Can Agenda 2030 bring about “localization”? Policy limitations of Agenda 2030 in the broader global governance system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Motivation Localization is an elusive target of international development, aimed at strengthening local ownership through equitable partnerships and redistribution of resources and decision‐making. While this is a long‐standing objective, it remains unachieved. In light of these limitations in global governance, the transformative potential of Agenda 2030 is questioned. Purpose This article observes policy shifts triggered by Agenda 2030 by analysing its domestication in institutional and national contexts in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. By asking “Can Agenda 2030 bring about localization?” the article examines the policy potential of Agenda 2030 to transform the traditional international development paradigm, as David Slater theorized in 1993. Methods and approach The article offers interpretive policy analysis and presents insights drawn from 172 interviews and 11 focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted with international and national civil servants, civil society actors, and academics in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda, as well as headquarters and regional offices of selected United Nations and donor agencies. Findings Agenda 2030 emerges as a legitimate framework that creates new policy avenues of national agenda‐setting and multi‐stakeholder co‐ordination. Across all three national contexts, Agenda 2030 was integrated into national agendas, considered to be central development anchors that, however, largely depend on change‐resistant donor structures. This is intensifying critiques of development paradigms among development practitioners, particularly from historically disadvantaged countries. Policy implications While triggering meaningful shifts in development agenda‐setting, Agenda 2030 has not resulted in political commitments to transform inequitable global development mechanisms that would enable its achievement. Key bottlenecks, in fact, are found not in the insufficient implementation of countries receiving official development assistance, but in the lack of institutional reforms to donor and global governance mechanisms. Political, rather than policy, solutions are required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it