Mainstreaming sustainable development in the OECD through indicators and peer reviews

Sustainable Development

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 241-250

  Lehtonen, Markku ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Environmental policy; Evaluation; Policy learning; Use of indicators

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC GROWTH; ECONOMIC IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; OECD; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 56749168567     PISSN: 09680802     EISSN: 10991719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sd.378     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Barbier J-C. 1999. Inter-governmental evaluation: balancing stakeholders' expectations with enlightenment objectives? Evaluation 5: 373-386.
2. Brodhag C. 2000. Information, gouvernance et développement durable. International Political Science Review 21: 311-327.
3. Bukkems G, de Groot H. 2002. Learning by auditing: mission impossible? Paper presented at the Conference of the European Evaluation Society Three Movements in Contemporary Evaluation: Learning, Theory and Evidence, Seville, 2002.
4. Clark WC, Dickson N. 1999. The Global Environmental Assessment Project: learning from efforts to link science and policy in an interdependent world. Acclimations: Newsletter of the US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change 6-7.
5. Davies HTO, Nutley SM. 2001. Evidence-based policy and practice: moving from rhetoric to reality. Paper presented at the Third International Inter-Disciplinary Evidence-Based Policies and Indicator Systems Conference, London, 2001.
6. Eckley N. 2001. Designing Effective Assessments: the Role of Participation, Science and Governance, and Focus, report of a workshop co-organized by the European Environment Agency and the Global Environmental Assessment Project, Copenhagen, 2001, European Environment Agency Environmental Issue Report 2626.
7. European Commission. 1997. Evaluating EU Expenditure Programmes: a Guide to Ex Post and Intermediate Evaluation.
8. Feinstein ON. 2002. Use of evaluations and evaluation of their use. Evaluation 8: 433-439.
9. Feller I. 2002. Performance measurement redux. American Journal of Evaluation 23: 435-452.
10. Forss K, Reubien CC, Carlsson J. 2002. Process use of evaluations: types of use that precede lessons learned and feedback. Evaluation 8: 29-45.
11. Greene JC. 1999. The inequality of performance measurements. Evaluation 5: 160-172.
12. Hardi P, Zdan T (eds). 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD): Winnipeg, Manitoba.
13. Hezri AA. 2004. Sustainability indicator system and policy processes in Malaysia: a framework for utilisation and learning. Journal of Environmental Management 73: 357-371.
14. Hezri AA, Dovers SR. 2006. Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: issues for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 60: 86-99.
15. Hukkinen J. 2003. From groundless universalism to grounded generalism: improving ecological economic indicators of human - environmental interaction. Ecological Economics 44: 11-27.
16. Innes JE. 1998. Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 64: 52-63.
17. Lehtonen M. 2005a. Environmental Policy Evaluation in the Service of Sustainable Development: Influence of the OECD Environmental Performance Reviews from the Perspective of Institutional Economics, U.F.R. des Sciences Sociales et des Humanités, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines; 335.
18. Lehtonen M. 2005b. OECD Environmental Performance Review Programme: accountability (f)or learning? Evaluation 11: 169-188.
19. Liberatore A. 1997. The integration of sustainable development objectives into EU policy-making: barriers and prospects. In The Politics of Sustainable Development, Baker S, Kousis M, Richardson D, Young S (eds). Routledge: London; 107-126.
20. OECD. 1997. Workshop on the Second Cycle of Reviews/Lessons from the First Cycle of Reviews, document prepared by the Finnish Delegation. OECD Environment Directorate/Environmental Policy Committee, Group on Environmental Performance. Paris, Room Document 12.
21. OECD. 1998. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Second Cycle Work Plan, EPOC Document ENV/EPOC (98)21.
22. OECD. 2001a. Policies to Enhance Sustainable Development. OECD.
23. OECD. 2001b. Sustainable Development: Critical Issues. OECD.
24. OECD. 2001c. OECD Environmental Indicators: Towards Sustainable Development. OECD.
25. OECD. 2002. OECD Work on Sustainable Development in Response to the 2001 Ministerial Mandate: a Report of Progress to the 2002 Ministerial Council Meeting. The Ad Hoc Group on Sustainable Development, General Secretariat, SG/SD(2002)6.
26. OECD. 2003a. OECD Environmental Indicators: Development, Measurement and Use, reference paper.
27. OECD. 2003b. Peer Review: an OECD Tool for Co-Operation and Change. OECD.
28. OECD. 2003c. Second Cycle of the OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Mid-Term Review, ENV/EPOC(2003)30.
29. OECD. 2004. Draft Final Report to Ministers: Ad Hoc Group on Sustainable Development. OECD General Secretariat, SG/SD(2004)4/REV1.
30. OECD. 2005. Programme of Work and Budget 2005-06: the Secretary-General's Submission, C/PWB(2004)2. Council.
31. Paehlke R. 2001. Environmental politics, sustainability and social science. Environmental Politics 10: 1-22.
32. Parsons W. 2004. Not just steering but weaving: relevent knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity and coherence. Australian Journal of Public Administration 63(1): 43-57.
33. Patton MQ. 1997. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: the New Century Text, 3rd edn. Sage: Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi.
34. Pawson R. 2002. Evidence-based policy: in search of a method. Evaluation 8: 157-181.
35. Perrin B. 1998. Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation 19: 367-379.
36. Perrin B. 2002. How to - and how not to - evaluate innovation. Evaluation 8: 13-28.
37. Spangenberg J. 2002. Institutional sustainability indicators: an analysis of the institutions in Agenda 21 and a draft set of indicators for monitoring their effectivity. Sustainable Development 10: 103-115.
38. Valovirta V. 2002. Evaluation utilization as argumentation. Evaluation 8: 60-80.
39. van der Meer F-B. 1999. Evaluation and the social construction of impacts. Evaluation 5: 387-406.
40. Vedung E. 2001. Utvecklingsdrag i utvärdering [Development trends in evaluation]. Hallinnon Tutkimus [Administrative Studies] 20: 139-143.
41. Weiss CH. 1999. The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation 5: 468-486.
42. Wimbush E, Watson J. 2000. An evaluation framework for health promotion: theory, quality and effectiveness. Evaluation 6: 301-321.
43. Yli-Viikari A, Hietala-Koivu R, Huusela-Veistola E, Hyvönen T, Perälä P, Turtola E. 2006. Evaluating agri-environmental indicators (AEIs) - use and limitations of international indicators at national level. Ecological Indicators 7: 150-163.