Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Evolution and Trend Prediction in Coupling Coordination between Energy Consumption and Green Development in China
Previous Article in Journal
Ecological Environment Quality Assessment of Arid Areas Based on Improved Remote Sensing Ecological Index—A Case Study of the Loess Plateau
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Principal Curriculum Leadership on Students’ Modernity: Moderated Chain Mediation Effect
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 18
10.3390/su151813883
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Educational Accountability Policy for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis across 30 Countries

by
Youngsik Kim
Department of Education, Kyungnam University, Changwon 51767, Republic of Korea
Sustainability 2023, 15(18), 13883; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813883
Submission received: 18 July 2023 / Revised: 5 September 2023 / Accepted: 16 September 2023 / Published: 18 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development of Students and Teachers: Multidisciplinary Studies of Educational Practices)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis regarding Educational Accountability Policies (EAPs) across countries and empirically investigate the factors contributing to the variations in EAP implementation. To achieve these goals, firstly, this study investigated the status of EAP implementation by countries and endeavored to identify the trends regarding the diffusion and variation of EAP. Secondly, this study empirically analyzed the factors associated with variations in EAP implementation across countries. By employing country-level panel data from 30 countries, this study ascertained the status of EAP implementation as a global phenomenon. It examined the factors related to the adoption and intensity of EAP implementation based on the theoretical framework of the principal-agent model. This study has yielded two principal revelations. Firstly, there has been a rapid increase in the number of countries implementing EAP since the 2000s, accompanied by a bolstering of EAP implementation intensity. Nonetheless, there are discernible disparities in the adoption and implementation of EAP by countries. Secondly, this study has revealed that countries characterized by a more advanced economic status or an augmented governmental power tend to exhibit a proclivity for the adoption of EAP. Moreover, countries with a more advanced economic status, an augmented governmental power, or a higher degree of global openness are predisposed to implement EAP with greater intensity. These findings provide significant policy implications for sustainable development in education.

1. Introduction

Since the 2000s, the profound correlation between student academic achievement and economic advancement has garnered considerable attention within scholarly discourses [1,2]. In response to this, international assessments of academic proficiency, such as TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study), PISA (Program for International Student Assessment), and PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study), have catalyzed nations to enhance their educational accomplishments, aligned with the aspiration of bolstering national competitiveness [3]. Consequently, governments have implemented policies to elevate these achievement levels on those test results [4]. Additionally, many countries have introduced standardized national-level testing, publicly disclosing the results for individual schools and applying rewards or sanctions to schools or teachers according to the test results [5]. These measures aim to enhance students’ academic performance by ensuring ‘Educational Accountability’.
Bovens [6] defined accountability as a “social relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct to the forum, the forum can pose questions and pass judgment, and the actor may face consequences”. Building on this definition of accountability, Elmore [7] conceptualizes Educational Accountability as a way in which actors with responsibilities explain their behaviors to those with official authority. Wößmann et al. [5] associated the follow-up actions or feedback with the measured educational attainment, defining Educational Accountability as “providing rewards or sanctions based upon educational attainment measured by standardized test”. In recent years, the concept of ‘performance-based’ accountability, which emphasizes individual students’ and schools’ achievements, has gained widespread acceptance [8,9,10,11,12,13]. Given these definitions, the ‘Principal-Agent Theory’ can serve as a useful theoretical framework for understanding Educational Accountability, as outlined below [14,15].
As illustrated in Figure 1, parents and the government (principal) can demand that schools or teachers (agents) fulfill their responsibilities. In this context, the content of educational accountability is determined by mutual agreement between principals and agents. It can involve ensuring a minimum achievement level for all students at the micro level and enhancing a country’s average educational competitiveness at the macro level. However, schools and teachers, as agents, may have interests that differ from or even conflict with those of parents and government, who are principals. Moreover, due to information asymmetry between principals and agents, parents and governments may struggle to recognize problematic situations where individual schools and teachers act to maximize their benefits without considering the interests of principals. In economics, this moral hazard situation, which arises under information asymmetry, is called the ‘Principal-Agent problem’ [16].
To address the principal-agent problem, two approaches are suggested: (1) designing incentives to align the interests of principals and agents and (2) monitoring agents’ behavior by principals to reduce information asymmetry [17]. By applying these tools within the conceptual framework of educational accountability, parents and governments can establish monitoring systems that compel individual schools or teachers to act in accordance with the principal’s interests and design incentives that encourage agents to maximize the principals’ benefits. In this context, the monitoring system can be viewed as implementing a ‘nationwide standardized test’ and ‘reporting individual schools’ test results to the public, while incentive design can involve ‘awarding rewards or imposing sanctions on individual schools based on their test results [9,17].
In this regard, it is argued that the Educational Accountability Policy (EAP) tends to be institutionalized by adopting tests or assessments to ensure accountability for educational outcomes, which generally pertain to students’ academic achievement [18,19,20]. However, there is a scarcity of empirical literature examining the diffusion of EAP in practice. Consequently, the diffusion of EAP is widely accepted despite the lack of empirical evidence, as though it is a common phenomenon.
On the other hand, certain countries’ EAP implementation hinges on nation-specific contexts, leading to diverse approaches to EAP implementation across countries. Song et al. [21] discovered variations in the extent of accountability burden, as influenced by the adoption of distinct accountability policies (High stakes vs. Low stakes), as well as the selection of accountability evaluation standards (External vs. Internal). These discrepancies were found to be intricately linked to the idiosyncratic attributes of each country. Employing rigorous empirical analysis, the study unveiled noteworthy variations in educational accountability policies among countries. Shin [20] uncovers that differences in educational accountability policies among countries stem from variations in political, economic, social, cultural, and historical contexts. Attentive to the diversity in educational accountability policies between countries, Shin’s work attributes these differences to the specific backgrounds of the countries. Wößmann [22] affirms the disparity in educational accountability policy implementation among countries based on international student data analysis. The scrutiny of divergences in the implementation of EAP across countries and the discernment of the determinants contributing to these distinctions bear considerable significance for countries contemplating the introduction, enhancement, or refinement of their EAPs in the future. The predominant focus in existing research pertaining to EAP implementation has been on assessing the status and intricacies of EAP implementation within specific individual countries, as exemplified by studies conducted by Park [23], Song [24], Lee [25], Gable et al. [26], and West et al. [27]. Consequently, it becomes apparent that there is a noticeable dearth of scholarly investigations adopting a global and empirical perspective to identify or elucidate the underlying factors contributing to the discrepancies in EAP between countries.
In light of this, this study establishes two dimensions of research inquiry as follows: firstly, this study conducts a descriptive examination of the aspects of EAP implementation across countries (The list of 30 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong-China, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Mexico, Netherland, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, UK, US), aiming to discern trends concerning the diffusion and variations of EAP. Secondly, this study concentrates on the discrepancies in EAP implementation among countries and provides an empirical analysis of the factors leading to these variations.
Considering the limitation of previous studies regarding EAP, this study delineates two distinct dimensions of inquiry as follows: firstly, this study conducts a comprehensive descriptive analysis pertaining to the facets of EAP implementation across countries, aiming to discern trends concerning the diffusion and variations of EAP. Secondly, this study focalizes on the disparities observed in the implementation of EAP among nations, undertaking an empirical investigation to elucidate the underlying factors contributing to these disparities.
Employing country-level panel data that encompasses 30 countries participating in PISA five times (2000–2012), this study investigates whether the diffusion of EAP is a global phenomenon in practice and verifies the variation of EAP across countries. Subsequently, this study attempts to identify the factors contributing to the variations of EAP across countries, drawing upon the theoretical framework of comparative policy and exploiting panel data analysis. Throughout these processes, this study seeks to address the research questions by examining each country’s EAP implementation and conducting an empirical analysis of the factors correlated with the variations of EAP across countries.
The contributions of this study are twofold. Primarily, this study presents an alternative attempt to empirically analyze the implementation of EAP from an international comparative perspective, in contrast to previous studies that predominantly considered EAP as a domestic issue. Furthermore, this study uniquely seeks to identify the factors contributing to the differences in EAP between countries by exploiting a country panel dataset and employing a more rigorous statistical approach. A deeper understanding of EAP offers valuable policy implications for countries intending to implement or modify EAP.
The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 describes the theoretical models and research hypotheses regarding EAP. Section 3 outlines the data, variables, and analytical methods employed in this study, while Section 4 provides the results and findings of the empirical analyses. Section 5 encompasses the conclusions and discussions regarding the findings of this study. Lastly, Section 6 suggests the limitations of this study and recommendations for future research.

2. Theoretical Model and Research Hypotheses

From the perspective of comparative public policy, there are various approaches to explain variations in policy implementation. Some researchers have attempted to explain these variations by focusing on functional imperatives according to the phase of economic development, while others have emphasized the diffusion of innovative policies across boarders. Notably, two prevalent models account for disparities in policy implementation between countries: (1) the Internal Determinants model, which posits that the economic, political, and social characteristics of specific countries influence the adoption and implementation of new policies or programs [28,29,30,31], (2) the External Diffusion model, which concentrates on emulation and adoption of policies from other countries or governments, promoting new policy adoption depending on the degree of openness or dependency on other countries [32,33]. The Internal Determinants model is linked to two theories: Industrialization Theory, which posits that disparities in economic development significantly contribute to policy divergence among nations, and State Bureaucratic Power Theory, which argues that a country’s internal structural components and administrative power dynamics exert a profound influence on the formulation of its distinct policies. In the context of the External Diffusion model, it aligns with the External Diffusion Theory, which underscores the critical role of a nation’s degree of openness to the global arena as a pivotal determinant in shaping its policy decisions at the national level. This study utilizes these three comparative public policy perspectives to investigate the factors contributing to variations in EAP implementation across countries.

2.1. Industrialization Theory

The Industrialization theory emphasizes the general impact of industrialization or economic development on the implementation of innovative policies. According to this theory, as industrialization progresses, countries or societies undergo inevitable structural changes, leading to common shifts within communities [34,35,36]. Economic development, industrialization, and technical advancement are key factors determining the adoption or implementation of new innovative policies. Consequently, from the perspective of the Industrialization theory, differences in these factors cause variations in policies across countries.
When applying this theory to the implementation of EAP, as a country’s economy progresses, previously unaddressed social demands emerge, leading to new, innovative educational requirements. Simultaneously, the economic development of a specific country enhances its fiscal capacity, enabling governments to adopt and implement new innovative policies more easily due to their expanded resource mobilization capacity. Therefore, the differences in economic development and industrialization can be considered a critical factor contributing to the disparities in the adoption and implementation of EAP depicted in Figure 2 below, leading to the establishment of the following hypothesis.
H1. 
Countries with more advanced economies are inclined to adopt and intensify EAP.

2.2. State Bureaucratic Power Theory

In contrast to the Industrialization theory, the State Bureaucratic Power Theory emphasizes the political characteristics of specific countries, such as citizens’ political participation, activities of interest groups, and the power of parliament or government [37,38,39,40,41].
Factors concerning countries’ political characteristics can be conceptualized regarding political democracy, social democracy, and state bureaucratic power. However, this study considers the characteristics of the political system as state bureaucratic power, given that bureaucratic power is not independent of the political tendencies or traits of specific governments. This theory views the government as not a passive entity but a self-determining organization with autonomy and initiative [42,43]. In this theory, the roles and powers of the bureaucratic government are highlighted as the key factors determining the implementation of specific policies.
When applying this theory to the implementation of EAP, as the government power increases, it becomes more likely to accept and implement innovative policies, thus tending to adopt government-driven EAP. Considering the three components of EAP mentioned earlier, a positive relationship between government power and the implementation of EAP can be easily anticipated. Consequently, the variation in government power among countries accounts for the difference in the adoption and intensity of EAP implementation depicted in Figure 3 below, leading to the establishment of the following hypothesis:
H2. 
Countries with more governmental power are inclined to adopt and intensify EAP.

2.3. External Diffusion Theory

Governments often look to the experiences or policies of neighboring governments when initiating new innovative policies. When implementing innovative policies, most governments are inclined to learn from the experiences of other countries with similar policies. The External diffusion theory emphasizes the impact of external influences from other countries or governments in launching new policies. Since Walker [44] discovered that policymakers tend to adopt and imitate innovative policy agendas from neighboring governments, a large body of literature has empirically focused on the effects of the external environment surrounding governments in policy decision-making [45,46,47]. Notably, Boli-Bennett [32] and Meyer [33] revealed that the level of openness to other countries or integration into the world system might be a significant factor determining policy adoption and implementation.
In this context, as governments interact more with external countries, they become increasingly likely to adopt and implement unprecedented new policies, such as EAP. Considering the argument that numerous countries tend to emulate the EAP of developed countries, such as the U.S. and the U.K. [48,49], the external environment surrounding specific governments and interactions between countries may serve as crucial factors in determining the adoption and implementation of EAP. Consequently, depicted in Figure 4 below, the following hypothesis can be proposed.
H3. 
Countries with a higher degree of openness to other countries are inclined to adopt and intensify EAP.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

Drawing upon the analytical framework for educational accountability policies, this study chose countries engaged in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Upon accounting for average national academic achievement levels, this study utilized the PISA, a source of national-level academic achievement data, to delve into the determinants contributing to disparities in educational accountability policies among nations [50]. PISA has been administered five times from 2000 to 2012 and is designed to acquire international achievement data for 15-year-old students in reading, math, and science worldwide. As each country represents a unit of analysis in this study, the empirical analysis is based on a sample of 30 countries participating in all five PISA waves. From the pool of 35 countries that engaged in the PISA Academic Achievement Assessment across all five times, a subset of thirty nations was chosen to analyse variables associated with educational accountability policy. Notably, France was excluded due to the absence of critical school-level variables and under-represented cases like Liechtenstein and Luxembourg. Likewise, Switzerland, deemed impractical, and Greece, identified for having numerous outliers within student and school-level variables, were also omitted from the study. Furthermore, to avoid the endogeneity problem derived from the utilization of cross-sectional data in the study of comparative public policies, this study constructs a country-level panel dataset comprising 150 samples from 30 countries across the five PISA waves [51].

3.2. Variables

This study implemented a policy survey to extract EAP indices referring to various policy reports published by international organizations, such as UNESCO, OECD, World Bank, and EU, and individual governments detailing each country’s educational accountability policies. To address the empirical issues to quantify the intensity of EAP implementation, three major components of EAP were identified based on the conceptual framework of the ‘Principal-Agent Theory’ referring to the indices of Carnoy et al. [9] and Education Week [52]. Carnoy et al. [9] quantified educational accountability policy indices of 50 states within the United States by aggregating five dummy variables on a 0 to 5-point scale. Carnoy et al. [9]’s educational accountability index includes four components of educational accountability policy: standardized state-wide test, unveiling the results of the standardized test, rewards or sanctions based on the test results, and high school graduation test. Similarly, Education Week annually issues a report known as “Quality Counts” at the end of each year. This report functions as an exhaustive repository, providing a detailed examination of the educational status and the implementation of educational policies across individual states. Significantly, Education Week offers assessments for scores and rankings related to the adherence to EAP at the state level. These assessments are based on various components: the establishment of achievement standards, the allocation of additional resources and support for teachers, the conduct of standardized achievement tests, and the application of incentives or sanctions contingent upon the test results [52]. Based on these, this study measured EAP index scores (0–3 scale) for each country according to the following three components: (1) the existence of a standardized nationwide assessment, (2) whether test results are publicly published by schools, and (3) whether test results are utilized for sanctions, assistance, or rewards to schools. A higher index value indicated more robust EAP enforcement, while a lower value indicated weaker implementation of EAP, as shown in Table 1 below.
This study also measured the EAP implementation dummy variable, assigning a value of 1 to countries in which at least one of the three EAP components is implemented and 0 to countries without any EAP component implementation.
Additionally, this study included three variables related to the aforementioned hypotheses. To test the hypothesis derived from the Industrialization theory, real GDP per capita was employed as a proxy variable to represent the level of economic development or industrialization [53]. Concerning the State Bureaucratic Power theory, this study utilized the percentage of government expenditure to GDP as a proxy variable for state bureaucratic power, referencing previous studies [41,42,47,54,55]. Based on the External Diffusion theory, this study introduced the percentage of trade volume to GDP as a proxy variable, indicating each country’s degree of openness to other external countries [56].
Moreover, this study used each country’s average PISA score and total population as control variables to empirically test the hypotheses, considering current literature demonstrating these factors are related to adopting new innovative policies [44,53,57,58,59,60]. Table 2 displays the names, descriptions, and summary statistics of the variables utilized for this study.

3.3. Analytical Methods

Utilizing these variables, this study examined whether country-level variations in the adoption and implementation of EAP exist in practice. It investigated the factors contributing to EAP adoption using the ‘Pooled Logit Model’ and ‘Panel Random Effect Ordered Logit Model’ within the theoretical framework of the ‘Industrialization Theory’, ‘State Bureaucratic Power Theory’, and ‘External Diffusion Theory’. Subsequently, this study explored the factors influencing the differences in the intensity of EAP implementation using the ‘Pooled Ordered Logit Model’ and ‘Panel Random Effect Ordered Logit Model’ based on the same conceptual framework mentioned above.
As the dependent variables for these empirical analyses are a dummy variable indicating whether EAP is implemented and the EAP index score, which has only four ordinal values, this study employed the ‘logit model’ and ‘ordered logit model’ for the analyses. Additionally, this study controlled for unobserved country-specific characteristics using the ‘panel random effect logit model’ and ‘panel random effect ordered logit model’. Generally, panel datasets with cross-sectional and time-series data characteristics encounter issues such as autocorrelation, heterogeneity, and endogeneity. Therefore, this study utilized the ‘panel random effect logit model’ and ‘panel random effect ordered logit model’ to address these problems by considering the country-specific unobserved characteristics as a random variable. This research tested research hypotheses using the fixed and random effect models. However, due to the small number of samples, the fixed effect model was not appropriate for the data of this study. Thus, this study selected the panel random model as the final research method.
Considering the aforementioned variables and analytic methods, this study constructed a research model to elucidate the variations in EAP across countries, as depicted in Figure 5 below.

4. Results

4.1. The Diffusion of EAP

Before conducting a multivariate analysis to investigate the factors associated with each country’s EAP implementation, this study descriptively examined the changing trends of EAP implementation across countries over time, utilizing the EAP index score.
Figure 6 presents the implementation status of EAP in various countries on a world map for 2000 and 2012. In the figure, the black color represents countries implementing EAP in practice. As depicted, in 2000, only a few countries had adopted EAP, while by 2012, a substantial number of countries had implemented EAP.
Figure 7 illustrates the proportion of countries that implemented EAP among the 30 countries surveyed each year. As demonstrated, only 16.7% of the countries (5 out of 30) had implemented EAP in 2000; however, this figure rose to 70% (21 out of 30) by 2012. Based on these findings, it can be intuitionally deduced that the number of countries adopting EAP increased rapidly during the 2000s, indicating that EAP diffusion is indeed a global phenomenon.
Conversely, Figure 8 displays that darker shades represent more intense EAP implementation in countries. According to this, most countries with lighter shades 2000, indicative of weaker EAP implementation, transitioned to darker shades, signifying stronger EAP implementation. Notably, a few countries, such as the US, Australia, South Korea, and Mexico, exhibit black shading, denoting that these countries implement all three components of EAP.
Figure 9 illustrates the evolving pattern of the mean EAP index score, reflecting the intensity of EAP implementation across 30 countries. As depicted below, the mean EAP index score was only 0.2 in 2000 but increased to 1.2 in 2012. These findings suggest that not only is the number of countries adopting EAP rapidly increasing, but the intensity of EAP implementation has also significantly strengthened in the 2000s. Based on these results, it can be inferred that the diffusion and reinforcement of EAP are global phenomena.

4.2. The Factors Associated with the Variation of EAP across Countries

Although the number of countries implementing EAP is increasing, and the intensity of EAP implementation is strengthening, significant variations in the adoption and implementation of EAP across countries are evident. Identifying the factors contributing to these variations in EAP implementation can offer valuable policy implications for countries planning to adopt or modify existing EAP.
To achieve this objective, this study assessed the impact of national characteristics on EAP implementation from the standpoint of comparative public policy. As the dependent variables for this empirical analysis include a dummy variable indicating whether EAP is implemented and an EAP index score consisting of only four ordinal values, this study employed the ‘logit model’ and ‘ordered logit model’ for the analysis. Initially, Table 3 presents the results concerning factors associated with the adoption of EAP.
The first panel of Table 3 displays the pooled logit model results without considering country-specific characteristics. The findings indicate a statistically significant association between the degree of openness and the adoption of EAP. According to these results, countries with higher degrees of openness tend to adopt and implement EAP more readily (Exp (B) = 1.011). This result suggests that the ‘External Diffusion Theory’ is supported in explaining the variations in each country’s EAP adoption. Additionally, countries with lower average PISA scores tend to adopt EAP more readily (Exp (B) = 0.988). However, these findings are limited by not considering the characteristics of the panel dataset. Consequently, this study re-examined the factors associated with the adoption of EAP using a more rigorous methodology that accounts for country-specific characteristics.
The second panel of Table 3 presents the results of the panel random effect logit model. These findings indicate that GDP per capita and state bureaucratic power positively influence the likelihood of adopting EAP, in contrast to the pooled logit model results. Specifically, countries with higher economic development are more likely to adopt EAP (Exp (B) = 1.995), and governments with greater state bureaucratic power tend to implement EAP more easily (Exp (B) = 1.484) (Based upon the hypothesis test result regarding the validity of considering country-specific characteristics (χ2(1) = 60.16) this study verified panel random effect logit model is more appropriate than pooled logit model). This result suggests that the ‘Industrialization Theory’ and ‘State Bureaucratic Power Theory’ can appropriately explain the variations in each country’s EAP adoption. Regarding control variables, countries with larger populations tend to adopt EAP more readily (Exp (B) = 55.189).
Based on these results, this study elaborated on the factors influencing the strength of EAP implementation. The first panel of Table 4 displays the results of the pooled ordered logit model, without considering country-specific characteristics. The findings indicate a statistically significant association between GDP per capita and the strength of EAP implementation. In other words, countries with higher economic development levels tend to intensify EAP implementation (Exp (B) = 1.043). This result supports the ‘Industrialization Theory’ in explaining the variations in the strength of each country’s EAP implementation.
Additionally, countries with lower average PISA scores (Exp (B) = 0.987) and larger populations (Exp (B) = 1.334) tend to implement EAP more robustly. However, as previously mentioned, these results do not account for the panel dataset’s attributes. Therefore, this study reanalyzes the factors determining the intensity of EAP implementation, considering country-specific characteristics.
The second panel of Table 4 presents the results of the panel random effect ordered logit model. The findings indicate that all three factors—GDP per capita, state bureaucratic power, and the degree of openness—positively impact the strength of EAP implementation, unlike the pooled ordered logit model (Based upon the hypothesis test result regarding the validity of considering country-specific characteristics (χ2(1) = 36.59), this study verified that panel random effect ordered logit model is more appropriate than pooled ordered logit model). That is, countries with higher economic development (Exp (B) = 1.255), greater state bureaucratic power (Exp (B) = 1.126), or a high degree of openness (Exp (B) = 1.031), are more likely to implement EAP more vigorously. This result demonstrates that all hypotheses based on the ‘Industrialization Theory’, ‘State Bureaucratic Power Theory’, and ‘External Diffusion Theory’ are validated in explaining the disparities in EAP implementation intensity across countries. Conversely, concerning control variables, countries with lower average PISA scores (Exp (B) = 0.959) and larger populations (Exp (B) = 6.722) tend to implement stronger EAP.
As indicated by the summary in Table 5, encapsulating the aforementioned analytical results, ‘Industrialization Theory’ and ‘State Bureaucratic Power Theory’ have emerged as pertinent theoretical frameworks for explaining the adoption and intensity of EAP implementation among countries. On the other hand, ‘External Diffusion Theory’ was also substantiated as a valuable framework for elucidating variations in the intensity of EAP implementation among countries.
In light of these analytical outcomes, a more comprehensive and rigorous examination of the variations in EAP among countries necessitates a deep understanding of the intricate interaction of factors contributing to these differences and the resulting distinctions within the national context. It becomes evident that a thorough comprehension of these multifaceted factors is a fundamental prerequisite for conducting comprehensive comparative analyses of EAP across diverse countries.

5. Discussion & Conclusions

This study presents an empirical evidence on the international diffusion and variation of EAP while attempting to address the previously unexplored question of which factors contribute to disparities in the adoption and strength of EAP implementation across countries using a country-level panel dataset. In doing so, this study pays particular attention to the conceptual framework of EAP, the principal-agent model, and the perspectives of comparative public policy.
After analyzing the trend of EAP implementation, this study finds that the number of countries implementing EAP has been increasing rapidly, and the intensity of EAP implementation has also been strengthening since 2000. Based on these results, it can be inferred that the diffusion and reinforcement of EAP are worldwide phenomena. However, this research also identifies substantial disparities across countries in adopting and implementing EAP. The differences observed in EAPs across countries can be elucidated by the lens of ‘Policy borrowing’. Schriewer [61] and Steiner-Khamsi [62] have defined policy borrowing as the influence of external factors on a specific country’s adoption and adaptation of a policy, considering external recognition and authority as significant drivers. This perspective underscores that policies are not simply adopted wholesale but are adjusted and implemented in alignment with the adopting country’s unique contextual background and internal requirements. Essentially, policy borrowing theory acknowledges the role of external environments as sources of authority and rationale for introducing new policies [63]. However, the decision-making process regarding how to borrow and implement these policies is influenced by national politics. It is contingent upon economic, historical, and social conditions, resulting in variations among countries. Within the framework of policy borrowing theory, there exists a global inclination towards the expansion and fortification of the EAP implementation. Nevertheless, the actual implementation of EAP differs from one country to another.
Subsequently, this study explores the factors impacting the adoption and implementation of EAP. Through empirical analyses regarding the factors affecting EAP disparities across countries, this study reveals that the ‘Industrialization Theory’ and ‘State Bureaucratic Power Theory’ can be supported in explaining the differences in the adoption of EAP across countries, suggesting that countries with highly developed economy or stronger government power are more likely to adopt EAP with less difficulty. Meanwhile, this study finds that the ‘Industrialization Theory’, ‘State Bureaucratic Power Theory’, and ‘External Diffusion Theory’ are all plausible in determining the variation in the strength of EAP implementation across countries, indicating that countries with highly developed economies, stronger government bureaucratic power, or a higher degree of global openness tend to implement EAP more vigorously.
These findings provide meaningful policy implications for countries pursuing sustainable development in education. Firstly, it is crucial to contemplate EAP with more concern, utilizing a comparative educational perspective. Specifically, it is recommended to recognize EAP as a global phenomenon and broaden the scope of discussion concerning EAP from aspects of policy implementation to the disparities of background contexts in EAP-implementing countries. Secondly, given that the current EAP is not identical among all countries and no single definite theory or variable explains these differences, it is recommended not only to understand the theories that explain EAP variation but also to examine the combination of factors leading to EAP variation in a more rigorous sense.

6. Limitation and Future Research

For future research, it is suggested to establish more validated and reliable policy indices regarding EAP than the indicators utilized in this study. Although the EAP score index used in this research refers to previous research, such as Education Week and Carnoy et al. [38], questions regarding the validity and reliability of the measures may arise. Moreover, another avenue for future research is exploring other country characteristics beyond the three factors mentioned in this study. Considering the significance of EAP in contemporary school reforms, investigating the factors influencing cross-country disparities in EAP implementation may prove worthwhile.
Furthermore, it is imperative to acknowledge that policy decisions at the national level and the resulting policy disparities among countries do not emanate from the influence of isolated or limited factors. Consequently, the findings from this empirical analysis alone might not offer a comprehensive account of the divergence in EAP among countries. Indeed, there exist inherent limitations in relying solely on quantitative analysis for comparative research between countries. To address these limitations, it becomes essential to embark on in-depth investigations that explore the contextual factors underpinning the implementation of EAP in individual countries.
Moreover, it is important to recognize that while this study conducted an empirical comparative analysis of educational accountability policies across 30 countries, it faced constraints in conducting extensive policy analysis and delving deeply into the contextual backgrounds. These limitations are rooted in the practical challenges of conducting comprehensive policy surveys within constrained timeframes and resource limitations. Organizations such as OECD and UNESCO are currently engaged in research and data collection related to educational policies in various countries; however, their efforts are curtailed by limitations in both human and financial resources, precluding comprehensive coverage [64]. Consequently, in future research endeavors, a compelling need arises to persist in conducting more exhaustive, methodologically rigorous, and context-specific research and analysis pertaining to the introduction and implementation aspects of EAPs within individual countries.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data utilized in this study are available on request from the first author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy reasons.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Barro, R.J. Education and economic growth. Ann. Econ. Financ. 2013, 14, 277–304. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hanushek, E.A.; Wößmann, L. Education and Economic Growth. In Economics of Education; Brewer, D.J., McEwan, P.J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 60–67. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wößmann, L.; Luedemann, E.; Schütz, G.; West, M.R. School Accountability, Autonomy, and Choice around the World; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK; Camberley, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bruns, B.; Filmer, D.; Patrinos, H.A. Making Schools Work: New Evidence on Accountability Reforms; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  5. World Bank. The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bovens, M. Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. Eur. Law J. 2007, 13, 447–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Elmore, R.F. School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice and Outcomes; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  8. Adams, J.E.; Kirst, M.W. New demands and concepts for educational accountability: Striving for results in an era of excellence. In Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, 1st ed.; Murphy, J., Louis, K.S., Eds.; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Fransisco, CA, USA, 1999; pp. 463–489. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carnoy, M.; Loeb, S. Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2002, 24, 305–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Darling-Hammond, L. Standards, Accountability, and School Reform. In Facing Accountability in Education, 1st ed.; Sleeter, C.E., Ed.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 78–111. [Google Scholar]
  11. Figlio, D.N.; Rouse, C.E. Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools? J. Public Econ. 2006, 90, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fuhrman, S.; Elmore, R.F. Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hanushek, E.A.; Raymond, M.E. Does School Accountability lead to improved Student Performance? J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2005, 24, 297–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Brandsma, G.J.; Adriaensen, J. The principal–agent model, accountability and democratic legitimacy. In The Principal Agent Model and the European Union, 1st ed.; Delreux, T., Adriaensen, J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan Cham: London, UK, 2017; pp. 35–54. [Google Scholar]
  15. Soudry, O. A principal-agent analysis of accountability in public procurement. In Advancing Public Procurement: Practices, Innovation and Knowledge-Sharing, 1st ed.; Thai, K.V., Ed.; Academics Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 432–451. [Google Scholar]
  16. Coats, J.C. Applications of principal-agent models to government contracting and accountability decision making. Int. J. Public Adm. 2002, 25, 441–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jeong, D.W. Analyzing the Logic and Performance of Elementary and Secondary Education Accountability Policies: A Focus on the Academic Achievement Improvement-Focused School Policy Cases. In Korean Educational Accountability Inquiry, 1st ed.; Kim, B.C., Park, N.K., Park, S.H., Byun, K.Y., Song, K.O., Jeong, D.W., Choi, J.Y., Eds.; Kyoyookbook: Paju, Republic of Korea, 2013; pp. 253–307. [Google Scholar]
  18. Anderson, J.A. Accountability in Education; International Institute for Educational Planning: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  19. Holloway, J.H. A global perspective on student accountability. Educ. Leadersh. 2003, 60, 74–76. [Google Scholar]
  20. Shin, H.S. An analysis of trends in school accountability. J. Educ. Adm. 2002, 20, 151–178. [Google Scholar]
  21. Song, K.O.; Jung, J.S. International comparative analysis of directions for educational reform. J. Educ. Adm. 2011, 29, 513–537. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wößmann, L. International evidence on school competition, autonomy, and accountability: A review. Peabody J. Educ. 2007, 82, 473–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Park, N.K. The background and context of introducing the educational accountability system. In Korean Educational Accountability Inquiry, 1st ed.; Kim, B.C., Park, N.K., Park, S.H., Byun, K.Y., Song, K.O., Jeong, D.W., Choi, J.Y., Eds.; Kyoyookbook: Paju, Republic of Korea, 2013; pp. 91–152. [Google Scholar]
  24. Song, K.O. Critical analysis on the primary and secondary education accountability policy in Korea. J. Yeolin Educ. 2013, 21, 207–235. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, J.H. A study on the nature of school accountability policy in Korea. Korea Educ. Rev. 2012, 18, 99–120. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gable, A.; Lingard, B. NAPLAN and the Performance Regime in Australian Schooling: A Review of the Policy Context; UQ Social Policy Unit Research Paper (No. 5); The University of Queensland: Queensland, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  27. West, A.; Mattei, P.; Roberts, J. Accountability and sanctions in English schools. BRITISH J. Educ. Stud. 2011, 59, 41–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Berry, F.S.; Berry, W.D. State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1990, 84, 395–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Berry, F.S.; Berry, W.D. Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In Theories of the Policy Process, 1st ed.; Sabatier, P., Ed.; Westview: Boulder, CO, USA, 1999; pp. 169–200. [Google Scholar]
  30. Dawson, R.E.; Robinson, J.A. Inter-party competition, economic variables, and welfare policies in the American states. J. Politics 1963, 25, 265–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Toutkoushian, R.K.; Hollis, P. Using panel data to examine legislative demand for higher education. Educ. Econ. 1998, 6, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Boli-Bennett, J. Global integration and the universal increase of state dominance, 1910–1970. In Studies of the Modern World System, 1st ed.; Bergesen, A., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 77–107. [Google Scholar]
  33. Meyer, J.W. The World Polity and the Authority of Nation-State. In Studies of the Modern World-System; Bergesen, A., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1980; pp. 109–138. [Google Scholar]
  34. Galbraith, J.K. The New Industrial State; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kerr, C. The Future of Industrial Societies: Convergence or Continuing Diversity? Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mishra, R. Welfare and industrial man: A study of welfare in Western industrial societies in relation to a hypothesis of convergence. Sociol. Rev. 1973, 21, 535–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alber, J.; Flora, P. Modernization, democratization and the development of welfare states in Western Europe. In The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, 1st ed.; Flora, P., Heidenheimer, A.J., Eds.; Transaction Books: New Brunswick, NJ, USA; London, UK, 1981; pp. 37–80. [Google Scholar]
  38. Castles, F.G. The impact of parties on public expenditure. In The Impact of Parties: Politics and Policies in Democratic Capitalist States, 1st ed.; Castles, F.G., Ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1982; pp. 21–96. [Google Scholar]
  39. Cutright, P. Political structure, economic development, and national social security programs. Am. J. Sociol. 1965, 70, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hewitt, C. The effect of political democracy and social democracy on equality in industrial societies: A cross-national comparison. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1977, 42, 450–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Stack, S. The effects of political participation and socialist party strength on the degree of income inequality. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1979, 44, 168–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. DeVINEY, S. The Political Economy of Public Pensions: A Cross-National Analysis. J. Political Mil. Sociol. 1984, 12, 295–310. [Google Scholar]
  43. Orloff, A.S.; Skocpol, T. Why not equal protection? Explaining the politics of public social spending in Britain, 1900–1911, and the United States, 1880s–1920. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1984, 49, 726–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Walker, J.L. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1969, 63, 880–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Collier, D.; Messick, R.E. Prerequisites versus diffusion: Testing alternative explanations of social security adoption. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1975, 69, 1299–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pilcher, D.M.; Ramirez, C.J.; Swihart, J.J. Some correlates of normal pensionable age. Int. Soc. Secur. Rev. 1968, 21, 387–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Taira, K.; Kilby, P. Differences in social security development in selected countries. Int. Soc. Secur. Rev. 1969, 22, 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hargreaves, A. Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  49. Salberg, P. Rethinking accountability in knowledge Society. J. Educ. Change 2010, 11, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Greiff, S.; Wüstenberg, S.; Avvisati, F. Computer-generated log-file analyses as a window into students’ minds? A showcase study based on the PISA 2012 assessment of problem solving. Comput. Educ. 2015, 91, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yang, M.S.; Lee, H.J. Do school resources reduce socioeconomic achievement gap? Evidence from PISA 2015. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2022, 88, 102528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Education Week. Quality Counts (Each Year). Available online: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/quality-counts (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  53. Berry, F.S. Innovation in public management: The adoption of strategic planning. Public Adm. Rev. 1994, 54, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kugler, J.; Organski, A.F.K.; Johnson, J.T.; Cohen, Y. Political determinants of population dynamics. Comp. Political Stud. 1983, 16, 3–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Snider, L.W. Identifying the Elements of State Power Where do we Begin? Comp. Political Stud. 1987, 20, 314–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Buera, F.J.; Oberfield, E. The global diffusion of idea. Econometrica 2020, 88, 83–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hage, J.; Aiken, M. Social Change in Complex Organizations; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  58. Mohr, L.B. Determinants of innovation in organizations. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1969, 63, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices; OECD: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  60. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  61. Schriewer, J.K. Globalization in education: Process and discourse. Policy Futures Educ. 2003, 1, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.) The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  63. Takayama, K. A Nation at Risk Crosses the Pacific: Transnational Borrowing of the USA Crisis Discourse in the Debate on Education Reform in Japan. Comp. Educ. Rev. 2007, 51, 423–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Who Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice? OECD: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 13883 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of Educational Accountability.
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of Educational Accountability.
Sustainability 15 13883 g001
Sustainability 15 13883 g002
Figure 2. Schematic representation of EAP implementation based on the Industrialization theory.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of EAP implementation based on the Industrialization theory.
Sustainability 15 13883 g002
Sustainability 15 13883 g003
Figure 3. Schematic representation of EAP implementation based on the State bureaucratic power theory.
Figure 3. Schematic representation of EAP implementation based on the State bureaucratic power theory.
Sustainability 15 13883 g003
Sustainability 15 13883 g004
Figure 4. Schematic representation of EAP implementation based on the External diffusion theory.
Figure 4. Schematic representation of EAP implementation based on the External diffusion theory.
Sustainability 15 13883 g004
Sustainability 15 13883 g005
Figure 5. Schematic representation of research model.
Figure 5. Schematic representation of research model.
Sustainability 15 13883 g005
Sustainability 15 13883 g006
Figure 6. The changing trend of EAP implementation.
Figure 6. The changing trend of EAP implementation.
Sustainability 15 13883 g006
Sustainability 15 13883 g007
Figure 7. The proportion of countries implementing EAP.
Figure 7. The proportion of countries implementing EAP.
Sustainability 15 13883 g007
Sustainability 15 13883 g008
Figure 8. The changing trend of EAP implementation intensity.
Figure 8. The changing trend of EAP implementation intensity.
Sustainability 15 13883 g008
Sustainability 15 13883 g009
Figure 9. The average intensity of EAP implementation.
Figure 9. The average intensity of EAP implementation.
Sustainability 15 13883 g009
Table 1. Change in EAP index by country.
Table 1. Change in EAP index by country.
20002003200620092012
Australia00023
Austria00001
Belgium00011
Brazil00222
Canada00000
Czech Rep.00000
Denmark00001
Finland00000
Germany00000
Hong Kong00111
Hungary01133
Iceland00022
Indonesia00000
Ireland00000
Italy00011
Japan00010
South Korea00023
Latvia11111
Mexico00133
Netherlands00000
New Zealand00000
Norway00111
Poland11111
Portugal00011
Russia01111
Spain00011
Sweden11222
Thailand11122
UK22222
USA03333
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables.
VariableDescriptionMeanStd. Dev.
Dependent variablesEAP
index
score		3: 3 components of EAP are all implemented
2: 2 components of EAP are implemented
1: 1 component of EAP is implemented
0: no component implemented		0.6890.924
EAP
implementation		1: 1 or more components of EAP implemented
0: no component implemented		0.440-
Independent
variables		GDP per capitaReal GDP (PPP) per capita (in US $)27,567.28012,284.420
State Bureaucratic PowerThe ratio of government expenditure to GDP (%)40.22310.841
Degree of opennessThe ratio of trade volume to GDP (%)47.30434.412
PISA ScoreAverage PISA score of reading, math, and science by countries491.80941.431
Populationtotal population (in million)54.90972.936
Table 3. Results on the factors associated with the adoption of EAP.
Table 3. Results on the factors associated with the adoption of EAP.
Pooled Logit ModelPanel Random Effect Logit Model
Coef.
(B)		Std.
Error		Exp (B)Coef.
(B)		Std.
Error		Exp (B)
GDP per capita0.029(0.020)1.0300.691 ***(0.211)1.995
State Bureaucratic Power0.015(0.020)1.0150.395 **(0.180)1.484
Degree of openness0.011 *(0.006)1.0110.060(0.068)1.062
PISA Score−0.012 **(0.006)0.988−0.019(0.057)0.981
Ln (Population)0.218(0.145)1.2444.011 *(2.355)55.189
(LR/Wald)9.48 *20.95 ***
Obs.148148
Test for setting random effect χ2(1) = 60.16 ***
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Table 4. Results on the factors determining the strength of EAP implementation.
Table 4. Results on the factors determining the strength of EAP implementation.
Pooled Ordered Logit ModelPanel Random Effect Ordered Logit Model
Coef.
(B)		Std.
Error		Exp (B)Coef.
(B)		Std.
Error		Exp (B)
GDP per capita0.042 **(0.018)1.0430.227 ***(0.044)1.255
State Bureaucratic Power0.007(0.019)1.0070.119 ***(0.041)1.126
Degree of openness0.006(0.006)1.0060.030 ***(0.011)1.031
PISA Score−0.013 **(0.006)0.987−0.042 ***(0.011)0.959
Ln (Population)0.288 **(0.146)1.3341.905 ***(0.430)6.722
(LR/Wald)19.36 ***46.47 ***
Obs.148148
Test for setting random effect var (panel) = 36.59 **
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05.
Table 5. A summary of the results that elucidate disparities in EAP across countries.
Table 5. A summary of the results that elucidate disparities in EAP across countries.
Economic
Development		Government
Bureaucratic
Power		Degree of
Openness		Average
PISA
Score		Population
EAP implementation++..+
EAP implementation intensity+++++
Note. The shaded portion signifies the presence of a statistically significant relationship, while the unshaded portion (.) denotes the absence of any relationship. (+) indicates the positive relationship.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, Y. Educational Accountability Policy for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis across 30 Countries. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813883

AMA Style

Kim Y. Educational Accountability Policy for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis across 30 Countries. Sustainability. 2023; 15(18):13883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813883

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Youngsik. 2023. "Educational Accountability Policy for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis across 30 Countries" Sustainability 15, no. 18: 13883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813883

APA Style

Kim, Y. (2023). Educational Accountability Policy for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis across 30 Countries. Sustainability, 15(18), 13883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813883

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop