Frank Biermann & Rakhyun E. Kim & Marjanneke J. Vijge, 2022. "International organisations as ‘custodians’ of the sustainable development goals? Fragmentation and coordination in sustainability governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(5), pages 669-682, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:13:y:2022:i:5:p:669-682
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13114
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.13114?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sylvia I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen & Jeffrey McGee, 2013. "Legitimacy in an Era of Fragmentation: The Case of Global Climate Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(3), pages 56-78, August.
    2. Teresa Kramarz & Susan Park, 2016. "Accountability in Global Environmental Governance: A Meaningful Tool for Action?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Marjanneke Vijge, 2013. "The promise of new institutionalism: explaining the absence of a World or United Nations Environment Organisation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 153-176, May.
    4. Dang, Hai-Anh H. & Serajuddin, Umar, 2020. "Tracking the sustainable development goals: Emerging measurement challenges and further reflections," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    5. Fariborz Zelli & Harro van Asselt, 2013. "Introduction: The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, August.
    6. Holzscheiter, Anna, 2017. "Coping with Institutional Fragmentation? Competition and Convergence between Boundary Organizations in the Global Response to Polio," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 34(6), pages 767-789.
    7. Anna Holzscheiter, 2017. "Coping with Institutional Fragmentation? Competition and Convergence between Boundary Organizations in the Global Response to Polio," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(6), pages 767-789, November.
    8. Klaus H. Goetz & Ronny Patz & Katharina Michaelowa, 2017. "Resourcing International Organisations: So What?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(s5), pages 113-123, August.
    9. Beisheim, Marianne, 2018. "UN reforms for the 2030 agenda: Are the HLPF's working methods and practices "fit for purpose"?," SWP Research Papers 9/2018, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
    10. Michael Zürn & Benjamin Faude, 2013. "Commentary: On Fragmentation, Differentiation, and Coordination," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(3), pages 119-130, August.
    11. Frank Biermann & Philipp Pattberg & Harro van Asselt & Fariborz Zelli, 2009. "The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 9(4), pages 14-40, November.
    12. RonaldB. Mitchell & LilianaB. Andonova & Mark Axelrod & Jörg Balsiger & Thomas Bernauer & JessicaF. Green & James Hollway & RakhyunE. Kim & Jean-Frédéric Morin, 2020. "What We Know (and Could Know) About International EnvironmentalAgreements," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 103-121, February.
    13. Sebastian Oberthür & Thomas Gehring, 2006. "Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: The Case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 6(2), pages 1-31, May.
    14. Anna Holzscheiter & Gill Walt & Ruairi Brugha, 2012. "Monitoring and evaluation in global HIV/AIDS control—weighing incentives and disincentives for coordination among global and local actors," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 61-76, January.
    15. repec:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i::p:113-123 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maya Bogers & Frank Biermann & Agni Kalfagianni & Rakhyun E. Kim, 2023. "The SDGs as integrating force in global governance? Challenges and opportunities," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 157-164, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pickering, Jonathan & Jotzo, Frank & Wood, Peter J., 2015. "Splitting the difference: can limited coordination achieve a fair distribution of the global climate financing effort?," Working Papers 249508, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    2. Philipp Pattberg & Cille Kaiser & Oscar Widerberg & Johannes Stripple, 2022. "20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 295-315, June.
    3. Stephan Hoch & Axel Michaelowa & Aglaja Espelage & Anne-Kathrin Weber, 2019. "Governing complexity: How can the interplay of multilateral environmental agreements be harnessed for effective international market-based climate policy instruments?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 595-613, December.
    4. Jonathan Pickering & Carola Betzold & Jakob Skovgaard, 2017. "Special issue: managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, February.
    5. Thomas Gehring & Benjamin Faude, 2014. "A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 471-498, December.
    6. Matias E. Margulis, 2021. "Intervention by international organizations in regime complexes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 871-902, October.
    7. Carmen Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco & Sarah L. Burns & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 187-205, April.
    8. Jens Heidingsfelder & Markus Beckmann, 2020. "A governance puzzle to be solved? A systematic literature review of fragmented sustainability governance," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 355-390, August.
    9. Ibnu Budiman & Mattijs Smits, 2020. "How Do Configuration Shifts in Fragmented Energy Governance Affect Policy Output? A Case Study of Changing Biogas Regimes in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, February.
    10. Holzscheiter, Anna, 2015. "Interorganisationale Harmonisierung als sine qua non für die Effektivität von Global Governance? Eine soziologisch-institutionalistische Analyse interorganisationaler Strukturen in der globalen Gesund," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 56(SH 49), pages 322-348.
    11. Chaewoon Oh, 2020. "Contestations over the financial linkages between the UNFCCC’s Technology and Financial Mechanism: using the lens of institutional interaction," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 559-575, September.
    12. W. Pieter Pauw, 2017. "Mobilising private adaptation finance: developed country perspectives," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 55-71, February.
    13. Peter Dauvergne & Jennifer Clapp, 2016. "Researching Global Environmental Politics in the 21st Century," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(1), pages 1-12, February.
    14. Michelle Scobie, 2018. "Accountability in climate change governance and Caribbean SIDS," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 769-787, April.
    15. Clara Brandi, 2021. "The Interaction of Private and Public Governance: The Case of Sustainability Standards for Palm Oil," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 33(6), pages 1574-1595, December.
    16. Ingrid J Visseren-Hamakers, 2018. "Integrative governance: The relationships between governance instruments taking center stage," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1341-1354, December.
    17. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Oliver Westerwinter, 2022. "The global governance complexity cube: Varieties of institutional complexity in global governance," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 233-262, April.
    18. Dona Azizi, 0. "Access and allocation in food governance, a decadal view 2008–2018," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    19. Mairon G. Bastos Lima & Gabrielle Kissinger & Ingrid J. Visseren-Hamakers & Josefina Braña-Varela & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "The Sustainable Development Goals and REDD+: assessing institutional interactions and the pursuit of synergies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 589-606, August.
    20. Marcel J. Dorsch & Christian Flachsland, 2017. "A Polycentric Approach to Global Climate Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 45-64, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:13:y:2022:i:5:p:669-682. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.