This issue of the GSoD In Focus explores the contribution that the Global State of Democracy (GSoD) Indices can make to the review of progress on the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The GSoD Indices can be used to complement the official indicators of the SDGs, to acquire in-depth knowledge on trends in achieving the specific targets of individual SDGs. In this regard, the GSoD Indices can be used to provide data on the SDGs for poverty (SDG 1), hunger (2), health and wellbeing (3), education (4), gender equality (5), inequalities (10), sustainable cities and communities (11), peace, justice and institutions (16), and partnerships for the goals (17), as well as across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The large-scale settlement of hundreds of thousands of individuals from the New Commonwealth countries into Britain since World War II has brought into sharp relief issues of race, class, and equal opportunity in the United Kingdom. Significant research on racism and social change in Britain has emerged over the past two decades (see Solomos, 1989; Braham, Rattansi, and Skellington, 1992; Gilroy, 1987; Rex and Tomlinson, 1979; Sivanandan, 1982; Goulbourne, 1990). Much of this research has focused on the changing racial character of British immigration policy, the impact of the black vote on the fate of the Labour party in national elections, and the election of black members to parliament from predominantly black boroughs in London. Only recently has serious attention been given to the local politics of race in Britain outside the London metropolitan area (see Ben-Tovim, Gabriel, Law, and Stredder, 1986; Goulbourne, 1990).

This paper explores decentralisation’s contribution to post-conflict state building in four Commonwealth countries: UK (Northern Ireland), Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone and Rwanda. Drawing on insights from senior local government officials, it explores post-conflict institutional arrangements and finds that decentralisation policy has made a significant, if varied, contribution to community cohesion, reconciliation and state legitimacy in each country. In Northern Ireland and to a lesser extent Sri Lanka, quasi-federal structures have enabled peace negotiations through greater autonomy and state legitimacy in the eyes of former separatists. This has however limited further devolution to sub-provincial local councils. In Sierra Leone and Rwanda, decentralisation has had a more developmental rationale. Greater equity in basic local service provision and more inclusive local governance has supported community cohesion and reconciliation in all four countries, though there are capacity gaps and coordination issues with central government agencies. There is evidence decentralisation has contributed to peace in all four countries although in Rwanda the restriction on pluralism has limited local government flexibility to address community needs. The case studies offer key lessons and signpost continuing challenges, which may help other governments to consider what features of decentralisation may work best for their post-conflict political settlement and the sociocultural dynamics of the communities they serve.

NOTE: Downloadable document is in Italian.The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evidence of a relationship between the level of accountability that a P.A. can demonstrate and consolidate, and the presence or absence of corruption or even perverse situations of State Capture. Through an empirical analysis is verified if placing a filter (accountability) to the current system of local government, we could overcome persistent situations of arbitrage and abuse of public power, rather than in the new needs for reporting and monitoring required by national and international legislation relating to transparency and sustainable P.A.'s development.

How people can be persuaded to take more control of their own lives continues to be a subject of policy and academic debate, and the contribution of active citizens to improving societal well-being is high across different policy agendas. But the promotion of community self-help raises a wide range of questions - for people working in neighbourhoods, for policy makers, for politicians, and for residents themselves - about how we promote engagement, what would motivate people to become active, and more fundamentally about the ongoing relevance and value of community activity. DIY Community Action offers thought-provoking answers to these questions, based on detailed real-life evidence from over 100 community groups, each trying to combat neighbourhood problems. It presents a lively challenge to the existing thinking on contested debates, and proposes ways forward for community building. This timely publication is an engaging resource for policy makers, practitioners, academics, students and general readers interested in exploring community engagement and active citizenship. Its insightful analysis will be of interest to students of social policy, sociology, community work, housing and regeneration, local government studies and public policy.