Beyond Goals and Targets: A Critical Reflection on the MDGs, SDGs, and the Missing Link in Global Development

Beyond Goals and Targets: A Critical Reflection on the MDGs, SDGs, and the Missing Link in Global Development

Wasike David

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-Kampala, Uganda

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000162

Received: 24 July 2025; Accepted: 31 July 2025; Published: 02 September 2025

ABSTRACT

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have long dominated global development agendas, shaping policies focused on poverty reduction, health, education, and sustainability. However, while these frameworks have succeeded in galvanizing international cooperation and resources, they have been criticized for overlooking the structural drivers of inequality and environmental degradation. This paper critically assesses the MDGs and SDGs, arguing that their focus on measurable targets masks deeper systemic issues, such as the unequal power dynamics inherent in global economic and political structures. Despite some progress, particularly in poverty reduction, the failure to address the root causes of global disparities limits the transformative potential of these frameworks. This analysis explores theoretical and empirical critiques, including the influence of neoliberalism, and proposes a paradigm shift toward a more holistic approach to development—one that prioritizes justice, equity, and ecological sustainability over mere economic growth. By engaging with critical development theory, this paper calls for a reorientation that tackles the political and ecological dimensions of underdevelopment, urging a shift from technocratic solutions to addressing global power imbalances.

Keywords: MDGs, SDGs, global inequality, political economy, structural change, development theory

INTRODUCTION

Since the adoption of the MDGs in 2000 and the SDGs in 2015, global development has been guided by quantitative targets designed to reduce poverty, improve human welfare, and promote sustainability (United Nations, 2000; United Nations, 2015). While these frameworks have mobilized significant political will and resources, they have attracted criticism for treating development as a technocratic exercise rather than a process rooted in structural power relations (Saith, 2006; Fukuda-Parr & Hulme, 2011). This paper critically reviews the theoretical underpinnings and empirical outcomes of the MDGs and SDGs and argues for a reorientation towards tackling systemic inequalities.

THEORETICAL REVIEW

The MDGs reflected a results-based management approach rooted in modernization theory and the human development paradigm (Sachs, 2012). Critics argue this approach reduced poverty to a set of measurable symptoms, ignoring deeper structural causes embedded in global economic relations (Ferguson, 1994; Hickey & Mohan, 2005). Saith (2006) contends that this ‘translation’ from universal human rights to technocratic targets resulted in a loss of critical substance.

The SDGs expanded the agenda by integrating sustainability, governance, and inequality, yet they continue to embody a liberal internationalist logic that evades addressing power asymmetries in global governance (Escobar, 2011; Kothari et al., 2019). Langford (2016) observes that despite transformative rhetoric, the SDGs remain embedded within the same neoliberal paradigms that reproduce global inequalities.

Empirical Evidence

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) achieved substantial gains in global poverty reduction, yet much of this progress was driven by economic growth in China and parts of Asia, rather than by global aid or policy frameworks (Easterly, 2009). While global poverty levels declined, Sub-Saharan Africa lagged behind, highlighting the limitations of top-down goals in addressing diverse regional contexts (Clemens et al., 2007). Countries like Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania in Sub-Saharan Africa exhibited slower reductions in poverty compared to other regions, with Uganda’s national poverty rate decreasing from 56% in 1992 to 34.6% in 2013 (UBOS, 2014), Kenya’s poverty rate falling from 46% in 1997 to 36.1% in 2015 (World Bank, 2015), and Tanzania’s poverty rate dropping from 66% in 1991 to 28.2% in 2012 (Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics, 2013). While these countries made progress, their poverty reduction rates were slower than those seen in Asia, where rapid economic growth significantly improved living standards.

With the transition from the MDGs to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a more integrated approach to development planning and reporting emerged (Sachs et al., 2022). However, recent evidence shows that progress on critical SDG targets — particularly climate action, inequality, and governance — is off track (United Nations, 2023). The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated structural vulnerabilities, reversing gains in poverty reduction and exposing fragile health and social protection systems (World Bank, 2022; UNDP, 2022). Hickel (2019) argues that the SDGs are internally contradictory, promoting economic growth in ways that undermine ecological sustainability, particularly through industrialization and unsustainable resource extraction.

Despite these challenges, progress towards the SDGs has been notable in several countries, as evidenced by their Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs). A comparative analysis of India, Finland, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Botswana, Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania provides insight into their achievements and ongoing challenges in advancing the SDGs.

According to India’s 2022 VNR, the country has made substantial progress in SDG 1 (No Poverty), reducing the national poverty rate from 21.9% in 2011 to 13.2% in 2019. However, inequality remains a pressing issue, particularly in rural areas where poverty rates are significantly higher (VNR India, 2022). In SDG 4 (Quality Education), India has shown improvements in primary school enrollment, though challenges persist regarding the quality of education, which limits its long-term impact.

Finland’s 2023 VNR highlights the country’s strong performance across most SDGs, particularly in SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). Finland has maintained one of the lowest levels of inequality globally, with only 12.2% of its population living below the national poverty line (VNR Finland, 2023). However, Finland is working to address the integration of marginalized groups, such as immigrants and refugees, into its social systems, which remains an ongoing challenge.

Ethiopia’s 2022 VNR reveals significant progress in SDG 1 (No Poverty), with the national poverty rate decreasing from 44% in 2000 to 23.5% in 2019. However, SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) remains a challenge, as Ethiopia faces rapid population growth and struggles to create sufficient, inclusive economic opportunities (VNR Ethiopia, 2022).

The Gambia: The 2022 VNR of The Gambia highlights improvements in SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), where food insecurity dropped from 45.4% in 2017 to 36.7% in 2020. However, the country continues to grapple with challenges related to climate change and sustainable agriculture (VNR Gambia, 2022). The Gambia also made significant strides in SDG 4 (Quality Education), reaching over 90% primary school enrollment, though issues regarding educational quality and equity persist.

Botswana’s 2021 VNR reports significant progress in SDG 1 (No Poverty), with the national poverty rate decreasing from 30.6% in 2009 to 16.3% in 2015. However, SDG 5 (Gender Equality) remains a critical area, with gender-based violence and low female labor force participation continuing to pose significant challenges (VNR Botswana, 2021).

Uganda’s 2020 VNR highlights notable progress in SDG 1 (No Poverty), with the poverty rate dropping from 56% in 1992 to 21.4% in 2020. However, poverty remains widespread, particularly in rural areas (VNR Uganda, 2020). Uganda has also seen improvements in SDG 4 (Quality Education), with primary school enrollment reaching 93% by 2020. Yet, challenges persist in secondary education and youth unemployment, which hinder broader economic and social development.

Kenya’s 2022 VNR shows a reduction in poverty from 46.1% in 2006 to 33.6% in 2020. Despite these gains, SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality) remains a significant challenge, with marked income inequality and regional disparities (VNR Kenya, 2022). The country has made substantial progress in SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), with a national electrification rate of 75.3% by 2021. However, challenges in educational quality and gender inequality in the labor market remain.

Tanzania’s 2021 VNR highlights significant progress in SDG 1 (No Poverty), with the poverty rate decreasing from 66% in 1991 to 26.4% in 2020. However, SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) continues to pose challenges, especially in maternal and child health, with high maternal mortality rates (VNR Tanzania, 2021). The country has also made notable strides in SDG 4 (Quality Education), with primary school enrollment reaching 97%, but challenges related to educational quality and equity persist.

In summary, the SDGs provide a more comprehensive framework than the MDGs, and countries like Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and others have made significant progress, as evidenced by their VNRs. However, the journey towards achieving the SDGs remains uneven, with persistent inequalities in poverty, education, and health. These disparities highlight the need for context-specific policies and targeted interventions to ensure that no one is left behind.

The Missing Link: Structural Power

Critical development scholars argue that both frameworks fail to address the global structures that sustain poverty and ecological degradation, such as unfair trade regimes, tax havens, debt traps, and the ecological footprints of industrialized economies (Shields & Paulson, 2015; Hickel, 2019). Fukuda-Parr (2019) highlights how the politics of indicators systematically exclude extreme inequality from the development agenda.

The missing link, therefore, is the need for a paradigm that tackles structural power relations — recognizing development as a political and ecological process rather than a technocratic project. Kothari et al. (2019) argue that post-development alternatives must embrace plurality, equity, and the redistribution of power and resources.

CONCLUSION

This reflection affirms that goals and targets can mobilize action, but alone they cannot transform deeply embedded structures of global inequality and ecological injustice. The next phase of global development must confront these systemic dimensions through democratic global governance, fair trade, ecological reparations, and policies that prioritize justice over GDP growth. Such a shift demands political courage and collective action that moves beyond statistics to tackle the root causes of underdevelopment.

REFERENCES

1. Clemens, M. A., Kenny, C. J., & Moss, T. J. (2007). The trouble with the MDGs: Confronting expectations of aid and development success. World Development, 35(5), 735–751.
2. Easterly, W. (2009). How the Millennium Development Goals are unfair to Africa. World Development, 37(1), 26–35.
3. Escobar, A. (2011). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press.
4. Ferguson, J. (1994). The anti-politics machine: “Development,” depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. University of Minnesota Press.
5. Fukuda-Parr, S. (2019). Keeping out extreme inequality from the SDG agenda—The politics of indicators. Global Policy, 10(S1), 61–69.
6. Fukuda-Parr, S., & Hulme, D. (2011). International norm dynamics and “the end of poverty”: Understanding the Millennium Development Goals. Global Governance, 17(1), 17–36.
7. Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2005). Relocating participation within a radical politics of development. Development and Change, 36(2), 237–262.
8. Hickel, J. (2019). The contradiction of the Sustainable Development Goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet. Sustainable Development, 27(5), 873–884.
9. Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F., & Acosta, A. (2019). Pluriverse: A post-development dictionary. Tulika Books.
10. Langford, M. (2016). Lost in transformation? The politics of the Sustainable Development Goals. Ethics & International Affairs, 30(2), 167–176.
11. Sachs, J. D. (2012). From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals. The Lancet, 379(9832), 2206–2211.
12. Sachs, J., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2022). Sustainable Development Report 2022. Cambridge University Press.
13. Saith, A. (2006). From universal values to Millennium Development Goals: Lost in translation. Development and Change, 37(6), 1167–1199.
14. Shields, S. A., & Paulson, S. (2015). Ecological debt: Embodied debt and the politics of global resource inequities. New Political Science, 37(2), 233–245.
15. United Nations. (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. UN.
16. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UN.
17. United Nations. (2023). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023. UN.
18. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2022). Human Development Report 2022. UNDP.
19. World Bank. (2022). Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2022: Correcting Course. World Bank.

Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs)

1. Uganda.(2023). Voluntary National Review of Uganda: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Government of Uganda. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/uganda
2. Tanzania.(2023). Voluntary National Review of Tanzania: Progress on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Government of Tanzania. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/tanzania
3. Kenya.(2023). Voluntary National Review of Kenya: Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda. Government of Kenya. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/kenya
4. Botswana.(2023). Voluntary National Review of Botswana: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Government of Botswana. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/botswana
5. India.(2023). Voluntary National Review of India: Progress on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Government of India. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/india
6. Ethiopia.(2023). Voluntary National Review of Ethiopia: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Government of Ethiopia. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/ethiopia
7. Finland.(2023). Voluntary National Review of Finland: Advancing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Government of Finland. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/finland
8. The Gambia. (2023). Voluntary National Review of The Gambia: Progress towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Government of The Gambia. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/gambia

Author Bio

Wasike David is a Lecturer at the Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Business and Management, at the International University of East Africa (IUEA). David is also a Doctoral Student at the Faculty of Business and Management (BAM) at Uganda Martyrs University (UMU)-Kampala. In addition to his academic roles, he serves as a Researcher on the SDGs Tracking Project under The World Association for Sustainable Development (WASD).

Contact: david.wasike@iuea.ac.ug