Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality, and to see the links to virtual rooms.

T0253


SDG: Employing Capability Approach to Creating Social and Economic Impact in Development and Policy 
Convenor:
Brian Ikejiaku
Send message to Convenor
Discussants:
Graciela Tonon (Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora)
John Sydenstricker-Neto (Mackenzie Presbyterian University (UPM), Brazil)
Lindsay Thompson (Johns Hopkins Carey Business School)
Format:
Thematic Panel
Theme:
Creating social and economic impact in development and public policy using the capability approach

Short Abstract:

There are some concerns by academics and practitioners about the risk of the SDGs remaining a meaningless aspiration if social and economic policies for achieving the specific SDGs to do make revolutionary shift to benefit those that seem to be ‘left behind’ including the poor, the vulnerable, those facing inequality of any sort, and social injustice. The discussion draws from capability approach.

Long Abstract:

While this is a Thematic Panel Session, it centres on the recent book published by Dr. Brian Ikejiaku “The Capability Approach and the Sustainable Development Goals: Inter/Multi/Trans Disciplinary Goals’ (Routledge, 2024: 06).

This abstract has two strands in the sense that it is being used for proposing two panels. One of the panels will have two presentations focusing solely on India/Asian countries – to recognise this year’s conference being held in India/Asia, also part of the book has case studies on India/Asia. The second panel will be presentations focusing on other regions/countries.

There are some concerns by academics and practitioners about the risk of the SDGs remaining a meaningless aspiration if social and economic policies for achieving the specific SDGs to do make revolutionary shift to benefit those that seem to be ‘left behind’ – including the poor, the vulnerable, those facing inequality of any sort, social injustice, discrimination, lack of education, unemployment (Ikejiaku, 2024). A closer look and consideration of a few past UN reports on the status of SDGs at their halfway or midpoint suggests some discouraging remarks (Kenny, 2023). This is because progress on more than 50-percent of targets of the SDGs could be described as weak and insufficient. The issues of Covid-19 pandemic, the triple crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, coupled with the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict, all seem to have slowed down development progress. Though, the reality is that we have been off-track the positive performance marks prior to or without these problems.

The fact is that while the ‘goals’ for the UN-2030 agenda were massively ambitious, the required revolutionary change and resilience it deserves are missing. The food for thought is that, if we are honest to ourselves, it is not that we do not have the scientific knowledge and capacity to achieve most of the SDGs, but as usual, most of the global projects targeted ‘primarily’ to the benefit of the developing countries of the Global South are approached with a lack of willpower and a lackluster attitude. Thus, it is difficult to creating the level of social and economic impact in development and policy as expected. This is glaring when we briefly recast our minds to antecedents by considering various international development agenda/projects: (a) the failure of Law and Development Movement championed by global-rated academics and financial institutions was mainly because of the lack of fit of the transplanted laws in the practical scheme of things in the developing countries and this failed to creating social and economic impact in development and policy; (b) the demise of the Basic-Needs Approach pioneered by the World Bank was because it appeared to lack scientific rigour, was anti-growth, and consumption-oriented and, created little or no social and economic impact in development and policy; and (c) the ‘little’ success accorded to the Millennium Development Goals was the fact that any success of the goals was not experienced equally practically across the globe; therefore, the little social and economic impact in development and policy it created was lopsided or disproportionate.

The required radical change and resilience required to move SDG forward is missing, there is still a lack of financial and practical commitments by the global communities, alongside weak policy measures and institutional reform to change the tide of things in the developing countries. Another good example is a look at international financing, where we have seen discrete levels of backsliding on the commitment to renewed or additional climate-finance repeated in Paris in 2015 combined with a static level of declining quality development assistance reaching low- and-middle-income countries. Several donors including the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Norway have regressed in terms of aid commitments. To say the least is the declining commitment to global solidarity displayed by the behaviour at the World Trade Organisation, the unequal response over Covid vaccines, and the snail’s pace reform in international institutions from the multilateral development banks through the UN Security Council to better reflect the global balance of demographic and economic power. Even though, the latest UN report shows there has been progress since 2015 (e.g., in health stunting declined from 24.6% of the kids affected to 22.3% worldwide; under-five mortality fell from 4.3% to 3.8% of those born worldwide; upper-secondary school completion rates have risen from 53% to 58%, and in infrastructure, access to improved sanitation has increased from 73% to 81% of the world’s population [UN, 2023] ). This notwithstanding, the overall picture is that there has been a general failure to meet the SDGs; yet there is an understanding of a world where more people have access to the basics of a good life. That does not mean the SDGs themselves are a waste-of-time or a complete failure. It is impressive that the world managed to agree to so many indicators of progress, and even if they make only a very marginal difference to actual rates of change on those indicators that might be a basis for some hopes, no matter how weak. But whether good or bad, what is clear is that the SDGs make very glaring how far humanity is from where it could be and where its collective leaders suggest they want to see it. The world as they say is still getting better, but it is a global moral failing that it is getting better at a snail’s pace, particularly in the developing countries. And there does not seem to be much evidence that failing will be resolved any time soon.

However, SDGs are more inclusive, well-defined, and measurable with required actions but need a more robust conceptual framework that is practical-based and result-oriented – it is based on all these elements that Sen’s capability approach is a reliable analytical tool that can offer deliverable outcomes (Alkire, 2015). Against this backdrop, the two panels will employ the capability approach as analytical framework, drawing from a range of (inter)disciplinary perspectives and using case-studies from across countries, to addressing the issues of SDGs, to creating social and economic impact in development and policy.

Accepted papers:

 
A A A A A
current theme change theme