Unheard Voices - A Critical Analysis of The MDG and SDG

Third World Quarterly, 2017
VOL. 38, NO. 1, 16–41

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1166944
Unheard voices: a critical discourse analysis of the Millennium

Development Goals’ evolution into the Sustainable
Development Goals
Jane Briant Carant
Department of Communication Studies, Arizona State University, Glendale, CA, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The United Nations’ 2001 Millennium Development Goals and 2015 Received 28 September 2015
Sustainable Development Goals are of major importance for worldwide Accepted 14 March 2016
development. This article explores the construction of poverty and KEYWORDS
development within and across these documents, specifically focusing Millennium Development
on the influence of dominant economic discourses – Keynesianism Goals
and neoliberalism – in the development paradigm. It assesses the Sustainable Development
failures of the Millennium Development Goals, as articulated by Goals
oppositional liberal feminists and World Social Forum critics, who World Social Forum
embody competing values, representations and problem-solution liberal feminism
frames that challenge and resist the dominant economic discourses. neoliberalism
Keynesianism
Finally, it evaluates responsiveness of the UN in the constitution of
the Sustainable Development Goals.
Introduction
In 2001 the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were set forth by the UN to provide
unified objectives for alleviating striking inequalities worldwide. The goals were developed
as an implicit response to criticisms from individuals and organisations charging that the
benefits of globalisation were ‘very unevenly distributed, while its costs’ were ‘borne by all’.1
Despite much fanfare upon their release, the MDGs were faulted by many groups who found
their formulations of poverty and their proposed policy solutions to be lacking. In June 2014
the UN shared its proposed post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to modernise
and reconfigure portions of the MDGs.2 In September 2015 the UN solidified the SDGs at
the UN Sustainable Development Summit 2015.3 Although it is still too early to assess critics’
reactions, continued and new concerns may be voiced over the processes of formulating
the goals, the nature of the goals themselves and the options outlined for their achievement
and measurement.
Both the MDGs and SDGs are branded as agreed-upon documents representative of the UN
as a whole. Yet the UN approach to poverty abatement is one programme among many possible.4
Alternative programmes also exist but critics allege that they are under-represented as a result
of particular power configurations and voting patterns within the organisation.5 In addition,
CONTACT Jane Briant Carant Janie.Briant@asu.edu

© 2016 Southseries Inc., www.thirdworldquarterly.com
17 J. Briant Carant
because the SDGs aim to guide the international development landscape for the next 15 years,
it is critical to recognise and understand how foundational economic paradigms and prob-
lem-solution frames inscribed within these goals specifically endorse methods of economic
development and poverty abatement.
This project treats the MDGs and SDGs as social texts containing evidence of distinct
economic discourses promoted by diverse participants directly involved in the goals’ creation
and those, more generally, participating in public discourse concerning the goals’ appropri-
ateness and utility. Analysis of the poverty-reduction goals and their proposed implemen-
tations by the UN and its critics explored in this project exposes perceptual differences in
the causes of, and best solutions for, poverty that can be traced to distinct and often oppo-
sitional categories of understanding arising from explicit economic discourses. Utilising a
critical discourse analysis theoretical framework, this project seeks to interrogate the con-
struction of poverty and development within the MDGs and SDGs and to shed light on the
contestations over the causes of and solutions for growing economic inequalities.
Within the fields of sociology and development, critical discourse analyses ‘track the
historical development of the discourse over time and identify the players and the social,
economic and political climate which fostered its development’, focusing on challenges
and subsequent reactions to dominant discourses.6 Critical discourse analysis uncovers
how dominant social discourses delineate social phenomena, such as poverty, while
articulating preferred solution frames that tend to reinforce existing institutional rela-
tionships. Since dominant discourses rarely exhaust the social field of understanding,
this project also seeks to identify and understand how alternative discourses problem-
atise dominant articulations by offering divergent formulations of poverty and its mit-
igation, which may aim to transform the institutional relationships extended and
preserved by dominant discourses.
As deployed in this project, discourse analysis begins by examining the MDGs and SDGs
to identify language-denoting regularities in problem-solution frames of poverty and devel-
opment linked to specific paradigms, which can be treated as distinct economic discourses
following the scholarship of Nikolas Rose and Majia Nadesan.7 Analysis seeks to reveal exhi-
bitions of dominant economic discourses, particularly Keynesianism and neoliberalism, in
the framing of goals and policy solutions, while also exposing traces of resistant discourses
within the goals, evidenced by alternative constitutions of poverty and distinctive solutions
for its alleviation. The project draws upon articulations of poverty promoted by the World
Social Forum (WSF), as well as liberal feminist critiques of dominant economic paradigms,
when evaluating the constitution and transformation of goals across the MDGs and SDGs,
noting responsiveness and voices that remain unheard.
Economic and social discourses

The MDGs and SDGs are social texts that contain markings of multiple economic and political
discourses, reflecting the diverse concerns and problem-solution frames of those partici-
pating in their creation. Discourse analysis aids in elucidating such markings by identifying
language explicitly denotive of each discourse.
Warren J. Samuels, former professor of economics, and Mitchell Dean, prominent
researcher in the field of the government of poverty, argue that discourses are sets of
communicative units forming established patterns and rules that are ‘both cause and
Third World Quarterly 18
consequence of culture and perception’.8 Discourses define the limits of what can be said,
the truths that can be known, and the way in which matters are understood.9 Further, ‘dis-
cursive practices’ ‘establish privileged positions for certain theories, paradigms, models, or
lines of reasoning,’ and thus maintain and legitimise sources of power.10 More specifically,
discourses seek ‘to direct what might be called institutional practices or governing practices.’11
Discourses and institutional practices are co-constitutive, as they are both delineated by and
delineate the boundaries of a specific discourse, limiting theories, strategies, targets, attitudes
and agents or authorities. Because the economy is ‘a product of human actions’, it is consid-
ered socially constructed, and therefore reciprocally shapes and is shaped by human action.12
Within this theoretical paradigm, economic schools of thought can be treated as distinct
discourses connected to discernible institutional complexes, governmental logics and pre-
ferred authorities that seek to shape the dynamics of the market and social life at multiple
levels.13 Economic theories, such as Keynesianism and neoliberalism, utilise specific language
to establish ‘facts’ and give meaning to the workings of the economy. Economic theories
and shared sets of values and practices predispose various modes of theoretical thought
and methodological inquiry that shape what truths can be known about the economy.14
As economic discourses, these theories identify problems and solutions, framing govern-
ing logics and preferred economic interventions. For instance, historical terms associated
with laissez-faire economics, such as Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’, suggest that a focus on
material self-interests in the market will be the most effective method for fixing societal
problems, since the market naturally corrects them. Fixating on this terminology enables
the justification of laissez-faire economics in today’s neoliberal economic discourses, such
as those promoted by the Chicago School. From this perspective poverty results from restric-
tions in market access, thereby necessitating a reduction in governmental market imposition
and the implementation of microfinance loans to individuals to facilitate accessibility. By
contrast, Keynesianism argues that limited employment opportunities cause poverty, which
can be resolved by adding government-funded jobs.
As demonstrated, language delineates how poverty is problematised and thereby frames
its desired solutions. Consequently, careful analysis and exposure of discourses inherent
within the MDGs and SDGs becomes necessary, as each restricts member countries to poten-
tially ill-suited methodologies of poverty abatement promoted by dominant economic dis-
courses. The following sections briefly historically situates, tracks evolutionarily across time
and characterises the dominant economic discourses – Keynesianism and neoliberalism – as
well as competing social discourses, liberal feminism and the WSF. Additionally, discursive
markers of each discourse are presented.
Keynesianism
During the Great Depression from 1929 to 1939 liberalism had fallen out of favour and people
began questioning Wall Street’s control over the economy. The British Economist John
Maynard Keynes founded Keynesian economics by conceptualising a government-regulated
economy with trade controls and social protections.15 Keynes encouraged massive govern-
ment spending, high taxation on wealthy individuals, increased government-owned and
-operated utility and transportation systems, and increased wages for the working class.16
Although this economic strategy took a back seat to neoliberalism from the 1970s, the
re-emergence of Keynesian discourse in the late 1990s and post-2008 financial crash led to
19 J. Briant Carant
its fragmentary implementation within the MDGs and SDGs. Discursive markers for Keynesian
discourse include a focus on generating aggregate demand, problems of wealth distribution
and increases in state regulatory agency as a means of minimising mass-market fluctuations.
The re-emergence of Keynesian discourse in the post-2008 financial crash led to its more
prevalent implementation within the SDGs than the MDGs.
Neoliberalism
During the 1970s, a period marked by stagflation and characterised by rising unemployment
rates that resulted from the ‘baby boomer’ influx into the job market, along with rapid infla-
tion,17 policy makers began adopting the neoliberal view that releasing the market from
government control provided the solution to this economic downturn.18 Further, they pro-
moted large reductions in personal and corporate taxes to encourage consumer spending
and business investments in employment-creating ventures. In addition, policy makers
mandated cutbacks in state-run social service and welfare programmes deemed inefficient
because of their inability to quickly respond to market demand.19
The prevalence of neoliberal discourse in the 1980s and early 1990s led to its vast imple-
mentation in the MDGs. Shifts in economic thinking after the financial crash of 2008 reduced
its pervasiveness in the SDGs. Discursive markers denoting neoliberal discourse include an
emphasis on economic deregulation, complete privatisation, free trade and a reduction in
government size and spending for the creation of a strong private sector. Further, neoliber-
alism is discursively marked by the valorising of individual agency, as illustrated by the
paradigm’s celebration of micro-entrepreneurs, the promotion of unfettered global flows
of capital and the embrace of policies and technologies that increase visualisation and finan-
cialisation of global commodities.20
Alternatively, divergent discourses exist that resist the fixed measurements and calculat-
ing tendencies of these hegemonic discourses. Liberal feminism and WSF, for instance, offer
their own articulations of poverty, development and preferred social governance. These
articulations can be found sparsely within the MDGs and criticisms thereof, and in the artic-
ulation of the SDGs.
Liberal feminism
Liberal feminist discourse adopts many of the same assumptions and problem-solution
frames as Keynesian economics, but prioritises investments in female agency and develop-
ment. Throughout history feminists such as Julie Nelson have critiqued the work of main-
stream neoliberal economists.21 She argues that neoliberalism’s attempts to construct man
as homo economicus, a perfectly logical individual, fails to understand the complexities and
nuances of human behaviour and emotion. Further, many liberal feminists contend that
economics should focus on ‘measures of distribution and sustainability, and measures of
human outcomes such as educational attainment and health’;22 therefore economic needs
should not be met if it means denying people what they are capable of actually doing or
being.23
As such, liberal feminists seek to disclose women’s contributions within the dominant
order to attach value to their labour and to increase their economic opportunities.24 Within
the MDGs and SDGs discursive markers for liberal feminist discourse encompass any
characteristics of social life and human behaviour ignored by androcentric models directly
and indirectly affecting economics. Additionally, liberal feminism focuses on the develop-
ment of human capital through emphases on social welfare programmes and education.
World Social Forum

In 2001 the first WSF, an assembly of NGOs and social movements from around the globe,
most often representing the Global South countries and individuals against globalisation,
was held in Sao Paulo, Brazil.25 The forum attempted to increase global solidarity and dem-
ocratic international systems ‘at the service of social justice, equality, and the sovereignty of
people’.26
Although the WSF is a convention, it is constructed around an agreed-upon discourse
and common agenda opposing capitalist globalisation with clearly demarcated fundamental
assumptions within its 2001 Charter of Principles.27 The discursive elements within this
Charter indicate the forum is a space for free exchange of ideas concerning the mechanisms
and prevalence of reductionist and neoliberal views of the economy, focusing on how to
resist and overcome their domination.28 Further, Peter N. Funke, professor of Government
and International Affairs, argues that the forum is used as a ‘strategic instrument of the
alter-globalisation movement’ in their attempts to forge alliances and oppose neoliberalism
specifically and capitalism more generally.29 As such, the Charter bounds the language used
by individuals adopting this view and ultimately their strategies, attitudes and problem-solu-
tion frames. Discursive markers for WSF discourse within the MDGs and SDGs include frame-
works highlighting opposition to the domination of world capital, the promotion of inclusive
ownership, locally controlled decision making, including autonomy over non-routine deci-
sion making, and peaceful increases in human rights through amplification and inclusion
of the marginalised.
The MDGs
The following section identifies areas of economic and social discourse deployment within
the MDGs. Ambiguity surrounding the preferred poverty reduction strategies necessitated
the recognition and exploration of antecedent MDG and SDG documents that displayed
infusions of economic and social discourses. Although these discourses theoretically pervade
every goal, this analysis focuses on the goals with clearly articulated discursive markers
denoting problem-solution frames of dominant economic and competing social discourses.
Goals with more indistinct discursive markers were excluded to minimise misinterpretation
and over-reaching of evidence. Accordingly, this analysis’ purpose is not to develop a com-
prehensive list of ideological deployment within every goal and target but rather to uncover
the most discernible and extensive deployments within the MDGs and SDGs. Consequently,
various goals are granted a more nuanced analysis.
Goal one: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

The Road Map, a document delineating the MDGs and re-emphasising portions of the
agreed-upon 2000 Millennium Declaration, sets a target of halving, between 1990 and 2015,
the proportion of people suffering from hunger. The Rome Declaration on World Food Security,
21 J. Briant Carant
the outcome document of the 1996 World Food Summit, provides a foundation for this goal,
continually proposing that opening up trade is ‘a key element’ and that establishing policies
that ‘are conducive to fostering food security for all through a fair and market-oriented world
trade system’ will decrease prices and thereby benefit impoverished individuals.30 This neo-
liberal assertion assumes that increasing food imports and exports can help protect vulner-
able areas from famine during times of crop disease, natural disasters and climate
fluctuations.
Additionally, goal 1 suggests that increasing yields in low-income food-deficit countries
requires ‘appropriate and up-to-date technologies which … promote modernization of local
production methods and facilitate transfer of technology’.31 Consequently, individuals begin
emulating procedures of developed countries without considering environmental and social
costs, insisting that market adjustments account for these downfalls.32 While increasing yield
and production are clear signs of neoliberal discourse, the specific emphasis on increasing
trade solidifies it as such.
Moreover, the Rome Declaration strives to ensure food, agricultural trade and overall policies
are conducive to fostering food security through a market-oriented world trade system. This logic
proposes that expanding food trade stimulates economic growth and provides food security,
perpetuating the idea that neoliberal free market economics provide a one-stop solution for
developing countries.33 Further, the Rome Declaration encourages reallocation of government
funds towards expansion of transportation systems, thereby reducing barriers to free trade and
facilitating a shift to a protracted free market agricultural sector.34
Goal two: achieve universal primary education

Goal 2 centres on ensuring equal access to education and suggests that exclusion of girls is
‘not only a matter of gender discrimination but is bad economics’.35 Beyond the proximal
effects of education, goal 2 acknowledges that an educated female populace can lead to
reduced fertility rates and potentiates increased family incomes and decreases in poverty,
as women attain new roles in the workforce. These affirmations illuminate the economic
importance of educational equality through a liberal feminist lens. Further, goal 2 encourages
the bolstering of educational equality through Keynesian expansion in education-based
governmental resource appropriation.
Goal three: promote gender equality

Goal 3 aspires to eliminate gender disparity in all levels of education.36 This liberal feminist
discourse stems from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW), a 1979 UN treaty establishing the groundwork for eradicating
sex-based inequalities.37 Part 2 of this convention aims to eliminate discrimination against
women in the political sector, specifically the ability to vote and hold public office.38 This
emphasis is evident in indicator 12: ‘proportion of seats held by women in national parlia-
ment’.39 Further, target 4 indicator 11 promotes the expansion of women in manufacturing
and service-based sectors, reflecting part 3 of CEDAW and liberal feminist discourse.
Goal six: combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

Goal 6 aims to have ‘halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread’ and incidence of major
diseases. The Road Map suggests that Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) should not limit access to life-saving medicine but is also essential for supporting
the innovation necessary to fulfil this goal. The World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) implemen-
tation of TRIPS displays neoliberal characteristics, since it requires UN member nations to
integrate intellectual property right laws to protect copyrighted material. This agreement
may have major implications for developing economies, as its potential to inflate medicine
prices worldwide increases the difficulty of obtainment for high-need countries.40 Although
TRIPS appears foundationally neoliberal, a declaration produced in 2001 allowed countries
the discretion to self-determine a national emergency and provide reduced-cost medicines
accordingly, regardless of TRIPS.41 This illustrates the WTO’s recognition of the potential risks
a strictly market-based economy has on human life.
Goal seven: ensure environmental sustainability

Target 9 of goal 7 states the need to: ‘integrate the principles of sustainable development
into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources’.
However, since the goals are promoted as outcome-specific rather than prescriptive, exam-
ination of foundational documents is necessary. The groundwork for goal 7 is the 1992 UN
document, Agenda 21, which discusses the importance of forest conservation for each
nation’s economic development.42 It suggests conservation should incorporate opinions
from local communities, industries, NGOs, indigenous forest dwellers and women, implying
each are necessary for generating balanced governmental sustainability regulations, a state-
ment suggestive of liberal feminist and WSF discourses. Agenda 21, however, proposes
removing countries’ tariff barriers to increase product access from outside the country,
helping to decrease the dependence on national forests for manufacturing and fuel. This
highlights the importance Agenda 21 places on neoliberal markets to mitigate deforestation-
associated problems.43
Beyond encouraging tariff reductions, the Road Map supports the 1997 Kyoto Protocol,
an international UN treaty for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and believes in mar-
ket-based cap and trade for reducing rising CO2 emission levels and reversing global tem-
perature increases.44 In this neoliberal market each country and company is allotted carbon
credits but may purchase unused credits from other countries or companies when their own
are depleted.
Emission trading is thought to limit the amount of pollutants a company can emit before
necessitating the purchase of additional credits, thereby increasing the expense of emission
release.45 While incentivising reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, emission trading fails
to force companies to move towards environmentally friendly modes of production, as they
‘find it cheaper to buy the excess credits than install new pollution-abatement equipment’.46
Further, emission trading allows large organisations to tout global reductions in carbon
emissions, while ensuring large industries do not suffer production and profit declines as a
result of greenhouse gas regulation.47
23 J. Briant Carant
Goal eight: global partnership for development

Goal 8 target 12 calls for ‘an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and
financial system’ or, in other words, for the lifting of restrictions on exports and trade, enabling
the flow of goods and natural resources in and out of countries. Similarly, target 13 describes
the need to ensure the least developed countries (LDCs) do not endure export tariffs, poten-
tially encouraging the infusion of local businesses into the global economy.
Although the World Bank and IMF provided loans and debt relief to heavily indebted poor
countries (HIPCs), the Road Map definitively states that they will only ‘provide relief to countries
once conditions are met enabling them to service residual debt through export earnings, aid,
and capital inflows’.48 This demonstrates the necessity for HIPCs to abide by the World Bank’s
neoliberal conditions or risk defaulting on outstanding loans, forfeiting future loan obtainment.
As such, many HIPCs restructure their governments with neoliberal systems.49
Likewise, target 13 indicator 41 necessitates reducing or cancelling bilateral debt. Although
Keynesian on the surface, further examination uncovers the promotion of neoliberal dis-
course in its structure. To gain debt relief countries must create and adopt poverty reduction
strategy papers (PRSPs), documents demonstrating a commitment to poverty reduction in
a capitalistic, market-driven way.50
As illuminated, economic discourses are pervasive and prohibitory within the MDGs.
Analysis of these discourses governing economic and social policy on poverty and devel-
opment institutionalised within the MDGs acts to identify the preferred problem-solution
frames for poverty eradication. Although liberal feminist and WSF discourses are evident
within the MDGs, they continually strive to produce greater contributions to UN formulations
and policy responses to poverty and development. This desire is most noticeably elucidated
within criticisms from individuals representing these oppositional social discourses.
Individuals adopting a liberal feminist approach have produced the most widely circulated
criticisms of the MDGs, although some criticisms from the WSF prevail.
Criticisms of the MDGs

Although the UN attempted to compile an all-encompassing set of goals, problem-solution
frames from competing social discourses were considered insufficiently incorporated.
Consequently, individuals adopting liberal feminist and WSF discourses criticised the MDGs.
Liberal feminists’ criticisms

Liberal feminist Gita Sen, Professor of Public Health at Harvard, argues that the segmentation
of the goals diminished their interconnectedness.51 Specifically, she suggests a focus on
women provides the necessary inter-linkage between goals that will aid in their fulfilment,
since women represent the greatest portion of severely marginalised individuals. She uses
goals 2, 4, 6 and 7 as examples of how women are more likely to: not be in school, have
higher mortality rates because of gender bias, suffer from HIV/AIDS, and have to collect
water in areas with deficient infrastructure. In addition, Sen claims, attainment of MDGs 2
and 3 leaves women subjugated because of the narrow definition of gender equality.52 Such
specificity encourages countries and donors to centralise their time, money and efforts on
equality in education, presuming completion of this goal equates to gender equality.53
Moreover, Sen and Mukherjee assert the MDGs’ focus on increasing women’s access to health
and education does little to increase equality if reproductive, social, political and economic
rights remain unaddressed.54 Further, they suggest this form of gender inequality remains
a global concern regardless of per capita income, citing the pay disparity between men and
women in the USA.55
Liberal feminist Ashwani Saith, former advisor to the UN, has determined that this short-
coming resulted from the MDGs’ developmentally narrow focus on the OECD’s 1996
International Development Goals (IDGs), as opposed to focusing on the 1995 Fourth World
Conference on Women’s outcome document, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.56
Such focus produced a restricted and watered-down set of targets, reversing previous
improvements in women’s rights, such as the passage concerning sexual and reproductive
rights within the Beijing Declaration and Millennium Declaration, an issue liberal feminists
report as being completely absent in the MDGs.57
Similarly, Human Rights Watch board member Jagdish Bhagwati contends that the MDGs
ignore problems of human trafficking addressed in the Beijing Declaration.58 Consequently,
he argues, the failure to address this issue inhibits achievement of gender equality in edu-
cation (goal 3), maternal health (goal 5) and combating disease (goal 6), since trafficking
increases pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease rates in young women, and restricts edu-
cational access (goal 2).59
In addition, the reductionist nature of the MDGs’ targets is claimed to facilitate poor
governmental development practices.60 This approach incentivises governmental allocation
of resources to projects that produce the greatest return on investment. Saith argues that
governments and their officials intentionally provide resources to people just below the
poverty line, subsequently producing the appearance of target attainment.61 This practice
negates the most impoverished and further drives income inequality within nations.62
In addition to specificity, Professors of Economics Kanayo Ogujiuba and Fadila Jumare
assert that the MDGs define development as increasing GDP rates, thereby neglecting
human-centred development issues.63 For instance, Doyle and Stiglitz highlight how many
African countries’ strong GDP growth has not translated into better human rights, arguing
that economic growth is unevenly distributed, thus increasing income inequality.64 From
the liberal feminist perspective meeting a country’s economic needs is meaningless if it
denies the fundamental human rights necessary to ‘allow individuals the capability of what
they can do or be’.65
Beyond specificity other liberal feminists reveal that achieving particular MDG targets
prevents the attainment of others by neglecting deeply rooted foundational problems.
Specifically, Carol Barton, former coordinator for the Women’s International Coalition for
Economic Justice, contends that the MDGs’ assumption that neoliberal economic policies
are the best means of poverty reduction actually inhibits forming the universal public ser-
vices necessary for development.66 For example, accepting PRSPs in exchange for loans
reduces expenditures allocated to programmes such as healthcare.67 Reducing trade and
tariff barriers creates an influx in produce, driving down local farm profits, disproportionately
affecting women because of their predominance in agriculture.68 These diminishing profits
are exacerbated by the forceful removal of agricultural subsidies as a condition for acquiring
loans. Patrick Bond, Director of the Centre for Civil Society in India, argues that removing
government subsidies reduces a security farmers rely on to supplement diminishing farming
profits.69
25 J. Briant Carant
WSF criticisms of the MDGs

Samir Amin, director of the Third World Forum and well-known annual attendee and distin-
guished voice at the WSF, authored The Millennium Development Goals: A Critique from the
South, which suggests the USA, Japan, and Europe dominate and restrict UN decision making.
As such, Amin perceives the MDGs as a facade for pushing the superpowers’ economic
agenda with minimal concern for gathering developing countries’ opinions.70
More generally the WSF argues that the MDGs’ technocratic and top-down approach has
produced inadequate vocal inclusion of developing countries, since economically dominant
countries assume that development only proceeds through their methods.71 As such, devel-
oping countries’ traditional norms and values are considered to hinder the adoption of
technological advances facilitating consumer economies. More specifically the MDGs’ targets
fail to consider each country’s ‘historical, cultural and political circumstance’, thereby pre-
scribing inappropriate preconceived models for development.72
Additionally, the MDGs exhibit technocracy through the scarcity of targets directed at
developed nations. WSF attendee Nana Poku and colleague Jim Whitman, professors at the
University of Bradford, highlight the similarities between the MDGs and IDGs.73 They suggest
that, because the IDGs were created by and for wealthy developed countries, their employ-
ment of neoliberal economic principles may not benefit developing nations.74 Further,
because the MDGs were developed to fit within the capitalist system, poverty reduction will
ultimately fail, since the goals do little to change the structure that produced the present
levels of poverty.75
Moreover, individuals from the WSF criticise MDG 8 because it is the only goal directed
at developed countries and it lacks measurable time-bound targets and indicators.76 This
absence in measurability makes it impossible to hold developed countries accountable for
their role in helping countries develop.77
The most prominent criticism of the MDGs is the failure to include the voices of civil
society.78 Bhagwati argues that exclusion increases the difficulty of examining the goals
deemed most essential and suggests that rank-ordering the goals by regional desirability
would enhance resource allocation.79
Beyond goal 8, goals 1 to 7 have garnered various critiques from the WSF. For example,
Michael Chibba, director of the International Centre for Development and Poverty Reduction,
asserts that percentage reductions, such as goal 1 target 2, which aims to halve the propor-
tion of people suffering from hunger, fail to convey the absolute number of undernourished
individuals.80 Using this logic, a country could theoretically reduce its proportion by half and
still have many undernourished.81 As such, Saith recommends shifting from a percentage
decrease to complete eradication.82
Other voices from the WSF, such as those of Fukuda-Parr et al, claim that utilising the measures
of the MDGs to assess goal attainment produces a distorted representation of certain countries’
progress.83 For example, they argue that many countries in Africa have rates of improvement
exceeding other countries that are ‘on track’ to meet the goals.84 They suggest this is problematic
in that it potentially encourages countries to ‘revise their policies when in fact they are working’
and may also diminish poverty reduction-allocated funds to ‘on-track’ countries.85 These criticisms
do not represent an exhaustive list but rather aim to illustrate how the development goals are
structurally inadequate to address the concerns of the WSF.
The response
With 2015 marking the MDGs’ expiration, the UN began preparing a new structured sustain-
able development agenda at the decennial Rio+20, a conference in 2012 coordinating world-
wide economic and environmental agendas. Facilitating this process, the Rio+20 outcome
document, The Future We Want, called for the establishment of a 30-member Open Working
Group (OWG) specifically designed to prepare a geographically ‘fair, equitable and balanced’
proposal for the SDGs.86 Further, a 27-member ‘High-Level Panel’ was created to oversee the
OWG’s developmental framework for the SDGs.87
In addition, The Future We Want necessitates greater vocal inclusion of the marginalised
and ultimately led the UN to invite governments, think-tanks, NGOs, civil society and aca-
demics from around the world to 88 national and 11 thematic consultations concerning the
post-2015 framework.88 Their data represent children, the LGBT community, indigenous
people, trade unions, private sectors, displaced people, homeless people, farmers, prison
inmates, gang members, military members, local and national decision makers, and civil
society organisations.89 In September 2013 the UN released A Million Voices: The World We
Want, a document summarising the consultations to be utilised during the SDGs’
formulation.
From a liberal feminist perspective A Million Voices recognises Gita Sen’s criticism that the
MDGs are independent silos and need to centralise on women’s equality.90 Additionally it
admits that the MDGs failed to incorporate agreed-upon inclusion of women in deci-
sion-making processes, as well as sexual and reproductive rights from the Millennium
Declaration, acknowledging that economic growth and development should centre on
human rights.91
Similarly, from a WSF perspective, A Million Voices suggests future international develop-
ment programmes should transition from using GDP to assess development towards people
and planet through the disaggregation of data, since using national averages hides groups
that are left behind.92 Further, it recommends that increases in data availability should be
utilised to hold governments and financial institutions accountable for achieving targets,
such as official development assistance (ODA) provided by developed countries.93
Despite recognisable improvements in response, A Million Voices fails to indicate how
communities were selected and the number of voices obtained from each country in its
sample. The failure to explicitly state a procedure limits the ecological validity of the sample,
as it remains unclear whether these voices are representative of a global seven billion.
Concurrent to A Million Voices, the UN produced the WorldWeWant2015.org, a website
aimed at enabling ‘people to engage, visualise and analyse people’s voices on sustainable
development’ through the use of two polls intended to gather the voices of those not
included in the Million Voices publication.94 The website provides individuals with an oppor-
tunity to post to discussion boards concerning a variety of development topics.
The first poll, ‘The United Nations Global Survey for a Better World’, also known as the ‘My
World Survey’, invites individuals to rate the top six of 16 issues that matter most to them.95
The second poll, the SDG Score Card released in September 2014, enables individuals to
rank the proposed SDGs on their ambition, likeliness to spur action and accountability for
countries.96
While the UN is lauding the first survey as a success, emphasising its reach of 1 in every
1000 people, voting patterns reveal trends unrepresentative of the general populace.97 The
27 J. Briant Carant
most striking pattern is the voters’ education level. As of 26 September 2015, three years
after its launch in 2012, 8,428,008 individuals across the globe had cast their vote.98 The
majority of these individuals, however, possess an education beyond high school (43%),
whereas only 11% have not completed primary education, despite this being commonplace
in many developing countries.99 As such, the current voices represent individuals with greater
levels of education who are less likely to be affected by the perils of poverty.
Further, although the survey is seemingly accessible to all, given its methods of distribu-
tion, it may not reach countries equally. Currently Mexico has the highest number of votes
with 1.83 million.100 Comparatively India, despite having over 10 times the population of
Mexico, has 930,995 fewer votes.101 This disproportionate voting pattern could be the result
of an unequal spread of NGOs and partners distributing surveys within countries, thereby
restricting the survey’s validity. Moreover, without knowing which NGOs participated in
survey distribution, it cannot be concluded that these organisations are positioned as pro-
ponents of the general populace rather than extensions of their donors and accompanying
problem-solution frames. A number of researchers representing the WSF confirm such biases,
noting that many NGOs are burdened and propagandised by their corporate stakeholders’
desire for financial success, resulting in a shift from their intended mission towards
profitability.102
From a liberal feminist perspective, Darrell West, the director of Governance Studies at
the Brookings Institution think-tank, asserts that only the wealthiest women have internet
access, consequently limiting the voice of impoverished women in developing countries.103
Additionally, despite providing a voting opportunity, pre-defining the issues prevents indi-
viduals outside NGOs and governments from choosing the themes, ultimately producing a
top-down agenda.
As of 26 September 2015, one year after being released, only 539 people had participated
in the second poll.104 Further, the countries with the greatest votes in the My World Survey –
Nigeria and Mexico – only constitute 27 of the 539 votes, whereas the USA comprises 115.105
Such low levels of voting may result for two reasons: lack of awareness and availability
of access.
To date the UN has not publicised or promoted the SDG Score Card to the level of My
World Survey which is only accessible online. These restrictions limit availability to people
across the globe without internet access, doubtless the same voices absent during the plan-
ning and implementation of the MDGs. Additionally, although the SDGs have been solidified,
the surveys remain available. This incidence calls into question the extent to which the UN
actually included or values the voices of the marginalised people within the articulation of
the SDGs.
While the polls are presented in a decisive manner, discussion board use yields naviga-
tional difficulties resulting from deficient structural composition and clarity, confusing the
user and reducing the probability of posting. For example, the available topics include terms
such as ‘population dynamics’ and ‘conflict and fragility’, potentially overwhelming words
for individuals lacking adequate education.106 Beyond discussion board complexity, pre-de-
fining topic areas, similarly to in the My World Survey, creates discourse and dialogue limi-
tations. As a result, major vocal concerns get spread out among topic areas, thereby diluting
the amplitude and effectiveness of voice. Thus, the discussion boards appear to cater to the
most educated, re-creating a technocratic, top-down approach to goal development.
Although the UN promulgated surveys and discussion boards, it also created and analysed
them. Furthermore, it is unclear whether an individual or group of individuals directly rep-
resented these voices during the SDG negotiation process. As a result, it cannot be presumed
that the voices highlighted in the World We Want or the SDGs accurately represent the global
populace targeted for development.
The SDGs
While many WSF and feminist criticisms were responded to in the SDGs’ foundational doc-
ument, A Million Voices, their articulation within the SDGs parallels the relation of the
Millennium Declaration to the MDGs. Keynesian, neoliberal, liberal feminist and WSF dis-
courses are all redeployed within the SDGs, along with the incorporation of a new discourse:
sustainability. Although one could argue that sustainability is an all-encompassing discourse,
relevant to every goal and target, only those with clearly articulated discursive markers
associated with sustainability problem-solution frames are analysed here, specifically, dis-
course characteristic of ‘People, Planet and/or Profit’, a developmental sustainability trifecta
initially delineated in the 1987 UN document, Our Common Future.107
Based historically on the UN’s conceptualisation of sustainable development, deployment
of sustainable discourse within the SDGs can be recognised by words emphasising employ-
ment of green technological advancements, such as renewable energy sources, environ-
mental restrictions preventing land and water degradation, and financially responsible
economic practices ensuring prosperity for today and the future.
Goal one: end poverty

Beginning with goal 1, the SDGs set a target of eradicating extreme poverty, ‘measured as
people living on less than $1.25 a day’. It also aims to reduce by half the proportion of people
living in poverty, according to national definitions. Utilising the terminology ‘according to
national definitions’ portrays a shift from the MDGs, extending the SDGs’ reach by placing
responsibility for poverty reduction on all nations rather than only on developing nations.
Driving this movement is the 2013 UN document, Report on the World Social Situation:
Inequality Matters, which highlights the need to reduce growing inequalities within and
between countries.108 The report argues that income inequality produces differences in
access to healthcare and educational opportunities, thus perpetuating ‘intergenerational
transmission of unequal economic and social opportunities, creating poverty traps, wasting
human potential, and resulting in less dynamic, less creative societies’.109
Inequality Matters also suggests income inequality is unfavourable for all, as it reduces
aggregate demand, slowing economic growth. This idea reflects the Keynesian desire to
increase demand through a more even distribution of wealth, thereby facilitating sustainable
national economic growth.110 Furthermore, Inequality Matters underlines the consequences
of failing to reduce inequalities, namely vulnerability, which directly affects the accomplish-
ment of goal 1 target 5, as people are unable to acquire necessary resources during disas-
ters.111 This target aims to increase the resilience of poor individuals by reducing their
exposure and vulnerability to ‘economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters’, a
people-focused sustainability discourse.112
29 J. Briant Carant
In addition, income inequality can be attributed to differences in opportunities available

to men and women.113 From a liberal feminist perspective this is illustrated in target 4, which
aspires to ensure men and women ‘have equal rights to economic resources, as well as
access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property,
inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and finance services, including
microfinance’.114
Target 4 stems from the Beijing Declaration, which demands gender equality and the
empowerment of women across the globe, suggesting that excluding women’s contribution
to markets perpetuates sex-based inequalities as a result of perceived value differences
between the sexes, with men deemed more economically valuable.115 Such value differences
underestimate women’s role in development, potentially repressing future societal
progress.116
Despite discussing growing inequality, Pogge and Sengupta claim that goal 1 falls short
when addressing poverty. Specifically they contend that increasing the poverty line to
US$1.25 per person per day in from $1 in 1985 means it is now easier than ever to reduce
poverty.117 Thanks to inflation, the actual quality of life and conditions of people living at
this level are much worse than in 1985. The United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) suggests the line should be $5 per day,118 which would increase
the number of impoverished individuals to 4.3 billion.119
Target 2, also problematic, aims to reduce the proportion of people in poverty by at least
half.120 Achieving this target implies a portion of the population will remain impoverished,
presumably those most in need. While there is a fine line between insufficiency and unreal-
istic expectations, the goals should not allow the poorest individuals to be forgotten. Rather,
the goals should prioritise the most impoverished before attempting to increase the well-be-
ing of others.
Barton’s argument that neoliberal policies exacerbate poverty also remains absent in the
SDGs, probably because it implies the requirement for systemic change.121 As a result, women
farmers stay subjected to the suppression of global produce prices, which reduces profits
and drives them further into poverty.122 Even if a free market provided the global solution
to reducing poverty, the US government would remain unwilling to reduce subsidies for its
farmers, producing distortions in global produce prices that disproportionately affect poor
farmers.123
Goal two: end hunger

Beyond a reduction in poverty, goal 2 of the SDGs aims to reduce the number and percentage
of individuals, in particular women and children, suffering from hunger-based malnutrition.
It emphasises meeting the needs of adolescent girls, children from birth until two, and
pregnant and lactating women, a focus considered paramount for improving and ensuring
the health and welfare of a society.124
While this discourse appears only marginally changed from the MDGs, new targets facil-
itate achievement by encouraging sustainable methods of development. For example, tar-
gets 4 and 5 convey the realisation that, without sustainable food systems, via resilient
agricultural practices such as genetic diversification, production and people become vul-
nerable during changing environmental conditions, a perspective characteristic of people-,
planet- and profit-based sustainability.125
Goal three: ensure healthy lives

Meeting the nutritional needs of mothers through sustainable food systems could facilitate
achievement of goal 3 target 1, reducing ‘global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per
100,000 live births’.126 This discursive liberal feminist and people-focused sustainable target
was addressed in the MDGs but now attempts to further reduce the ratio from the previous
goal of 95 per 100,000.127
Beyond nutrition the Beijing Declaration states that women around the world lack access
to emergency obstetric care, one of the ‘leading causes of mortality and morbidity of women
of reproductive age’.128 Lack of reproductive care for women also demonstrates the gross
healthcare inadequacies present in many countries. In addition to women, goal 3 target 8
calls for universal healthcare and access to basic medical services and medicine.129 A Million
Voices discusses the importance of public health in relation to achieving sustainable devel-
opment, suggesting it cannot occur without a healthy populace, a people-focused sustain-
able discourse.130 The present deterioration in health infrastructure has been attributed to
reductions in public health spending and structural adjustment.131
From a Keynesian perspective, increasing the well-being of the public requires govern-
mental spending to bolster available health services, as private enterprises fail to expand to
developing regions because of limited financial returns.132 In addition to retroactive methods,
target 9 takes a proactive approach by demanding a reduction in deaths attributed to
human-induced environmental hazards, such as pollution of water and air.133 This people-
and planet-focused sustainability perspective appears in Agenda 21, which cites environ-
mental pollution, particularly in urban areas, as a major contributor in increasing morbidity
and mortality.134 To mitigate these outcomes, the UN appeals to national governments – a
Keynesian discourse – to develop political and technical committees as well as increase the
size of monitoring programmes in order to ensure environmental regulations are being
upheld.135
As previously discussed in MDG goal 6, SDG goal 3 reaffirms TRIPS’ importance in pro-
tecting international property rights, but emphasises the need to allow developing country
governments to provide their citizens with affordable medicines and vaccines, a Keynesian
perspective that implies a market-based economy may inhibit this possibility.136
Goal four: inclusive and quality education

Goal 4 of the SDGs necessitates the completion of free and equitable primary and secondary
education for all, catering to liberal feminism, as it includes girls and boys, as well as
Keynesianism, by proposing free government-run education. It should be noted that the
first three targets of goal 4 place women and girls before men and boys in the structural
composition of each target sentence, distinctly highlighting the importance of women for
goal achievement.137 This focus is further signified in target 5, which seeks to eliminate
gender disparities in education in the hope of increasing the number of women in political
and other previously unattainable careers. Advancing the levels of universal education ena-
bles the acquisition of the knowledge and skills necessary to execute future sustainable
development, while also reducing violence through the acceptance of diversity, gender
equality and human rights.138
31 J. Briant Carant
Goal five: gender equality

The entirety of goal 5 focuses on increasing gender equality and the empowerment of
women and girls. Many targets within goal 5 derived from the Beijing Declaration.139
Specifically this goal intends to reduce discrimination, sexual violence and harmful practices
such as early marriage, as well as to increase women’s inclusion in leadership and political
roles, their access to reproductive healthcare and access to economic resources.140 Although
the UN responded to the critique that the MDGs defined women’s equality too narrowly, the
targets within goal 5 appear unrealistic. For example, targets 1 and 2 aim to end all forms of
discrimination and violence against women and girls. Further supporting this claim, targets
within goal 5 are void of time-sensitive and measurable indicators, suggesting the UN does
not believe they will be achieved in the near future. Support for this comes from the SDG
Score Card responses, which indicate that people across the globe view goal 5 as the most
ambitious, suggesting attainment is perceived as improbable.141
Goal six: water and sanitation

Target 1 of goal 6 calls for universal access to safe and affordable drinking water.142 This
target’s utilisation of the word ‘universal’ is a change from the MDGs’ use of ‘reduction in
those without access’, and is an evident display of people- and planet-centred sustainability
perspectives. As specified in the Johannesburg Declaration, water management should occur
via the combination of ‘public and private investment’.143 Without clearly specifying a meth-
odology for attainment, it remains possible that water could be privatised and potentially
restricted to areas with the greatest return on investment.
Goal eight: sustained and sustainable economic growth

The majority of goal 8 emphasises the importance of providing employment opportunities
and ensuring a constantly growing economy, similar to that of MDG goal 8. More specifically
it suggests the need to increase ‘Aid for Trade’, where nations are provided with aid in return
for lifting trade restrictions in their country, something akin to the neoliberal Structural
Adjustment Programmes (SAPs).144 Yet, from a Keynesian and planet-focused sustainability
perspective, target 4 and Agenda 21 make it clear that economic growth should not come
at the expense of environmental degradation and that governments should seek to change
institutional structures ‘in order to enable more systematic consideration of the environment’
when economic decisions are made.145 However, there remains a fundamental contradiction
within the SDGs between resource limits and economic growth, a discrepancy noted by
critics who argue that 7% GDP growth annually will cause global production and consump-
tion levels to soar above the current levels, which already exceed Earth’s bio-capacity by
50%.146
Although Agenda 21 intends to sustainably increase economic growth, goal 8 largely fails
to provide time-bound and measurable targets, a common criticism of MDG 8.147 While some
time-bound targets do exist, most remain immeasurable because of the utilisation of sub-
jective and undefined terms such as ‘quality’, ‘substantially reduce’, ‘strengthen’ and ‘promote’,
which fail to provide objective measures.148 Such immeasurability can be found throughout
goals 4, 6, 9, 11 and 15.
Goal 10: reduce inequality within and among countries

Goal 10 target 5 suggests, through a Keynesian and profit-focused sustainability lens, that
‘global financial markets and institutions’ should be regulated to reduce the possibility of
gross inequalities. However, the language of target 1 – ‘progressively achieve and sustain
income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national
average’ – allows for potential increases in inequality. Utilising national averages hides the
rate of income growth of the top 1%, enabling the possibility of a growth rate for the 1%
that is higher than the bottom 40%. Further, goal 10 target B also encourages official devel-
opment assistance (ODA) and financial flows from private sources to areas of greatest need,
such as sub-Saharan Africa.149 Although not all ODA has contingencies, much of it, particu-
larly that in the form of loans, involves specific fund allocation such as transportation infra-
structure.150 Requirements such as these enable the proliferation of private enterprises
touting neoliberal agendas within the country accepting assistance.151
From a WSF perspective goal 10 provides two targets directed at increasing human rights
and amplifying voice. Target 2 promotes social, political, and economic inclusion of all indi-
viduals, regardless of ‘age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other
status’.152 Target 6 focuses on the integration of developing countries’ voice in international
economic decision-making processes, potentially increasing the inclusion of their ideas and
opinions, a main tenet of the WSF.
Goal 12: sustainable consumption and production patterns

In addition to reducing inequality, the SDGs lobby for greater planet-focused sustainable
production patterns through more efficient use of natural resources and management of
production by-products, in order to reduce chemical contamination of air, soil and water.153
Agenda 21 provides this framework, urging governments to design informative consumer
programmes concerning waste management by way of recycling and implementing sus-
tainable choices when purchasing.154
Although outwardly Keynesian in its emphasis on government-sponsored programmes,
goal 12 focuses on changing an individual’s market consumption patterns; it could therefore
be viewed as a neoliberal-based solution. Further, the Keynesian ideal of relying on govern-
ment also supports the creation of domestic policies, encouraging private sector businesses
to minimise the amount of energy required and waste generated to produce their goods.155
These same suggestions are reiterated in the Johannesburg Declaration.156
Goal 13: action to combat climate change

Goal 13 proposes to increase awareness of and encourages governments to implement
policies addressing climate change, in addition to strengthening the resilience of individuals
and communities before and after climate-related disasters occur.157 The Johannesburg
Declaration suggests traditional and indigenous knowledge are necessary to mitigate the
effects of disasters, a WSF discourse.158
33 J. Briant Carant
Goal 16: promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development
In goal 16, WSF discourse is found in targets 7 and 8. Both targets centre on increasing the
inclusion of developing countries in global decision-making processes.159 This focus poten-
tially amplifies marginalised voices in developing countries, a major objective of the WSF.
However, it also leaves the possibility that the WSF will increasingly be included, but
non-democratically, rendering its inclusion meaningless. For example, individuals from civil
society may have been included in discussions about the SDGs but the OWG ultimately
determined what was included in the SDG proposal.
Goal 17: revitalise global partnership for sustainable development

Goal 17 compartmentalises components necessary for the SDGs’ attainment. First, target 2
reiterates the Keynesian ideal that developed countries need to meet the agreed-upon
standard of allotting 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to developing countries, with
greater portions of that figure distributed to the LDCs.160 Conversely, target 4 aspires to
reduce indebtedness of the LDCs through debt restructuring, a method potentially lending
itself to the neoliberal SAPs provided and enforced by the World Bank and IMF.161
Most notably targets 10, 11 and 12 discuss the importance of removing trade restrictions
to increase exports from developing countries. This neoliberal process suggests countries
remain undeveloped as a result of restricted market access and insists that opening markets
will facilitate economic growth and development, subsequently boosting the ability to
achieve other SDGs.
Unheard voices
Saith’s claim that the semantic choices of the MDGs leads to poor governmental practices,
such as improper allocation of resources to accomplish specific goals, remains unad-
dressed.162 The SDGs’ formulation of 17 goals and 169 targets is much too expansive for
governments to allocate sufficient resources for each target. As such, governments can now
focus on targets they are best positioned to achieve, allowing them to claim partial devel-
opmental success without addressing major concerns.163
Despite increasing the interconnectedness of the goals, Bhagwati’s suggestion of rank
ordering the MDGs to produce a higher return on investment also remains unaddressed.164
As argued by human rights professor Francesca Pongiglone, increasing education reduces
poverty, fertility and gender inequality, and increases health and sustainability and should
therefore be prioritised over other targets.165
Interestingly, some SDG targets are contradictory. For example, goal 4 target 1 aims to
ensure complete free primary and secondary education, whereas goal 8 target 6 intends to
‘reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training’.166 The inclusion
of work and training within the latter target restricts achievement of the former. Such con-
tradictions make it difficult to determine how the UN perceives these goals working together
and how they can be simultaneously achieved.
Conclusions
Given the ease with which dominant economic frameworks have been able to integrate
many of liberal feminism’s core tenets, it remains unsurprising that their feminists’ criticisms
concerning sexual and reproductive rights, human trafficking and a focus on women were
incorporated during the articulation of the SDGs. Since liberal feminists do not require large
institutional changes to fit within hegemonic economic models, they have become a more
dominant discourse within the SDGs. For example, women’s access to sexual and reproduc-
tive healthcare could be achieved through a neoliberal or a Keynesian solution by increasing
the number of privately or publicly run facilities supplying such care.
Alternatively the WSF, with its perpendicular position to dominant economic discourses,
not only inhibits integration, but also forces suppression of its problem-solution frames. The
WSF discourse continues to remain largely unheard in the articulation of the SDGs because
the UN has failed to produce the transformational systemic shifts necessary for long-term,
sustainable and equitable change for all. Although the WSF consist of diverse interest groups,
such shifts would include a ‘reinvention of democracy’, focusing on decision making that is
not limited to and imposed by the interests of powerful economic, patriarchal and political
figures and nations. For example, a transformational shift would consist of ‘demands for
democratic public control over external indebtedness, democratic regulation of corporations,
the globalisation of collective bargaining, decentralised local solidarity economies, a World
Water Parliament, local food sovereignty, civil society monitoring of capital and the state,
free education for all, enforceable social, economic and cultural rights, and new values for
a civilization of solidarity’.167 While some of these shifts appear to be addressed in the SDGs,
uncertainty remains about the implementation of Keynesian discourse within the framework,
with critics claiming it merely serves as a façade for pushing a neoliberal agenda in the form
of mixed economy solutions.168
Although the UN has designed methods with the purported intention of gathering mar-
ginalised voices, the MDGs and SDGs should solely be viewed as persuasive rhetoric, as they
rely too exclusively on problem-solution frames that aim to temper oppositionists’ paradigms.
Analysing the implementation of these methods elucidates a foundational sampling error,
producing an unrepresentative voice for the global seven billion and thus it is a redeployment
of technocratic developmental methods. Integration of criticisms can and should be viewed
as trivial concessional offerings rather than true concessions. As long as the goals remain
steeped in power-laden hegemonic frameworks, serving only as an opportunistic medium
through which power interests can assert, maintain and defend their position and preferred
economic modalities, poverty eradication will remain relegated to the imagination.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Acknowledgements
Thank you Majia Nadesan for your guidance and support in my pursuit of this research. And, more
generally, thank you for being the first person to open my eyes to the intricacies of persuasive ideol-
ogies and institutional complexes in social life, and the importance in exposing truths regarding their
influence.
35 J. Briant Carant
Notes on Contributor
Jane Briant Carant is an independent researcher. Her research interests include investigating
economic ideologies, policy decisions, environmental health policy and risk privatisation.
She has published in African Affairs.
Notes
1. Annan, “We the Peoples.”
2. United Nations, “Open Working Group.”
3. “UN adopts new Global Goals.”
4. McMichael, Development and Social Change.
5. Moboka, The Politics of Chapter VII Interventions.
6. Grbich, Qualitative Data Analysis, 248.
7. Rose, Powers of Freedom; and Nadesan, Governmentality, Biopower.
8. Samuels, Economics as Discourse, 8.
9. Dean, “A Genealogy of the Government,” 216.
10. Foucault, The Order of Things; and Samuels, Economics as Discourse, 6.
11. Dean, “A Genealogy of the Government,” 216.
12. Samuels, Economics as Discourse, 10.
14. Granovetter, “Economic Institutions.”
15. Duménil and Lévy, The Crisis of Neoliberalism.
16. Steger and Roy, Neoliberalism.
17. Peet, Unholy Trinity.
18. Centeno and Cohen, “The Arc of Neoliberalism.”
19. Steger and Roy, Neoliberalism.
21. Nelson, “Feminism and Economics.”
22. Nussbaum and Sen, The Quality of Life.
23. Sen, Development as Freedom.
24. Nelson, “Feminism and Economics,” 132.
25. World Social Forum, “A Short Presentation.”
26. Ibid.
27. Funke, “The World Social Forum,” 451.
28. Third World Forum, “A Short Presentation,” 1.
29. Funke, “The World Social Forum,” 449.
30. FAO, Rome Declaration, 12.
31. Ibid.
32. Ilcan and Phillips, “Developmentalities and Calculative Practices.”
33. Ibid., 15.
34. Ibid.
35. United Nations, “Road Map,” 20.
37. United Nations, Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women,
New York, December 18, 1979, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cedaw.
pdf.
38. Ibid., 3.
40. Shiva, “Profiteering from Death.”
41. W TO, Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement, 1.
42. United Nations, “Agenda 21.”
43. Ibid., 5.
44. United Nations, “Road Map,” 32–33.
45. Reyes and Gilbertson, “Carbon Trading,” 23.

48. United Nations, “Road Map,”28.
49. Bond, Looting Africa, 34.
50. Manning, “The Impact and Design,” 10.
51. Sen, “Gender Equality,” 3.
52. Sen, “Gender Equality,” 5–6.
53. Sen, “Gender Equality,” 4.
54. Sen and Mukherjee, “No Empowerment without Rights,” 10.
55. Ibid.
56. Saith, “From Universal Values,” 1170.
57. Sen and Mukherjee, “No Empowerment without Rights,” 8; Saith, “From Universal Values,”
117; Barton, “Women debate the MDGs;” and United Nations, “Report of the Fourth World
Conference.”
58. Bhagwati, “Time for a Rethink,” 14.
59. Ibid.
60. Saith, “From Universal Values.”
61. Ibid., 1175.
62. Ibid., 1178.
63. Ogujiuba and Jumare, “Challenges of Economic Growth,” 60.
64. Doyle and Stiglitz, “Eliminating Extreme Inequality,” 3.
65. Nussbaum, Women and Human Development; and Sen, Development as Freedom.
66. Barton, “Integrating Feminist Agendas,” 82 .
67. Ibid., 78.
68. Ibid.
69. Bond, “Global Governance,” 343.
70. Amin, “The Millennium Development Goals.”
71. Ogujiuba and Jumare, “Challenges of Economic Growth,” 60; and Amin, “The Millennium
Development Goals.”
72. Bhagwati, “Time for a Rethink,” 16; and Ogujiuba and Jumare, “Challenges of Economic Growth,”
56.
73. Poku and Whitman, “The Millennium Development Goals.”
74. Ibid.
75. Barton, “Where to for Women’s Movements?,” 29; and Hickel, “The Problem with Saving.”
76. Marshall, “A Development Partnership Framework,” 7; Bond, “Global Governance”; Kelegama,
“Redefining the Global Partnership,” 2; and Lucci, “Time for a Rethink?,” 3.
77. Lucci, “Time for a Rethink?,” 4.
78. Bond, “Global Governance.”
79. Bhagwati, “Time for a Rethink.”
80. Chibba, “The Millennium Development Goals,” 80–81.
81. Ibid.
82. Saith, “From Universal Values,” 1185–1186.
83. Fukuda-Parr et al., “How should MDG Success?,” 10.
84. Ibid.
85. Ibid.
86. United Nations, “The Future We Want,” 47.
87. Ibid.
88. United Nations, “A Million Voices,” 1.
89. United Nations, “A Million Voices,” 44.
90. Sen, “Gender Equality.”
91. United Nations, “A Million Voices”.
92. Ibid.
93. Ibid.
94. “Topics.”
37 J. Briant Carant
95. “Have Your Say.”

96. “Sustainable Development Goals Score Card.”
97. United Nations, “My World” Blog.
98. “Have Your Say.”
99. Ibid.
100. Ibid.
101. Ibid.
102. Edwards, Just another Emperor, 39.
103. West, “Digital Divide,” 4–5.
104. “Sustainable Development Goals Score.”
105. Ibid.
106. “Topics.”
107. United Nations, “Our Common Future,” 1.
108. United Nations, “Inequality Matters”.
109. Ibid., 22.
110. Ibid.
111. Ibid.
112. United Nations, “Open Working Group,” 7.
113. United Nations, “Report of the Fourth Conference,” 67.
114. United Nations, “Open Working Group,” 7
116. Ibid., 67.
117. Pogge and Sengupta, “The Sustainable Development Goals.”
118. Bond, “UN Millennium Development Goals.”
119. Hickel, “The Problem with Saving.”
121. Barton, “Where to for Women’s Movements?,” 26–28.
122. Pyle, “Third World Women.”
123. Ibid., 27.
124. United Nations, “Open Working Group,” 8; and United Nations, “A Million Voices,” 11.
127. United Nations, “Road Map,” 45, 56.
130. United Nations, “A Million Voices,” 10–11.
131. United Nations, “Our Common Future,” 22–23.
132. United Nations, “Our Common Future”, 12–30.
134. United Nations, “Agenda 21,” 39.
135. Ibid., 39–40.
136. Ibid., 32; United Nations, “Our Common Future,” 55; and United Nations, “Open Working Group,”
9.
137. Ibid., 10.
138. Ibid.
139. United Nations, “Report of the Fourth Conference.”
141. United Nations, “Sustainable Development Goals Score.”
143. United Nations, “Our Common Future,” 49.
145. United Nations, “Agenda 21,” 64; and United Nations, “Open Working Group,” 14–15.
146. Hickel, “The Problem with Saving.”
147. Marshall, “A Development Partnership,” 7–8; Bond, “Global Governance”; and Lucci, “Time for
a Rethink?,” 3–6.
148.
United Nations, “Open Working Group,” 14.
149.
Ibid., 16.
150.
Bond and Dor, “Neoliberalism and Poverty Reduction.”
151.
Ibid.
152.
153.
Ibid., 18.
154.
United Nations, “Agenda 21,” 60.
155.
United Nations, “Report of the United Nations.”
156.
United Nations, “Plan of Implementation,” 82.
157.
158.
United Nations, “Plan of Implementation,” 20.
159.
160.
Ibid., 23.
161.
Ibid.
162.
Saith, “From Universal Values.”
163.
Ibid.
164.
Bhagwati, “Time for a Rethink,” 15.
165.
Pongiglione, “The Need for a Priority Structure,” 2–5.
166.
United Nations, “Open Working Group,” 10, 14.
Fisher and Ponniah, Another World is Possible, 14–15.
167.
168.
Hickel, “Why the New Sustainable Development Goals.”
Bibliography
Amin, Samir. “The Millennium Development Goals: A Critique from the South.” Monthly Review, March
2006. http://monthlyreview.org/2006/03/01/the-millennium-development-goals-a-critique-from-
the-south/.
Annan, Kofi. “We the Peoples: The Role of United Nations in the 21st Century.” March 30, 2000. http://
www.un.org/en/events/pastevents/pdfs/We_The_Peoples.pdf.
Barton, Carol. “Integrating Feminists Agendas: Gender Justice and Economic Justice.” Development 48
(2005): 75–84.
Barton, Carol. “Women debate the MDGs.” Development 48, no. 1 (2005): 101–106. doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100113.
Barton, Carol. “Where to for Women’s Movements and the MDGs?” Gender & Development 13, no. 1
(2010): 25–34. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552070512331332274.
Bhagwati, Jagdish. “Time for a Rethink.” Finance & Development, September 2010. http://www.imf.org/
external/pubs/ft/fandd/2010/09/bhagwati.htm.
Bond, Patrick. “Global Governance Campaigning and MDGs: From Top-down to Bottom-
up Anti-poverty Work.” Third World Quarterly 27, no. 2 (2006): 339–354. doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/01436590500432622.
Bond, Patrick. Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation. London: Zed Books, 2006.
Bond, Patrick. “UN Millennium Development Goals replaced by New ‘Distraction Gimmicks’.”
CounterPunch, September 25, 2015. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/25/un-millennium-
development-goals-replaced-by-new-distraction-gimmicks/.
Bond, Partick, and George Dor. “Neoliberalism and Poverty Reduction Strategies in Africa.” EQUINET
Discussion Number Paper 3 (2003): 1–31.
Centeno, Miguel A., and Joseph N. Cohen. “The Arc of Neoliberalism.” Annual Review of Sociology 38
(2012): 317–340.
Chibba, Michael. “The Millennium Development Goals: Key Current Issues and Challenges.” Development
Policy Review 29, no. 1 (2011): 75–90. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2011.00514.x.
Dean, Mitchell. “A Genealogy of the Government of Poverty.” Economy and Society 21 (1992): 215–251.
Doyle, Michael, and Joseph Stiglitz. “Eliminating Extreme Inequality: A Sustainable Development Goal,
2015–2030.” Ethics and International Affairs, March 20, 2014. http://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.
org/2014/eliminating-extreme-inequality-a-sustainable-development-goal-2015-2030/.
39 J. Briant Carant
Duménil, Gérard, and Dominique Lévy. The Crisis of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2011.
Edwards, Michael. Just another Emperor: The Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism. New York:
Demos, 2008.
Fisher, William F., and Thomas Ponniah. Another World is Possible: Popular Alternatives to Globalization
at the World Social Forum. London: Zed Books, 2003.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food
Summit Plan of Action. November 17, 1996. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.HTM.
Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things. New York: Vintage, 1966.
Fukuda-Parr, Sakiki, Joshua Greenstein, and David Stewart. “How should MDG Success and Failure be
Judged? Faster Progress or Achieving the Targets?” World Development 41 (2013): 19–30. doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.06.014.
Funke, Peter N. “The World Social Forum: Social Forums as Resistance Relays.” New Political Science 30
(2008): 449–474.
Granovetter, Mark. “Economic Institutions as Social Constructions: A Framework for Analysis.” Acta
Sociologica 35, no. 1 (1992): 3–11. www.jstor.org/stable/4194749.
Grbich, Carol. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Sage, 2012.
“Have your Say.” United Nations. Accessed January 20, 2014. http://vote.myworld2015.org.
Hickel, Jason. “The Problem with Saving the World.” Jacobin, August 8, 2015. https://www.jacobinmag.
com/2015/08/global-poverty-climate-change-sdgs/.
Hickel, Jason. “Why the New Sustainable Development Goals won’t make the World a Fairer Place.” The
Conversation, August 23, 2015. http://theconversation.com/why-the-new-sustainable-development-
goals-wont-make-the-world-a-fairer-place-46374.
Ilcan, Susan, and Lynn Phillips. “Developmentalities and Calculative Practices: The Millennium
Development Goals.” Anipode 42 (2010): 844–874.
Kelegama, Saman. “Redefining the Global Partnership for Development.” Southern Voice on Post-MDG
International Development Goals 6 (2014): 1–2.
Lucci, Paula. “Time for a Rethink of the Global Partnership?” Southern Voice on Post-MDG International
Development Goals 6 (2014): 3–6.
Manning, Richard. “The Impact and Design of the MDGs: Some Reflections.” IDS Bulletin 41, no. 1 (2010):
7–14. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2010.00098.x.
Marshall, Richard. “A Development Partnership Framework for the Post-MDGs.” Southern Voice on Post-
MDG International Development Goals 6 (2014): 7–8.
Mboka, Abu Karimu. The Politics of Chapter VII Interventions in Violent Conflicts. Saarbrucken: VDM
Publishing, 2008.
McMichael, Phillip. Development and Social Change. New York: Sage, 2011.
“My World Blog.” United Nations, 2015. http://blog.myworld2015.org.
Nadesan, Majia. Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life. New York: Routledge, 2008.
Nelson, Julie. “Feminism and Economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, no. 2 (1995): 131–148.
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/about_us/cv/nelson_papers/feminism_and_economics.pdf.
Nussbaum, Martha. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001.
Nussbaum, Martha, and Amartya Sen. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Ogujiuba, Kanayo, and Fadila Jumare. “Challenges of Economic Growth, Poverty and Development: Why
are the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) not fair to Sub-Saharan Africa?” Journal of Sustainable
Development 5, no. 12 (2012): 52–64. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v5n12p52.
Peet, Richard. Unholy Trinity: The IMF, World Bank and WTO. London: Zed, 2003.
Pogge, Thomas, and Mitu Sengupta. “The Sustainable Development Goals: A Plan for Building a Better
World?” Journal of Global Ethics 11 (2015): 37–41. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2015.1
010656.
Poku, Nana, and Jim Whitman. “The Millennium Development Goals and Development after 2015.” Third
World Quarterly 32, no. 1 (2011): 181–198. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2011.543823.
Pongiglione, Francesca. “The Need for a Priority Structure for the Sustainable Development Goals.”
Journal of Global Ethics 11, no. 1 (2015): 37–42. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2014.100
1912.
Pyle, Jean L. “Third World Women and Global Restructuring.” In Handbook of the Sociology of Gender,
edited by Janet Saltzman Chafetz, 81–104. New York: Springer, 2006.
Reyes, Oscar, and Tamra Gilbertson. “Carbon Trading: How it Works and Why it Fails.” Soundings 45, no.
45 (2010): 89–100. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3898/136266210792307050.
Rose, Nikolas. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999.
Saith, Ashwani. “From Universal Values to Millennium Development Goals: Lost in Translation.”
Development and Change 37, no. 6 (2006): 1167–1199. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/
j.1467-7660.2006.00518.x/abstract.
Samuels, Warren J. Economics as Discourse: An Analysis of the Language of Economists. New York: Springer,
1990.
Sen, Amaryta. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1999.
Sen, Gita. “Gender Equality in the Post‐2015 Development Agenda: Lessons from the MDGs.” IDS Bulletin
44, no. 5 (2013): 42–48. doi: 101111/1759-5436.12055.
Sen, Gita, and Avanti Mukherjee. “No Empowerment without Rights, No Rights without Politics:
Gender-equality, MDGs and the Post-2015 Development Agenda.” Journal of Human Development
and Capabilities 15, no. 2 (2013): 188–202. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2014.884057.
Shiva, Vandana. “Profiteering from Death: TRIPs and Monopolies on Seeds and Medicines.” Critical
Currents 1 (2007): 31–40.
Steger, Manfred B., and Ravi K. Roy. Neoliberalism: A very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2010.
“Sustainable Development Goals Score Card.” United Nations, 2015. http://dataforall.org/survey/
sdgscorecard/.
“The World We Want.” United Nations. Accessed January 20, 2014. http://blog.myworld2015.org/.
Third World Forum. “A Short Presentation of the Organization.” Accessed January 2013. http://www.
forumtiersmonde.net/fren/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=78.
“Topics.” United Nations, 2015. https://www.worldwewant2015.org/topics.
“UN Adopts New Global Goals.” Accessed September, 25, 2015. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.
asp?NewsID=51968#.VgYNS49Vikr.
United Nations Development Group. “A Million Voices: The World We Want.” September 10, 2013.
https://www.worldwewant2015.org/bitcache/9158d79561a9de6b34f95568ce8b389989412f16?vid
=422422&disposition=inline&op=view.
United Nations for Sustainable Development.“Agenda 21.”April 23, 1993. https://sustainabledevelopment.
un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.
United Nations, Resolution 66/288. “The Future We Want.” September 11, 2012. http://daccess-dds-ny.
un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/476/10/PDF/N1147610.pdf?OpenElement.
United Nations, Resolution ST/ESA/45. “Inequality Matters: Report on the World Social Situation.”
December 31, 2013. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/reports/InequalityMatters.pdf.
United Nations, Resolution A/68/970/. “Open working group proposal for the sustainable development
goals.” July, 19, 2010. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1579SDGs%20
Proposal.pdf.
United Nations, Resolution A/42/427. “Our Common Future.” Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development, August 4, 1987. http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm.
United Nations, Resolution A/165/14. “Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development.” September 4, 2002. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/
English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf.
United Nations, Resolution 177/20. “Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women.” September
15, 1995. http://beijing20.unwomen.org/~/media/field%20office%20beijing%20plus/attachments/
beijingdeclarationandplatformforaction-en.pdf.
41 J. Briant Carant
United Nations, Resolution 56/326. “Road Map towards the Implementation of the United Nations
Millennium Declaration.” September 6, 2001. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/sgreport2001.
pdf?OpenElement.
United Nations, Resolution 151/26, “Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development,” August 12, 1992, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm
West, Darrell. Digital Divide: Improving Internet Access in the Developing World through Affordable Services
and Diverse Content. Washington, DC: Center for Technology Innovation, Brookings Institution, 2015.
World Trade Organization (WTO). Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. Resolution 2.
November 14, 2001. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.pdf.
Copyright of Third World Quarterly is the property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Unheard Voices - A Critical Analysis of The MDG and SDG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unheard Voices - A Critical Analysis of The MDG and SDG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third World Quarterly, 2017

VOL. 38, NO. 1, 16–41

Unheard voices: a critical discourse analysis of the Millennium

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Jane Briant Carant Janie.Briant@asu.edu

Economic and social discourses

World Social Forum

Goal one: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Goal two: achieve universal primary education

Goal three: promote gender equality

Goal six: combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

Goal seven: ensure environmental sustainability

Goal eight: global partnership for development

Criticisms of the MDGs

Liberal feminists’ criticisms

WSF criticisms of the MDGs

Goal one: end poverty

In addition, income inequality can be attributed to differences in opportunities available

Goal two: end hunger

Goal three: ensure healthy lives

Goal four: inclusive and quality education

Goal five: gender equality

Goal six: water and sanitation

Goal eight: sustained and sustainable economic growth

Goal 10: reduce inequality within and among countries

Goal 12: sustainable consumption and production patterns

Goal 13: action to combat climate change

Goal 17: revitalise global partnership for sustainable development

45. Reyes and Gilbertson, “Carbon Trading,” 23.

95. “Have Your Say.”

You might also like

45. Reyes and Gilbertson, “Carbon Trading,” 23.

95. “Have Your Say.”