Prioritization of indicators in SDG 4: Voluntary national reviews as a tool of soft governance

• In Event: The SDGs as a product of and mechanism for the global governance of education

Proposal

Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) are an important component of the follow up and review process for the Sustainable Development Goals. Presented by countries at the annual High Level Political Forum, VNRs detail country’s self-reported progress to peers. This voluntary process has been criticized for its weak accountability. Global governance literature, however, points to an increase in these weak or soft governance mechanisms and potential strategic benefits of this approach. Using a mix of logistic regression and document analysis, this study examines how VNRs, and the SDG follow-up and review process more generally, act as an instrument of soft governance. We explore the scope and the shape of the documents by looking at VNR submissions across the 2016 to 2022 period and examining in greater depth the 2022 period that had a focus on the global goal for education (SDG 4). Three types of soft governance – governing by goal setting, governing by numbers, and governing by moral project – are used as lenses to make sense of our results. Findings speak to the ability of soft governance tools to bring together a diverse array of actors around a broad set of goals and how the power of numbers can shape what indicators countries report on in their VNR.

The nearly universal submission of VNRs, as a key soft governance tool in the SDG follow up and review process, points to the success voluntary instruments can have. As a legitimate forum of peer review, countries appear to submit their VNR and participate in the HLPF to gain legitimacy in a global arena. Yet, in reviewing what is included in VNR reporting on SDG 4, one can question whether the provided leeway is promoting local ownership. National indicators are not present in all country reports and prioritization of indicators within SDG 4 suggest countries are reverting to established, legacy indicators, or emphasizing a narrower set of non-contextualised global indicators. Furthermore, one time participation in the follow up and review process is not sufficient to monitor progress and promote the peer learning necessary to meet the SDGs. Whether or not countries view their participation in this process as a one-off event or as an important regular exercise requires further study.

Author

• William C. Smith, University of Edinburgh