Science in Negotiation

The Role of Scientific Evidence in Shaping the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, 2012-2015

verfasst von: Jessica Espey

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Buchreihe : Sustainable Development Goals Series

Enthalten in: Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" , Springer Professional "Technik" , Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Über dieses Buch

This book explores the role of scientific evidence within United Nations (UN) deliberation by examining the negotiation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), endorsed by Member States in 2015. Using the SDGs as a case study, this book addresses a key gap in our understanding of the role of evidence in contemporary international policy-making. It is structured around three overarching questions: (1) how does scientific evidence influence multilateral policy development within the UN General Assembly? (2) how did evidence shape the goals and targets that constitute the SDGs?; and (3) how did institutional arrangements and non-state actor engagements mediate the evidence-to-policy process in the development of the SDGs? The ultimate intention is to tease out lessons on global policy-making and to understand the influence of different evidence inputs and institutional factors in shaping outcomes.

To understand the value afforded to scientific evidence within multilateral deliberation, a conceptual framework is provided drawing upon literature from policy studies and political science, including recent theories of evidence-informed policy-making and new institutionalism. It posits that the success or failure of evidence informing global political processes rests upon the representation and access of scientific stakeholders, levels of community organisation, the framing and presentation of evidence, and time, including the duration over which evidence and key conceptual ideas are presented. Cutting across the discussion is the fundamental question of whose evidence counts and how expertise is defined? The framework is tested with specific reference to three themes that were prominent during the SDG negotiation process; public health (articulated in SDG 3), urban sustainability (articulated in SDG 11), and data and information systems (which were a cross-cutting theme of the dialogue). Within each, scientific communities had specific demands and through an exploration of key literature, including evidence inputs and UN documentation, as well as through key informant interviews, the translation of these scientific ideas into policy priorities is uncovered.

The intended audiences of this book include academic practitioners studying evidence to policy processes, multilateral negotiation and/or UN policy planning. The book also intends to provide useful insights for policy makers, including UN diplomats, officials and staff working to improve the quality of evidence communication and uptake within multilateral institutions. Finally, it aims to support the whole global academic and scientific community, including students of public policy and political science, by providing insights on how to input into, influence, and even shape international evidence-informed policy-making.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter

1. Why Consider Science in International Policy?

Abstract

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was devised to provide a framework for collective action on pressing global economic, social and environmental challenges. It was informed by an unprecedented consultation, with inputs from a wide range of actors including scientists and other experts. But what value was given to these inputs? How were they balanced against political interests? And what mechanisms and institutional arrangements were put in place to attract and support the inputs of knowledge actors? As climate change and ecological crisis intensify the necessity for science and other forms of systematic study is undoubtedly growing, but is this recognised in the institutions of global governance? This book takes a systematic look at the role of evidence, particularly scientific evidence, in international policy-making. It traces the processes that culminated in the 2030 Agenda, teasing out the role of expert actors within the deliberations and in doing so examines the role of science within the senior-most institution of global governance, the UN General Assembly.

Jessica Espey

2. Scientific Evidence in Policy Processes: Concepts and Histories

Abstract

Although there are countless examples of science informing policy over the nineteenth and twentieth century, theory relating to how this process happens has evolved significantly in recent years. Today there are three dominant schools of thought which consider how evidence can be used to inform policy outcomes; political science, decision-making theory, and policy studies. Political science emphasises the design of evidence, through classical models of social enquiry, as fundamental to ensuring political impact (Green 2005). Decision-science or decision-making theory emphasises the processes of deliberation and contestation through which decisions are reached thereby highlighting potential entry points at which evidence can be presented (Goldie et al. 2006). Meanwhile policy studies emphasises the process of policy formulation, with models ranging from decade-long cycles, to messy non-linear processes of coalitions weighing-up evidence inputs, beliefs, and political influences to design and advocate for interventions (Sabatier 1988; Cairney 2013). The most expansive literature on evidence to policy-uptake stems from the field of policy studies referred to as Evidence-Based or Evidence-Informed Policy (EBP / EIP), which has borrowed heavily from the evidence-based practice movement which started in medical research.

Jessica Espey

3. Tracing the SDG Deliberation Process: A Focus on Health, Cities and Data

Abstract

Scholarship from policy studies and political science provides insights into how different communities coalesce around issues, attempt to communicate their evidence and arguments, and the potential institutional aides and barriers to this. But applying this literature to a process as broad and diverse as the SDG negotiations, within an institutional setting as large as the UNGA, is very hard. Thousands of people provided input, in one way or another, to the post-2015 deliberations and each goal area (as well as the many topics that did not become goals) enjoyed lengthy debates both inside of and outside of the formal deliberation chambers, suggesting there is not one objective evidence to policy process which needs to be understood but instead a wide range of processes across different sectors and scales. To help focus this analysis and to provide an inter-sectoral perspective on these processes, Part 3 focuses on three very diverse themes of the debate; health, urban sustainability, and data. I trace the key conceptual issues that were under discussion within each, noting the topics under debate and the supporters and adversaries of each. This kind of detailed thematic analysis is essential to understand the nuances of negotiations and how broad issues are translated into given words, phrases and ideas eventually featured in outcome documents. It also helps identify what, if any, where the key entry points for scientists and academics to provide their evidence. Finally, mapping the transmission of ideas and concepts also enables the identification of consensus-building processes that helped actors in each epistemic community to coalesce around priority themes and to forge political consensus on the eventual wording.

Jessica Espey

4. Influencing Multilateral Policy Processes Through Science

Abstract

In Part II of this book, I theorised that the influence of science on multilateral negotiation could be understood through 4 criteria: representation and access, the organisation of epistemic communities, framing and temporal dynamics. The empirical analysis presented above reveals several theoretical and practical insights that augment these criteria, which are here explored in order to better explain the influence of scientific evidence in multilateral policy development, for example, under representation and access the space afforded by new institutional arrangements was a recurrent theme of the interviews. Meanwhile each epistemic community demonstrated highly diverse influencing and engagement approaches, suggesting that the modalities of engagement for non-state actors are wholly contingent on the structure and coherence of their community.

Jessica Espey

5. Conclusion: Evolving Evidence Systems in the Institutions of Global Governance

Abstract

Scientific evidence played a minor role in the formal deliberations on the SDGs. Formal institutional mechanisms available for science engagement with the UNGA are weak and recognised groups have limited opportunity for input during deliberations. Nonetheless, expert stakeholders played an influential role through other informal and innovative processes. Working within their epistemic communities they helped to shape narratives around specific goals and targets and give weight to advocacy messages.

Jessica Espey

6. Correction to: Science in Negotiation

Jessica Espey

Backmatter

Titel: Science in Negotiation
verfasst von: Jessica Espey
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-18126-9
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18125-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18126-9