Accountability in International Governance and the 2030 Development Agenda
| Author | José Antonio Ocampo,Natalie Gómez‐Arteaga |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12322 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
Accountability in International Governance and
the 2030 Development Agenda
Jos
e Antonio Ocampo
Columbia University and United Nations –Committee for Development Policy
Natalie G
omez-Arteaga
Columbia University and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Abstract
After revisiting the concept of accountability in national governance, this paper analyzes the challenges of its application
to international governance, including an assessment of some of the modalities it has assumed. It then proposes a bot-
tom-up multilayered and multistakeholder accountability framework for the 2030 Development Agenda: national follow-up
processes at the base of the pyramid, consultations and possibly peer reviews at the regional level, a global accountabil-
ity system led by the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) and supported by the ECOSOC system, United Nations and other
international organizations, and active participation by civil society and the private sector with their own accountability
frameworks in place.
Policy Implications
•The accountability framework for the 2030 Development Agenda should have at its base strong national follow-up pro-
cesses with active participation of parliaments and civil society.
•The regional context should include peer reviews of national commitments.
•The global follow-up process led by HLPF should make full use of the whole ECOSOC system and other international orga-
nizations.
•Civil society and the private sector should be essential partners, but must develop their own accountability frameworks.
•A sound global information system should be built up and serve as the basis for independent evaluation reports by the
UN secretariat and the World Bank.
Accountability poses significant challenges in international
governance. This is, therefore, one of the major difficulties
faced in implementing the 2030 Development
Agenda approved by the United Nations General
Assembly in September 2015 (UN General Assembly,
2015), which is the most ambitious global agenda in his-
tory. This paper discusses the concept of public sector
accountability and proposes a bottom-up multilayered and
multistakeholder framework for the 2030 Agenda. It is
divided into five sections. The first two analyze the con-
cept of accountability and its limitations when applied to
international governance. The third discusses the strengths
and weaknesses of several mechanisms of international
accountability that are already in place. The fourth
develops the basic elements of the proposed
accountability framework for the 2030 Development
Agenda, and the fifth section presents its concrete
elements. This last section ends with some reflections on
the accountability mechanisms for civil society and the
private sector as key partners in the Global Partnership
for Development.
The concept of public sector accountability
The concept of accountability has been essentially devel-
oped in the context of national governance, to refer to the
oversight over the fulfillment of responsibilities of public
sector officials and the checks and balances on the exercise
of political power. In the context of national governance,
accountability has been defined by Schedler (1999, p. 14) as
a means of ‘subjecting power to the threat of sanctions,
obliging it to be exercised in transparent ways and forcing
it to justify its acts’. In turn, OHCHR and CESR (2013, p. 9)
have defined it as the means to oblige those in authority ‘to
take responsibility for their actions, to answer for them by
explaining and justifying them to those affected, and to be
subject to some form of enforceable sanction if their con-
duct or explanation for it is found wanting’.
These definitions imply that certain elements must be in
place as pre-conditions for proper accountability to take
form. First, it is necessary to delimit the act or action that is
subject to potential review. Second, there must be a direct
link between the action and the persons who perform it in
Global Policy (2016) 7:3 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12322 ©2016 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 7 . Issue 3 . September 2016 305
Research Article
To continue reading
Request your trial