Repensar la Coherencia de Políticas para el Desarrollo Sostenible en el marco de la Agenda 2030: desafíos actuales y propuestas para después de 2030 a partir del Índice de Coherencia (INDICO)

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development represents a comprehensive global framework aiming to address the interrelated dimensions of sustainable development through an integrated approach. Within this framework, Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD) has emerged as a fundamental strategy for achieving systemic transformation. The multidimensional, cross-sectoral, and multi-level nature of the 2030 Agenda necessitates a similarly complex and coherent approach to policymaking. As such, PCSD is not only a technical tool but a political and strategic orientation that seeks to align policies with sustainable development goals across time, institutions, and sectors. This article critically examines the evolution and current implementation of PCSD, with a particular focus on its capacity to enable transformative change in a context characterized by overlapping and multidimensional crises. While PCSD has gained conceptual and methodological sophistication—largely through the work of the OECD’s Policy Coherence Unit—its conceptualisation and operationalization in many national contexts remains narrowly institutional, dominated by technocratic logics and largely divorced from the political conflicts and power dynamics that underpin sustainable development. The central research question addressed in this article is whether the conceptual, methodological, and political advances in PCSD are truly enabling the transformative changes envisioned in the 2030 Agenda, or whether they are merely reinforcing the existing order through incremental improvements in policy effectiveness. The article aims to identify key elements for rethinking Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD), with the goal of enhancing its transformative capacity beyond the 2030 horizon. The study is grounded in a critical theoretical framework inspired by Robert W. Cox’s distinction between problem-solving and critical theories. According to Cox (2013), theory is always “for someone and for some purpose,” implying that all conceptualizations of PCSD are embedded in particular power structures and serve specific political interests. Methodologically, the research combines a systematic review of the recent academic literature on PCSD with an empirical analysis based on the latest edition (2025) of the Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development Index (INDICO). INDICO is a composite indicator developed by Coordinadora de Organizaciones para el Desarrollo, Futuro en Común, Forus and REEDES. It assesses countries’ performance in terms of PCSD, structured around two main analytical pillars: strategic transitions (democratic, feminist, socio-economic, and ecological) and planetary pressures. These two pillars allow for an evaluation of both the normative alignment of public policies and their material effects on global sustainability. The article is structured into four main sections. The first section details the methodological approach, including criteria for literature selection and the analytical framework used to interpret the INDICO results. The second section synthesizes the findings from the literature review, highlighting the conceptual evolution of PCSD and the growing body of critical scholarship that challenges its technocratic and depoliticized nature. The third section presents the results of the empirical analysis, identifying key challenges that countries face in operationalizing PCSD as revealed through the INDICO data. The fourth section explores the implications of these findings and proposes essential components for redefining PCSD as a politically grounded and transformative approach. The article concludes with a comprehensive reflection that synthesizes the main contributions of the study and outlines avenues for future research. The core argument advanced is that current approaches to PCSD are insufficiently equipped to address the scale and complexity of the transformations required by the 2030 Agenda. The emphasis on institutional mechanisms, coordination structures, and policy integration—while necessary—often leads to a managerial interpretation of coherence that neglects the deeply political nature of sustainable development. This institutional bias has resulted in a technocratic framing of PCSD, where conflicts are treated as technical challenges rather than political struggles over competing interests and visions of development. Moreover, the conceptual foundation of sustainable development itself has been increasingly questioned. The normative ambiguities and contradictions inherent in the idea—coupled with its appropriation by dominant economic paradigms—have limited its utility as a prescriptive framework for policy transformation. Current interpretations of PCSD often fail to engage with the contested nature of sustainability and the power asymmetries embedded in global development regimes. Compounding this situation is the rise of reactionary political movements that openly challenge the legitimacy of climate action and human rights frameworks, further complicating the operationalization of coherent and transformative policies. To address these limitations, the article draws on recent contributions that call for a politicization of PCSD, particularly in relation to two underexplored dimensions: (1) the conflicts of interest among actors and institutions, and (2) the paradigm-level disputes over what constitutes “development” and “sustainability.” Following the proposition of Shawoo et al. (2023), PCSD should be reframed as a dynamic system that actively engages with these political and ideational conflicts, rather than seeking to neutralize or ignore them. From this perspective, the article proposes a reconceptualization of PCSD based on the strategic transitions (democratic, feminist, socio-economic, and ecological) and the planetary pressures. These transitions are understood as concrete and partial pathways toward just and sustainable futures. Their formulation should be guided by the principles of human rights and social justice, and ecological integrity, and they must simultaneously aim to expand rights while reducing planetary pressures. This dual orientation allows for a more grounded and politically sensitive articulation of PCSD, capable of revealing and addressing the contradictions in existing development models. Furthermore, the article advocates for enhancing the participatory dimension of PCSD by expanding the inclusion of less powerful actors in decision-making processes and integrating the scientific community into the policy cycle in real time. This would entail the establishment of institutional mechanisms for dialogue, co-production of knowledge, and reflexive learning, enabling continuous reorientation of policies in response to emerging challenges and conflicts. PCSD, in this conception, becomes a systemic and dynamic tool for managing transitions, rather than a static framework for policy alignment. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the need to move beyond the normative and institutional confines of current PCSD approaches. To genuinely contribute to the transformation of development models, PCSD must confront and engage with the political nature of sustainability challenges. This requires tools for mapping and addressing conflicts, mechanisms for integrating diverse knowledge systems, and frameworks for evaluating policies based on their transformative potential—not only their effectiveness. The final section outlines several directions for future research. These include: (1) investigating how procedural and instrumental changes in policy-making relate to shifts in power relations and development outcomes; (2) exploring the impacts of public policies through a transitional lens that emphasizes structural transformation; and (3) drawing insights from critical development theories—such as post-development, decolonial theory, and international political economy—to enrich the conceptual foundation of PCSD. By doing so, PCSD can evolve into a more robust, dynamic, and politically relevant approach for advancing just transitions in a post-2030 development landscape.