| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
105158
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The word' partnership' is pervasive within debates about participatory global governance and the idea of partnership acts as an underwriting principle within both the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Paris Declaration. However, there remains general ambiguity about the meaning of the idea of partnership and how its conceptualisation is meant to normatively guide a more co-ordinated move from theory to practice. Indeed, the idea of partnership remains an impoverished theoretical and practical appeal, which is under-defined, poorly scrutinised and unconvincingly utilised as a normative tool in applied practice. This article will provide a more theoretical examination of what an appeal to ideas of partnership means and explore what a normative commitment to a robust conceptualisation of partnership might look like within the MDGs. To do so, it will examine the underwriting normative language of partnership as it is found within the MDGs, theoretically explore the principles inherent within this normative language, and locate present gaps within the MDGs between its normative theory and applied practice. By doing so, it will be possible to outline some additional principles and commitments that are normatively required to satisfy the underwriting spirit of the MDGs in order to bring them in line with said spirit's own normative values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
105151
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Even if the MDGs are achieved, the world will still face unacceptably high levels of hunger, morbidity, mortality and illiteracy beyond 2015. Global targets can be drivers of change. The debate about the post-2015 framework should not be about the usefulness of global targets but about their improved architecture and enhanced relevance. After reviewing the good, the bad and the ugly that have happened since the MDGs were created, this article discusses several challenges and pitfalls in the process of defining the post-2015 framework, including the need to formulate the MDGs more clearly as global targets, to maintain their measurability, to focus on ends, to embed equality of opportunity, to include interim targets, and to conduct global summitry differently so as to make it better fit for purpose. A Peer & Partner Group is proposed as the global custodian of the MDGs in order to reduce undue donorship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
127527
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
105152
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) constitute a normative consensus in the development community at the beginning of the 21st century. This article examines that consensus from the perspective of post-structuralist discourse analysis by situating it in its historical context, comparing the Millennium Declaration with the UN International Development Strategy of 1970. The article illustrates the depoliticising bias of the main MDG documents and interprets the shift in favour of market-oriented solutions and non-antagonistic conceptions of global community as the principal manifestations of a significant shift in development discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
135060
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The current international development discourse focuses much on the Millennium Development Goals (mdgs) as part of a global social contract in support of international cooperation and governance, with the debate on the post-mdgs and the Sustainable Development Goals (sdgs) indicating a shift. These goals are at least in part addressing developmental constraints confronting the world as a result of the effects the dominant growth models have had on limited resources and global goods. Rio+20 was a forum which brought to the fore the conflicting issues at stake and the challenges for any development paradigm seeking to enhance global justice and equality. This article explores the discrepancies between dominant paradigms cultivated in official discourses, on the one hand, and alternatives for another development presented as anti-hegemonic counter-models for survival strategies. It considers the role of civil society agencies and scholar activists in development studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|