Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/61637
Or use following links to share this resource in social networks: Recommend this item
Title Institutional Architecture For Sustainable Development (SD): A Case Study from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan
Authors Bhandari, M.P.
Bhattarai, K.
ORCID
Keywords institution
інституція
учреждение
sustainable development
сталий розвиток
устойчивое развитие
biodiversity
біорізноманіття
биоразнообразие
environment conservation and management
збереження та управління навколишнім середовищем
охрана окружающей среды и управление
Type Article
Date of Issue 2017
URI http://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/61637
Publisher Sumy State University
License
Citation Bhandari, M.P., Bhattarai, K. (2017). Institutional Architecture for Sustainable Development (SD): A Case Study from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. SocioEconomic Challenges, 1(3), 6-21. DOI: 10.21272/sec.1(3).6-21.2017
Abstract Proper institutional architecture (IA), one of the two main themes of the Earth Summit, is important for sustainable development (SD). The IA not only has global importance for governance, but also has importance for national and regional governances. Proper governance is needed in developing, monitoring and implementing policies that are needed to meet the three pillars – social, environmental and economic of SD. After the establishment of a global level institution – the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in 1972 as a result of the Stockholm Conference, and the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in 1992 following the Rio Earth Summit – many countries have expressed their commitments to develop strong IA within their administrative network to attain the goals of SD. Arguments are that strong IA framework is needed to halt or reverse global environmental degradation. Critics, however, say that there are overlapping and competing claims than collaborating mandates between the UNEP and CSD to meet the goals of SD. Nonetheless, none has undermined the importance of IA to achieve the goals of SD. The importance of IA has increased further after the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002 to attain the goals of SD for the 21st century. However, despite the action oriented approaches of WSSD for global and regional partnerships, many countries have failed to deliver needful changes within their IA. Research scholars question if IA is not well established, how would countries meet the standard of Rio+20 for delivering SD objectives. Reviewing the status of IA from four South Asian countries – Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan – from published literature and government portals and analyzing secondary data, this paper evaluates the strengths and weakness of IA of these countries. These four South Asian countries have expressed their repeated commitments to institutionalize services needed to achieve the goals of SD, however, our analyses of the IA’s performance indicators do not justify their claims. An analysis of four major indicators – Environmental Performance Index (EPI), the Global Competitiveness Index (GPI), Human Development Index (HDI) and Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) – within the framework of SD suggests that all four countries have different levels of social, economic and environmental foundations. However, all countries are competing to attain international conferences, signing and ratifying major multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), and claiming to achieve the goals of SD. Though these countries claim to have designed policies, laws, and administrative organizations to meet the requirements of MEAs, weak performance indicators suggest need for further investigation of IA performances. This investigation will reveal whether repeated commitments in papers, mere participations in various conferences, signing treaties, and creating IA to draw international aids are enough or there are other factors that inhibit countries from achieving the goals of SD.
Appears in Collections: SocioEconomic Challenges (SEC)

Views

Afghanistan Afghanistan
1
Argentina Argentina
1045240735
Australia Australia
-678353573
Bahrain Bahrain
1
Bangladesh Bangladesh
123528
Canada Canada
2133715716
China China
1614657130
Denmark Denmark
1
Egypt Egypt
1
Finland Finland
1
France France
4
Germany Germany
1774566976
Hong Kong SAR China Hong Kong SAR China
1287934563
India India
-678353583
Indonesia Indonesia
49699
Iran Iran
1127836059
Ireland Ireland
40606
Italy Italy
2
Japan Japan
-20887790
Kenya Kenya
1
Laos Laos
1
Libya Libya
1
Lithuania Lithuania
1
Malaysia Malaysia
210128
Mexico Mexico
1
Nepal Nepal
207470
Netherlands Netherlands
161416
Norway Norway
1
Pakistan Pakistan
2133715712
Philippines Philippines
47401
Poland Poland
1
South Africa South Africa
-678353579
Sudan Sudan
1
Sweden Sweden
810653650
Switzerland Switzerland
1
Taiwan Taiwan
1
Thailand Thailand
-1624863278
Turkey Turkey
1
Ukraine Ukraine
1287934568
United Kingdom United Kingdom
2133715715
United States United States
-678353572
Unknown Country Unknown Country
1287934566
Vietnam Vietnam
513668159

Downloads

Australia Australia
810653670
Bangladesh Bangladesh
116671
Bulgaria Bulgaria
1
Canada Canada
1774566988
China China
1
Czechia Czechia
1
Germany Germany
-20887786
India India
-678353582
Indonesia Indonesia
1
Iran Iran
123909
Ireland Ireland
1
Kenya Kenya
1
Lithuania Lithuania
1
Malaysia Malaysia
1
Nepal Nepal
940144398
Netherlands Netherlands
26970
Nigeria Nigeria
1
Pakistan Pakistan
1774566980
Philippines Philippines
174033
Russia Russia
1
South Africa South Africa
1
Switzerland Switzerland
1
Thailand Thailand
-1624863279
Ukraine Ukraine
332749939
United Kingdom United Kingdom
-678353578
United States United States
-678353580
Unknown Country Unknown Country
940144402
Vietnam Vietnam
1

Files

File Size Format Downloads
Medani_SEC_3_2017.pdf 814.94 kB Adobe PDF -1402511128

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.