This blog post discusses Global Strategic Frameworks, particularly the SDGs and MDGs and their positives and negatives and how it connects to my Capstone.

Global Strategic Frameworks are designed to create worldwide frameworks, solutions, strategies and policies and actions and are becoming ever prevalent in modern society. The increase of technologies and an increased sense of importance in worldwide rights and ideals has caused global strategic frameworks to become the main method of creating international order.  Global strategic frameworks allow for actors worldwide to come together, collaborate and create a discussion area to discuss numerous issues, particularly issues around development. While these frameworks create a space for progress and discussion, Global Strategic Frameworks are also widely criticized by outside actors.

Global strategic frameworks, in theory, allow for choreographed and well planned global action and cooperation across numerous agendas. It also is supposed to create a space where all actors are equal in their opinions and are able to build partners in their social, economic and environmental goals. However, global strategic frameworks have limitations and are subject to wide criticism. Often indigenous persons are not able to participate in conversations, there is a lack of accountability, enforcement, determination, follow through, a complete understanding of cultures and other issues that have lead to disastrous consequences. Additionally, specifically with the SDGs and MDGs, these global strategies often lacked local context and had few analyses into individual countries social, cultural, political, and economic norms. The MDGs and SDGs created an ideological depiction of what the western world wanted with little consideration of local context. The MDGs are considered both a classic example of both what a global framework should be and the shortcomings of such frameworks. The MDGs were monumental for 2000 when they were first initiated. The MDGs also were incredibly important in the conversation of development as they marked the first time that the world collectively said that the idea of poverty is not just an economic experience, but a more holistic understanding of what development is and what areas that poverty effects. However, the MDGs did not accomplish all of its 8 goals and the success it did have was not equally distributed. The MDGs helped to lift more than one billion people out of extreme poverty, to make inroads against hunger, protect planet etc. however, progress has been uneven. The goals that it created were shortsighted, and while each goal had targets and indicators, it lacked enforcement, accountability and solid plans to achieve said goals. Furthermore, the MDGs lacked input from many groups including persons with disabilities and indigenous groups and had many detrimental impacts in some areas of the world.

When the MDGs concluded in 2015, the SDGs were created to replace them with the idea of taking the great strides that had been made in the MDGs and making them more sustainable. The SDGs focused more on intersections in the development world and had more goals, targets and indicators, included representation of more groups, were considered more universally applicable and focused less on what the West traditionally considered development. However, the SDGs had some downfalls, as well, as is true with every global international framework. Often the terminology used in the SDGs is a bit unrealistic and the statements made in the goals are not the same as what the indicators describe. For example, eradicate extreme poverty and hunger is one of the SDG goals, however, Target 1 states that the target is to Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1.25 a day. The issue with this goal to target interpretation is that eradicate isn’t the same as half. Additionally, the MDGs started in 2000, not 1990. $1.25 to measure poverty an arbitrary figure. Some critics use this as an example to say that the SDGs created the language in order to assure improvement over the years. Additionally, many of the goals that are created in the SDGs are unrealistic for all countries and some critics are saying that it is asking too much too soon and setting certain areas up for failure with the methodology of setting the goals being inconsistent and arbitrary around the world. For example, the idea of the goal of 100% education is biased against countries with low starting points and the question is raised about the quality of the education the children are receiving. If a country prioritizes getting their children to school and they have 900 students but only 3 teachers, do they still succeed according to the SDGs? Finally, as applicable to most Global Strategic Frameworks, collecting this data to see if the goals have been accomplished is very expensive and time-consuming.

While there are numerous flaws with Global Strategic Frameworks, the overarching idea of creating a space where persons worldwide can discuss their ideas and their beliefs is positive. The idea of Global Strategic Frameworks is instrumental in my paper as it analyzes the CRPD and discusses how and why a global strategic framework may not be as comprehensive as they intended it to be when it was created and how to create more accountability and more opportunities.