Group Paper VI - Global Governance of Development - v2.0

G l o b a l D e v e l o p m e n t | 1
International Organizations – Final Group Paper
Edoardo Costa, Syed Omer Husain, Goedele Louwagie
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Global Governance of Development
HISTORY, ACTORS, CURRENT DEBATES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

Table of Contents
Global Governance of Development ..............................................................................................................1
List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................3
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................4
Theoretical Tools to Comprehend the Concept of Development .......................................................5
Historical Overview of the Concept of Development..............................................................................8
The Concept of Development at Global Institutional Level............................................................... 11
Debates and Critiques Surrounding Contemporary Development Practices............................. 14
Development in the 21st Century – from MDGs to SDGs ..................................................................... 19
MDGs - What are they?........................................................................................................................... 19
MDGs - Intrinsic flaws............................................................................................................................. 21
Addressing extrinsic impediments.................................................................................................... 23
Towards different governance and more ambitious goals ...................................................... 25
SDGs - What will they be?...................................................................................................................... 27
Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................. 30
Annex 1 : MDGs .............................................................................................................................................. 32
Annex 2: SDGs................................................................................................................................................. 33
Annex 3 : SDGs – WB twin goals, UN six key elements................................................................... 34
Annex 4. MDG progress............................................................................................................................... 35
References ............................................................................................................................................................ 36

List of abbreviations
CDF Comprehensive Development Framework
DAC Development Assistance Committee (of the OECD)
UN DESA UN Department of Economical and Social Affairs
DG Development Goal
FFD3 Third (Conference on) Finance for Development
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IMF International Monetary Fund
MDG Millennium Development Goals
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SAP Structural Adjustment Program
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNDP United Nations Development Program
WB World Bank

Introduction
Defining the meaning of development is a hard mission. It is a complicated and
multidimensional concept that identifies generically all political, social, economic and
cultural factors that contribute to changes in society. Many actors are involved in practicing
development, from private local actors to international and semi-governmental
organizations. Similarly, there are many acts and practices of development, for instance
formal development policies that are created and implemented by institutions such as the
UN and World Bank. Aid is another form of development practices given by these agencies
or private actors such as NGOs, and has a profound effect on the local situation. There are
also symbolic acts of developments like the drafting of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In this paper, we aim to expose the
various actors that occupy the development scene and tease out the ideas inherent in their
development practices.
In the academic domain, the best method of development – whether it be local,
regional or global – has also been highly debated. Some scholars explain how aid has been
detrimental rather than beneficial, others how economic growth and progress is at the
heart of development. It is important to unravel the different strands of thought that
dominate the academic and theoretical core of development studies. It is equally crucial to
note how these concepts have been operationalized in real-world development practices.
Hence, in this paper, we begin with building theoretical tools to analyze the history
of the concept of development. Furthermore, we assess how the ongoing processes of
globalization have altered the nature, site and scope of development practices in a
profound way. In the next section, we present a historical outline of the concept of
development both from an institutional and general perspective keeping the tools in mind.
Following this, we summarily present some of the major debates surrounding development
theory and practices today –on ‘development as freedom’ and on how international aid is
harming Africa. Lastly, we empirically and critically analyze the agenda and efforts that
different development agencies have made through mechanisms such as the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Do certain ideas

and concepts dominate development practices, policies and theory? How did these ideas
historically emerge? How are these ideas realized – in theoretical literature, development
practices such as aid-giving, and symbolic acts such as the MDGs and SDGs?
Theoretical Tools to Comprehend the Concept of Development
In this section, we will explain how globalizing socio-cultural, economic, and
political landscape can be comprehended and what effects it has on the way development is
carried out. More specifically, we will highlight the changing nature of governance, the
most powerful ideas of ‘progress’ today, and how they are globalized into development
rhetoric. These ideas will serve as tools to analyze the global governance of development.
They will be operationalized when we analyze the history of the concept of development,
and furthermore, will lay the groundwork for comprehending the contemporary debates
and critiques which surround the conceptualization and practice of development today.
David Held is one of the most prominent scholars of modern political theory. He
believes that the undergoing processes of globalization and regionalization are creating
overlapping and interlocking networks of “power and interaction…they cut across
territorial boundaries, outing pressure on, and straining, a world order” based on the
notion of sovereignty over a delimited territory.1 A product of this shift is the emergence of
‘global politics,’ – developments of the local level, whether they be economic, social or
environmental (e.g. political actions, cultural practices etc.) have instantaneous global
consequences, and vice versa. This is the first challenge to the global governance of
development. This shift challenges the traditional binaries like the domestic and the
foreign, and territorial and non-territorial that we tenaciously cling on to. Today, power is
determined, or at least influenced by global interaction, or as Kant more aptly put it, we are
‘unavoidably side by side.’
Second, Held claims that governance faces a challenge that ‘concerns the
development of three regulatory and political gaps which weaken political institutions –
national and international’; these are the (i) jurisdictional gap (the discrepancy between
1
David Held, Democracy and the Global Order. From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Cambridge, Polity,
1995), Book, p 269.

who – for instance, the national government or the UN – has policy-making power and is
held responsible, (ii) An incentive gap (without any supranational regulation agency, who
is there to address?) And lastly, (iii) A participation gap (Do both state and non-state actors
adequately take part in the process?)
The third problem that challenges governance is what Held calls a ‘moral gap’ – the
imbalance in global rule making and enforcement. Held writes “as John Ruggie put it; 'those
rules that favor global market expansion have become more robust and enforceable in the
last decade or two - intellectual property rights, for example, or trade dispute resolution
through the World Trade Organization. But rules intended to promote equally valid social
objectives, be they labor standards, human rights, environmental quality or poverty
reduction, lag behind and in some instances actually have become weaker”.2 Hence, we can
see that the way development policies are constructed and enforced derive shades from
these ideals of the institutions.
The way people carry out their lives at the other end of the globe is easily and
instantaneously known to us, and hence, we want ‘progress’ for them. But, is there a
particular blend of progress and ‘development’ that is propounded with the most power?
The fourth problem Held points out is there has been a shift from relatively distinct
national communication and economic systems to their more complex and diverse
enmeshments at regional and global levels, and form government to multilevel governance.
The point of these paradigmatic shifts in governance highlights the changing nature of
“development”. There is shift from nationally determined development policies to globally
determined ones i.e. governments have to adapt the changing global environment for any
sort of progress to be achieved. As we will see, these ideas construe the policies of
development globally, and this is quite problematic.
There are numerous ways academics have interpreted the contemporary state of
the world. Zygmunt Bauman believes ‘liquid’ or ‘fluid’ are apt metaphors to ascribe the
epoch because of the unstoppable flow of “modernization” today.3 He says it is interesting
2
Ibid.
3
It is important to point out that Bauman is not talking about the epoch of modernity in itself, but rather the idea of
constantly modernizing that has emerged from it.

how the narrative of modernity, or the idea of modern progress or development is always
espoused with phrases like “rising comfort, increased production, more convenience,
growing efficiency, growing liberty, better technology and such nice things”.4 The ‘waste’ is
not part of our history. He claims that if we expand our historical narrative to incorporate
the ‘waste’ carriers – not just material waste, but wasted lives, wasted human beings, those
redundant, or dysfunctional-ized by society – our idea of progress will drastically reorient
itself. “Modernization is a wind that stopped blowing … [Today,] to be modern means to
compulsively modernize, an addictive reinventing of the world of the fashion of its human
habituation”. Two supremely modern activities that produce such waste are “order
building and economic progress” according to Bauman, and they have together opened up a
third orifice of waste – that of globalization.5 Order building and economic progress define
the very notions of progress, and globalization enables these ideas to proliferate the world.
It becomes necessary for local governments to adapt to these reoriented natures of
governmental and economic structures for them to benefit from global policies of
development. Furthermore, globalization thrusts local attempts of development into the
global sphere – thereby completely reformulating the idea of progress. Development
policies and efforts that come global institutions or transnational actors – May they be
private or public – operationalizes these ideas of order building and economic progress. In
Bauman’s thesis, this is a neoliberal approach to development.
Similarly, David Harvey built on the idea of ‘time-space compression’ which explains
how these ideas progress and order building have proliferated the global fabric. The
rapidly changing objective qualities of social space and time are “both confusing and
disturbing, precisely because their revolutionary implications for the social order are so
hard to anticipate”.6 This revolution in everyday life has been brought about by the spatial
forces of globalization (such as travel, the flexible accumulation of capital, and the
internet), claims Harvey, in that, there is a “new experience of space and time” in
postmodernity. He furthers that “much of the advanced capitalist world was at that time
forced into a major revolution in production techniques, consumption habits and political-
4
Zygmunt Bauman, Wasted Lives. Modernity and Its Outcasts (Polity Press, 2003), Book, p 1,15.
5
Ibid., p. 17
6
David Harvey, "Between Space and Time: Reflections on the Geographical Imagination," Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 80, no. 3 (1990): p 426.

economic practices. Strong currents of innovation have focused on speed-up and
acceleration of turnover times. Time-horizons for decision making (now a matter of
minutes in international financial markets) have shortened and lifestyle fashions have
changed rapidly. And all of this has been coupled with a radical reorganization of space
relations, the further reduction of spatial barriers, and the emergence of a new geography
of capitalist development… the elimination of spatial barriers…[has led to the annihilation
of] space by time” and frames the very notion of progress.7
Because of time-space compression, and the liquidity of modernity today, we know
that “developments of the local level, whether they be economic, social or environmental
(e.g. political actions, cultural practices etc.) have instantaneous global consequences, and
vice versa”. Does the practice of development take as its point of reference the habitus, the
regional, the national, or the world? What do the above theses on globalization imply to the
development agenda of developing societies? Is there some sort of a unity in the global flow
of ideas, or only fragmentation? Which global movements hold the reigns of the world
today? How do global development practices flow in to the national-local sphere?
Moreover, what impact do these policies have? What is the real-world experience of
neoliberal policies?
Historical Overview of the Concept of Development
When we look briefly at the common definitions of development it is defined as “the
systematic use of scientific and technical knowledge to meet specific objectives or
requirements”8 or for example as “the process of economic and social transformation that
is based on complex cultural and environmental factors and their interactions”9. Certainly,
it is a process that can be influenced and stimulated applying certain knowledge and that
involves several aspects such as economy, culture and environment. At international level
development represents a tool by which it is possible to close the gap of social and
7
Ibid.
8Business Dictionary, "Development Definition," (2015),
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/development.html.
9 Ibid.

economic welfare between industrialized and developing countries10. After the Second
World War the major powers agreed on the fact that most developing countries would, in a
more or less long time frame, need to catch up to the level of economic development and
social welfare achieved by industrialized countries11. However in a context of cold war, the
major powers had different views about how to achieve this. Very quickly it became clear
that cooperation in such a controversial topic was very difficult. However the
interpretation of this concept over the past decades in the most important International
Organizations will be analyzed in the next section.
As for the evolution of the concept of development, it is important to stress that
there is no universal or unanimously agreed on conception, but rather different theories,
and that there are no objective parameters that allow to measure it and define it perfectly.
However, there are several indicators that are generally recognized as indicative and
general evaluation criteria. The debate on the conceptualization of development is most of
all focused on which of these criteria are more or less appropriate. When we say that a
country is developed, we make a choice between different variables that confirm and
support our statement and through them we define it with a clear conceptualization of
development12. In order to analyze the evolution of this concept it is useful to look at three
different interpretations of development: development as economic growth, social
development and human development. These interpretations have penetrated the global
sphere of ideas due to the changing nature of governance, the interconnected socio-
cultural, economic and political landscape, and influence the way development is
implemented. We will see how some ideas of progress and development have been more
influential than others.
One of the first interpretations saw development as a direct consequence of
economic growth. It dates back to the fifties when President Harry S. Truman, in his
inaugural address on 20 January 1949, for the first time distinguished between developed
and underdeveloped countries by looking at their patterns of economic growth. With this
10 Roberto Gritti, "L'evoluzione Del Concetto Di Sviluppo," Nuova Umanità (rivista trimestrale di cultura) 7(1980): p 82.
11 Mariarosaria Iorio, "Global Governance, International Development Discourses and National Policy-Making: Highlights
of Critical Issues ." (Rio de Janeiro: International Gender and Trade Network (IGTN), 2007), p 4.
12 Gritti, "L'evoluzione Del Concetto Di Sviluppo," p 83.

speech he meant that the former one is to help the latter one in order to improve their
industrial and technological development. Talking to the nation he said: “we must embark
on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial
progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas”13. This
interpretation, that is still well-liked by some current scholars, emphasizes the role of
economic growth in the development process. One is even inclined to equalize the two
concepts. This notion of development is congruent with Bauman’s idea of ‘progress’ as
“compulsively modernizing” and it is being framed in terms of order building and economic
progress. Furthermore, due to the new forms of global governance, and time-space
compression, these ideas have been central in development practices and policies.
In this perception development means the capabilities of a national economy to
sustain an annual growth rate of its Gross National Product (GNP) at a specified rate,
varying between 3% and 7%, as well as to alter the structure of its product and job creation
in favor of the industrial and the services sector, at the expense of the agricultural one14.
Therefore, the first goal that a country has to achieve is the economic growth through
industrialization, inasmuch it will automatically produce improvements on the life quality
thanks to the increased amount of goods produced and available. The most popular
critiques on this theory regard the fact that development is measured looking only at the
growth rates while other indicators that concern the social, political, cultural and ecological
situation are less important. As Enrich Fromm wrote, this process of development was not
influenced by the question “What is good for people?” but by the question “What is good for
the development of the system?”15
At the beginning of the sixties, after the discussion about the distribution of
development’s benefit, the theory of economic and social development was developed. This
theory is not an alternative to the previous one but it tries to improve and complete it by
trying to reduce the distortions made by the exclusive interest for the economic dimension.
It can be summarized in the words of the ex-secretary general U Thant who stated that
13 Harry S. Truman XXXIII President of the United States: 1945-1953, "19th Inaugural Address. January 20, 1949," The
American Presidency Project(2015-05-02), http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13282.
14Gritti, "L'evoluzione Del Concetto Di Sviluppo," p 87.
15 Ibid., p 89.

development is “economic growth and social development”. According to this theory more
industrialization is still necessary but it should be associated with an effort to improve the
life quality of the population. The development is not valued anymore by solely looking at
the growth rates but several non-economic indicators are added that state the reality of the
social changes. Therefore parameters as education, health and demographic trends for
example, become crucial in order to evaluate the development process16.
Despite that, even recently, some scholars have criticized the western point of view
about development because of its excessive focus on the economic factors, its insufficient
attention to the environment implications, and its elitism. For all these reasons, the human
development and the "capabilities approach" associated with Amartya Sen, Mahbub Ul-
Haq, and Martha Nussbaum was developed as an alternative to the previous ones. We will
deal with contemporary theorists in a later section. For now, it is important to comprehend
where the concept of ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ emerged from and how it is was already
embedded in the language of economic growth and order building. The latter concept of
order building ascribes to the institutional idea of development which we will discuss now.
The main idea of these theories is that every society must pursue its own way of
development according to the needs of its population and its culture. Its focus is much
broader than a narrow focus on economic growth, as it includes human rights, gender
equality, equity, and democratic principles17. Thus, the concept of human development
promotes a pluralism of processes and priorities that differ depending on the different
situations and contexts. Although this theoretical plurality is definitely a step in the right
direction, operationalizing this pluralism into development practices has been a highly
controversial topic.
The Concept of Development at Global Institutional Level
The common goal of the global governance system is to improve the living standards
worldwide and to promote development. Up till now, we have discussed how the concept
16 Ibid., p 90.
17 Devin Joshi and Roni Kay O'Dell, "Global Governance and Development Ideology: The United Nations and the World
Bank on the Left-Right Spectrum," Global Governance 19, no. 2 (2013): p 254.

of development has emerged within the academic and theoretical world. It is equally
important to note how at the international level every actor gives its interpretation and
thus divergences persisted regarding the development objectives and the way to achieve
them.18 The practice of these transnational institutions also gave development a particular
meaning. We will try to grasp which ideas dominate the institutional conceptualization of
development in this section using the tools we built in the first section.
In regards to the development approach at international institutional level, when we
look at the United Nation (UN), we see that its ideology has experienced several
transformations over the years and that these transformations follow the academic debate.
However, when we look at the evolution during the last six decades we can distinguish two
blocks of ideology about development. If the UN with its specialized agencies has focused
more on political and social policy issues from a more left political perspective, the second
block, formed by the three sisters, the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) has focused more on macro-economic and
trade principles from a more right political perspective19.
The involvement of the UN in the first decade after its foundation was most of all in
the form of technical assistance and support for public administration through the
Extended Program of Technical Assistance (EPTA) and through the creation of the Special
UN Fund for Economic Development (SUNFED). In 1965 EPTA and SUNFED were turned
into a lead agency on development, the United Nation Development Program (UNDP), an
international network that provides expert advice, training, and grant support to
developing countries. The UN support was most of all economic and its primary goals of
development were focused on industrialization, commodity exports and stabilization
strategies20. We can see the echoes of Bauman’s idea that ‘progress’ or ‘development’ in
itself is seen in terms of economic growth and building an order that supports such growth.
Furthermore, in these years, when many developing countries were called upon to re-
discuss their role in international trade, the first United Nations Conference on Trade and
18Iorio, "Global Governance, International Development Discourses and National Policy-Making: Highlights of Critical
Issues ." p 4.
19 Joshi and O'Dell, "Global Governance and Development Ideology: The United Nations and the World Bank on the Left-
Right Spectrum," p 251.
20 Ibid., p 253-54.

Development (UNCTAD) was held in Geneva, in 1964. 21 In order to voice their concerns in
the North-South dialogue and negotiations the developing countries simultaneously
established the Group of 77 (Today, the G77 has 131 members.). Thanks to their common
effort in 1974 these countries obtained the UN declaration on the New International
Economic Order (NIEO), which included a call for the radical redistribution of resources
from the North to the South.22
After this comforting shift in favor of developing countries, during the eighties due
to the pressure of the conservatives’ campaigns led by Ronald Regan (US president) and
Margaret Thatcher (G.B. president) the UN, as well as the World Bank, was noted for taking
a turn toward neoliberalism policies. During these years official development policies were
based on structural adjustment programs that sought to remove blocks to economic
growth in the developing countries. The entire idea of ‘progress’ and ‘development’ was in
effect neoliberalized. The results of these strategies were very controversial and sometimes
they even resulted in ‘creative destruction’ as Harvey coins it. We will analyze the
neoliberalization of development practices and policies in the next section. For now, it is
important to consider how it changes the history of development within global institutions.
The UN view, influenced by the new human development theories, turned quickly to
focus on social issues and to give primary importance to human rights and poverty
reduction. Eventually, in the nineties with the UNDP’s adoption of the human development
approach the UN distanced itself from the WB’s neo-liberal approach supporting
governance policies oriented to promote greater freedom, poverty reduction, more citizen
participation and sustainable development 23 . As a result these objectives were
implemented through the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable
Development Goal that we will explain deeper in the last section of the paper.
The major difficulty for the UN is its declaratory diplomacy inasmuch its
enforcement bodies are weak and have no compelling power on its members. On the other
21 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, "A Brief History of Unctad "
http://unctad.org/en/Pages/About%20UNCTAD/A-Brief-History-of-UNCTAD.aspx.
22 Andrew Heywood, Global Politics 2011, 2014 ed. (Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), p 385.
Right Spectrum," p 254.

hand the WB and the IMF are lenders and their bargaining power with countries that
demand a loan is much stronger. These structural differences result in a weaker impact of
the UN policies. The clearest example is the conditionality of the loans provided by the two
Bretton Woods institution in their Structural Adjustment Programs (SPAs)24. With this
condition they request to the borrowing countries to implement certain policies in order to
obtain more loans. These packages of policies, or better this economic view is well-known
as the “Washington Consensus”. It was so called by John Williamson in the 1989 inasmuch
it was promoted during the eighties by the two institutions (WB and IMF) headquartered in
Washington DC and supported by the US Treasury Department25. The Washington
Consensus policies are usually seen as a shift from a state-led dirigisme to market-oriented
policies. Governments should reform their policies and pursue macroeconomic stability;
they should open their economies to the rest of the world and liberalize domestic product
and factor markets through privatization and deregulation (rise and fall). This approach
faced several critiques most of all from the same developing countries that should have
benefit from it. They argued that the structural adjustment programs (SAPs) have failed in
improving the growth rates, it has increased unemployment and it has contributed to
inflation failing to improve their balance of payments. These critiques and the new
economic theories developed during the last twenty years have increased the debate on its
effectiveness producing an attempt to construct a “post-Washington consensus” that we
will analyze deeper in the next paragraphs. Now that we have developed a historical frame
of development in an institutional and historical sense, we can delve into the dominant
ideas concerning the globalization of development and the associated debates and
controversies.
Debates and Critiques Surrounding Contemporary Development Practices
Now that we have comprehended the globalized state of development policies and
practices, we can assess and understand the dominant arguments concerning development.
24Iorio, "Global Governance, International Development Discourses and National Policy-Making: Highlights of Critical
Issues ." p 11.
Right Spectrum," p 251-52.

First, we will discuss the controversial aspects of neoliberalism that have impinged on
contemporary development policies, practices and strategies from David Harvey’s
perspective. Following this, we will present Amartya Sen’s contributions to the
development debate and Dambisa Moyo’s critique of development-aid given to the African
continent.
In an article titled Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction, David identifies the major
characteristics of neoliberalism that shape meanings of progress in the global sphere. In
general, it is a theory of political and economic practices “proposing that human wellbeing
can best be advanced by the maximization of entrepreneurial freedoms within an
institutional framework characterized by private property rights, individual liberty,
unencumbered markets and free trade”. Furthermore, “the role of the state is to create and
preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices…if markets do not exist
(in areas such as land, water, education, health care, social security, or environmental
pollution) then they must be created, by state action if necessary. But beyond these the
state should not venture.” 26 Development, hence, according to this view means
marketization.
In Harvey’s perspective, this destruction does not only entail institutional structure,
but also “divisions of labor, social relations, welfare provisions, technological mixes, ways
of life and though, reproductive activities, attachments to land and habits of the heart”.
Neoliberalism is an ethos, which emphasizes the relationship to the marketplace, and holds
that the maximizing reach and frequency of market transactions bringing “every human
action into the domain of the market”.27
The problem then arises that the institutions that practice development embraced
primarily these tenets of progress i.e. economic growth by giving them access to the global
economy and building an order that allows for this to take place. “The advocates of the
neoliberal way now occupy positions of considerable influence in education (the
universities and many ‘think tanks’), in the media, in corporate boardrooms and financial
26 David Harvey, "Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
610(2007): p 27.
27 Ibid., p 30.

institutions, in key state institutions (treasury departments, the central banks), and also in
those international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World
Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) that regulate global finance and trade, and
moreover development practices both on an institutional and private level. Neoliberalism
has, in short, become hegemonic as a mode of discourse. It has pervasive effects on ways of
thought to the point where it has become incorporated into the common-sense way many
of us interpret, live in, and understand the world”.28 This has significant impacts on the
development practices and policies of IO’s, private development agencies, and even local
actors who aim to reach the global market. Development, as construed through a neoliberal
lens, is bringing a society into the international market and global economy. For Harvey,
this blend of development policies, practices and strategies actually causes more ‘creative
destruction’ than development.
Much like Harvey, Amartya Sen who authored Development as Freedom, also
criticizes the mainstream neoliberal discourse that construes development as centered on
economic growth. He, instead argues that human development concerns the expansions of
citizen’s “capabilities”.29 More specifically, ‘capabilities’ refer to a citizen’s access and
opportunity in a society. He, much like the scholars above explains that income does
increase freedoms but it is at “best uneven and at worst has detrimental impacts on the
majority of a country’s population, and radical redistributive measures are necessary for
the poor to benefit from growth”.30 Furthermore, Sen argues that poverty, famine, violation
of basic political freedom, unfulfilled basic needs still exist in spite of the “unprecedented
opulence” that exists today.31 He explains that improving the basic situation of human
beings should be the entry point as opposed to neoliberal ideas of economic growth. Reid
Henry explains that according to Sen’s capabilities approach, expanding a citizens’
capabilities is not exclusively made up by what they lack.32
28 Ibid.
29 Peter Evans, "Collective Capabilities, Culture, and Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom," Studies in Comparative
International Development 37, no. 2 (2002).
30 Ben Selwyn, "Liberty Limited? A Sympathetic Re-Engagement with Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom," Economic
& Political Weekly XLVI, no. 37 (2011): p 69.
31 Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999), Book, p ix.
32Simon Reid-Henry, "Amartya Sen: Economist, Philosopher, Human Development Doyen ", The Guardian(2012-11-22),
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/nov/22/amartya-sen-human-development-doyen.

In Sen’s own words, “development consists of the removal of various types of
unfreedoms that leave people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising their
reasoned agency”.33 Furthermore, major issues that curtail freedom are “poverty as well as
tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of
public facilities as well as intolerance or over activity of repressive states” and the removal
of these factors are crucial instrumental freedoms. Political freedoms, economic progress,
social facilities for integration are seminal for the infrastructure of development.34 Sen’s
philosophy of development practices has influenced the ideas and foundations of some
major actors on development scene. As Longworth explains “Sen has focused on the well-
being of those at the bottom of society, not the efficiency of those at the top”.35 More
specifically, the entire construct of development was reconstructed to include human rights
“as constitutive part, all worthwhile processes of social change are simultaneously rights-
based and economically grounded, and should be conceived of in those terms”.36 Sen’s
ideas were realized in many contemporary development practices like the Millennium
development goals and sustainable development which we will discuss in the following
section.
Much like Sen, who critiques the neoliberal approach of economic growth for
development, Dambisa Moyo has made one of the most controversial arguments in her
book Dead Aid propounding that supporting economic growth through global aid has been
terribly detrimental to the African continent. Although the evidence she uses to
substantiate her claims is highly debated, she presents some very powerful arguments
explaining how the aid that has been transferred to the African continent has actually made
the situation worse in the regions. She explains that in the past 50 years more than $1
trillion has been transferred from the developed world to Africa. This assistance, in her
view has not made the continent better off but much worse of in terms poverty levels and
33 Sen, Development as Freedom, p xii.
34 Ibid., p 1.
35 R. C. Longworth, "Amartya Sen. Nobel Prize Winning Economist.," The Chicago Tribune(1999-03-28),
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-03-28/news/9903280117_1_inequality-economy-amartya-sen.
36 Peter Uvin, "From the Right to Development to the Rights-Based Approach: How 'Human Rights' Entered
Development," Development in Practice 17, no. 4/5 (2007): p 602.

growth rates. Using Zambia as an example, she explicates that when aid was peaking (1970
to 1998), poverty in Africa actually rose to a staggering 66% from just 11%.37
As William Easterly writes, Moyo’s arguments has three main parts: “First, it is a
complaint about how the West is patronizing Africans. Second, it documents specific ways
in which aid has harmed Africa. Three, it offers entrepreneurial alternatives for Africa’s
path from now on.”38 The most powerful argument is the first one; that the prevailing
approach to aid-giving has been one of ‘authoritarian paternalism’. She explains that
scarcely does one see Africa’s (elected) officials or … African policymakers… offer an
opinion on what should be done, or what might actually work to save the continent from its
regression. This very important responsibility has, for all intents and purposes, and to the
bewilderment of many an African, been left to musicians who reside outside Africa”.39
Besides this paternalism argument, she draws striking contrast between those
countries in Africa that have rejected aid, and those who have become ‘aid-dependent’ in
her eyes, and have seen the increase in poverty. She exposes how the overreliance on aid
has actually trapped some of these nations in a vicious cycle of aid dependency, followed by
corruption, market distortion, furthering poverty and associated societal ills. This leaves
the need for more aid, and cycle goes on. Moyo gives the example of the mosquito net
maker to elucidate this aid-trap. Summarily, she states that there is a mosquito net maker
who employs a certain number of people to make nets. However, “enter vociferous
Hollywood star” who raises funds to send 100 000 nets to Africa. With the market
inundated with foreign nets, there is no more local industry. But what happens five years
down the line when these nets need repair? She explains how the long term effect of “‘aid
injection’ has been to decimate the local economy and make the local population dependent
on foreign aid from abroad.”40
She powerfully propounds how the development policy that has been implemented
in Africa has been severely misguided and needs to be reconstructed from the very base.
37Moyo Dambisa, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa (New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, 2009), p x.
38William Easterly, "Review of Dambisa Moyo's Book Dead Aid," London Review of Books (2009).
39Dambisa, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, p 27.
40Ibid., p 35.

Moyo’s thesis has been both widely acclaimed and criticized for having weak evidence but
her arguments are powerful and well received. In this section, we have assessed how
neoliberal ideals have swept into development rhetoric and practices, how alternative
notions of development include reducing the ‘unfreedoms’ prevailing in the world, and how
aid-giving could actually be having the reverse effect of what it is meant to.
Development in the 21st Century – from MDGs to SDGs
In the previous sections, we have explored global concepts of development and how
they evolved and were instituted and institutionalized in the course of the 20th century.
The concept of economic growth revived through the neoliberal agenda as of the 1980s and
was implemented in many developing countries in the form of SAPs. Critiques related to
‘unfreedom’ (Sen) and devastating aid (Moyo) were more or less overlooked.
In this section, we are focusing on how the UN tries to format the development
agenda of the 21st Century thru the Development Goals (DGs) and to what respect she is
successful in this. First we give an overview of what the Millennium DGs (MDGs) are. We
continue with a critical assessment of the goals themselves, followed by a discussion of the
extrinsic challenges and what a different global governance could look like, leading to
possibly more ambitious SDGs. We end with applying the critiques to the currently
evolving SDGs. We use mainly primary sources for the overview of MDGs and SDGs, such as
UN websites and documents, and mainly scholarly articles for the critical review.
MDGs - What are they?
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) are the tools by which the international community attempts to steer and co-
ordinate development efforts in the 21st Century. The MDGs run from 2000. The SDGs will
replace the MDGs upon their expiration in December 2015, and will run until 2030. 41
Coming out of two decades of neo-liberalism with its focus on macro-economic
reforms and SAPs -of which many fail-, the World Bank (WB) decides to reorient. The ‘post-
Washington consensus’ gives equal weight to institutional, structural, and social aspects of
41 We have annexed the list of MDGs (Annex 1) and proposed SDGs (Annex 2).

development, and sets key targets for fighting poverty42. At the Millennium Summit of
2000, the UN adopts the UN Millennium Declaration, blueprint for the Millennium Goals.43
Successive bi/tri-annual UN summits set clear targets and indicators, reconfirm
commitment, boost efforts of both states, (international) organizations and donors, and
accelerate in order to reach the promised goals in time. 2005 is a key year, with the G8
Summit in Scotland going for massive debt relief. 44 2013 is the year with the highest
development aid.
For a proper MDG evaluation, we need to offset the program’s efforts against the
ongoing international changes of the past fifteen years. Ghosh45 describes the considerable
global economic changes as “transformative”. They brought the Developing World both
opportunities and challenges.
In the ﬁrst decade of the new millennium, most developing countries saw their
aggregate GDP grow relatively fast. However, by the first half of the second decade
“demand for developing country exports slowed down with negative multiplier effects in
many countries”. Ghosh indicates that the global boom that preceded the Global Crisis of
2008, has resulted in increased inequality, both within and between countries, with a net
transfer of finances from South to North. However, those reaping the benefits of the boom –
financial players in c.q. futures markets in commodities- were not the same as those
bearing the costs of the crisis - small businesses and developing countries needing finances
for production.
Another significant change was the emergence of some developing countries as both
major exporters and importers, and as new sources of foreign capital flows. China’s role in
Africa is an example. However, Ghosh warns, “older power imbalances are shifting to
newer and more complex scenarios”, hence “premature celebration” is dangerous and even
“hubris”.
42 Heywood, Global Politics p 380.
43 Ibid. p382 ; UN, "Background. We Can End Poverty. Millennium Development Goals and Beyond 2015."
44 Heywood, Global Politics p385
45 Jayati Ghosh, "Beyond the Millenium Development Goals: A Southern Perspective on a Global New Deal," Journal of
International Development 27, no. 3 (2015).

She also refers to the speed of the World economy nowadays. “By the time we are
able to identify a clear trend, it may already be over!”46 This is Harvey’s time-space
compression in action, and it imposes a high degree of agility on policy makers.
The MDG nutshell evaluation can be found in the rating of a recent global think-tank
survey: a mere “C+: for global efforts to advance development, reflecting continuing
challenges but also notable achievements“.47 There is a general agreement that the MDGs
have fostered health and well-being in many countries, although the gains are unevenly
spread across regions. In general, sub-Saharan Africa has advanced the least, whilst India
and China have made giant strides. Those countries are expected to reach all of the MDG
targets by the end of 2014. 48 A more extensive progress report is provided in annex 4.
Natural disasters, the financial crisis and violent conflicts are no doubt key causes of slower
progress. The next paragraphs will reveal a more intricate storyline.
MDGs - Intrinsic flaws
Fehling et al.49 conducted a multidisciplinary literature review on the MDGs. They
focused on the intrinsic limitations, and looked at four elements: the MDG development
process, its structure, its content, and its implementation and enforcement. We complete
the comments by the then UNDP head Malloch-Brown so as to complete this health-focused
article.50
The way in which the MDG list was developed, is the most cited concern. Only a few
stakeholders decided the eventual agenda, leaving out ‘hard-fought goals’ agreed upon in
the various 1990s summits. Political agendas of corporations and a few rich states along
with the institutes under their influence, and those of conservative organizations and
states51, took precedence over “the involvement of developing countries and civil society
46 Ibid., p 322.
47 Council of Councils, "Report Card on International Cooperation 2014-2015. Global Think Tank Leaders Grade the
World's Performance and Prospects for 2015" (2015).
48 "Grades on Global Issues. Advancing Development," in 2015 Report Card on International Cooperation (2015).
49 Maya Fehling, Brett D. Nelson, and Sridhar Venkatapuram, "Limitations of the Millennium Development Goals: A
Literature Review," Global Public Health 8(10)(2013).
50 Mark Tran, "Mark Malloch-Brown: Developing the Mdgs Was a Bit Like Nuclear Fusion " The Guardian 2012-11-16.
51 Fehling, Nelson, and Venkatapuram, "Limitations of the Millennium Development Goals: A Literature Review." The
states being: US, Europe and Japan. The institutes being: World Bank, IMF, OECD. The conservative institutes being the
Vatican, conservative Muslim countries, and the Japanese government.

constituencies”. 52 Saith (2007) coins this as ‘neoliberal globalization + MDGs =
development’. Malloch-Brown reflects that the goals were a melding of a human-rights
approach (UNDP), a pro-market strategy (WB), and a target-setting by rich donors (DAC for
the OECD)53. “It was all about outcomes’” (versus how to achieve them) “in a world of
division and confrontation” (over economic and political models on development).
Criticism on the structural imperfections is less congruent54, though most authors
describe the goals as not adapted to national needs and therefore either over- or under
ambitious, with insufficient specification of the accountable parties, and strengthening
vertical interventions.
In regards to the content55, the literature points to lack of focus on inequality both
within and between countries, especially gender inequality though also social exclusion.
Also ecological sustainability, and reproductive health are underexposed. In addition, there
was no place for democratic references, probably even not in a post-2015 agenda according
to Malloch-Brown in this 2012 interview, hence the absence of political/cultural rights. The
partnership is vague on responsibilities for rich countries (goal 8).56
The MDG implementation and enforcement challenges57 relate to lack of reliable
data, e.g. inflated local or difficult to measure data, the usage of averages which masks the
poorest, the lack of data on reproductive health and on ecology. Also, “the arbitrary choice
of a poverty line is criticized”.58 The WB’s influence is said to have determined the main
indicator for poverty: people living under 1$ a day.
Overall, the research provides mixed results, and the authors seem intent on
providing valuable input for the next generation of goals, rather than on presenting
fundamental criticism.
52 Ibid., 1112;17.
53 Tran, "Mark Malloch-Brown: Developing the Mdgs Was a Bit Like Nuclear Fusion ".
54 Fehling, Nelson, and Venkatapuram, "Limitations of the Millennium Development Goals: A Literature Review," 1113;17.
55 Ibid., 1113-15; 17.
56
Tran, "Mark Malloch-Brown: Developing the Mdgs Was a Bit Like Nuclear Fusion ".
57 Fehling, Nelson, and Venkatapuram, "Limitations of the Millennium Development Goals: A Literature Review," 1115-17.
58
Ibid., p 1117.

Addressing extrinsic impediments
Having reviewed the intrinsic MDG flaws, we now focus on the extrinsic factors that
might impede reaching the agreed upon DGs, be they MDGs or SDGs. For this, we turn to an
article by Kumi et al59. The article researches in detail economic growth in relation to
social and environmental development. The research focuses on Latin-America and sub-
Saharan Africa.
Kumi et al. explain and examine how a neoliberal regime may be counterproductive
for sustainable development. They define neoliberalism as ‘an economic and political
ideology that aims to subject social and ecological affairs to capitalist market dynamics’60.
The state is to create the enabling environment for this market. Private property rights,
free markets, trade liberalization, economies of scale, economic efficiency and minimal
state (‘rolling-back’ phenomenon) are all part of this doctrine. Also environmental goods
and ecosystem services are being neoliberalized.
All developing countries seem to be influenced now by neoliberalism, they continue.
System supporters refer to its efficiency, competition and economy-stabilizing effects.
Kumi et al. mount evidence that on the contrary, neoliberalism promotes monopoly rather
than competition, and that it promotes corruption thru absence of regulatory state
mechanisms. They call this “the paradox of the neoliberal economic agenda”61.
There seems to be a positive relationship between economic growth and
environmental quality, the environment Kuznet’s curve (EKZ), although the market
mechanism doesn’t seem to be the only factor at play. However, the gains and costs of
environmental assets such as water, land and forest, are unevenly distributed. The rich take
the gains and leave the poor with the burdens of pollution and soil degradation.
Mechanisms of environmental governance, such as firewood certification (‘green
neoliberalism’) help the ecology but again not the poor62. Also, liberalization and its focus
59 Emmanuel Kumi, Albert Arhin, and Thomas Yeboah, "Can Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals Survive
Neoliberalism? A Critical Examination of the Sustainable Development-Neoliberalism Nexus in Developing Countries,"
Environment, Development & Sustainability 16, no. 3 (2014).
60 Ibid., p 541.
61 Ibid., p 542.
62 Ibid., p 543.

on export leads to cash crop production, timber logging and mineral extraction, all with
detrimental environmental effects. In addition, due to government cuts, there is often
insufficient environmental control63.
Proponents of the market economy argue that, measured by GDP growth per capita,
the percentage of people living in extreme poverty has declined over the last three decades,
and that equality in income distribution has increased. Others conclude the inverse in their
studies, indicating that the system leads to wealth concentration and pushes the poor into
deeper poverty, as they depend on agriculture as a livelihood64. In addition, poor people
are pushed into ‘unsustainable natural resources management practices’.
Global Conferences advise market-based schemes for the environment, such as
payment for ecosystem services (PES) and market-based approaches to conservation
(MBCAs). Though again studies seem to show that wealthier families benefit, ‘while poorer,
less ﬂexible, and less connected households can be left out’65.
Overall, Kumi et al. seem to support Moyo’s view that aid often ends up harming the
very one’s they were intended for. However, they also unravel the mechanism behind, the
neoliberal worldview, which seamlessly leads us to possible solutions and a powerful post-
2015 SDG agenda. It has been shown that the neoliberal approach has had an adverse effect
on both ecological and social development. Recognizing the interplay of economic, social
and environmental goals is paramount though insufficient. Kumi et al. state that “the
economic thinking and paradigm under which the realization of these goals will be
pursued, are as important as the goals themselves”. 66 We need a new approach, they
argue, a shift from pro-growth for poor people to pro-poor growth. A pro-poor growth
leads away from the excessive focus on economic growth and its supposed ‘trickle-down’
effect, and instead places poor people and the environment at the centre of development.
Secondly, we need to address equity seriously, thru “a stronger emphasis on distributive
policies—such as investment in primary education, rural infrastructure, environmental and
forest protection, health and nutrition”. Thirdly, we need to address the complex local and
63 Ibid., p 545-46.
64 Ibid., p 545.
65 Ibid., p 547.
66 Ibid., p 548.

national power dynamics and to give the poor and weak a voice so they can influence
policies. Proper institutions, proper governance and civic structures will be key
ingredients. In this view, people and their needs are the starting point, not the system. This
is what Sen refers to when he talks about developing citizen’s capabilities.
We will examine a different governance approach more profoundly in the next
section.
Towards different governance and more ambitious goals
Ghosh makes pretty much the same assessment as Kumi on the effects on the
neoliberal system. In addition, she ascertains that “much of the discussion [on the SDGs] is
still stuck in the straitjacket of existing structures, institutions and regimes, and therefore,
the vision gets fragmented and remains at a low level of ambition.” Therefore, she pleads
for ‘a global new deal’.67 Developing nations ought to follow progressive politics, away
from the neoliberal doctrine.68 The international society is to provide a supporting context,
which she labels ‘a global social contract’. 69 Without such support, other nations or
supranational structures will prevent or quickly undo a state’s progressive policies. This
shows the multilayer tangling in and the fluidity of today’s globalized world, to which
authors such as Held, Harvey and Bauman refer.
First, Ghosh indicates, the centuries-old development concerns have not evaporated.
They are still agriculture and the issue of land including property distribution, a
development process that brings structural change and economic diversification, and the
citizen rights to economic and social justice. Only, in the light of changed circumstances
over the last decades, the approach needs refinement. One is the loosening of traditional
international inequality forms, although simultaneously new forms arrive. Nevertheless,
such transition might provide negotiation space. Second, many developing countries have a
‘large body of young people’, many well educated, which provides both the advantage of
lower dependency ratios, and the challenge in medium term of impatient job seekers.70
67 Ghosh, "Beyond the Millenium Development Goals: A Southern Perspective on a Global New Deal."
68 It is interesting to see that her state policy advices are equally applicable to developed nations.
69 Ghosh, "Beyond the Millenium Development Goals: A Southern Perspective on a Global New Deal," p 327-28.
70 Ibid., p 325.

Somehow faced with the danger of being superficial in our description, we list the
major elements of Ghosh’s ‘new deal’ as it touches the core of this paper’s topic: global
governance of development. It is also important to note that elements of her agenda are at
the heart of today’s international and regional discussions.
On a national level, Ghosh lists five elements for a new model of economic expansion
and development. Supporting small entrepreneurs, and massive public social spending as a
macroeconomic strategy for sustained growth are essential in the move from an export-
driven model to a strategy based on wage- and employment-growth. Second, a social policy
of universalism in provision and in entitlements would also cover the “huge amounts of
unrecognized and unrewarded work for society” that is mostly provided by women
today71. Third, fiscal strategies should provide progressive taxation and taxation on capital
gain forms and inherited wealth. They should promote ecology, and lead to more equal
access to resources such as land and water c.q. thru resource rents. Fourthly, political
economy changes include containment of finance, making it subservient to citizens, not the
inverse. Next, focus is to be shifted from quantitative GDP growth “to ecology friendly
production and distribution patterns, particularly in urbanization”. And lastly, a domestic
accountability framework is required, with government transparency, timely and
disaggregate data, and a just and working legal system. 72
However, such progressive domestic policies will only flourish in a global supportive
context, the ‘global social contract’. The international community needs to monitor and
control large corporations, adjust “both the structure and functioning of multilateral
institutions and global regimes” such as IMF, World Bank and WTO, have them support the
countries with e.g. sufficient international financial liquidity and the roll-back of
“conditionalities on multilateral lending”, tame unruly markets so that financial systems
refocus from speculation back to securing people’s savings and promoting productive
investments. Lastly, control over knowledge creation and dissemination is paramount as
the current proliferation of intellectual property rights inhibits development.73
71
Ibid., p 326.
72 Ibid., p 326-27.
73 Ibid., p 327-28.

“These”, Ghosh concludes, “are clearly ambitious goals, which probably require
international political economy conditions that are unlikely to be met at present. But, that
should not blind us to their necessity.”74
SDGs - What will they be?
We have now described three components that might have contributed to a less
than satisfactory implementation of the MDGs: the economic context of the last one and a
half decade, the intrinsic flaws of the MDGs and the extrinsic framework in which they
operated. We also have provided the framework for a future different approach. We now
turn our attention to the SDGs, in order to apply the previous sections to the ongoing
discussions.
The concept of ‘sustainable development’ took off within the UN back in 1992 with
the Earth Summit in Rio75. The concept broadened gradually from environmental focus to
inclusion of social and economic concerns, so that the Rio+20 Summit of 2012 76 formally
decided for the Sustainable Development Goals as the successor for the MDGs. It endorsed
a political document ‘The Future We Want’77, and established an official SDG body, the
High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) that will function as
political leader and mentor for setting the SDG agenda and over-viewer of its
implementation post-201578. In August 2014, an Open Working Group79 proposed 17 SDGs
–and 168 targets (cf. annex 2). The UN Secretary-General subsequently endorsed them, and
wrapped the 17 goals in 6 key elements.80 The summary report generated some
controversy, but overall was considered a good base for the 2015 negotiations.81 Since Jan
2015, monthly (negotiation) meetings take place as a preparation for the 2015 September
Summit, where the UN General Assembly will adopt the post-2015 development agenda82.
74 Ibid., p 328.
75 UN DESA, "Commission on Sustainable Development (Csd)," https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/csd.html.
76 "United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20," https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20.
77 UN General Assembly, "The Future We Want," (2012).
78 UN DESA, "High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (Hlpf),"
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/hlpf.
79 Open Working Group of the General Assembly, "Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals," (2014).
80 UN General Assembly, "The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet.
Synthesis Report of the Secretary-General on the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda.," (UN, 2014-12-04). p16
81 Council of Councils, "Grades on Global Issues. Advancing Development."
82 UN DESA, "Post2015 Process," https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015.

Meanwhile, states will make a final push to reach the MDG goals. As they did at the time of
the MDG formulation, the World Bank jointly with the IMF produced a twin set of goals
slightly ahead of the SDG formal acceptance. ‘Ending poverty’ and ‘sharing prosperity’ are
goals to be met by end 2030.
When applying the internal flaw critiques on the MDGs (supra) to the proposed
SDGs, one notes a general positive evolution from MDG to SDG. The HLPF has set itself an
‘ambitious outreach program’. ‘Major Groups’ are named explicitly as stakeholders.
Amongst them NGOs, Women, Children and Youth, Scientific and Technological Community,
Local Authorities, Indigenous People, Business and Industry, Workers and Trade Unions.
The list now focuses on gender equality and on environment, and health topics are
concentrated.83 However: the final list is to be concluded in September. Until then, no ‘final
conclusion’ is possible.
Commenting on the extrinsic impediments is more challenging. Although, some
preliminary comments are possible. Overcoming the extrinsic impediments equals
changing institutions, governance and structures, both national and global. We will look at
two elements: the proposed goals and key elements, and the global conference agenda until
end 2015.
The proposed goals include now jobs, innovation and infrastructure. The proposed
goals also talk about inclusive growth, and about urbanization. Secretary-General Ban Ki-
Moon included institutions and more specifically justice as one of the six key elements to
frame the SDG agenda negotiations as preparation for the September summit. However,
proposed SDG goal 17, which is the replacement for MDG goal 8, is the core element for
true partnership. When verifying the phrasing, we still do not find indications for a
paradigm change away from neoliberalism to a pro-poor growth, even less signs of a ‘global
new deal’.
The UN agenda until December includes c.q. a May UNCTAD conference, a July 3rd
Conference on Financing for Development (FFD3)84, and the UN Summit in September to
83 Tran, "Mark Malloch-Brown: Developing the Mdgs Was a Bit Like Nuclear Fusion ".
84 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, "Third International Conference for Financing on Development (Ffd3),"
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ffd3/.

conclude the SDG goals. We focus on the FFD3, considering that the financial structures are
at the core of Ghosh’s ‘global social contract’. According to the think-tank survey, the
attending high-level state representatives and non-state stakeholders have the task of
mobilizing finances, though also of generating “concrete reforms of trade and investment
practices that favor long-term investment”85. Already, the South is launching its own
investment banks in response to insufficient IMF and WB reforms: the Chinese AIIB is in
place and the BRICS are starting their development bank. The Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) -which contains the most developed countries- did
update its measurement system, some changes the first in ten years some the first in forty
years. “These innovations will allow the OECD to provide more accurate aid measurements
in time” for the FFD3.86 Europe is asking for a “true paradigm shift” and “true global
partnership” in global development cooperation.87 In view of the tensions between
Western donors and ‘South-South’ donors and the subsequent shifts (or lack thereof)88, the
negotiations may end up successful, “a fully coherent, holistic, and pragmatic package of
policies to complement the post-2015 development agenda” or empty-handed, concludes
Herman in a report focused on the FFD3.89 The Conference will be to the fullest the theatre
of Held’s concept of ‘global politics’, with all four gaps in the limelight: the jurisdictional,
incentive, participation and moral gap.
Patrick considers the power diffusion on the economical level, and the reappearance
of strategic rivalries, as important indicators that might prevent international co-
operation.90 Is Gosh right when she critiques the straitjacket of the SDGs or when she
doubts the availability of a facilitating political economic environment? Is Patrick right in
assuming that rivalries will overtake economic co-operation? The coming six months will
85
Council of Councils, "Grades on Global Issues. Advancing Development."
86 Ibid.
"Ranking of Opportunities for Breakthrough. The Global Economic System," in 2015 Report Card on International
Cooperation (2015).
87 Ramesh Jaura, "Eu Calls for Paradigm Shift in Development Cooperation," (2015-05-07),
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/eu-calls-for-paradigm-shift-in-development-cooperation/.
88 Council of Councils, "Grades on Global Issues. Advancing Development."
89 Barry Herman, An Urgent Need for Clarity. On the Post-2015 Development Agenda and Financing for Development,
Dialogue on Globalization (New York: FES, 2014).
90 S. Patrick and I. Bennett, "Geopolitics Is Back—and Global Governance Is Out," The National Interest 2015-05-12.

tell if the international community has found a way to overcome its controversies and work
for the good of even the poorest.
We have looked at the MDGs, both how they were conceived and how they
progressed against a political-economical challenging background. We showed that they
reflect very much the orthodox neo-liberal approach, with a hunch of human rights to
them: the ending of extreme poverty. In how far the targets have been reached is a matter
of measurement and viewpoint.
We brought in some authors who show that the current neoliberal system and
development strategy has three inherent flaws: financial liberalizations which leads to c.q.
corruption and monopoly, growth-orientation which leads to uneven distribution, and to
ecological imbalances. Inclusive growth seems impossible in such a system.
We then turned to the SDGs, which have their origin in a more holistic approach,
ever since the ‘90s: the careful balancing of three pillars: ecology, economy and social
aspects. The fourth pillar of institutions has now been added. We found that some progress
has been made in terms of opening up the neoliberal framework towards a pro-poor
growth, more equity and shifting power dynamics. However, a lot of controversy is still
going on in the global community, and a lot more structural changes will be required, both
on a global institutional level and at national level, before the ‘global new deal’ as proposed
by Ghosh will be in place.
Conclusion
In this paper, we made an attempt to explain the global governance of development
policies and practices. We started off with building the historical frame from which the
concept of development emerged both from within the academic world and actual
development practices by institutions. Both the theoretical underpinnings of the concept
and how development policies are enacted i.e. practiced are essential to comprehend how
the concept evolved. Today, the enduring forces of globalization have changed the societal,
economic, socio-cultural and political landscape. These changes, namely the
interconnection of the local, regional, state and transnational level actors have necessitated

certain adaptations of development policies and practices. We explained how both policies
and practices have in effect been globalized. To continue, we presented some of the issues
that this globalization of development policies and practices have entailed – how certain
neoliberal ideals and policies have penetrated the global fabric and had a profound impact
on how these different actors deal with the world. Lastly, we examined the materialization
and operationalization of certain concepts of development in the MDGs and SDGs.
We do not claim to have provided an all-encompassing review on the global
governance of development today. Rather we provided a snapshot of how the concept of
development has evolved, how it globalized, and how it diffused and was implemented.
Furthermore, we hope to have brought up some crucial questions for development
practitioners, policymakers and scholars. Has the way the concept of development evolved
had certain ideals and goals that are globally produced? Are they and do they need to be
localized if they are to be useful for any sort of progress? Which ideas dominate discourse
of ‘progress’ and development? Do authors like Moyo, Bauman, Harvey, and Sen have
contradicting ideas which are all present in the practice of development? Are the efforts of
institutions greater than the efforts of individuals and private actors? Is there any
mechanism for the coordination of these diffuse and diverse actors? Does there need to be
more communication and linkage between them? Do contemporary realizations of
development policies and practices have a tinge of neoliberal bias in them? How can they
critically be reconstructed to support a diversity of ideas of ‘progress’?

Annex 1 : MDGs
The 8 agreed upon MDGs are91:
1. To eradicate extreme poverty and hunger,
2. To achieve universal primary education
3. To promote gender equality
4. To reduce child mortality
5. To improve maternal health
6. To combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
7. To ensure environmental sustainability
8. To develop a global partnership for development
Each of the goals has its set of specific targets, apart from goal 8. There are 18 targets in
Total.
91 UN, "Millennium Project. Goals, Targets and Indicators.," http://unmillenniumproject.org/goals/gti.htm.

Annex 2: SDGs
The 17 proposed sustainable development goals, as proposed in August by the Open
Working Group in document A/68/970 are: 92
GOAL 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere
GOAL 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable
agriculture
GOAL 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
GOAL 4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning
opportunities for all
GOAL 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
GOAL 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
GOAL 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
GOAL 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive
employment and decent work for all
GOAL 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization
and foster innovation
GOAL 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries
GOAL 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
OAL 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
GOAL 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
GOAL 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for
sustainable development
GOAL 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation
and halt biodiversity loss
GOAL 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide
access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all
levels
GOAL 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for
sustainable development
The document elaborates each goal in targets, 168 targets in total.
92 Open Working Group of the General Assembly, "Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals."p 10

Annex 3 : SDGs – WB twin goals, UN six key elements
Under the auspices of the HLPF, an Open Working Group93 has proposed 17 SDGs –and 168
targets. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, by end 2014, endorsed the SDG document, and
highlighted 6 key elements to frame the 2015 negotiations 94
WB/IMF twin goals 95
93 Ibid.
94 UN General Assembly, "The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet.
Synthesis Report of the Secretary-General on the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda.." p16
95 World Bank and IMF, "Global Monitoring Report 2014/2015. Ending Poverty and Sharing Prosperity," (New York,
Washington2015), p xvi.

Annex 4. MDG progress
Looking into more detail, the UN 2014 report 96 provides the most up-to-date info, although
most recent figures date from 2012 or before.
Several MDG targets were met: reduction of extreme poverty by half (measure:
living on less than 1.25$ a day), the fight against malaria and tuberculosis pays off, access
to improved drinking water became reality for 2.3 bio people (from 1990 to 2012), by 2012
all developing regions are closing the education gender gap, women’s political participation
continues to increase, development aid was highest ever in 2013 and development
countries’ debt remains low whilst the trading system remains favorable.
However, much more needs to be done in the field of environmental sustainability,
nutrition, child and maternal mortality, access to ART and improved sanitation, and
primary education access.
97
96 UN, "The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014," in The Millennium Development Goals Report, ed. UNITED
NATIONS (New York: United Nations, 2014).
97 World Bank and IMF, "Global Monitoring Report 2014/2015. Ending Poverty and Sharing Prosperity," p 3.

References
Bauman, Zygmunt. Wasted Lives. Modernity and Its Outcasts. Polity Press, 2003. Book. 140
p.
Business Dictionary. "Development Definition." (2015).
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/development.html.
Council of Councils. "Grades on Global Issues. Advancing Development." In 2015 Report
Card on International Cooperation, 2015.
———. "Ranking of Opportunities for Breakthrough. The Global Economic System." In 2015
Report Card on International Cooperation, 2015.
———. "Report Card on International Cooperation 2014-2015. Global Think Tank Leaders
Grade the World's Performance and Prospects for 2015." 2015.
Dambisa, Moyo. Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009. Book. 208 p.
Easterly, William. "Review of Dambisa Moyo's Book Dead Aid." London Review of Books
(2009).
Evans, Peter. "Collective Capabilities, Culture, and Amartya Sen's Development as
Freedom." Studies in Comparative International Development 37, no. 2 (2002): 54-60.
Fehling, Maya, Brett D. Nelson, and Sridhar Venkatapuram. "Limitations of the Millennium
Development Goals: A Literature Review." Global Public Health 8(10) (2013): 1109-
22.
Ghosh, Jayati. "Beyond the Millenium Development Goals: A Southern Perspective on a
Global New Deal." Journal of International Development 27, no. 3 (2015): 320-29.
Gritti, Roberto. "L'evoluzione Del Concetto Di Sviluppo." Nuova Umanità (rivista trimestrale
di cultura) 7 (1980): 82-94.
Harry S. Truman XXXIII President of the United States: 1945-1953. "19th Inaugural
Address. January 20, 1949." The American Presidency Project (2015-05-02).
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13282.
Harvey, David. "Between Space and Time: Reflections on the Geographical Imagination."
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 80, no. 3 (1990): 418-34.
———. "Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction." Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 610 (2007): 22-44.
Held, David. Democracy and the Global Order. From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan
Governance. Cambridge, Polity, 1995. Book. 324 p.
Herman, Barry. An Urgent Need for Clarity. On the Post-2015 Development Agenda and
Financing for Development. Dialogue on Globalization. New York: FES, 2014.
Heywood, Andrew. Global Politics [in English]. 2011, 2014 ed. Basingstoke Palgrave
Macmillan, 2014. Book. 560 p.
Iorio, Mariarosaria. "Global Governance, International Development Discourses and
National Policy-Making: Highlights of Critical Issues .", 22. Rio de Janeiro:
International Gender and Trade Network (IGTN), 2007.
Jaura, Ramesh. "Eu Calls for Paradigm Shift in Development Cooperation." (2015-05-07).
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/eu-calls-for-paradigm-shift-in-development-
cooperation/.

Joshi, Devin, and Roni Kay O'Dell. "Global Governance and Development Ideology: The
United Nations and the World Bank on the Left-Right Spectrum." Global Governance
19, no. 2 (2013): 249-75.
Kumi, Emmanuel, Albert Arhin, and Thomas Yeboah. "Can Post-2015 Sustainable
Development Goals Survive Neoliberalism? A Critical Examination of the Sustainable
Development-Neoliberalism Nexus in Developing Countries." Environment,
Development & Sustainability 16, no. 3 (2014): 539-54.
Longworth, R. C. "Amartya Sen. Nobel Prize Winning Economist.", The Chicago Tribune
(1999-03-28). http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-03-
28/news/9903280117_1_inequality-economy-amartya-sen.
Open Working Group of the General Assembly. "Proposal for Sustainable Development
Goals." 24, 2014.
Patrick, S. , and I. Bennett. "Geopolitics Is Back—and Global Governance Is Out." The
National Interest, 2015-05-12.
Reid-Henry, Simon. "Amartya Sen: Economist, Philosopher, Human Development Doyen ",
The Guardian (2012-11-22). http://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/2012/nov/22/amartya-sen-human-development-doyen.
Selwyn, Ben. "Liberty Limited? A Sympathetic Re-Engagement with Amartya Sen's
Development as Freedom." Economic & Political Weekly XLVI, no. 37 (2011): 68-76.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999. Book.
Tran, Mark. "Mark Malloch-Brown: Developing the Mdgs Was a Bit Like Nuclear Fusion "
The Guardian, 2012-11-16.
UN. "Background. We Can End Poverty. Millennium Development Goals and Beyond 2015."
———. "The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014." In The Millennium Development
Goals Report, edited by UNITED NATIONS. New York: United Nations, 2014.
———. "Millennium Project. Goals, Targets and Indicators."
http://unmillenniumproject.org/goals/gti.htm.
———. "United Nations Millennium Declaration." 2000-09-08.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. "Third International Conference for
Financing on Development (Ffd3)." http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ffd3/.
UN DESA. "Commission on Sustainable Development (Csd)."
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/csd.html.
———. "High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (Hlpf)."
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/hlpf.
———. "Major Groups and Other Stakeholders."
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/majorgroups.
———. "Post2015 Process." https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015.
———. "Third International Conference on Financing for Development."
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/overview/third-conference-ffd.html.
———. "United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20."
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20.
UN General Assembly. "The Future We Want." 53, 2012.
———. "The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and
Protecting the Planet. Synthesis Report of the Secretary-General on the Post-2015
Sustainable Development Agenda.", 34: UN, 2014-12-04.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. "A Brief History of Unctad "
http://unctad.org/en/Pages/About%20UNCTAD/A-Brief-History-of-UNCTAD.aspx.
Uvin, Peter. "From the Right to Development to the Rights-Based Approach: How 'Human
Rights' Entered Development." Development in Practice 17, no. 4/5 (2007): 597-606.
World Bank, and IMF. "Global Monitoring Report 2014/2015. Ending Poverty and Sharing
Prosperity." 244. New York, Washington, 2015.

Group Paper VI - Global Governance of Development - v2.0

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (14)

Semelhante a Group Paper VI - Global Governance of Development - v2.0

Semelhante a Group Paper VI - Global Governance of Development - v2.0 (20)

Group Paper VI - Global Governance of Development - v2.0