The road to the Sustainable Development Goals: building global alliances and norms

Abstract

Several insider accounts of the formation of the Sustainable Development Goals suggest that the process (the procedures used and the emergent organizational and governance system features) was as important as the resulting goal-set. The paper looks at both aspects, and relationships between them: the rising influence of Southern nations (seen in the roles played by Colombia, Brazil, some African countries and the G77); the partial transcendence of traditional inter-bloc negotiation, including through adoption of elements of deliberative decision-making; the major involvement of civil society and business organizations, thanks especially to the IT revolution; the adoption of a goalstargets-indicators frame that has flexibility at national level and implicit reliance on intensive further civil society activism and monitoring. The paper considers these features and the implied prospects for the SDGs in relation to various perspectives on global governance, with special reference to norm-setting: Ruggie's concepts of 'global public domain' and 'polycentric global governance', Risse and Sikkink's 'norms cascade', Murphy's posited required elements for progressive global innovation, and Raskin's model of transition through responses to crises. It concludes with questions for further work, including regarding the possibly problematic absence of an explicit inspirational value-core.

Mapping the Sustainable Development Goals Relationships

“…It is recognized that there is some progress towards the SDGs. However, some critics, such as Des Gasper [18], argue that there are missing themes in the SDGs, such as migration, terrorism, capital flight, and democracy. However, rather than a judgment based on a conceptual and technical dimension, it should be acknowledged that collectively, according to Biggeri et al [19], they represent a roadmap for a better future that inspires action and cooperation among diverse multilevel actors and agents of change with the freedom to adjust to different contexts and purposes.…”

A balancing act between economic growth and sustainable development: Historical trajectory through the lens of development indicators

“…In this way, the current structure of the SDGs continues to embrace economic growth for all nations – not only those that are developing but also those that are developed – without taking serious account of economic conditions compatible with social and environmental goals (Gasper, 2019; Stewart, 2015), and thus endorsing unlimited growth (Kotzé & French, 2018). This permits continuous overproduction and overconsumption rather than any reduction in the name of resource efficiency (Crabtree & Gasper, 2020; Gasper et al, 2019; Kopnina, 2019); it also endorses the unequal distribution of income and wealth rather than narrowing the gap in the name of inclusive growth (Gupta & Veglin, 2016; Kopnina, 2019; Fukuda‐Parr, 2019, Hickel, 2019).…”

“…Unlike the MDGs created in a top‐down manner by the Northern donor countries, the SDGs were created after a series of consultations across the North–South divide (Fukuda‐Parr, 2016; Gasper, 2019; Fukuda‐Parr & McNeill, 2019). Such an open governance structure encourages wide participation from different groups: not only from developed but also from developing nations; not only from the public sector but also from the private sector; not only from elites and technocrats but also from civil society in general and not only from economists but also from specialists across a wide range of disciplines.…”

Shifting norms, multiplying actors, turbulent times: An emerging landscape of international development co‐operation

“…The framing of the SDGs as emerging norms demonstrates the “rise of the South” in their creation, in contrast to the Northern‐led MDGs (Gasper, 2019, p. 126; Fukuda‐Parr & McNeill, 2019). Gasper offers the idea that the SDGs are a “norm‐setting agenda,” in which common norms and targets can be agreed upon, even among actors who may have different values, stating that:

Even when there are differences in underlying values, norms can sometimes be agreed to and can diffuse and exert influence.

…”