Conference Agenda

In an era of accelerating technological disruption, this paper advances a future-oriented policy proposal that addresses the urgent need for inclusive, accountable, and sustainable Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance. We propose the adoption of a new Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 18): Responsible and Inclusive AI for Sustainable Development. Grounded in the principles of anticipatory and adaptive governance, this proposal introduces a hybrid policy design framework that synthesizes ethical, risk-based, rights-based, human-centric, environmental (ontocentric), and business-oriented approaches.

The paper positions SDG 18 as a strategic soft-law mechanism to future-proof public policy against the rapidly evolving and systemic impacts of AI. By embedding AI governance within the established SDG framework, the model leverages international legitimacy and coordination to foster equity, transparency, and environmental integrity in technological development. The framework promotes interdisciplinary collaboration, participatory governance, and the use of measurable progress indicators—ensuring that AI-driven innovation remains aligned with long-term sustainability goals.

More specifically, the paper introduces ten interconnected policy targets that align with existing SDGs, including SDG 3 (Health), SDG 4 (Education), SDG 6 (Water and Sanitation), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities), and SDG 13 (Climate Action). These targets range from equitable access to AI technologies and ethical AI certification, to sector-specific applications in climate resilience, healthcare, disaster prediction, and smart cities. Each target includes suggested indicators and implementation strategies, designed to be adaptable across national contexts.

This work contributes to the field of policy design by offering a multi-dimensional framework that combines high-level normative principles with actionable and flexible tools. It addresses a core challenge in contemporary policy evaluation: how to assess, guide, and adapt governance frameworks for emerging technologies that are fast-moving, cross-sectoral, and value-laden. By drawing from existing SDG implementation mechanisms, the model benefits from an established architecture of monitoring and review, while expanding it with tailored, future-relevant tools for AI oversight.

Importantly, this paper advances the conversation on future-proofing policy architecture, offering concrete strategies for enhancing institutional resilience, designing with uncertainty, and embedding iterative evaluation mechanisms within international frameworks. It argues that the SDG structure—although non-binding—can serve as a powerful scaffolding for global AI governance, particularly where treaty-based mechanisms face political or procedural barriers.

In bridging the domains of AI governance and sustainable development, the proposed SDG 18 model offers a timely and scalable solution for national governments, international organizations, and civil society actors seeking to balance innovation with inclusion and precaution. The paper concludes by identifying pathways for piloting the SDG 18 framework in AI-intensive sectors such as education, healthcare, and climate adaptation—inviting comparative evaluations and collaborative learning.

Ultimately, this contribution illustrates how forward-looking policy design and evaluation can guide emerging technologies toward socially just and ecologically sound outcomes, ensuring that public policy remains relevant, resilient, and responsible in the face of rapid change.

The paper is focused on the examination of the intersection of policy formulation, design and gender mainstreaming. It will emphasize one of the most overlooked aspects of policy design research: policy goals, which will form the cornerstone of the analysis. Building on the original theoretical and methodological framework established in prior research on policy goals (Petek et al., 2021; 2022), the paper delves into the integration of gender perspective within the theory of policy formulation and design. Gender mainstreaming, defined as a strategy or approach to policy-making, is still a variously understood ‘catch-all’ gender equality concept. This has significant implications for formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies but also its research. By merging the concepts of gender mainstreaming (more specifically the dimension of gender responsive content) and policy goals, this paper will offer an innovative analytical framework to examine how gender equality goals are articulated, prioritized, and operationalized.

Methodologically the paper will be developed through the coding of a diverse set of international policy documents, applying the coding scheme initially devised for Croatian public policies. It will adopt a qualitative content analysis approach to strategic policy documents. The comparative analysis will include a broad range of strategic documents from varied geographic and governance contexts, such as European Union strategies, United Nations frameworks, and national policies from South Africa, Canada, Japan, and other nations. To ensure diversity within the document sample, the paper will encompass a range of policy sectors, thereby broadening the analytical perspective and enriching the study's insights. The examination will focus on two key dimensions: the general dimensions of policy goals – thematic and technical – and the two types of gender mainstreaming – substantive and procedural (Šinko & Petek, 2022).

This article examines how expert knowledge interacts with marginalized epistemologies in the creation of state institutions within the weak institutional contexts of the Global South. It explores the dual role of expert knowledge as both a tool for political control and a contested space for institutional capacity building. The study focuses on Indigenous peoples in Peru and their efforts to incorporate ancestral medical practices into the national health system, revealing how biomedical expertise, often considered dominant in policy design, clashes with Indigenous knowledge systems. Drawing on interviews with health officials, Indigenous leaders, and scientific advisors (N=26), along with documentary analysis, the research demonstrates that while Indigenous collective action has led to some institutional creation, the integration of their knowledge is frequently resisted by experts and bureaucrats who view it as unscientific, delaying policy implementation. By engaging with broader debates on expert knowledge in public administration, the article highlights how knowledge production and policy processes in developing countries are shaped by power dynamics, racialized identities, and historical marginalization. The findings enhance our understanding of how alternative epistemologies can influence and expand institutional capacity in settings where state institutions are still evolving. This research stresses the significance of marginalized groups in shaping policy through collective action and provides insights into the complex relationship between expertise, rights, and institutional creation in the Global South.

In response to rising complexity and the demand for more integrated service delivery, governments increasingly deploy regional strategic planning as a policy instrument to steer inter-organizational collaboration. In the Flemish healthcare system, the development of a regional care strategic plan has become a regulatory prerequisite for accessing infrastructure funding, pushing hospital networks into structured joint planning processes.

While strategic planning is well-established within single organizations, its application in multi-actor public networks raises critical questions about its appropriateness, effectiveness, and institutional design. This study investigates how strategic planning unfolds within mandated hospital networks, and how the planning process interacts with collaborative dynamics and institutional steering.

Drawing on qualitative data from all thirteen Flemish hospital networks – including interviews with key stakeholders, policy officials, and document analysis of seven strategic plans – the paper examines the methods, governance mechanisms, and perceived outcomes of this first regional strategic planning cycle. Our findings show that while the process fostered improved collaboration, the actual strategic output remained limited. This appears to result from a combination of constrained strategic autonomy, compliance-driven templates, and underused mechanisms for stakeholder engagement.

A key insight from this study is that different planning processes and methods may be required depending on the intended purpose of such mandated strategic plan: whether it aims to drive regional transformation, implement government goals, or serve as a reporting tool. In a network context—where collaboration already demands significant resources—misaligned expectations and overly time-consuming processes can hinder rather than help. This paper contributes to the debate on anticipatory and adaptive policy design by highlighting the importance of aligning policy instruments with their strategic intent and institutional setting.