Critiquing the SDG Framework Through the Lens of Goal Two: Empirical Reflections from Two Case Studies in India

Abstract

Theoretically, much skepticism has emerged insofar as the translation of SDG framework at local level is concerned. Comparatively, much less has been done to investigate the empirical reality of this discourse. Using case study exploration technique situated in two urban areas of India – Mumbai and Sitamarhi, this paper explicates how key contentions of the debate manifest at the ground level. Reflections from Mumbai show that SDG’s reliance on targets and indicators masks extreme inequality underlying so-called ‘extraordinary’ achievements in reducing child stunting. Despite its transformatory claims the operationalization of SDG framework adopts a narrow view on inequality and bypasses related structural processes. At the same time, preoccupation with numbers and targets while implementing nutrition programmes for SDG two in the town of Sitamarhi, distorts the reality and diverts priorities away from systemic issues like infrastructural and institutional gaps. SDG framework’s continued engagement with indicators, targets and numbers, indeed hides multiple axes of inequality in nutrition outcomes, creates fallacious claims of successes and therefore, closes the window for potential improvement. Eventually, both Mumbai and Sitamarhi, despite their development contrast, are faced with similar question – what structural and institutional transformation, must precede the operationalization of SDG two?

Keywords:

• SDGs
• Goal two
• malnutrition
• hunger
• indicators
• inequality

Acknowledgement

The author is thankful to the Non-Government Organizations- Apnalaya and Society for Nutrition Education and Health Action (SNEHA) in Mumbai for their insights and support in data collection. The author would also like to acknowledge the support received from all participants in the research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 As a Union of States, India was not formed as a result of agreements between autonomous states. Administrative convenience was the key concern while combining the units called states and the country has been unitary in nature. India, as such has not been a federal state in spirit. See Kapur (1979) for details.

2 http://www.niti.gov.in/about-aspirational-districts-programme

Additional information

Funding

This research did not receive grant from any funding agencies

Notes on contributors

Neetu Choudhary

Neetu Choudhary is Adjunct Faculty with the Center for Global Health, at Arizona State University. Previously she was a Fulbright Fellow with the centre. She has been working on dimensions of hunger, child malnutrition, household water insecurity, informal workers and women's mental health.