A growing number of studies have examined the collaboration of actors from two or more policy domains in order to integrate aims and concerns derived from one policy domain into another. In our literature review, we refer to this empirical phenomenon as ‘policy integration’, exemplified by the Health in All Policies approach. Despite the wealth of literature on the subject, the scientific community only has access to a portion of the insights that have come out of this field of research, due primarily to the fact that policy integration is discussed using a variety of different terms, which tend to be specific to the policy domain under investigation. To facilitate a more inclusive scientific debate on policy integration, we provide a comprehensive overview of the different terminologies associated with policy integration and analyse the recurring themes in the respective literature strands. What is the motivation for policy-makers to promote policy integration? What is the design of the instruments used for policy integration? How does policy integration affect the policy-making process? And how well does policy integration perform? These are the four questions guiding our study.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of 2015 form a universal and integrated policy agenda to be realized over the next 15 years. One of the targets is the attainment of policy coherence for sustainable development, which requires the individual goals to become interlinked. This article's main research interest lies in assessing how national governments and their competent ministries interpret and strive to implement the target of policy coherence for sustainable development. Drawing on the Voluntary National Reviews submitted in 2016 and 2017 by six countries, this study shows that at the national level, the links among the different goals and the idea of policy integration are subject to divergent interpretations. The differences observed do not stem from the interlinkages of the SDGs as defined by the United Nations, neither do they result from different levels of income or degree of political centralization. Instead, the respective domestic policy‐making processes are likely to explain the implementation strategies adopted by the individual states. For example, the implementation approach adopted by the government of Turkey suggests that path‐dependency is critical, whereas the Colombian approach consists of defining new policy measures and institutional arrangements.

The European Union (EU) began developing climate policy in the 1990s. Since then, it has built up a broad portfolio of mitigation policy measures and governance tools, including legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and policy measures addressing emissions trading, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and more. In 2019, the European Commission—the EU's executive arm—published the European Green Deal (EGD), an overarching policy framework to achieve the goal of climate neutrality by 2050. The EGD aims to push EU climate policy and governance far beyond incremental policy development. In this article, we ask: does the EGD represent a break from past patterns of EU climate governance? We argue that it maintains several past patterns, but nevertheless breaks from other established policy and governance trends. We review insights from politicization and new institutionalist theoretical lenses to help us understand these findings. We reveal certain tensions and challenges inherent in the EU's climate governance approach—around speed and coherence, effectiveness and just transition—that highlight future research needs, and raise questions about the EU's ability to implement its climate policy goals.This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

This article addresses co-governance which can be defined as a dynamic interaction between public and private actors to secure the provision of common goods. Which types of relationship between public and private actors exist? Do the forms of co-governance change over time? When is the relationship between public and private actors cooperative, when is it competitive, and when do we witness conflictual relationships? These research questions lie at the heart of this introductory article, which seeks to shed further light on the origins and impacts of the various co-governance patterns. By reviewing the body of research on this topic, we show that different relationships between public and private actors exist, and that the forms of co-governance can also change over time. While the dominant form of co-governance is cooperation, one can also observe instances of competition or even conflict between public and private actors. Most importantly, we find that both public and private actors are ready to reclaim competences in areas where they perceive the other actor to have gained too much influence. As we discuss in this article, the degree of cooperation and competition mostly depends on the existing regulatory arrangements, the congruence of goals of the different actor groups, and the institutionalization of industrial relations. These insights help us to better understand the role co-governance can play in addressing complex public problems.