Formulating the SDGs: Reproducing or Reimagining State-Centered Development?

Abstract

Reformulation of the millennium development goals comes at a time when their realization is falling short. ‘Development as usual’ through global goal setting is in question in context of the recent conjunction of global food, energy, and financial crises. Given the evidence of problematic world-scale restructuring, it is puzzling that SDG visioning continues to assign principal responsibility to states for the post-2015 development agenda. We regard this as an epistemic blind spot that foregoes an opportunity to reorient planning to accommodate the global dimensions of these crises—and their possible solutions. In particular, we note that current forms of land enclosure, and migrant labor generation, are inadequately addressed by state-centric measures, especially with respect to the rights of land users and stateless workers. We offer recommendations for complementing and modifying nationally generated metrics with a more empowering agenda.

Extracto – La reformulación de las Metas de Desarrollo del Milenio llega en un momento en que su realización se está quedando corta. El “Desarrollo como siempre” por medio de la determinación de metas globales está siendo cuestionado dentro del contexto de la reciente conjunción dela crisis de alimento global, energía y financiera. Dada la evidencia de una problemática restructuración a escala mundial, es inquietante que la visión de las SGD continúe asignando responsabilidad principal a los estados para el desarrollo de la agenda post-2015. Consideramos que esto es un punto epistémico ciego que deja pasar una oportunidad para reorientar la planeación y acomodar las dimensiones globales de estas crisis –y sus posibles soluciones. En particular, notamos que las actuales formas de cerramiento de tierras y la generación de empleo migrante, son tratadas en forma inadecuada por medio de medidas centradas en el estado, especialmente respecto a los derechos de los usuarios de la tierra y de los trabajadores sin patria. Ofrecemos recomendaciones para la complementación y modificación de mediciones generadas domésticamente, dentro de una agenda con mayor empoderamiento.

Keywords:

• global development
• state-centrism
• urban-centrism
• land question
• migrant labor
• empowerment

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Recall that the Brundtland Commission report defined ‘sustainable development’ as ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' (quoted in Rich, 1994, p. 197).

2 The final set of goals is negotiated by this Open Working Group, which is composed over UN Member States, over five meetings in the first half of 2014, for proposal to the UN General Assembly in September 2014.

3 See the Special Issue of Globalizations, 10, 1 (2013) on Land Grabbing and Global Governance, edited by M. E. Margulis, N. McKeon, and S. M. Borras, Jr.

4 A conclusion reached also by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (2008).

5 The flaw is that the environment is an ecological process and relation, and cannot be so easily fractionated into commensurate metrics across diverse ecosystems and micro-climates.

6 The distinguishing feature of the food sovereignty movement is its reframing of rights discourse – for example, instead of the neoliberal food security mechanism of the ‘right to (purchase) food’ (cf. Jarocz, 2009), La Vía Campesina claims the ‘right to produce food'.

7 Interestingly, while the HLP advocates ‘each goal should … . Be grounded in the voice of people, and the priorities identified during consultations, especially children, youth, women and marginalised and excluded groups' (Fukuda-Parr & Yamin, 2013, pp. 13–14), this apparently does not apply to rural communities under threat of eviction or corralling into market relations in which they are subject to agro-industrial technologies, global corporate interests, and price volatility. See also Künnemann and Monsalve Súarez (2013).

8 It also has been shown to be more productive, and resilient, than monocultural farming (Badgley et al., 2007).

9 And those of UN Right to Food Rapporteur, Olivier De Schutter, who recommends: ‘A more appropriate reframing of agricultural trade rules would explicitly recognize that market-determined outcomes do not necessarily improve food security’ (De Schutter, 2011, p. 16).

Additional information

Kathleen Sexsmith is Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Development Sociology at the Cornell University. Her doctoral research examines labor migration from rural Mexico and Central America to dairy farming regions of New York, and the impacts of US immigration policy on working immigrant youth. She collaborates with the Cornell Farmworker Program, Worker Justice Center of New York, and Workers' Center of Central New York.

Philip McMichael is Professor and Chair of the Department of Development Sociology. His research is on the contemporary agrarian question, including land grabbing and agrarian resistances. He has authored Food regimes and agrarian questions (2013) and Development and social change: A global perspective (Sage, 2012, 5th edn.) and edited Contesting development: Critical struggles for social change (Routledge, 2010). He currently works with the Civil Society Mechanism of the FAO's Committee on World Food Security.