Los objetivos que buscamos impulsar con este proyecto estuvieron en claro desde su planeación: por un lado, producir indicadores que nos ofrecieran evidencia sobre el estado que guardan las instituciones de seguridad y justicia penal en cada una de las entidades del país; por el otro, con esta información en mano, tenemos la intención de provocar respuestas por parte de la autoridad. El ejercicio de evaluación que aquí se presenta no tiene un fin meramente analítico, también tiene el propósito de provocar los cambios que son necesarios. Es un llamado a la acción.

México: Anatomía de la Corrupción es un compendio de los principales índices, indicadores y mediciones sobre la frecuencia y extensión del fenómeno de la corrupción, de sus causas y efectos, de los esfuerzos para combatirla y de los magros resultados obtenidos. Es una fotografía de cómo nos vemos los mexicanos a nosotros mismos y cómo nos perciben y califican en el mundo en materia de corrupción, de los partícipes de la corrupción ya sea del lado de la oferta o la demanda, de la frecuencia con que se practica y la permisividad frente a ella, de la tolerancia social frente a los actos de corrupción, y de los costos que se pagan por permitirla. Aunque el estudio se centra en el caso de México la reflexión y experiencia internacionales están presentes como punto de contraste.

A pesar de diversas reformas recientes en materia de justicia y derechos humanos, la impunidad en México continúa siendo una constante. Según distintos informes, en México la impunidad alcanza niveles superiores al 98%, siendo que tan sólo alrededor de 1.5% del total de las denuncias presentadas (se estima un 20% del total de los delitos cometidos) llegan ante un juez. Diversos factores continúan obstaculizando el acceso a la justicia y la protección jurídica de los derechos humanos. Por un lado, aún son insuficientes los recursos legales adecuados que permitan garantizar la eficacia del sistema de procuración y administración de justicia, así como la implementación adecuada del nuevo sistema acusatorio de justicia penal, la cual deberá concluir a más tardar en el año 2016.

The formulation of the SDG education targets was more inclusive than the processes linked with the MDGs. Key constituencies making representations through the Open Working Group and other consultative processes succeeded in formulating targets that stressed inclusion, quality and equality in all phases of education. However, the development of the global indicators for SDG4, has resulted in metrics that miss many of the values of the targets, most notably with regard to quality and free education and substantive, not simply distributive, meanings of equality. The article analyses why some of these slippages took place, and what potential there may be to mobilise for metrics that better depict the key tenets of the education goal and targets. The analysis thus considers ways forward for exploring measurement of the many meanings of quality and equalities in education, reflecting on numbers as instruments that impose power and hierarchy, and the possibility of using reflections on numbers and indicators for critical dialogue and an enhancement of participation, accountability, and work to change injustices in education.

This paper presents a procedure that would enable a country to describe national targets with associated benchmarks that are appropriate for the country. The procedure builds on precedent set in other countries but in particular on a procedure developed for the setting of Resource Quality Objectives in South Africa. The procedure focusses on those SDG targets that are natural resource-security focused, for example, extent of water-related ecosystems (6.6), desertification (15.3) and so forth, because the selection of indicator methods and benchmarks is based on the location of natural resources, their use and present state and how they fit into national strategies.

El INEE emite las presentes directrices cuyo objetivo es presentar propuestas de intervención pública para mejorar la atención educativa de familias de jornaleros agrícolas migrantes, a quienes se reconoce, de entre muchos grupos, como los que posiblemente enfrentan las condiciones más precarias y de mayor vulnerabilidad en nuestro país. Estas directrices tienen como insumo principal los resultados de la Evaluación externa de la implementación de la política educativa dirigida a niñas, niños y adolescentes migrantes agrícolas, la cual tuvo como fin valorar los alcances y déficits de la acción gubernamental en los últimos años. Además, se revisaron las conclusiones y recomendaciones de 21 evaluaciones que se han hecho a los principales programas enfocados a la atención de este grupo, los hallazgos más relevantes de la investigación educativa, y experiencias nacionales e internacionales. Las directrices son resultado de una construcción participativa: incorporan las observaciones y propuestas de distintos actores clave, vertidas en varios foros de interlocución que el Instituto llevó a cabo entre diciembre de 2014 y diciembre de 2015 con autoridades educativas — federal y estatales—, expertos en el tema, y representantes de organizaciones de la sociedad civil.

This practical notes series is devised as a how-to guide that captures the evolution of Public Private Dialogues (PPD) and the challenges faced by practitioners since the first PPD handbook was published in 2006. It considers the varied and evolving forms of PPD, the contexts in which PPD is most effective, and its processes of implementation and sustainability. The design, implementation, and challenges associated with investment climate, competitiveness, and sector-specific PPDs are discussed, as well as an updated methodology for the monitoring and evaluation of PPDs. The series further provides an updated “Charter of Good Practice” in Annex I that reflects practice modifications and improvements since being first elaborated at the 2006 Paris Global PPD Workshop. The series takes the Charter’s principles as its base, and expands on them with practical advice and recommendations.

La ECOPRED 2014 se realiza en el marco del Subsistema Nacional de Información de Gobierno, Seguridad Pública e Impartición de Justicia (SNIGSPIJ) así como del Programa Nacional para la Prevención Social de la Violencia y la Delincuencia. Esta encuesta buscará generar estimaciones sobre algunos de los factores que propician el surgimiento de conductas delictivas y violentas. Asimismo, se busca obtener información sobre las ventajas y vulnerabilidades que afectan el desarrollo de los jóvenes entre 12 y 29 años de edad, los jefes de hogar, así como las comunidades y/o barrios. La utilidad de la ECOPRED es conocer de forma integral los elementos y dinámicas que están influyendo en la formación y socialización de los jóvenes mexicanos. Específicamente, se busca identificar la relación y percepción que tienen los jóvenes con respecto a sus contextos más inmediatos, por ejemplo: familia, amigos cercanos, vecinos, comunidad, y escuela o trabajo.

Official statisticians around the world are faced with the herculean task of populating the Sustainable Development Goals global indicator framework. As traditional data sources appear to be insufficient, statisticians are naturally considering whether big data can contribute anything useful. While the statistical possibilities appear to be theoretically endless, in practice big data also present some enormous challenges and potential pitfalls: legal; ethical; technical; and reputational. This paper examines the opportunities and challenges presented by big data for compiling indicators to support Agenda 2030.

The papers in this Special Issue raise a number of relevant and important questions, of which three particularly deserve comment. Are indicators reductionist? They might be indeed, both regarding the process of defining them and in their use, which is why it is essential that each be based on a deep and sufficient knowledge of the phenomenon concerned. The human development index illustrates both the pitfalls and potential of global indicators. Are there dark forces behind the selection of indicators? The agreement of the 2030 Agenda was the outcome of a political process that led to a negotiated consensus accomplished by the Open Working Group. In determining the indicators, the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG SDG) was asked for a simple and robust framework which would not affect the political equilibrium reached in the Open Working Group (OWG); no easy task. Is the IAEG SDG an arcane bureaucratic entity? In the face of this immensely challenging task, it has sought a balance between what is feasible in the short term and what is required in the long term. The IAEG SDG has become a space for open and constructive dialog between national statistical offices and international agencies.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) constitute a truly transformative agenda which provides a framework to help useffectively confront the fundamental challenges of development in a way that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) didnot. This commentary briefly describes the very demanding, at times antagonistic, process that produced the SDGs, includingthe crucial role of the Open Working Group (OWG). It points out the strengths of the SDGs by comparison with the MDGs,with respect to both process and product. The SDGs, proposed and championed by a country from the Global South, for thefirst time defined development as a universal agenda, and upended the traditional division of countries into those who needto act and those called primarily to provide development assistance. Many countries across the development spectrumrejected this proposal, which wasfinally agreed thanks to persistence, lengthy negotiations and consensus building. In theend, the adoption of the SDGs also broke down the divide between environment and development, offering an integratedand inclusive framework for structuring solutions. Yet an agenda of such deep transformative potential faces implementationchallenges, and this commentary emphasizes the need for the sort of analysis contained in the papers in this Special Issue inorder to ensure that the SDGs are strengthened and continue to evolve.

This brief article comments on the special issue on SDGs - Knowledge and Politics in Setting and Measuring the SDGs. Acknowledging that the articles in the issue show how reliance on indicators changes the way development is conceived,Merry asks why is it so difficult to produce better indicators. If they are too narrow, why not simply produce more? She arguesthat conceiving of measurement as an infrastructure provides important insight into these questions.

Tradicionalmente, las escuelas normales han sido las encargadas de formar a los docentes de educación básica del país; sin embargo, en los últimos años ha crecido la participación de otras instituciones de educación superior (IES) en la formación de estos profesionales. La oferta educativa de las normales coexiste ya desde hace tiempo con una que proviene de universidades públicas y privadas. De este conjunto heterogéneo de instituciones han egresado los aspirantes a las plazas docentes de educación básica en los últimos años. De él han salido también los candidatos que obtuvieron resultados idóneos o no idóneos en los concursos de oposición 2014 y 2015 para ingresar al servicio público educativo. En este mapa institucional y de desafíos educativos las directrices que aquí se presentan se ocupan del ámbito de la formación inicial de los docentes de educación básica; si bien ponen especial énfasis en las escuelas normales, también subrayan el papel que ha tenido y tendrá en el futuro inmediato el resto de las IES.

The process of designing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was intensely political, as it can be expected of United Nations negotiations of that magnitude. Inevitably, those politics have spilled over into the technical process of formulating global indicators to monitor the Sustainable Development Goals. This commentary explores some of the tensions between competing priorities and various constituencies that affect the design of the global SDG indicator framework.

The article critically analyses how the transformative ambition of the SDGs may be threatened in the process of moving from vision, through goals and targets to indicators. This is exemplified by a case study concerning sustainable agriculture, and most specifically indicator 2.4.1, where two contrasting approaches – industrial agriculture and agro?ecology – stand in opposition, each with its associated discourse and interests. The process is analysed in great detail, noting the complex interplay of political and technical considerations. FAO has played a central role in establishing a compromise with regard to the wording of indicator 2.4.1 which papers over the disagreements and does not explicitly promote either of the two competing approaches. And the organisation has facilitated a technical process which, instead of one simple indicator, has led to a composite, multidimensional version with nine sub?indicators, as a result of which it has been relegated to ‘Tier III’ status, implying that it will not be used for global monitoring purposes. The article concludes that – owing to a combination of political and technical factors – the transformative potential of the SDGs may, in this instance, be lost. In order to transform the debate it is necessary, and should be sufficient, to show that–already today–agro?ecological approaches can achieve high yields.

This article argues that the environment was extensively incorporated into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with broad and ambitious targets, reflecting environmental concerns throughout the SDGs. Many environment?related targets – including some of the most important ones – were placed under ‘non?environmental’ goals. The SDGs also adopted the view that economic growth can be made environmentally sustainable using ‘decoupling’ and ‘resource efficiency’ as key technological solutions. Governments rejected a more transformative objective ‘beyond GDP’, the concept of planetary boundaries, and strong implementation mechanisms. Most disappointing, the environmental elements in many targets were not included in indicators, or the indicators lacked ambition, or were watered down. Key factors in achieving the strong and integrated approach to environment and development at the level of goals and targets were: (1) the role of new ideas on the importance of the environment and an integrated approach to sustainable development which was promoted by the science and research community; (2) a group of norm entrepreneurs, who promoted these ideas; and (3) the institutional structure and working modalities of the Open Working Group (which drafted the text of the SDGs) whose special characteristics facilitated the final agreement. The dilution of the indicators resulted from a very different institutional structure and process with different actors and from the development focused legacy of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that had not resulted in sufficient capacity for thoroughly measuring environmental concerns.

This paper examines the processes of formulation of UN Sustainable Development Goal 12 (SDG 12) – ‘Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns’ – and its targets and indicators. We argue that business interests have steered its narrative of sustainable growth. The outcome of the SDG 12 negotiations reflects a production? and design?centered perspective that emerged in the 1990s and has a business?friendly regulatory approach and faith in solutions through new technologies. We show how the targets and indicators emerged in debates between national governments, UN agencies, civil society and private sector organizations – and how they reflect both the political process and technical and practical considerations in translation of a broad concept into the SDG format. While the emergence of SDG 12 as a standalone goal stems from a push by developing countries to build pressure on developed countries, and its presence may open space for attention to this area in the future, many of its targets were watered down and left vague. The indicators to measure progress on the targets further narrow the scope and ambition of Goal 12, whose current content does not adequately reflect earlier more transformative conceptualizations of Sustainable Consumption and Production.

Esta publicación tiene el propósito de poner en valor el progreso alcanzado y reconocer los esfuerzos realizados. También pretende develar los desafíos emergentes para la agenda educativa post 2015 que deberá generar sin duda una nueva visión de la educación en la región. Y es que una educación de calidad para todos a lo largo de la vida, en tanto derecho fundamental de todas las personas, se enfrenta a un contexto de cambio profundo al comenzar el siglo XXI. Es preciso entenderlo y construir un nuevo paradigma acorde a los tiempos.

This Special Issue usefully analyses the links between statistics, knowledge, policy making and politics, and uncovers intended and unintended consequences of using indicators to frame policy. Many civil society organizations (CSOs) were actively involved in the Open Working Group, and some have continued their advocacy into the ongoing process of developing the SDG indicator framework. Some indicators are being reconsidered; but despite repeated efforts there is still no indicator to measure inequality between countries. There is a recognized need for innovative ways to supplement already existing data. The use of proxy measurements is already underway, and initiatives such as a collaboration between some UN agencies and Gallup. The active public engagement in the process that determined the SDGs may help to resist the reductionism often evident in translating from the goals to the targets to the indicators. The 2019 meeting of the High?Level Political Forum (HLPF) will be an essential occasion to address some of these issues and to chart a correction course.

Billions of people around the world live at the margins – pushed or kept out, often in silence, without adequate protection of the law. Denied healthcare, citizenship or fair pay, those unprotected by the law have problems that are both real and relentless, impacting their ability to reap the benefits of sustainable development. Despite this crushing reality, access to justice is a bedrock principle undergirding human rights. Despite its centrality, justice was not explicitly included in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This omission was corrected when the SDGs were adopted with a stand?alone goal on justice. While Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 was the result of years of political, strategic and scholarly work by human rights advocates, development practitioners and academics, its promise lies beyond the technocratic realms of development programming, by insisting that people's own experience of justice – and injustice – must remain at the center of efforts to assess progress toward a world where no one is ‘left behind’.