Background
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are intended to be examined in this briefing note as the successors of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (MDGs). In 2000, member states of the United Nations agreed a set of eight development goals known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with the target year of 2015 for completion. The SDGs, on the other hand, is a brand-new set of 17 global goals that aim to end poverty, protect the environment, and ensure peace and prosperity for all. The SDGs were approved in 2015, with a deadline of 2030 for fulfillment. Even though the MDGs successfully launched a global development discussion, they fell short of reaching all their objectives. As successors to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the United Nations announced a new set of goals, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in 2015. The SDGs seek to end poverty, safeguard the environment, and provide prosperity for all—the argument concerning the effectiveness of the SDGs as MDG successors continue.
Discussion
In the development community, opinions on the SDGs as successors of the MDGs differ. In “From the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals: Shifts in Purpose, Concept, and Politics of Global Goal Setting for Development,” Sakiko Fukuda-Parr (2016) argues that the SDGs constitute a substantial departure from the MDGs. She claims that the SDGs give a more holistic and integrated approach to development by addressing various concerns such as gender equality, economic growth, and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the SDGs employ a more inclusive approach that considers the views of all stakeholders, including civil society and the commercial sector. The SDGs also emphasize the importance of universal access to critical services and a more inclusive approach to development. The SDGs, for example, include a goal to “leave no one behind” by ensuring that everyone, regardless of race, gender, or geography, has equitable access to opportunities and essential services. In contrast, “Stupid Development Goals” (Economist, 2015) contend that the SDGs are overly ambitious and unattainable.
In “Stupid Development Goals,” The Economist (2015) criticizes the SDGs, claiming that the 169 targets and indicators are too numerous and confusing. The SDGs, for example, contain a wide range of topics such as “Zero Hunger,” “Good Health and Well-being,” “Clean Water and Sanitation,” and “Decent Work and Economic Growth,” which some feel are too diverse and may dilute efforts toward the overarching objective. According to the author, the SDGs lack focus and coherence, making it challenging to prioritize and track progress toward their implementation. Similarly, in “Senseless Dreamy Garbled,” William Easterly (2015) contends that the SDGs are utopian and meaningless. He claims that the SDGs are overly ambitious and unrealistic, rendering them unlikely to produce the desired results. Easterly further claims that the SDGs are not accountable, making it impossible to discern who is accountable for their achievement.
Furthermore, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr views the SDGs as MDG successors favorably (Fukuda-Parr, 2016). She claims that the SDGs represent a substantial advance over the MDGs in terms of comprehensiveness and emphasizes a more inclusive approach to development. The SDGs, according to Fukuda-Parr, are more comprehensive since they address a wider variety of development challenges, such as environmental sustainability, gender equality, and human rights. Furthermore, the SDGs prioritized universal access to critical services, something the MDGs did not. The essay “Stupid Development Goals” (Economist, 2015) takes a critical look at the SDGs, claiming that they are unduly ambitious and unattainable. According to the report, the SDGs are highly complex, with 169 targets, far too numerous to be efficiently executed. It also implies that the SDGs lack a clear focus and prioritization, resulting in a scattering of resources and effort.
Similarly, in “Senseless Dreamy Garbled,” William Easterly (2015) contends that the SDGs are idealistic and unattainable. He believes the SDGs are excessively idealistic and lack a clear focus on the practical steps required to attain their goals. According to Easterly, the SDGs try to “address all the world’s issues at once,” which is impractical and likely to fail. Overall, these publications give opposing perspectives on the SDGs as MDG successors. While some claim that the SDGs are an improvement over the MDGs, others argue that they are unrealistic and impossible to achieve.
As the MDGs’ successors, the SDGs encounter both support and criticism. During some claim that the SDGs are more inclusive and comprehensive, others contend that they are overly ambitious and unattainable. When assessing the effectiveness of the SDGs and determining the most effective method to achieving its goals, policymakers must carefully examine various perspectives. Therefore, it is critical to prioritize and focus on feasible aims to ensure the SDGs’ success in supporting sustainable development.
Conclusion
The exploration of the many perspectives on the SDGs as successors to the MDGs reveals that opinions are varied. While some regard the SDGs as a substantial departure from the MDGs, giving a more holistic and integrated approach to development, others see them as too numerous, convoluted, unrealistic, and lacking focus and accountability. According to this evaluation, the SDGs have the potential to be effective successors to the MDGs, but their success will be dependent on the international community’s commitment and action. The SDGs’ numerous and complicated character may provide difficulty, but if implemented correctly, they can considerably impact global development. Nonetheless, clear priorities, appropriate resources, and efficient monitoring methods are required to guarantee the SDGs are met.
References
Easterly, W. (2015). The sdgs should stand for senseless, dreamy, garbled. Foreign Policy. Web.
The Economist Newspaper. (2015). The 169 commandments. The Economist. Web.
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2016). From the Millennium Development Goals to the sustainable development goals: Shifts in purpose, concept, and politics of global goal setting for development. Gender & Development, 24(1), 43–52. Web.