Knowledge and Politics in Setting and Measuring the SDGs: Introduction to Special Issue
| Date | 01 January 2019 |
| Published date | 01 January 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12604 |
| Author | Desmond McNeill,Sakiko Fukuda‐Parr |
Knowledge and Politics in Setting and
Measuring the SDGs: Introduction to
Special Issue
Sakiko Fukuda-Parr
The New School
Desmond McNeill
University of Oslo
Abstract
The papers in this special issue provide accounts of the politics and knowledge that shaped the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). The open and transparent processes in the Open Working Group (OWG) and Post-2015 agenda consultations
challenged the MDG paradigm and set more transformative and ambitious goals. But across many goals, there was slippage
in ambition when targets and indicators were selected. In some cases, this is due to genuine difficulty in defining a suitable
indicator. In other cases, there is clearly a contestation about the agenda, and indicators are used to reorient or pervert the
meaning of the goal. The accounts of the negotiations–concerning inequality, sustainable agriculture, access to justice, educa-
tion, environment –show how the selection of an indicator is purportedly a technical matter but is highly political, though
obscured behind the veil of an objective and technical choice. The papers also highlight how the increasing role of big data
and other non-traditional sources of data is altering data production, dissemination and use, and fundamentally altering the
epistemology of information and knowledge. This raises questions about ‘data for whom and for what’–fundamental issues
concerning the power of data to shape knowledge, the democratic governance of SDG indicators and of knowledge for devel-
opment overall.
Policy Implications
•The research findings show that the SDG experience was an important innovation in more participatory and transparent
goal setting, but they also call attention to the pitfalls of ‘governance by indicators’. The HLPF and the UN SC should re-
examine the most problematic indicators at the 2020 review.
•The UN SC should ensure that the IAEG-SDGs is open to comment and proposals for change, while civil society actors and
others should continue to invest in scrutinizing the selection of indicators. Criteria for indicator selection should be based
more on their accurately reflecting SDG norms and less on data availability. The international community should invest
more in developing Tier II and III indicators.
•Most national statistical offices (NSOs) cannot implement the SDG indicator framework without adequate resources.
National governments and international donors should give higher priority to supporting these needs.
•Big data can make a contribution to the SDGs but their development needs to be carefully managed to ensure they pro-
mote inclusive and participatory development. To ensure this, UN should play a more proactive role in governing the use
of big data, for example through accreditation.
•Monitoring the implementation of SDGs should be based on a broad qualitative analysis focused on the goals, not on the
indicator framework alone.
Keynes (1936, p. 383) once remarked, ‘the ideas of econo-
mists and political philosophers, both when they are right
and when they are wrong are more powerful than is com-
monly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else’.
But which ideas rule? The development field is replete with
competing ideas about the essential objectives of what we
mean by ‘development’, and theories about the best ways
to achieve them. Global development agendas are an effort
to bridge those divides and find common ground; but there
is an intense competition for acceptance of one single set
of ideas as the consensus global norm concerning both the
ends and means of development. Thus it is not surprising
that the formulation of the SDGs –an exercise to define a
collective vision of development and set out key priorities –
was an intensely contested process.
Much public debate about the politics of SDG negotia-
tions has focused on the nature of the open multi-stake-
holder process, to explain why they led to a transformative
Global Policy (2019) 10:Suppl.1 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12604 ©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 10 . Supplement 1 . January 2019 5
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial