There are 17 UN Sustainability Goals agreed on in 2015 to be achieved by the year 2030 (Klettermayer 2017). The role of goal setting in policy is to declare a group of values to the public based upon issues that should be addressed. It reflects consensus between a group of leaders about societal concerns and appears as though leaders are addressing root causes of pressing problems from a multi-dimensional approach that is holistic (Klettermayer 2017). The role of the goals in policymaking is for the goals to be transparent to seem as though leaders are being held accountable, as meetings between formulators are broadcasted on live television and are still available on archives (Klettermayer 2017). In order for visionary goals to actually help shape sound policy, the public needs to get involved so it is not a top-down process and the leaders are held accountable to actually improve conditions (Klettermayer 2017).
However, goals that are only visionary and not enforceable commitments do not shape entirely sound policy. They have the potential to fuel unjust action. While issues brought up in goals, such as building peace and gender equality, are issues worthy of concern, they do not necessarily and actually identify causes of the problem (Smith and Gladstein 2018). It is difficult to create specific policy and measurable assessment tools without thoroughly defining the problem. Even in cases where the problem is clearly outlined, the issue can be avoided because it entails calling out particular actors (Smith and Gladstein 2018). For example, in 2015, the United Nations released the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to address endemic poverty, the proliferation of HIV/AIDS, lack of clean drinking water, adequate healthcare and other basic services in the developing world (Smith and Gladstein 2018). However, the SDGs are pushing an agenda carefully calibrated to avoid upsetting the world’s dictators, kleptocrats, and this century’s worst human rights offenders (Smith and Gladstein 2018).
The situation reveals, even though billions of dollars have been devoted to the causes, the goals do not shape sufficient policy (Smith and Gladstein 2018). For example, despite perceived success of the SDGs, there has been twelve consecutive years of decline in global freedom, according to a report by Freedom House (Smith and Gladstein 2018). The goal-centered approach allows dictators to are able to disguise and repress the fact they are still not holding free and fair elections even though it appears the sustainable goals are being met on paper (Smith and Gladstein 2018). I was surprised to read that this reality still persists even in the instances the goals are quantified and measured as satisfied. A major shortfall of sustainable development goals is they do not require political reform of corrupt systems (Smith and Gladstein 2018). It allows leaders such as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, debatebly the 21st century’s most brutal human rights offender, to continue unjust operations under the radar (Smith and Gladstein 2018).
Unfortunately, Western PR and lobby firms, enable the reality to persist and key impact investors, including but not limited to corporations, are funding them (Smith and Gladstein 2018). Clearly, the misleading UN Sustainability Goals are propelled by an expansive group of powerful individuals. Until the dictators are removed from the equation, the amazing strides in funding are only going to be exacerbating the problem. All of the money could have been allocated to efforts that actually align with the values outlined in the SDGs if counterparts acknowledged the actions of corrupt leaders in the group. A crucial missing part of SDGs is they do not require a reverence for democracy as the foundation of making ethical gains. The consequence is a major flaw in shaping policy.
Source:
Klettermayer, Matthias. 2017. “The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.” TED. Accessed November 12 2020.
Smith, Jeffrey and Alex Gladstein. 2018. “How the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals undermine democracy.” Quartz Africa. Accessed November 12 2020.
Comment by Ashley Staat:
Mary,
I think you bring up a valid point about democratic governance being an important piece missing in the Sustainable Development Goals. A study completed by Glass and Newig (2019) looked at 41 countries middle to high income countries and their progress towards the SDGs in relation to their governance and found that enhancement of democratic institutions and participation could lead to greater progress to meet SDGs (2019, 11). Scandinavian countries in Northern Europe show the most progress with average SDG achievement. Their theory is that democratic institutions create an environment for accountability and transparency in policy development with stronger political response through public participation. They also note that economic power, or GDP per capita is a larger predictor of SDG success.
I think that it would have been difficult for the UN to get all member states to agree to the SDGs if a specific governance structure was required, since there are so many different political climates and cultural paradigms to navigate. It seems some democratic ideology was incorporated into the SDGs. SDG #16, Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions seems to have democratic themes listed in the targets. Some examples are: Ensure public access to information and protected fundamental freedoms, ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels, and develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels (UN 2020). I think that this goal was an attempt at including democracy in the SDGs without exclusively saying it. But I do agree that without enforceable commitments and lack of democratic governance will slow our progress towards reaching these goals.
Glass, Lisa-Maria and Jens Newig. 2019. “Governance for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: How Important are Participation, Policy Coherence, Reflexivity, Adaptation, and Democratic Institutions.” Earth System Governance, December 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100031Links to an external site..
United Nations. 2020. “Goal 16: Promote Just, Peaceful, and Inclusive Societies.” Accessed November 19, 2020. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/peace-justice/
My Comment:
Hi Ashley,
Thanks for bringing the study completed by Glass and Newig (2019) into the discussion. Clearly, democracy brings success in terms of achieving these goals. Maybe countries, such as the Scandinavian ones in Northern Europe, are part of the group as a tool for creating self-accountability and are relatively indifferent to whether other countries decide to actually abide to the values SDGs hold. Similar to the Paris Accord in terms of voluntary agreement to targets, SDGs may provide PR for some countries and genuine aims for other nations who are actually working towards making a change.
Also, I agree it would have been difficult for the UN to get all member states to agree to the SDGs if a specific governance structure is explicitly required. According to the article, theoretically, the SDGs are special because there is a broad participation in them amongst the international community (Glass and Newig 2019). So, I imagine the members of the UN Sustainability Goals are valuing the widespread unification amongst leaders the group provides. Somehow, the different nations with all their varying approaches to governance were able to find some sort of common ground to create the group. However, what is their common ground? Their common ground is not a genuine appreciation of the visions embedded in these goals if rules such as SDG #16 are not being taken seriously within countries ruled by dictatorships. Does their common ground simply entail a collective desire to appear to citizens that progress is being pursued?
I also wonder whether the fact there are 169 interferes with their successful implementation. Perhaps, if there were some that were prioritized and consequentially less to focus on, it would make it easier for governments to be held accountable.
Sources:
Glass, Lisa-Maria and Jens Newig. 2019. “Governance for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: How Important are Participation, Policy Coherence, Reflexivity, Adaptation, and Democratic Institutions.” Earth System Governance, December 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100031 (Links to an external site.).
United Nations. 2020. “Goal 16: Promote Just, Peaceful, and Inclusive Societies.” Accessed November 19, 2020. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/peace-justice/
Comment #2:
Original Post by Jenny Murphy:
Policy is, by definition, establishing deliberate actions to obtain a specific goal (The Innovation Policy Platform n.d.). Goal setting is an essential part of creating policy. Visionary goals which are lofty objectives that usually take long periods of time to achieve, are great for continuous improvement and long term achievement, however, I do not believe they should be the main focus of creating a policy. Achievable goals and policy should be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time bound (SMART)(Mind Tools n.d.). Without setting SMART goals, they will lack focus and direction. Policy goals that are too big, and too ambitious may never be attainable and can get lost in the process. I also believe that policy should be reviewed at least every ten years to determine what is working, and what may need improvement. Changes in science and technology may help shape more effective policy.
References:
Mind Tools. n.d. “Golden Rules of Goal Setting: Five Rules to Set Yourself Up For Success”. Accessed November 14, 2020. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newHTE_90.htmLinks to an external site.
The Innovation Policy. n.d. “Policy Goals and Means”. Accessed November 14, 2020. http://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/policy-goals-and-means/
My Comment:
Hi Jenny,
Stellar point in saying policy can not be set without goals. A policy without objectives is disorganized and is problematic in terms of its lacking ability to measure degree of success. I would say goal setting is crucial to policymaking. However, policymaking is not crucial to goal setting. Goals can be set with no successful policy as a result. Evidently seen in the face of UN’s Sustainability Goals, even if objectives are established, they are not necessarily close to being achieved due to, perhaps, a foundational problem such as corrupt dictatorship leaders (Smith and Gladstein 2018).
Visionary goals are definitely useful in terms of a government declaring its platform or creating potential for long-term success. However, I agree they should not be the main focus of creating policy because then there is no guarantee selected policy prescriptions will be implemented efficiently. I found a journal article talking about the factors affecting implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005 (Natesan and Marathe 2017). It was particularly interesting to see the survey responses of mid-level implementers in the south Indian state of TamilNadu (Natesan and Marathe 2017). The results pointed to accountability, process clarity, resources, and power devolution to the implementer, as important to implementation (Natesan and Marathe 2017). The process of power devolution to the implementer is particularly interesting as I imagine a transferring of power to be complex.
Source:
Natesan, Sarabjeet Dhody and Rahul R. Marathe. 2017. “The Importance of Being a Policy Implementer”. Public Administration Quarterly. 41 (4): 612-642.
Smith, Jeffrey and Alex Gladstein. 2018. “How the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals undermine democracy.” Quartz Africa. Accessed November 12 2020.