http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21640361-debate-heats-up-about-what-goals-world-should-set-itself-2030
The article primarily focuses on which goals the world should set and achieve by 2030. Bill and Melinda Gates proposed in their annual letter that "the lives of people in poor countries will improve faster in the next 15 years than any other time in history" and that the lives of people in poor countries "will improve more than anyone else's." Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, is a United Nations initiative that is intended to be agreed upon by world leaders at the UN General Assembly in September.
SDGs are being directly contrasted with Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, which the Gates' family strongly supported. SDGs will replace MDGs as several of the eight MDGs have been achieved. MDGs consisted of eight goals with 18 targets while SDGs are proposed to consist of 17 goals with 169 targets.
Many economists are arguing over whether the SDGs have too many goals and targets. Some believe that "having 169 targets is like having no targets at all". I feel that the number of goals should be reduced from 17 to 10. I feel that this makes the SDGs more focusable and marketable. Do you feel that the number of SDGs should be reduced or do you feel that the broader the set of goals and targets, the better?
4 comments:
Right after I read the article I searched for the actual SDGs because I wanted to compare them to the MDGs. Well, they are no where to be found yet, and that's pretty disappointing. I believe that having goals for development is wonderful, but they are often hollow and give no path to completion for LDCs. And with 169 targets, I am very concerned. Do they say "Reduce childhood hunger by 1/2" or does it say "Reduce childhood hunger by 1/2 through the introduction of GMO crops in fertile soil-poor regions"? Also, the cost of researching all of these targets as they progress seems wasteful. Sustainability shouldn't have unsustainable operating costs.
Hannah, you raise great points! I think that the sustainability initiative must be met with financial stability to allow for meaningful change. Additionally, I would like to see concentrated goals instead of spreading out the effort. Jim Collins always writes about having a "hedgehog concept" which encourages firms and institutions to have a central goal. This directs all targets toward meeting the objective and has had very strong results.
I do agree with the view "having 169 targets is like having no targets at all". I don't want to deny the positive effects of building targets on development. What I am concerned is the huge amount of costs make it unrealistic to reach all the targets. Changes can be step by step: solve the key problems and then other targets can be met more efficiently.
Austin- the "hedgehog concept" applies well to the Millennium Development Goals, I'm glad that you brought it up. They were central goals with varying targets, and many succeeded by their deadlines.
I would like the MDGs to be revised to expand on their already achieved targets. They've already been through decades of work and studied intensely. It would seem to be more efficient to work off of an already functioning model than build a new one.
Post a Comment