The Inadequacies of the SDGs and the Preceding MDGs in Addressing Global Poverty.
 

The Sustainable Development Goals and the preceding Millennium Development Goals are inadequate in addressing global poverty for they disregard disparities between states (Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2014); especially the political and economic instabilities in developing, war-torn countries, which in turn hinders their chances of achieving these goals. The achievement of certain targets are necessary to achieve certain goals, whilst achieving some goals may jeopardise the success of others, forcing states to make trade-offs and thus forming the question of accountability. The MDGS and SDGS seem ideal in theory, however, the execution of them is very ambitious and unlikely when taking into account the overall costs and need for clearer direction (Tillemann, 2017) on how to implement such tasks in a way that is more efficient, specific and realistic. The ongoing reliance on production and consumerism (Hickel, 2015), which ultimately contributes to global poverty, needs to be addressed before moving forward. Addressing the cause of the problem is key to mending it; which is an approach that should not only be directed at large agencies but the everyday actor (Broome, 2014) as well.
 

The MDGs, according to Andre Broom, set multiple global targets for development and a reduction in poverty. Including an evaluation of progress and an urge for “increasing aid flows from the donor community (Broome, 2014).” In addressing the inadequacies of these goals, we must first look at bodies who deem them as successful; the United Nations being one, summarizing that:

 

The MDGs are the most successful global anti-poverty push in history. Governments, international organizations, and civil society groups around the world have helped to cut in half the world’s extreme poverty rate. More girls are in school. Fewer children are dying. The world continues to fight killer diseases, such as malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS (Un.org, 2018).

 

However, this does not take into account, as Broome outlines, the uneven progress, unrealistic level of ambition, unfair starting points and the underlying motivations that pushed countries/organisations to join, such as “wanting to appear to be doing good (Broome, 2014).” 191 states and around 30 IOs agreed to the MDGs, and later, (over 193 states), to the 17 SDGs which, confidently predicted by the UN, will push countries to:

 

…mobilize efforts to end all forms of poverty, fight inequalities and tackle climate change, while ensuring that no one is left behind (Academic Impact, 2018).

 

For the following reasons we will discover if and why the MDGs and SDGs have been inadequate and why they will continue to be so.

 

In addressing both the MDGs and the later expanded SDGs, the goals outlined are not only extremely broad, but also lack clear instruction, especially when taking into account the disparities between wealthier states and developing countries, who require resources, growth rates, and human development that is currently severely lacking (Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2014). The UN outlined that action by all countries, whether rich or poor are expected to “take ownership and establish a national framework (United Nations Sustainable Development, 2018)” in order to achieve the goals set forth. However, implementing such actions in a politically and economically unstable country is not as easy as the UN and other international bodies made them out to be when creating the goals; and this is evident when tracking the progress, or lack of, in African countries in particular. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, struggled to attain any of the MDGs due to their ongoing economic, humanitarian and environmental issues (Easterly, 2007). Lack of funding, inequality of income, lack of attention to food and nutrition (Battersby, 2017), corruption and minimal transparency (heavily acknowledged in Tanzania) (Mashindano and Baregu, 2016), high rates of MMR and viruses needing careful consideration and cooperation, (as seen in Sierra Leone) (Figueroa et al., 2017), are all barriers getting in the way of improvement. The World Bank and IMF acknowledged that Africa fell behind quite significantly when measured against others in implementing the 8 MDGs (Easterly, 2007), and later when adopting the SDGs, many of the problems remained. This is mainly due to how demanding these goals were, including a call for universal access to healthcare, education, safe water and sanitation, modern energy services, and decent work (Willige, 2017), to name a few; which are all difficult processes to implement by countries who wouldn’t have the correct materials or support to even try, and who require further assistance and investment (Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2014).
 

The success of certain targets is crucial in achieving certain goals, and should have more weight and focus placed upon them, rather than simply being treated as one stepping stone among many. This can be illustrated when addressing Target 5.3 within the SDGs, which outlines the aim to end child marriage. Eight of the seventeen goals cannot be met unless this one target is first achieved (Girls Not Brides, 2017). The SDGs may, therefore, seem to not understand the importance of interaction between targets and goals, and how reliance on one another can either build up, or tear down this attempt to a better world. At the same time, achieving some goals may jeopardize the success of others which forces states to make trade-offs and thus forms the question of accountability. The U.S., for example, may appear to be ranking well, in regards to life-expectancy and such, however, their impacts on other countries and the environment, especially through weapon production and sales, would suggest otherwise (Schiller, 2017). The U.S. spends a large portion of their GDP on the industrial military complex, rather than universal health care, claiming it’s by means of accomplishing peace and justice, (Goal 16). Trump boasted about Saudi Arabia being a large buyer of American arms, and further justified this by stating that it is creating jobs for people (Wilts, 2018). However, this trade-off for creating jobs is fueling the war in Yemen (Wilts, 2018); creating an unstable environment, keeping people in poverty and forcing people to seek refuge elsewhere. There are various other trade-offs made, for example, in expanding agricultural production for food security, biodiversity could be threatened. In achieving energy security through switching food crops to biofuel production, food security could be at risk. Creating hydroelectric power for energy security and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could threaten water security (Willige, 2017). These trade-offs question the accountability of stakeholders and their need for “winning” in short term, rather than looking at the long-term effects (Willige, 2017). 
 

The ongoing reliance on production and consumerism (Hickel, 2015) is a major barrier getting in the way of reaching a more sustainable environment; in turn reducing global poverty. Goal 7 (MDG) and Goal 12 (SDG) put forth the desires to promote energy efficiency, sustainable infrastructure, the reduction of future costs (social, economic, environmental) (United Nations Sustainable Development, 2018), and reversing the loss of environmental resources (Un.org, 2018). In order to attain these, the UN suggested the involvement of various stakeholders, from businesses and consumers, to policy makers, scientists, the media, and several other agencies (Un.org, 2018). However, a major point that the UN sidestepped is the fact that capitalism relies on the always-growing production and consumption (Hickel, 2015). Therefore, it is unlikely that major companies will want to reduce their reckless markings on the environment. Which in turn produces an extremely unachievable goal, if stakeholders aren’t held responsible and transparent. A UN report estimated that $2.2tn of environmental damage is caused by the world’s top firms (Jowit, 2010), however, the willingness of firms to mend these issues and pay the costs of their actions is unlikely; especially taking into account, according to another UN report, that companies would lose one-third of their profits if they were pushed to pay for the environmental losses and damages they contributed to (Jowit, 2010). Some of the highest ranking polluters would include power companies, high-energy and water users, and clothing companies (Jowit, 2010). In a world of capitalism the MDGs and SDGs failed to understand the unwillingness of sectors to risk losing multitudes in order to protect the environment. Regardless of if they agreed to the goals or not, the transparency and actions put towards a better future are still severely lacking.
 

Although there is a large focus on what states, NGOs, IOs, private sectors, local companies and so on, can do to reduce global poverty, it is important to also reconsider the responsibility of everyday actors (Broome, 2014) and what they, individually and collectively, can do. Iris Young brings light to this quandary, defining it as ‘structural social injustice’ (Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2014):

 

Structural injustice occurs as a consequence of many individuals and institutions acting in pursuit of their particular goals and interests, within given institutional rules and accepted norms. All the persons who participate by their actions in the ongoing schemes of cooperation that constitute these structures are responsible for them, in the sense that they are part of the process that causes them (Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2014).
 

Following on from this theory, she suggests a ‘social connection model’ (Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2014) where those who contribute to processes that produce injustice should therefore, be responsible and accountable for such. This model is logical and adds weight to the reality of how collectively, we all directly or indirectly support injustice, and should therefore, do what we can to remove that contribution. The Foundation Footprint summarized basic ways in which individuals can do so. Whether that be saving on electricity, recycling or taking shorter showers (Lindley, 2017). Or in addressing goals more specifically, not drinking and driving, driving considerately, and being certain not to check social media whilst on the road, (in response to target 3.5), not overbuying, freezing food you don’t eat (target 12.3), embracing and accepting people’s social, cultural, sexual and religious differences (target 10.2), donating clothes and other items you don’t use, using reusable bottles and bags (target 12.5), as well as several other small actions that can create a large difference to the future and to the reduction of injustice and poverty (Lindley, 2017).
 

For the SDGs to succeed, stakeholders must be aware of the overall costs and how best to go about their spending/investments in order to succeed in reducing global poverty. The lack of revised, clear direction will lead to inefficient spending and loss by those providing international aid, international development, impact investing and philanthropy (Tillemann, 2017). In order to mend this issue, New America and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development pushed for a list of targets ranking from highest to lowest in priority. However, the issue of finance still remained, with the targets requiring most funding appearing quite low on the list (Tillemann, 2017). Prioritizing target importance per country will increase the chances of success, for obviously each country will have varied precedencies and needs (Tillemann, 2017). However, in doing so governments must then utilize their assets and opportunities for funding, for governments alone do not have enough (Tillemann, 2017). The estimated cost for achieving the SDGs, to further illustrate the need for funding and investments, is around $45 trillion (Tillemann, 2017). However, it is not only an issue of the monetary means, but also government’s desire to quickly cross an SDG off the list by the deadline, rather than looking realistically at the needs of a person and achieving an eradication of poverty that will last longer. For example, the estimated figure of $1.25/day, in order for individuals to meet their basic needs and rights, in regards to health and otherwise, is largely underestimated and not adequate (Hickel, 2015). This figure must be raised, even if it means that governments will not reach the deadline on time.
 

Although the MDGs and the SDGs succeeded in some areas, overall they are inadequate in addressing the issue of global poverty and ultimately eradicating it. This is mainly due to the disregard of political and economic instabilities in developing countries and the further investment and support they require, the trade-offs made in order to achieve some goals, regardless of jeopardising the success of others, as well as the overall costs required and the need to utilise funds and investments wisely. Clearer, realistic, and more efficient direction and instruction is needed in order for lower-ranking countries to heighten their chances of reduction in poverty. Recognition of how production and consumption directly fuels poverty, and how individual, everyday actors, as well as elite actors, contribute to these processes, is a major problem that needs to be addressed before the world can move in a more sustainable direction. In order to address global poverty in a framework such as the SDGs, all of these inadequacies and gaps in the system must be rectified first.