Implementation of the SDG Targets, including the Fight against

Corruption: Comparison of Argentina and Russia

Galina Menshikova

, Isabel Morayta

and Nikolay Pruel

Faculty of Sociology, Saint Petersburg State University, St Petersburg 199034, Russia

Keywords: SDG Assessment Methodology, Comparative Analysis of Indicators, Corruption, Argentina, Russian

Federation.

Abstract: The purpose of the publication is to assess the quality of the Governments of Argentina and Russia activity

on the implementation of the SDGs. It offers approach to assessing the results of the implementation of the

SDGs: a comparison of the two countries. Taking into account the set goal, 10 parameters were singled out,

and the “fight against corruption” was especially highlighted and assessed. The authors briefly described the

existing assessment methods, indicating and confirming the popularity of this area of research in the world.

Comparing the results of research, it was concluded that the outwardly activity of the Argentine government

is higher. However, having the opportunity to assess the dynamics of changes in indicators – the country has

been submitting Reviews and reports since 2017 – this advantage did not seem obvious, since for a number

of the most important indicators, no positive dynamics was found. As a characteristic feature of the activity

of the Russian government, which was revealed, we can consider its willingness to influence on the lower

levels of government with minimal modernization of the upper ones.

1 INTRODUCTION

The relevance of the topic follows from the emerging

discussion in Russia how to evaluate its Voluntary

Report, presented in 2020. Opinions are divided:

some speak negatively, others – on the contrary. It is

clear that there is also an intermediate point of view.

A study of the literature on the topic showed an

abundance of publications, which, however, does not

diminish its relevance: the public is obliged to keep it

in the focus of their attention. The number of

publications contributes to the development of

assessment methods, which is important, both for

improving the movement of states towards the SDGs

and for the formation of the analytical potential of

comparative research in general.

The approach proposed by the authors suggests

one of the possible options: to assess the degree of the

SDGs implementation in public administration

practice by comparing it with the results achieved by

another country (in our case, Argentina). The choice

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1381-3310

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0608-7747

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1468-1145

of countries for comparison is primarily due to the

nationality of the authors of the publication.

Moreover, these states have much in common,

which makes the procedure for comparing their

results effective. Firstly, both countries stood at the

beginning of the SDG course, initiating its

implementation. Secondly, both are included in the

G-20, which characterizes the overall high socio-

economic status of the states. Third, countries are

regional leaders. So, Argentina in many ways shows

an example of development for the countries of the

Latin American continent, Russia – for the CIS

countries. Fourth, they are approximately at the same

stage of political and economic transformation. Both

are building a market economy and are trying ( with

varying success) to deepen the quality of democracy

in governance. Fifth, it seems that despite the

difference in tasks as the basis for the implementation

of the SDGs, there is one common for both - the fight

against corruption.

608

Menshikova, G., Morayta, I. and Pr uel, N.

Implementation of the SDG Targets, including the Fight against Corruption: Comparison of Argentina and Russia.

DOI: 10.5220/0010672600003223

In Proceedings of the 1st International Scientiﬁc Forum on Sustainable Development of Socio-economic Systems (WFSDS 2021), pages 608-615

ISBN: 978-989-758-597-5

2 THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND

As the Voluntary Reviews are accumulated, all a

large number of countries, there is a natural need for

their analysis and comparison with each other. This

line of research has become both relevant and

popular.

We agree with the statement: “As a result of

growing interest by academicians and practitioners in

this subject, an increasing number of scientific and

technical documents have been published from 2010

to 2020” (Sousa, Almeida, Cali, 2021). Its authors

had counted 4606 scientific documents devoted to

such an analysis since 2009 in the Scopus database,

with a total number – 19.671 over two decades of the

21st century. Not only a huge number of articles

have been published, but also about 70 reviews,

assessing the implementation of the SDGs, for

example (2,3).

Without dwelling in detail on the typology of

criteria for evaluating countries according to the

degree of implementation of the SDGs, let's name

two, illustrating them with some examples. It seems

that, first of all, two types of documents can be

identified. The first one is the official materials of the

UN (Handbook for preparation of voluntary national

reviews, 2018; The United Nations System wide

strategic document (SWSD) to support the

implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development, 2019) and representatives of

international organizations (Peiró-Palomino, Picazo-

Tadeo, 2018; Measuring Distance to the SDG

Targets, 2019; Begashaw, 2020; Asia and the Pacific

SDG Progress Report, 2020; Towards achieving the

Sustainable Development Goals in the UNECE

region A statistical portrait of progress and

challenges, 2020), including various approved

recommendations for the preparation of reports /

reviews. The second is scientific publications

dedicated to the topic.

Another criterion is the direction or topic of the

assessment. Countries (regions) can be compared in

general on the implementation of the SDGs (Weitz, et

al., 2018; Xie, Wen, Choi, 2021; D’Andrassi,

Paoloni, Mattei, 2021), in the activity of their states

(Collste, Pedercini, Cornell, 2017; Governance as an

SDG Accelerator Country Experiences and Tools,

OECD, 2019), in the dissemination of ideas to

business (Monitoring of Sustainable Development

Doals in the CIS region, 2021), to regions (Bardal, et

al., 2021; Ortiz-Moya, et al., 2010), in activity of the

population (Chauhan, Jakhar, Chauhan, 2020), as

well as within the framework of specific SDGs: for

example, in the area of climate policy (Zamani, Ali,

Roozbahani, 2020); agriculture and food

(Aldababseh, et al., 2018) etc.

It seems that it is worth highlighting the quality of

the assessments of the International Organization of

Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) – professional

experts in this procedure. It recognized the importance

of assessing the results of the implementation of the

SDGs, and most of its 194 members included it as a

cross-cutting priority for action (Monteroa, Le Blanc,

2019). Thus it became possible to combine external

assessment with expert knowledge of the real situation

from inside. The INTOSAI assessment methodology

was based on the main directions in the areas: gender

inequality, health, education, human rights and

domestic policy, as well as the quality of SDG process

guidance: the creation of social institutions,

distribution across territories, the development of

specially focused programs. Its other positive

advantage is the possibility of qualification based on

assessing of budget reorientation for the SDGs

implementation (both national and local) (Audit of

SDGs implementation, 2021).

Russian researchers are also moving from calls to

implement SDGs to assess the progress of the process

and the quality of its guidance. Thus, the

methodology of the Accounts Chamber of the country

is based on seven main assessment priorities: legal

regulation, strategic planning system, institutional

organization and interdepartmental interaction,

stakeholder interaction mechanisms, resource and

methodological support, organization of monitoring,

ensuring openness, accountability and transparency

(Bulletin of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian

Federation). The Russian Union of Industrialists and

Entrepreneurs (RUIE) also conducts constant

monitoring, regularly improving the assessment

methodology. Its purpose is to assess the degree to

which business is included in the course towards the

SDGs (A responsibility. Openness. Effectiveness.

RSPP Sustainable Development Indices, 2019).

3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF

THE METHODOLOGY FOR

COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT

OF SDG COURSE

IMPLEMENTATION IN PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION

Taking into account the formulated goal – to assess

the degree of implementation SDG in public

Implementation of the SDG Targets, including the Fight against Corruption: Comparison of Argentina and Russia

609

administration practice, lets present possible

approaches and assessment criteria. Its need to be

specified that at this stage, not a quantitative, but a

qualitative analysis of successes and failures seems to

be important, therefore the authors do not set the task

of qualifying the indicators.

First of all, it seems necessary to distinguish two

groups criteria: evaluative and comparative. The first

one aims to compare the level of implementation of

the course in the policy of states, the second one is to

identify common points and differences in

implementing the SDGs in countries. Since it is the

first group of criteria that corresponds to the set goal

– to assess the activity of public administration of the

two countries in moving along the SDG course, we

present the results according to this criteria only.

Instead of analyzing the second group, we shall only

list possible criteria: the structure of tasks that were

voiced by each country as the most relevant (1), the

level and methods of disseminating the SDG ideas to

the regions (2), public organizations that took

responsibility for disseminating the SDG ideas to the

business sphere and civil society (3 and 4), a

comparative analysis of the successes and failures of

countries on the SDGs. To save space, we present

together the comparison criteria with the results

obtained.

4 CRITERIA AND RESULTS OF

COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT

OF SDG COURSE

IMPLEMENTATION IN THE

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

SYSTEM OF THE TWO

COUNTRIES

We propose to refer to the indicators of the first group

(estimated):

4.1 Places in the State’ Rating (and

Their Dynamics) According to the

UN SDGs

Using The SDG Index and Dashboards Reports,

prepared by Bertelsmann Stiftung specialists in

cooperation with the Sustainable Development

Solutions Network, we obtain the following data by

year (the scores are shown in brackets): Argentina

2016 – 43

place out of 145 countries (66.8); 2017 –

41 out of 157 (72.5); 2018 – 53 out of 156 (70.3),

2019 – 45 out of 162 (72.4), 2020 – 51 out of 166

(73.2).

The data for the Russian Federation looks like

this: 2016 – 119 place; 2017 – 62 (68.9); 2018 – 63

(68.9); 2019 – 55 (70.9), 2020 – 57 (71.9).

Let us remind that the score assesses “the amount

of distance traveled to achieve the goals of the

Agenda”. Accordingly, given that its average is

estimated at 60, both countries occupy positions

consistently above average, however, Argentina's

place is always higher than that of the RF.

4.2 Date of First Report, Availability of

Other Official Annual Reporting

Documents

Note that Argentina became one of 43 countries in the

world and one of 11 – from the Latin America and the

Caribbean region, which presented its Voluntary

Review in 2017.

The country did not submit a report for the next

year (and the following), but as a result of joint work

with UNDP, a report was created, which provided

systematic information on the work on the

implementation of the goals considered as priorities.

It described the course chosen and the specific

measures taken to achieve them, and analyzed the

budget allocated for programs that are consistent with

the SDGs.

Argentina passed its second Voluntary Review –

“Segundo Informe Voluntario Nacional” in 2020

The RF passed its first Review only in 2020. It is

difficult to assess the degree of justification of such a

delay, but one cannot disagree with the officially

named reasons: having got used to strict planning and

also having a developed institute of statistics, the

Russian Federation found it difficult to draw up a

reporting document. The UN experts themselves

admitted that out of 232 indicators, only 82 (i.e.,

about a third) were understandable to statisticians in

the world and data were collected, for 61 – the

calculation methodology was clear, but data

collection was not carried out, for 84 – there was no

unified calculation methodology.

Let's briefly comment the general trend of

reporting: 2018 – 46 countries, 2020 – 162! The

growth of the UN's authority in the implementation of

the SDGs is impressive, and the position of the

Russian Federation, which has found itself among the

outsiders, is alarming.

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

610

4.3 The Level of Government

Participation in Political Actions

accompanying the implementation

of the SDGs

Starting with the development of the SDG course,

Argentina not only supported its idea, but its leaders

personally came to UN events, speaking with

explanations of the country's position. In September

2016, Mauricio Macri (President of Argentina)

personally came and spoke at the 71st session of the

UN General Assembly. Vice President Gabriela

Michetti attended and spoke at 72 sessions.

In 2018, using the status of the G-20 presidency,

the representatives of Argentina insisted that the

discussion of SDG ideas be included in this year's

agenda as one of the priority items. According to its

initiative, the goals and powers of the bodies

regulating the implementation of the SDGs within the

G-20 were somewhat transformed. Argentina insisted

on including a paragraph on the Paris Agreement in

the final declaration of the G-20 summit, stressing

that it is irreversible for the signatory countries of the

2030 Agenda.

Russia also stood at the origins of the SDGs. The

country's leader (V.V.Putin), supporting the idea as a

whole, however, did not take personal part, even the

procedure for presenting the Voluntary Report to the

UN Political Council was entrusted to the Permanent

Representative of Russia, Vasily Nebenza.

Copying the behavior of the country's leader,

members of the government are not very active either.

The most common form of their reflection on the

SDGs is press commentary. The Minister of Foreign

Affairs of the RF and his deputies are especially

active in this direction.

4.4 Reflection of the SDGs in the

Legislation of the Countries

In both countries, a common line on the SDGs

implementation is reflected in articles of

Constitutions, thus denoting the social,

environmental, economic and legal line of

Governments responsibility. In Argentina, according

to article 75, paragraph 22 of the Constitution, all

included human rights treaties have a constitutional

hierarchy, in Art. 37 enshrined political rights, and

Art. 41 and 43 – environmental protection. The

country has a law “On National Environmental

Policy” (No. 25.675 / 2002).

In Russia, the ideas of the SDGs are reflected in

Articles 7 (paragraph 1.2), Art. 8 (paragraph 1), art.

19 and 22, protecting the rights of women, Articles

34-41, as well as 43 and 45, which guarantee the

fundamental rights of Russians, as well as in Art. 32,

33 – their political rights; in Art. 9 and 36 regulate the

rights (and 58 – obligations) to use land and natural

resources.

Both countries have signed major international

treaties, including the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change; Kyoto, Montreal,

Paris and other protocols related to human rights and

climate regulation. They have adjusted the legislation

regarding the implementation of the SDG provisions

and continue this work, however, both have not

adopted a direct law positioning the importance of the

SDGs and forcing all economic entities to focus on

the adopted course.

Russian officials explain it this way: even before

the SDGs, the country proclaimed a course towards

sustainable development, understanding by this a

balance in solving socio-economic and

environmental problems. This idea is reflected in the

Concept of the country's transition to sustainable

development (1996) and other government

documents. In our opinion, given the lack of proper

control over the implementation of these calls, it is

difficult to accept this argument. It is impossible not

to see the difference in the methodology for the

implementation of sustainable development and the

"Agenda for the period up to 2030". The course

towards sustainable development is a common

appeal, without thought-out parameters and degree of

responsibility.

Currently, as it was shown by the analysis

carried out by the Analytical Center under the

Government of the RF in the spring of 2020, all 12

national projects and the Comprehensive Plan for

the Modernization and Expansion of Backbone

Infrastructure directly or indirectly affected 107 of

the 169 tasks identified in the UN document. The

situation is similar in Argentina.

4.5 Leadership of Countries in the

Regions to Advance the SDGs

Course

Argentina is undoubtedly an actor actively promoting

the ideas of the SDGs in its region. She not only

herself tries to fulfill all the requirements of the UN,

but also seeks to incorporate the course into the

MERCOSUR agenda (MERCOSUR – the Common

Market of South America, an economic and political

agreement between Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay,

Paraguay (membership was suspended on 29.06.2012

until April 2013 ) and Venezuela (membership

suspended on 05.08.2017)), identifying potential

Implementation of the SDG Targets, including the Fight against Corruption: Comparison of Argentina and Russia

611

opportunities for cooperation between states. The

MERCOSUR Social Institute, reorganized on her

initiative, coordinates and controls them.

Russia is also a leading actor in its region (CIS),

although many countries (Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.)

have a higher rating for the SDGs implementation.

She is tasked with representing the countries of

Eastern Europe on the UN committees on SDGs. She

was re-elected as a member of the IAEG-SDGs

(rotation – May 2017) and is a member of its working

group. The main form of ideas dissemination is the

inclusion of certain areas of the SDGs on the agenda

of the Interparliamentary Assembly of CIS countries.

This organization coordinates actions, but to a greater

extent within countries, in particular, disseminating

UN methodological recommendations on the SDGs.

Another field of her activity is holding international

scientific and practical conferences. At the same time,

the participation of the CIS in promoting the ideas of

the SDGs cannot be considered sufficient: the

analysis of its website did not reveal the intention to

develop a model law on the implementing of the

SDGs. In the Commonwealth, the relevant standing

commissions have not been created, no special

meetings have been held on the SDGs

implementation. True, when discussing specific

problems: climate warming, ecology, education,

raising living standards, developing production –

SDGs are raised, but no more.

4.6 Powers of the Body Responsible for

the Implementation of the Goals

and Dissemination of the Ideas of

the SDGs in Countries

In Argentina, activities to implement the SDGs are

coordinated and guided by two bodies. The first is the

National Council for the Coordination of Social

Policy. It was created in 2002 as a platform for the

development of plans, coordination and monitoring of

state social policy. It has been entrusted since 2016

with responsibility for the implementation of the

“2030 Agenda”. The second body the National

Interdepartmental Commission for the

Implementation and Monitoring of the SDGs, which

includes representatives of all ministries and

secretariats. It was created in April 2016, and the

following year, as the structure was agreed and the

progress towards the SDGs was assessed, two

working groups were created. Accordingly, the

official monitoring and analysis of the results on the

SDGs implementation takes place at two levels: in

two working groups (usually meetings are held 4

times a year), as well as in two commissions. The

National Council is chaired by Victoria Tolosa Paz

and the Coordination Group is chaired by Fernando

Quiroga, both of which are directly subordinate to the

President of the country. Tolosa Paz is very

experienced in social affairs and currently plays a key

role in government. She coordinates the work of all

ministries with the aim of reducing hunger and

solving social tasks.

In the RF, the coordination of the activities of

various departments in the field of SDGs is carried

out by the Interdepartmental Working Group under

the Administration of the RF President on issues

related to climate change and sustainable

development. The commission was established in

2012, coordination of SDGs activities has also been

included in her competence since 2016. It is headed

by Ruslan Edelgeriev, who was also responsible for

the preparation of the Voluntary Review. It seems that

the personality of this young representative of the

Chechen Republic is little known in Russia.

In general, comparing the organizational aspects,

it seems that the activity of the Government of

Argentina can be recognized as higher. Although

even the high authority of the leader of the SDG

course – Tolosa Paz is not always sufficient to ensure

the fulfillment of obligations.

4.7 Dissemination of SDGs in the

Regions of the Country

As it is written in the UN documents, the tasks of the

government are not only in the movement of

countries in the direction outlined in the "2030

Agenda", but also in the dissemination of the ideas of

the SDGs both across regions and across

organizations.

This activity in Argentina began to be carried out

since 2017, when all regions were charged with the

responsibility of compiling a report on the SDGs

implementation. Each province and municipality has

adapted its goals and objectives in this direction and

is submitting annual reports.

In the RF, due to the lack of political will of the

leadership, and as a continuation of this – the absence

of relevant laws, such reporting is only being

introduced. At the same time, in 2018, 2 regional

reports were submitted from Russia to the UN

(Moscow and the Sverdlovsk region), and in 2019 –

13. All of them are developing their projects for the

SDGs implementation. However, the initiative of

such activity belonged not to the Government, which

itself did not submit the Review, but to the Russian

Association for the Assistance to the United Nations,

which has developed and is implementing a special

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

612

Program “Dissemination of SDGs in the regions of

the Russian Federationh”.

4.8 The Degree of Involvement of

Enterprises, or at Least the

Awareness of Their Managers

about the Objectives of the SDGs

The level of awareness of enterprises (their leaders)

about the SDGs in Argentina, as it is clear from the

"Review – 2020", is – 90%, in the Russian Federation

it is lower. Undoubtedly, large enterprises in Russia -

exporters of raw materials, are well aware and

restructure (or at least reflect this in the documents)

their activities, but small and medium-sized firms do

not do this, not seeing much sense in this.

4.9 The Degree of Involvement of Civil

Society and NGOs in the

Implementation of the SDG

Objectives

It should be noted that part of the policy of the

Argentine government is the desire to involve civil

society and the private sector in the implementation

of the SDGs, primarily through the organization of

National Forums. For example, in December 2016,

the Ministry of Health and Social Development

organized a National Forum on Social Responsibility

for Sustainable Development, which was attended by

more than 500 representatives of civil society,

companies, international organizations, scientists and

government officials

In the RF, the holding of the Forums has also

become the main channel for broadcasting the SDG

ideas, but the fundamental difference is that they are

organized by civil society itself, however, often with

the help of individual members of the government.

For example, the Chairman of the Accounts Chamber

Kudrin A.L, starting from 2015, annually holds the

Forum of Public Forces, and the Deputy Chairman of

the Committee of State Duma on ecology Valuev

N.S. has been organizing the Environmental Forum in

St. Petersburg for the third year.

4.10 Comparative Analysis of General

Quantitative Results

Speaking about the overall results of countries'

activities in achieving specific SDGs, it is customary

to group goals according to the level of success. So,

in relation to Argentina, a successful group can be

distinguished, which, first of all SDG No. 6 ("Clean

Water and Sanitation"), which may be due to the

country's good supply of water resources and a large

number of cities with a centralized water supply and

sewerage system.

Accordingly, the second group (less successful)

includes SDG 9 ("Industrialization, innovation and

infrastructure"), since part of the territory is occupied

by remote rural areas, but in general, there is an

understanding that the introduction of innovations

and improvement of infrastructure takes more time,

SDG 10 ("Reducing inequality"), the implementation

of which is one of the most serious challenges not

only for Argentina, but also for the world as a whole,

and SDG 14 (“Conservation of marine ecosystems”),

which may be explained by the rather active fishing

and extraction of other resources of the seas and

oceans. Overall, according to the Bertelsmann

Stiftung and the Sustainable Development Solutions

Network, Argentina is well positioned and relatively

successful in adopting the SDGs course, albeit with

success and failure. So the country has failed to

achieve sustainability in the fight against poverty, and

this is the core problem of the country. The 2020

review showed a deterioration in the indicator: at the

end of 2017, 25.7% of the population was considered

to be poor, and poverty covered 4.8%, the indicators

for 2019 were 35.5 and 8%, respectively. It seems

that, taking into account the pandemic, the situation

in 2020 did not improve.

Russian and international experts note that since

the early 2000s, the RF has achieved the greatest

success in the fight against hunger (SDG 2) and

poverty (SDG 1). It is making relative progress in

providing quality education (SDG 4), using modern

and clean energy (SDG 7), promoting employment

(SDG 8), building sustainable cities and human

settlements (SDG 11) and fighting climate change

(SDG 13). Much work remains to be done on gender

inequality (SDG 5), access to clean water and

sanitation (SDG 6), sustainable infrastructure (SDG

9), sustainable consumption and production (SDG

12), strengthening partnerships between government,

the private sector and civil society (SDG 17) and in

the conservation of ecosystems (SDG 14 and15). The

most challenging issues for Russia remain access to

health care and well-being (SDG 3), justice and

building a peaceful society (SDG 16), as well as

inequality and poor quality of life (SDG 10). The

development of the country's economy according to

the export-raw material model increases the load on

the ecosystem, which has a negative impact on the

health and well-being.

Summing up, we note that a comprehensive

analysis of the SDGs implementation shows the

Implementation of the SDG Targets, including the Fight against Corruption: Comparison of Argentina and Russia

613

greater activity of the Argentina Government over

Russian. Although there is no sustainability in it too:

victories are combined with failures. The external

successes cited in the RF’ Review – 2020, when

compared to Argentina, look little convincing.

5 FIGHTING CORRUPTION AS A

CORE LINE OF ACTION

GOVERNMENTS FOR SELF-

DEVELOPMENT

Anti-corruption measures are viewed worldwide as a

particularly relevant direction, in many ways,

predetermining both: the overall success of the

Governments functioning and their activities to

implement the SDGs. Let’s name the places that

countries occupy in the Transparency International

rating: Argentina – 66

place (45 points), Russia –

137

place (28 points). At the same time Argentina is

slowly but improving its position, Russia is not

changing it.

The Report of Argentina devotes a lot of space to

this issue. It notes its special role, names the body

that is responsible for achieving the goal – “The

Ministry of Justice and Human Rights Protection”. As

part of SDG-16 implementation, the task was set to

“significantly reduce corruption in the sphere of

interaction between the state and the population”.

There was named the indicator “the proportion of

persons in contact with a civil servant paid a bribe in

the last 3 years or indicated that an official asked them

to pay a bribe ( for the last 12 months)”. It was

planned to reduce it by 2% a year. In 2016, according

to a survey of residents, it was 2.4%, but data for

2017-2020 was not identified. With regard to the

solution of target 16.5, the Review identifies specific

measures: carrying out research on the anti-

corruption system (1), institutionalizing the integrity

system (2), strengthening the system of officials’

affidavits (3).

The country has adopted laws “On the criminal

liability of legal entities” (No. 27.401 / 2017), as well

as “On access to public information” (No. 27.275 /

2016). It had created the Agency for Access to Public

Information. The National Plan for the Discovery of

State Information is in force (Presidential Decree No.

117/2016). There was adopted Anti-Corruption

Program for 2019-2023, which includes increasing

the transparency of government information,

strengthening control over government purchases

and service contracts. The effectiveness of the

measures made it possible to raise the country’s rating

from 85 to 66

and increase the assessment by 5

points.

The Russian government has also shown vigorous

activity. The Report states that “As a result of the

work of the Russian Federation’s system of

combating money laundering, the volume of

suspicious financial flows decreased by 33%” (p. 18).

It shows the dynamics of positive shifts, although in

comparison with 2010. Thus, “bribery” in general for

the period from 2010 to 2018 decreased by 40.8%.

There was formed a Public Committee for the Control

of Corruption Cases in 2011. However, we did not

reveal the membership of authoritative national

leaders on its website. There was approved National

Anti-Corruption Plan in 2018. Special attention in it

is paid to measures identifying and solving crimes

committed on a large and especially large scale or by

organized groups. As the Report-2020 shows (see p.

87), with a general line aimed at reducing corruption,

the number of crimes classified as major ones

increased (there were 3.9 in 2015 to 5.4 thousand in

2018, i.e., the increase was 42%).

The review of the RF, thus, revealed a really

urgent problem – the growth of large and organized

corruption crimes, but did not identify ways to

overcome it. Specialists thus identify measures

named above as formal ones. Accordingly, the

assessment of Transparency International – the

Russian Federation in 2019 increased its status by one

place, compared to 2018, but its assessment did not

change (all the same 28 points out of 100 possible).

6 CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Based on the research results it is possible to

consider that cross-country comparisons give a new

look on SDGs implementation.

2. It seems that 10 suggested criteria are fully

allow, in general, to assess the level of SDGS

implementation by the Governments of the countries,

although the addition of them is quite possible.

3. Our analysis showed that in general the activity

of the Argentinean government in this direction is

higher than the Russian one. Leaders of Argentina

demonstrate the political will to change situation,

although it does not guarantee sustainability in the

country's movement along the path of progress and

the SDGs.

4. General assessment of anti-corruption

measures based on information in “The review of the

Russian Federation – 2020” reflects their, on the one

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

614

hand, formal nature and, on the other hand, focus on

the grassroots level. The main problem – organized

crime and the growth of major violations – is not

being resolved: it is difficult for the government to

fight against itself and its affiliates. Perhaps, the

application of world practice on the affidavit of

officials can facilitate this solution.

REFERENCES

Sousa, M., Almeida, F., Cali, R., 2021. Multiple Criteria

Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN

Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic

Literature Review and a Research Agenda,

Sustainability, (Switzerland), 13(8): 4129.

Allen, C., Metternicht, G., Wiedmann, T., 2016. National

pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs): A comparative review of scenario modeling

tools. Environmental Science and Policy, 66: 199–207.

Allen, C., Metternicht, G., Wiedmann, T., 2018. Initial

progress in implementing the sustainable development

goals (SGDs)—A review of evidence from

countries. Sustainability Science, 13: 1453–1467.

Handbook for preparation of voluntary national reviews,

2018, New York, UN., Department of Economic and

Social Affairs, January.

The United Nations System wide strategic document

(SWSD) to support the implementation of the 2030

Agenda for Sustainable Development, UNSDG, 2019.

Peiró-Palomino, J., Picazo-Tadeo, A.J., 2018. OECD: One

or Many? Ranking countries with a composite well-

being indicator. Social Indicators Research, 139: 847–

869.

Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets 2019 An

Assessment of Where OECD Countries Stand.

https://www.oecd-

ilibrary.org/development/measuring-distance-to-the-

sdg-targets-2019_a8caf3fa-en.

Begashaw, B., 2020. Strategies to deliver on the Sustainable

Development Goals in Africa.

https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/0

1/ ForesightAfrica2020_Chapter1_20200110.pdf

Asia and the Pacific SDG Progress Report, 2020.

Towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in

the UNECE region A statistical portrait of progress and

challenges, 2020.

Weitz, N., Carlsen, H., Nilsson, M., Skanberg, K., 2018.

Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for

implementing the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability Science,

13: 531–548.

Xie, H.,Wen, J., Choi, Y., 2021. How the SDGs are

implemented in China – A comparative study based on

the perspective of policy instruments, Journal of

Cleaner Production, 291(1): N125937.

D’Andrassi, E., Paoloni, N., Mattei, G., 2021. Italy versus

other european countries: Sustainable development

goals, policies and future hypothetical results.

Sustainability, 13(6): 3417

Collste, D., Pedercini, M., Cornell, S.E., 2017. Policy

coherence to achieve the SDGs: Using integrated

simulation models to assess effective policies.

Sustainability Science, 12: 921–931.

Governance as an SDG Accelerator Country Experiences

and Tools, OECD,

2019: https://doi.org/10.1787/0666b085-en

Monitoring of Sustainable Development Doals (SDGs) in

the CIS region, 2021. Statistical Abstract, 2016-2019,

M. https://e-cis.info/upload/iblock/ f24/

f24180728a33abfcfc0086100eac4d98.pdf

Bardal, K.G., Reinar, M.B., Lundberg, A.K., Bjørkan, M.,

2021. Factors facilitating the implementation of the

sustainable development goals in regional and local

planning – experiences from Norway 2021,

Sustainability, 13(8): 4282.

Ortiz-Moya, F., Koike Junko OTA H., Kataoka, Y., Fujino,

J., 2010. State of the Voluntary Local Reviews 2020:

Local Action for Global Impact in Achieving the SDGs,

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.

Chauhan, A., Jakhar, S.K., Chauhan, C., 2020. The

interplay of circular economy with industry 4.0 enabled

smart city drivers of healthcare waste disposal. Journal

of Cleaner Production, N123854.

Zamani, R., Ali, A.M.A., Roozbahani, A., 2020. Evaluation

of adaptation scenarios for climate change impacts on

agricultural water allocation using fuzzy MCDM

methods. Water Resource. Management, 34: 1093–

1110.

Aldababseh, A., Temimi, M., Maghelal, P., Branch, O.,

Wulfmeyer, V., 2018. Multi-criteria evaluation of

irrigated agriculture suitability to achieve food security

in an arid environment. Sustainability, 10: 803;

Monteroa, A.G., Le Blanc, D., 2019. The role of external

audits in enhancing transparency and accountability for

the Sustainable Development Goals DESA Working

Paper No. 157ST/ESA/2019/DWP/157]

Audit of SDGs implementation, 2021,

https://www.idi.no/work-streams/relevant-

sais/auditing-sdgs;

Bulletin of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian

Federation. Sustainable Development Goals, 2020.

https://ach.gov.ru/upload/iblock/b06/b065c140de24fbc

32271bb2267f621ec.pdf

A responsibility. Openness. Effectiveness. RSPP

Sustainable Development Indices - 2019, M., 2020.

Implementation of the SDG Targets, including the Fight against Corruption: Comparison of Argentina and Russia

615