Advancing Sustainable Development in Hawaiʻi Through Evidence-Based Policymaking

Effective and thoughtful policymaking necessitates a foundational commitment to research, scientific analysis, and the dissemination of knowledge. To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it is imperative that leadership in Hawaiʻi is informed by well-funded, autonomous policy centers for research and analysis.

A Historical Framework for Research-Informed Governance

The Choson Dynasty Model

A historical precedent for integrating research into governance can be found in 15th-century Korea under the Choson Dynasty. King Sejong established The Hall of Assembled Scholars, a policy and research center tasked with accumulating, creating, and disseminating knowledge for both governmental and public benefit. This institution functioned as a precursor to modern think tanks and research universities.

Early Alignment with Sustainable Development Principles

The research undertaken by this institution aligns with the principles of several modern SDGs:

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Reports were commissioned to study agricultural efficiency, including effective fertilizers, irrigation reservoirs, and crop rotation—all cornerstones of sustainable agriculture.
• SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure): Scholars and scientists explored advancements in technology, including firearms and precision measurement.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action) & SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): The development of copper rain gauges to determine annual rainfall in each province demonstrates an early commitment to meteorology and data-driven water resource management.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The dynasty fostered a collaborative governance model with councils of equals, robust debate, and a special censorate to ensure ethical accountability.

The State of Policy Research Infrastructure in Hawaiʻi

Existing Expertise and Institutional Gaps

The University of Hawaiʻi (UH) serves as the primary locus of independent policy research, with expertise resident in various departments, including the medical school and the school of tropical agriculture. However, the state’s capacity for dedicated policy development has diminished over time.

1. Decline in Dedicated Centers: Formerly accredited institutions like the School of Public Health, vital for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and the Educational Policy Center, crucial for SDG 4 (Quality Education), have been shut down or seen their influence wane.
2. Underfunded Mandates: Existing centers are often led by faculty as an additional responsibility rather than as full-time, robustly funded operations.
3. Critical Sector Deficiencies: High-priority, high-cost sectors directly linked to the SDGs, such as housing (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities), healthcare (SDG 3), and education (SDG 4), currently lack well-funded, autonomous policy centers to guide legislative and executive action.

Recommendations for Building Strong Institutions Aligned with the SDGs

Embracing a Culture of Knowledge and Accountability

To advance its sustainable development agenda, Hawaiʻi should draw inspiration from historical models that valued empirical evidence and ethical governance. This includes fostering a culture that embraces well-rounded education and informed criticism.

• Strengthen SDG 4 (Quality Education): The Korean model promoted arts and humanities to cultivate well-rounded, ethical leaders. Hawaiʻi is one of the few states that does not require arts education, a deficit that impacts the development of creative and critical thinking skills essential for tackling complex challenges.
• Reinforce SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The government must actively support, rather than simply tolerate, informed outside criticism from autonomous research bodies. This commitment is fundamental to building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

A Call for Commitment and Investment

Hawaiʻi possesses the intellectual talent required to establish world-class policy centers. What is needed is the institutional and financial commitment to build them. Establishing such centers represents a critical investment in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), forging a necessary partnership between academia and government to ensure that future policy is strategic, effective, and aligned with the global mission for a sustainable future.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article heavily emphasizes the importance of education and research institutions. It discusses the role of the University of Hawaiʻi, the need for policy centers, and the historical precedent of “The Hall of Assembled Scholars.” It also specifically points out an educational gap, stating, “Hawaiʻi is one of a small number of states that do not require arts education in our public schools.”

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The central theme of the article is the need for “thoughtful, effective policymaking” supported by strong, autonomous institutions. It calls for policy centers to provide “informed outside criticism” to the government, thereby promoting accountability and transparency. The historical example of the Korean Choson Dynasty’s “councils of equals,” “censorate,” and “darkly going ministers” directly relates to building effective and accountable institutions.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

  The article makes a strong case for fostering innovation through dedicated research. It advocates for “well-funded, autonomous policy centers for research and analysis” and highlights that faculty at the University of Hawaiʻi are “on the cutting edge of current innovations.” The call to fund “practical research scholarship” in various fields aligns with the innovation component of this goal.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  Health is identified as a “high cost, high priority” sector that currently lacks adequate research support. The article laments the shutdown of the “School of Public Health” and mentions the “Center on Aging” and the “medical school,” indicating a clear connection to health-related policy and research.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article references sustainable agriculture through its historical example of Korean research. It mentions that “Reports were created to study effective fertilizer, reservoirs for irrigation, and leaving land fallow every other year.” It also notes the contributions of the University of Hawaiʻi’s “school of tropical agriculture,” linking the need for research to food production systems.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 4.7 (Quality Education): Ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development… and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.

  The article’s advocacy for arts education (“Poetry, painting, calligraphy”) and the creation of “well-rounded and educated” individuals aligns with this target’s focus on culture’s contribution to development. The mention of “Peace Centers” also connects to the promotion of a culture of peace.

• Target 16.6 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

  This is the core of the article’s argument. The call for “well-funded, autonomous policy centers for research and analysis to inform policymakers” is a direct call to develop effective institutions that can hold government accountable, as the article notes, “Government seldom really wants informed outside criticism. It should.”

• Target 16.7 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

  The article praises the historical Korean model of “councils of equals seeking unanimous agreement” and “Much discussion. Much debate.” This reflects a desire for more participatory and responsive decision-making, which would be facilitated by the independent research centers it proposes.

• Target 9.5 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure): Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities… encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers… and public and private research and development spending.

  The article directly addresses this target by lamenting the lack of funding and full-time staffing for research centers (“Seldom in UH budgets. Not full-time.”) and calling for a “commitment” to fund “practical research scholarship” to support innovation.

• Target 2.4 (Zero Hunger): Ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices.

  The article points to this target by citing historical Korean research into “effective fertilizer, reservoirs for irrigation, and leaving land fallow every other year,” presenting these as examples of the valuable, practical knowledge that research centers can produce for key sectors like agriculture.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Implied Indicator for Target 9.5: Total expenditure on research and development (R&D) and number of full-time researchers.

  The article implies this indicator by repeatedly highlighting the need for centers to be “well-funded” and criticizing the current model where faculty lead centers on a “Not full-time” basis and funding is “Seldom in UH budgets.” Progress would be measured by increased budgets and the establishment of full-time research positions.

• Implied Indicator for Target 16.6: Existence of independent national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles.

  While not about human rights institutions specifically, the article implies a parallel indicator: the existence of “well-funded, autonomous policy centers for research and analysis.” The number and operational capacity of such independent oversight and advisory bodies would serve as a measure of institutional strength and accountability.

• Implied Indicator for Target 4.7: Extent to which education for sustainable development and global citizenship education are mainstreamed in national education policies.

  The article provides a direct, measurable indicator for this by stating, “Hawaiʻi is one of a small number of states that do not require arts education in our public schools.” Therefore, the existence of a state-level requirement for arts education would be a clear indicator of progress.

• Implied Indicator for Other Sectors (Health, Housing, Agriculture): Existence of dedicated and funded research programs/centers.

  The article notes that key sectors like “Education, housing, and health care” and agriculture (via the “school of tropical agriculture”) all need, but mostly lack, dedicated policy centers. An indicator of progress would be the establishment and funding of these specific sectoral research centers.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: civilbeat.org