INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 373
Ubuntu and the Missed Development Goals in the Global South:
Rethinking MDGs and SDGs through an African Philosophical Lens
Wasike David
Lecturer, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Business and Management (FBM),
International University of East Africa (IUEA), Doctoral Student, Faculty of Business and Management
(BAM), Uganda Martyrs University (UMU), Kampala, Uganda
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.1010000028
Received: 25 Sep 2025; Accepted: 02 Oct 2025; Published: 30 October 2025
ABSTRACT
The Global South continues to face challenges in meeting international development goals like the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Traditional explanations focus on
governance, financial, and institutional weaknesses, but often ignore the cultural and philosophical foundations
that are crucial to development. This study uses the African philosophy of Ubuntu, expressed as “I am because
we are,” to examine why sub-Saharan Africa and other Global South regions struggle with these global
agendas. Ubuntu principles of collective responsibility, human dignity, interconnectedness, relational justice,
and inclusive participation are often overlooked in development frameworks driven by external influences.
Using a qualitative interpretive approach that includes philosophical interpretation and secondary analysis of
development reports, this article shows that incorporating Ubuntu principles can reshape development
strategies to be more participatory, human-centered, and relational. Such a shift could improve the
effectiveness of SDG implementation and promote sustainable development that aligns with local socio-
cultural realities.
Keywords: Ubuntu, Global South, Millennium Development Goals, Sustainable Development Goals, African
philosophy, development, collective responsibility, human dignity
INTRODUCTION
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted in 2000, followed by the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) in 2015, represent an international commitment to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality, and
promote sustainable development globally (United Nations, 2015). Despite progress in some areas, many
countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, have not met critical targets related to poverty alleviation,
maternal and child health, and education (Sachs, 2012; Easterly, 2009). Dominant analytical frameworks
attribute these setbacks primarily to governance deficits, resource scarcity, institutional weaknesses, and
structural economic challenges (Mkandawire, 2001; Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). However, these accounts
often omit the influence of underlying cultural and philosophical contexts that shape development experiences
in the Global South (Mamdani, 2012).
This article argues that the limited success of global development agendas can be better understood through the
African philosophy of Ubuntu, which foregrounds human dignity, relational justice, collective responsibility,
and interconnectedness (Gyekye, 1996; Mbiti, 1969). Ubuntu’s emphasis on community and
interconnectedness challenges externally imposed, technocratic development models by highlighting inclusive
participation and local socio-cultural values. By incorporating Ubuntu principles into the assessment of the
MDGs and SDGs, this study seeks to offer alternative pathways that are more contextually grounded,
participatory, and ethical, thereby enhancing the likelihood of sustainable and meaningful development
outcomes in the Global South.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 374
LITERATURE REVIEW
Global Development Agendas in the Global South
In the last twenty years, international development frameworks have become more complex. The Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), adopted in 2000, focused on eight targets, such as ending poverty, providing
universal primary education, achieving gender equality, improving health, and ensuring environmental
sustainability (United Nations, 2015). Although the MDGs gained significant global attention and funding,
progress in many developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, has been inconsistent because of
structural, institutional, and resource challenges (Sachs, 2012; UNDP, 2020).
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), introduced in 2015, built on this framework with 17
interconnected goals highlighting social, economic, environmental, and governance areas, including peace,
justice, and climate action (United Nations, 2015). While African countries have made progress in areas like
primary school enrollment and reducing HIV/AIDS, ongoing issues such as weak institutions and fragmented
policies continue to hinder advancement (Rotberg, 2014; UNDP, 2020). Achieving the SDGs requires more
than just technical fixes; it needs culturally appropriate and locally driven strategies that connect global
objectives with national goals.
Explanations for Development Shortfalls
Researchers link development shortfalls to a mix of governance, financial, structural, and institutional issues.
Poor governance, corruption, and a lack of accountability slow down policy execution (Rotberg, 2014).
Financial struggles, including dependence on external aid and limited domestic revenue, restrict investment in
key sectors (Easterly, 2009). Structural inequalities in the global economy keep the Global South dependent
and limit growth opportunities (Mkandawire, 2001). Additionally, institutional weaknesses, such as inadequate
bureaucratic systems, weaken effective service delivery and policy consistency (Acemoglu & Robinson,
2012). While these factors offer valuable insights, they often view development mainly as a technical or
economic issue, ignoring cultural, ethical, and relational aspects critical to human well-being (Sen, 1999).
Development strategies that do not address these elements risk producing uneven results, similar to what was
seen under both the MDGs and SDGs.
Critiques of Global Development Frameworks
Global development frameworks often receive criticism for being top-down and donor-driven. These
approaches frequently marginalize local knowledge, community involvement, and culturally specific social
norms, which reduces their effectiveness and sustainability (Sen, 1999; Nabudere, 2005). The emphasis on
quantitative metrics, such as income levels or school enrollment, often overlooks qualitative aspects of human
development, including dignity, relational justice, and social cohesion (Murove, 2009). Furthermore,
externally imposed development priorities can reinforce existing inequalities, limiting the transformative
potential of these frameworks in African contexts (Mkandawire, 2001; UN Women, 2018).
Ubuntu Philosophy and Development
Ubuntu, a philosophy based on African communal values, offers an alternative framework that focuses on
relational accountability, collective responsibility, human dignity, and inclusive participation (Ramose, 2002;
Nabudere, 2005). Ubuntu aligns with Amartya Sen’s (1999) idea of development as freedom, but it emphasizes
community well-being and mutual care over individualistic or market-driven approaches. Incorporating
Ubuntu into development practice can help clarify and address the uneven results of the MDGs and SDGs in
sub-Saharan Africa, promoting culturally relevant and socially sustainable policies (Metz, 2017; Praeg, 2014).
Localization and Ownership
The success of development frameworks in Africa relies heavily on local ownership and contextual adaptation.
Countries with strong institutional capacity and clear policy frameworks are better at turning global goals into
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 375
effective national strategies (Andrews, Pritchett & Woolcock, 2017). In contrast, initiatives forced on them
from the outside, without adequate adaptation, often fail to be sustainable (Whitfield, 2009). For instance,
while the MDGs urged African governments to include poverty reduction in national strategies, limited
financial resources and administrative capacity hindered implementation (Kabeer, 2015). This highlights the
need for participatory governance and the inclusion of local knowledge systems in development planning.
Intersectionality and Inclusivity
The SDGs specifically aim to “leave no one behind,” stressing the need to address overlapping inequalities
linked to gender, age, ethnicity, and geography (UN Women, 2018). However, marginalized groups, especially
rural women and youth, still face exclusion from decision-making and economic opportunities, limiting the
potential for transformative development policies (Cornwall & Rivas, 2015; UNECA, 2019). Tackling these
intersectional vulnerabilities is crucial for achieving fair and sustainable outcomes.
Sustainability and Resilience
Compared to the MDGs, the SDGs focus more on environmental sustainability and societal resilience (Le
Blanc, 2015). Yet, many African countries find it hard to implement climate adaptation and sustainable
practices because of weak institutions, disjointed policies, and economic dependence on extractive industries
(AfDB, 2021). Building resilience through better social protection systems and climate-adaptive infrastructures
is key to handling shocks like pandemics and climate disasters (Hallegatte et al., 2016).
Integrating Ubuntu into Contemporary Practice
Recent studies suggest using Ubuntu principles to connect global development frameworks with local realities.
Ubuntu emphasizes solidarity, reciprocity, and community care, offering an alternative to individualistic,
market-focused approaches (Metz, 2017; Praeg, 2014). Evidence from areas like community health, education,
and conflict resolution shows that Ubuntu-based methods increase participation, trust, and long-term
sustainability (Murove, 2014). Including Ubuntu in national development strategies can lead to inclusive,
context-sensitive policies, thereby improving the chances of meeting SDG targets in sub-Saharan Africa
(Nabudere, 2011).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Ubuntu Philosophy
This study uses Ubuntu philosophy to analyze and critique global development frameworks. It highlights the
relational, ethical, and communal aspects often ignored in traditional methods. Ubuntu, based in African
ethical thought, offers a framework for evaluating development outcomes through principles that focus on
human dignity, collective responsibility, and social connections (Mbiti, 1969; Nabudere, 2005). By placing
development in the context of community obligations and mutual accountability, Ubuntu challenges the
dominance of technical, top-down, or purely market-driven models. It calls for methods that combine ethical,
social, and relational factors (Tutu, 1999; Murove, 2009).
The first key principle, collective responsibility, asserts that development is a shared duty. It goes beyond
individual or elite interests to include the whole community. Policies and programs should focus on communal
well-being and social fairness, ensuring that all members benefit from development efforts (Nabudere, 2005).
This principle aligns with participatory governance and local ownership, emphasizing that sustainable progress
cannot happen when decision-making is limited to a few people.
Human dignity serves as the second guiding principle. It states that development efforts must respect and
enhance the inherent worth of all individuals. Efforts that ignore dignity—through exclusion, coercion, or
unfair access—can create inequalities and weaken social cohesion (Tutu, 1999). Including dignity in
development planning ensures that beneficiaries are seen as active participants rather than just recipients of
aid, strengthening the ethical basis for policy and program design.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 376
The principle of relational justice emphasizes fairness in both local and global relationships. Ubuntu
understands that sustainable development is not just a technical or economic issue; it's also a moral one. It
requires a fair distribution of resources and opportunities across different societal groups (Murove, 2009). This
viewpoint encourages policies that tackle structural inequalities, lessen marginalization, and promote
restorative measures for historical injustices or current disparities.
Interconnectedness, the fourth principle, states that development challenges—like poverty, health, and
education—are linked. They require thorough and holistic solutions (Mbiti, 1969). Ubuntu opposes isolated
interventions and instead supports methods that consider social, economic, environmental, and cultural factors
simultaneously. For instance, improving education outcomes without addressing health or infrastructure
challenges may lead to limited and unsustainable results.
Finally, inclusive participation insists that all voices, especially those of marginalized groups, should influence
development priorities (Metz, 2011). Ubuntu highlights the importance of dialogue and community discussion,
ensuring that policies and programs reflect the real experiences of beneficiaries instead of the preferences of
elites or outside actors. Inclusive participation boosts legitimacy, accountability, and sustainability, closing the
gap between policy goals and practical outcomes.
Together, these principles create a solid theoretical framework for evaluating African development paths. By
applying Ubuntu, this article looks at not just what development outcomes have been achieved but also how
they were achieved. It emphasizes relational ethics, social justice, and communal responsibility as vital to
sustainable and fair progress.
Conceptual Framework
This study’s conceptual framework combines Ubuntu philosophy with the assessment of MDG and SDG
performance in sub-Saharan African countries. Ubuntu, based in African ethical thought, focuses on
relationships, human dignity, and shared responsibility. It offers a way to understand development that goes
beyond just technical or economic measures (Mbiti, 1969; Nabudere, 2005). By highlighting principles like
inclusivity, interconnectedness, and relational justice, Ubuntu questions traditional development views that
often overlook grassroots voices or favor elite and donor-driven agendas (Tutu, 1999; Murove, 2009). This
framework enables the study to look at both outcomes—such as lower maternal mortality rates, better
education, and reduced poverty—and the methods used to achieve these outcomes, pointing out the ethical and
social aspects of development.
The framework sees development as a process that involves multiple dimensions and relationships, where
numerical progress indicators cannot be separated from social, ethical, and participatory aspects. Shared
responsibility makes sure that development efforts are collective responsibilities, not just individual actions
(Nabudere, 2005). Human dignity ensures that programs respect and improve the inherent worth of those
involved (Tutu, 1999). Relational justice guides the fair distribution of resources, policies, and opportunities
(Murove, 2009). Interconnectedness emphasizes the need for integrated and holistic solutions to development
issues (Mbiti, 1969). Inclusive participation highlights the importance of giving marginalized groups a voice in
decision-making processes, making sure that development is relevant to local contexts, informed by their
circumstances, and sustainable (Metz, 2011). Together, these principles form the conceptual basis for
examining how the MDG and SDG outcomes of African countries either reflect or diverge from Ubuntu-
inspired development values.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 377
Source: Author, 2025
METHODOLOGY
This study uses a qualitative comparative case study design (Yin, 2014) to explore how various countries in
sub-Saharan Africa have performed under the MDGs and are progressing under the SDGs. The focus is on
Ubuntu—a philosophy that highlights relationships, shared responsibility, dignity, and interconnectedness. The
case study method provides a deep, contextual understanding of each country’s development path and allows
for comparisons between cases to identify patterns and differences.
Data for each country comes from secondary sources, including UN MDG/SDG progress reports, national
development documents, peer-reviewed articles, World Bank data, and evaluations of health, education,
poverty, and governance outcomes. For example, Rwanda’s MDG success is well documented, particularly its
reductions in child and maternal mortality from 1990 to 2015. Similarly, Uganda's SDG status is sourced from
its national SDG progress reports and Voluntary National Reviews.
Document Analysis
This component involves a systematic review of MDG and SDG reports, national strategic plans, and relevant
statistics on health, education, and poverty. Key outcomes such as maternal and child mortality, school
enrollment, and poverty reduction are examined to establish a baseline understanding of each country’s
performance. This step ensures that empirical evidence informs the subsequent comparative and ethical
analysis.
Comparative Analysis
Comparative analysis evaluates the nine countries based on key indicators, including maternal mortality, child
mortality, poverty, inclusivity, and governance. By juxtaposing these outcomes, the study identifies patterns,
strategies associated with better results, and areas where weaknesses or gaps persist. This approach highlights
not only differences in performance but also the contextual factors—such as policy design, resource allocation,
and institutional capacity—that influence development outcomes.
Ubuntu Framework Analysis
This component applies the philosophical and ethical principles of Ubuntu to assess the relational and ethical
dimensions of development. It examines whether outcomes were achieved in ways that promote fairness,
community involvement, dignity, and shared responsibility. Key considerations include:
Did policies encourage local ownership and meaningful participation?
Did outcomes reduce inequality and respect human dignity?
The Ubuntu framework complements traditional quantitative analyses by emphasizing relational and ethical
aspects often overlooked in conventional metrics. It encourages a broader understanding of development
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 378
success, focusing not only on how much was achieved numerically but also how it was achieved—whether
communities were actively engaged, policies were inclusive, and dignity and fairness were upheld.
Source: Author, 2025
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Ubuntu and Development Gaps in Selected Countries
This section looks at nine sub-Saharan African countries: Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, Ethiopia,
Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, and South Sudan. It assesses their MDG and SDG progress using both quantitative
indicators like maternal mortality, school enrollment, and poverty reduction, and qualitative factors such as
participation, equity, and local ownership. Beyond just describing the data, the analysis examines how much
development outcomes reflect Ubuntu principles, which focus on inclusivity, fairness, dignity, and shared
responsibility. This approach helps determine if policies and programs build social cohesion, encourage
collective accountability, and uphold human dignity, or if they suffer from issues like elite capture, donor
dependency, or the exclusion of marginalized groups. Organized as case studies for each country, this section
combines empirical data and literature to show where MDG/SDG progress supports Ubuntu principles and
where relational justice is lacking. It highlights trends such as Rwanda’s success with community-based
strategies compared to the challenges faced by Somalia and South Sudan due to conflict and weak institutions.
In the end, the discussion emphasizes that achieving sustainable SDGs in Africa requires both technical skills
and development methods grounded in Ubuntu’s values of interconnectedness and mutual responsibility.
Rwanda: A Model of Relational Justice
Rwanda shows strong success in meeting MDG goals, especially in lowering child and maternal mortality.
Under-five mortality dropped from 152 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 50 per 1,000 by 2015. Maternal
mortality went down from more than 1,000 to around 210 per 100,000 live births (Panafrican Medical Journal,
2018). These results came from strong community health worker networks, broad vaccination efforts, and
health programs that involve the community. They reflect the Ubuntu values of shared responsibility and
respect. However, challenges remain, including neonatal mortality and some top-down governance structures
that limit local autonomy (Government of Rwanda, 2020).
Uganda: Progress Moderated by Inclusivity Gaps
Uganda has shown moderate progress on the SDGs. There have been significant improvements in health,
gender equality, and raising revenue (Uganda SDG Progress Report, 2021). However, SDG 1 (poverty
eradication), SDG 11 (sustainable cities), and SDG 16 (peace and justice) are still not on track. Initiatives like
youth engagement platforms and partnerships with the private sector show a growing sense of accountability.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 379
Yet, planning that focuses on elites and limited participation from grassroots groups hinder inclusivity. This
also affects the practical application of Ubuntu principles.
Kenya and Tanzania: Urban Bias and Elite Capture
Kenya's Vision 2030 and Tanzania's Five-Year Plans show progress in education, infrastructure, and reducing
poverty. Still, urban-focused development and elite capture continue. Although devolution and local
governance can promote community involvement, limited resources and poor execution often neglect rural and
informal groups. This weakens Ubuntu’s focus on fairness, dignity, and shared responsibility.
Ethiopia: Growth without Relational Justice
Ethiopia’s strong economic growth and infrastructure development have raised national averages in poverty
and service delivery. Still, structural inequalities, ethnic tensions, and regional differences leave peripheral and
minority groups at a disadvantage. Even with technical progress, policies focused solely on growth without fair
participation undermine Ubuntu values, especially relational justice and shared responsibility.
Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan: Conflict and Fragility
In Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan, conflict, displacement, and weak states have greatly hindered progress on
the MDGs and SDGs. Access to education, health, and basic services remains limited. Although local NGOs
and community-led peace committees reflect some Ubuntu practices, outside interventions often ignore
communities. This stops relational justice, dignity, and shared responsibility from becoming established.
Burundi: Low Base and Weak Governance
Burundi started with a low MDG baseline. Political instability, conflict, and weak institutions have limited
development results (UCT Open Access Repository, 2015). Informal solidarity networks are present, but
limited institutional capacity reduces meaningful participation. This weakens relational accountability and
Ubuntu principles.
Comparative Insights: Ubuntu and Development Patterns
In the nine countries studied, the analysis shows that effective MDG/SDG outcomes link closely with
inclusive, participatory, and ethically-based development practices. Countries like Rwanda, which combined
strong leadership, community engagement, and local ownership, achieved more sustainable results. In contrast,
fragile or elite-driven states, such as Somalia, South Sudan, and Burundi, show ongoing gaps where relational
justice, dignity, and collective responsibility are lacking.
Table 1: MDG/SDG Outcomes and Ubuntu Dimensions
Country Key MDG/SDG Outcomes Ubuntu Strengths Ubuntu Gaps/Challenges
Rwanda MDG 4 & 5 achieved; child &
maternal mortality declined; high
vaccination coverage
Community health
workers, participatory
programs
Neonatal mortality; some top-
down governance limits
autonomy
Uganda SDG progress >50%; strong
health & gender gains; poverty &
peace SDGs off-track
Youth engagement,
private sector SDG
platform
Elite-driven planning, limited
grassroots participation
Kenya Education & infrastructure
improved; rural-urban disparities
persist
Devolution offers local
voice
Urban bias, elite capture
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 380
Tanzania Poverty reduction & health access
improved; regional disparities
remain
Ward-level community
initiatives
Weak follow-through limits
dignity & participation
Ethiopia GDP growth & poverty reduction;
structural inequalities persist
National health &
education programs
Peripheral populations left
behind
Somalia Fragile state; limited MDG/SDG
progress
Local NGOs & elders
maintain services
External aid top-down; limited
relational repair
Tanzania Poverty reduction & health access
improved; regional disparities
remain
Ward-level community
initiatives
Weak follow-through limits
dignity & participation
Ethiopia GDP growth & poverty reduction;
structural inequalities persist
National health &
education programs
Peripheral populations left
behind
Somalia Fragile state; limited MDG/SDG
progress
Local NGOs & elders
maintain services
External aid top-down; limited
relational repair
CONCLUSION
The comparative analysis shows that progress on MDGs and SDGs is closely tied to inclusive, participatory,
and ethical development practices. Countries that embraced community engagement, local ownership, and fair
service delivery, like Rwanda, achieved sustainable and significant results. In contrast, fragile or elite-driven
situations, such as Somalia, South Sudan, and Burundi, faced ongoing gaps. The findings suggest that technical
interventions and resource distribution alone are not enough. To make lasting progress, we need policies and
programs that instill relational justice, dignity, and shared responsibility. Using Ubuntu as a guiding and
analytical tool offers important insights into the different outcomes of countries. It also highlights ways to
implement SDGs in a more inclusive, resilient, and ethically aware manner across sub-Saharan Africa.
REFERENCES
1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and
Poverty. Crown Publishing Group.
2. African Development Bank (AfDB). (2021). African Economic Outlook 2021. AfDB.
3. Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building State Capability: Evidence, Analysis,
Action. Oxford University Press.
4. Cornwall, A., & Rivas, A. (2015). From ‘Gender Equality and ‘Women’s Empowerment’ to Global
Justice: Reframing Development Goals. Third World Quarterly, 36(2), 396–415.
5. Easterly, W. (2009). The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So
Much Ill and So Little Good. Penguin Press.
6. Hallegatte, S., Rentschler, J., & Rozenberg, J. (2016). Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure
Opportunity. World Bank.
7. Kabeer, N. (2015). Gender, Labour, and Development: The MDG Experience in Africa. Routledge.
8. Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of
Targets. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 176–187.
9. Mbiti, J. S. (1969). African religions and philosophy. Heinemann.
10. Metz, T. (2011). Ubuntu as a moral theory and human rights in South Africa. African Human Rights
Law Journal, 11(2), 532–559.
11. Metz, T. (2017). Ubuntu and the African Philosophy of Development. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
12. Mkandawire, T. (2001). Thinking about Developmental States in Africa. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 25(3), 289–313.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 381
13. Murove, M. (2009). Ubuntu and the Law in South Africa: A Critical Review. African Human Rights
Law Journal, 9(2), 283–306.
14. Murove, M. (2014). African Ethics: An Anthology of Comparative and Applied Ethics. University of
Kwazulu-Natal Press.
15. Murove, M. F. (2009). African ethics: An anthology of comparative and applied ethics. University of
KwaZulu-Natal Press.
16. Nabudere, D. (2005). Globalisation, Science and Technology, and African Development. CODESRIA.
17. Nabudere, D. W. (2005). Ubuntu, African ethics and developmental governance in Africa. African
Renaissance, 2(1), 33–47.
18. Praeg, L. (2014). The Relevance of Ubuntu to African Development. South African Journal of
Philosophy, 33(1), 55–67.
19. Ramose, M. (2002). African Philosophy through Ubuntu. Mond Books.
20. Rotberg, R. (2014). Governance and Development in Africa: The Challenge of State Fragility.
Brookings Institution Press.
21. Sachs, J. (2012). The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press.
22. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
23. Tutu, D. (1999). No future without forgiveness. Image Books.
24. UN Women. (2018). Turning Promises into Action: Gender Equality in the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. United Nations.
25. UNDP. (2020). Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier—Human Development and the
Anthropogenic. UNDP.
26. UNECA. (2019). African SDG Report 2019: Tracking Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals
in Africa. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
27. United Nations (UN). (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. UN.
28. Whitfield, L. (2009). Ownership and Aid in Africa: Rethinking the Politics of Development. Oxford
Development Studies, 37(1), 1–14.