Commentary on Special Issue: Knowledge and Politics in Setting and Measuring SDGs Numbers and Norms
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12639 |
| Published date | 01 January 2019 |
| Author | Barbara Adams |
| Date | 01 January 2019 |
Commentary on Special Issue: Knowledge and
Politics in Setting and Measuring SDGs
Numbers and Norms
Barbara Adams
Global Policy Forum
Abstract
This Special Issue usefully analyses the links between statistics, knowledge, policy making and politics, and uncovers intended
and unintended consequences of using indicators to frame policy. Many civil society organizations (CSOs) were actively
involved in the Open Working Group, and some have continued their advocacy into the ongoing process of developing the
SDG indicator framework. Some indicators are being reconsidered; but despite repeated efforts there is still no indicator to
measure inequality between countries. There is a recognized need for innovative ways to supplement already existing data.
The use of proxy measurements is already underway, and initiatives such as a collaboration between some UN agencies and
Gallup. The active public engagement in the process that determined the SDGs may help to resist the reductionism often evi-
dent in translating from the goals to the targets to the indicators. The 2019 meeting of the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF)
will be an essential occasion to address some of these issues and to chart a correction course.
This contribution delves into the twists and turns of the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their linkages
with the realms of measurement, statistics, policies and
power and in so doing it draws out some opportunities
and challenges to their implementation. The special
issue edited by Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Desmond
McNeill navigates the complexity of each of these
dimensions.
The introductory chapter emphasizes the links between
statistics, knowledge, policy making and politics, and uncov-
ers intended and unintended consequences of how mea-
surement is used to frame policy directions. It provokes a
number of questions.
To what extent does measurement support
aspirational goals and to what extent reflect
pragmatism?
Thesamenumberscanbeusedtonameandshame
poverty or to merely prompt policies of temporary
band aid responses to mitigate negative political
impact.
Similarly with rankings of performance, these can be ‘in-
centives to be good performers’but also serve to punish
and damage reputation. Does the advantage of the former
outweigh the damage of the latter?
Are indicators inevitably distorting as well as reductionist?
The authors explore these dynamics concerning the Millen-
nium Development Goals (MDGs) and address the possibili-
ties for the SDGs if the global goals are connected to policy
making.
How are indicators used - for what purpose and
by whom?
Are they used to increase the influence of the dominant
shapers of policy or used to support a more level-playing
field?
The MDG approach enabled a pick-and-choose menu, and
the resulting cherry-picking re-shaped the development
agenda: in favor of the donor agenda rather than that of
developing countries, in favor of a social sectors approach
while being able to ignore the structural obstacles or mea-
sure the trade-offs (in increased inequalities or climate
change for example).
Despite the universality of the SDG approach, lack of
accountability risks the similar outcomes. The chapter pro-
vides a good analysis of how agendas can be re-shaped,
even re-written, by how they are financed and measured.
It reveals that the links to policy-making or policy impact
can be implicit and opportunistic as well as planned in a
transparent science-policy framework. Numbers can inspire
ambitious policies to reduce inequality, or be a tool of influ-
ence of the more dominant players in the policy spheres.
Going forward
As the chapter describes, the process of elaborating the
SDGs was very different from that for the MDGs. It was led
by member states, not a few UN staff, and with an unusual
inter-governmental process in the UN Open Working Group
(OWG). The OWG over 15 months delved into each SDG and
was the forum where member states championed and
Global Policy (2019) 10:Suppl.1 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12639 ©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 10 . Supplement 1 . January 2019 157
Practitioner Commentary
To continue reading
Request your trial