Comments

As I read it, the logic of this article's argument is: 1. Coca-Cola has extensive reach and "its supply chains are second to none". The company's supply chains have been used successfully to transport medicines in Africa. 2. Coca-Cola contributes to an unhealthy diet, and an unhealthy diet causes serious health problems in the Pacific. 3. Therefore, it is unethical to use Coca-Cola's supply chains to distribute medicines in the Pacific. I'm struggling to make the leap from 2 to 3, especially where health products can be "de-branded" and disassociated from Coke. Mostly the conclusion rests on the inherent unhealthiness of Coke. But the premise of #1 assumes that Coke is already everywhere regardless. In order to offset the real benefits that would come from the improved transportation of medicines, this argument would need to establish how hitching a ride on Coke's already established supply chains would in any way affect consumption of Coke. Or to put it another way, how not using Coke's supply chains (and forgoing the health benefits associated with improved medicine distribution) would in any way reduce the consumption of Coke. I can't see how it would. We should be careful not to compare an ideal public solution with a real-world private sector solution (holding the two to different sets of standards). It would be great if public supply chains functioned in an ideal way -- reliably providing subsidised merit goods to all on the basis of need. However, we know this is not the case. Private supply chains are structured in a way that incentivise the reliable provision of goods in remote areas. This is not true for public supply chains in many developing countries, and this is unlikely to change. If public supply chains were working as intended, we would not be here talking about piggy-backing on Coke's. We should compare this proposal (with all its challenges) to the alternatives that currently exist, not a perfect ideal.

I am delighted to go through your post, Terence, and would like to add some of my observations. It is really nice that global community is empathised to suffering human beings and designing SDGs to replace MDGs. It is certainly an expression of the intentions of the international community. I am sure, these will get UN approval very shortly. The problem will start at the level of execution. The developing countries will definitely show enthusiasm in UN. The 'third world elite strategy' is to enthusiastically accept SDGs or any other such proposal to extract grant/aid from the developed countries and sabotage it in implementing at the domestic level when it hurts their interest. The success of SDGs, therefore, will be determined by the commensurate legislation, policy and cultural context of these countries. Quite often we can observe unintended results. For instance, inclusive policy was initiated for elimination of exclusion and it has empowered the impoverished to some extent but strengthened the 'exclusivity'. So there must be some safeguards in SDGs to prevent such unintended consequences. Similarly, as regards the governance, any goal or strategy which is likely to weaken the domination of the 'master strategist elite' in developing countries will be sabotaged at the operational level. Can there be a possibility to incorporate code of governance or norms of elite behaviour in the SDGs? Certainly it will be resisted on the pretext of sovereignty but there must be some kind of global monitoring of the operational dynamics of SDGs in national boundaries without which there will be limited realisation of SDGs. Of course, resources (both material and nonmaterial) component is important but more significant are commensurate policy, legislation, institutions and socio-cultural context of the developing countries. How far and what way SDGs are designed to conform such a prevalent situation is of critical importance. Will you be able to anticipate and elaborate the SDGs-context interface?

Thanks Susie, I certainly agree that better monitoring of progress and better data are essential. That said, I'm not sure something as sweeping as the SDGs or even the MDGs could have their implementation monitored in any meaningful way. (Although I am still mulling this over). Thanks for an interesting comment. Terence

Thanks George, Good to hear from you. WRT to HIV/AIDs (and to an extent malaria) I think the impetus started at least pre-MDGs and was enhanced by other factors (religious conservatives feeling guilty all of a sudden and the like). However, I do take your broader point: so many goals may quite likely lead to just amorphism rather than holistic human development. Still, the goals are as they are (and sometimes for quite good reason). And the challenge will be working successfully within the framework they provide. Terence

Thanks Craig, I basically agree: if context becomes just another buzzword it won't change anything. Rather I'm calling for aid work to eschew trends on concentrate on the things that really matter like context. I'm less sure about the meta-physical stuff (whose, what, whose, how?). I appreciate that these things may bias our analysis. But good contextual learning (aka research) ought to be structured to minimise these biases as best possible. We don't do this perfectly. But we can do it well enough for our learning to be very useful. Thanks again Terence

Thanks Terence for your thought provoking article. I appreciate that the UN has consulted widely to get to these goals. I wonder how much retrospective learnings came from the MDGs. All MDGs were not successful and so it really begs the question - are we learning from the MDGs? Where's the Lessons Learned Register? I guess I get frustrated when we (globally we) are very good at writing policy but not very good at implementing it. One of the SDGs should be to have Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation police if you will. Otherwise in 2030 we are going to rehash the wording for the next goals.

In regard to your headline ... is there any evidence of this :)?

From where I stand, the MDGs catalysed a vast increase in the amount invested in HIV/AIDS and malaria treatment and prevention. That's a huge good. (Even if a health system is more than two diseases, the increase there did have large spillover effects into health systems and delivery, and govt prioritisation of health outcomes.) It's difficult to see the same kind of outcome from these vague and non-specific goals. "Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being" means absolutely everything and thus absolutely nothing. Hopefully the impetus to health has been sufficiently engrained to make this process superfluous.

Thanks for an interesting post Terence. I agree with much of what you say, although I do think this should be read as a call for careful and intelligent application of terminology rather than the using words less. This is particularly true with 'context'. In any aid related documents I read, context is written everywhere. It is overused, but under-analysed. So perhaps we could usefully think critically about context rather than encourage further repetition! For example, we could usefully ask these questions: Whose context are we describing? Whose views have we taken into account in doing so? What are the differences between those views? Whose have we prioritised in our analysis? Why? How have perceptions of history shaped how context is understood by different actors today? What world views do we bring to the table with our analysis? How are we part of the context? I could go on...context is often viewed in a static and one-dimensional ('our') way. It's too often a get out clause (our programme/analysis is 'context-specific'). My view is that is what needs to be challenged...

Hi Judy I tend not to look on the internet so have only just seen this. I heard often of your excellent work when you came to PNG. Would love to me you in the future. Carol Kidu

it is a nice lesson

Terence, There is another reason not to like neo-liberalism and that is (it is so 1990s!!!) the world has moved on quite a bit. The push back by the development state against neo-liberal ideas particularly since the Asian economic crisis is palpable. The State is back and if we need a label we could call it neo-corporatism where the state is exercising much more control over all aspects of society including the corporates, civil society and the like. The state in being interpenetrated by business and (dare I say) religion in particular; so the neoliberal free market is now much more constrained.