If the SDGs are to be replaced or reimagined after 2030, the most urgent task is to identify what must not be lost
As the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), commonly known as the Global Goals, approach their 2030 deadline, a verdict is taking hold: they have failed. Progress has been uneven; targets are off track; and in some domains—hunger, inequality, democratic governance—conditions have stagnated or worsened. Against a backdrop of war, climate crisis, and resurgent nationalism, these goals are increasingly dismissed as aspirational overreach: well-meaning, technocratic, and misaligned with contemporary political realities.
This temptation to abandon the SDGs altogether has an intuitive appeal. Yet it is precisely now when global cooperation appears most fragile that such abandonment would be most consequential. The SDGs were never merely a checklist of targets; they articulated a political and moral claim about how the world understands development, responsibility, and interdependence. To discard that claim now would be to concede far more than missed benchmarks. It would be to acquiesce to a political moment in which the very idea of global obligation is being openly questioned or dismissed. Justified frustration with the SDGs’ execution must not become a pretext for surrendering the normative claim they advanced.
The SDGs attempted to reconcile universal moral aspiration with a system of sovereign states unwilling to bind themselves to enforceable obligations. The resulting compromise was predictable: ambition without teeth.
The question therefore is not whether the SDGs have fallen short—they have—but whether, in responding to that failure, the world is prepared to relinquish the idea that human flourishing is a shared global concern. It is worth recalling that India has long argued in global forums that development, inequality, and vulnerability cannot be treated as purely national problems insulated from global histories and global structures, and that international cooperation is not charity but a condition of meaningful sovereignty in an interdependent world.
Much of the criticism directed at the SDGs focuses on their technical complexity: 17goals, 169 targets, and an ever-expanding indicator framework. This critique is not wrong, but it risks mistaking the surface for the substance.
The SDGs were products of a particular historical moment. Adopted in 2015, they reflected a fragile confidence in multilateral cooperation following the global financial crisis and amid growing awareness of climate risk. That confidence has since eroded. Great-power rivalry has intensified; aid budgets have shrunk; and international institutions are increasingly contested. From today’s vantage point, the SDGs can appear like artifacts of a brief, fading era of optimism. Yet this is precisely why the SDGs’ underlying political significance deserves attention. They embodied a recognition—however unevenly enacted—that extreme poverty, environmental collapse, pandemics, and violent conflict do not remain neatly contained within national borders. They reflected an understanding that global instability ultimately implicates even those societies that imagine themselves insulated from it. The SDGs also affirmed that global responsibility exists, and that it is meaningful to speak of obligations that extend beyond borders.
At a deeper level, the SDGs marked a significant conceptual shift in global development thinking. Unlike the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were explicitly framed around poverty reduction in low-income countries, the SDGs were universal. Every country, regardless of income level, was positioned as both an agent and a subject of development. This universality mattered. It acknowledged that inequality, environmental degradation, gender violence, and institutional fragility are global phenomena with local manifestations—problems that can arise anywhere and therefore demand serious attention wherever they occur.
Most fundamentally, the SDGs challenged the donor–recipient logic that had long structured international development—a logic that cast developing countries as sites of deficiency and wealthier countries as the holders of solutions. Across international forums, developing countries—often with India playing a prominent role—consistently rejected this framing, insisting that poverty and underdevelopment not be treated as the product of cultural or institutional flaws detached from a shared global history of colonialism, exploitation, and unequal economic integration. The re-emergence of this rhetoric in contemporary international politics is therefore deeply troubling, marking a retreat from the more historically grounded and universalist understanding of development that the SDGs sought to institutionalise.
Development goals should be understood not as acts of charity, but as responses to systemic injustice.
Equally important was the SDGs’ redefinition of development itself. Economic growth was no longer treated as sufficient or self-justifying. Development was framed as multidimensional, encompassing health, education, gender equality, environmental sustainability, peace, and justice. This conceptual broadening should not be underestimated. It represented a collective acknowledgment—enshrined in a document endorsed by nearly every state—that development cannot be reduced to GDP growth, and that prosperity detached from social inclusion, institutional integrity, and ecological limits is ultimately unstable.
There is no denying that the SDGs have struggled. Overambition may have diluted focus. Voluntary reporting mechanisms may have proved weak. Structural constraints—debt, trade asymmetries, geopolitical conflict— have limited what many states could plausibly achieve. These problems were visible early on and extensively documented by critics.
But it is a mistake to treat these failures as evidence that global goal-setting is inherently futile. They are better understood as design failures within a particular political economy. The SDGs attempted to reconcile universal moral aspiration with a system of sovereign states unwilling to bind themselves to enforceable obligations. The resulting compromise was predictable: ambition without teeth.
The danger now is that critics draw the wrong conclusion. Rather than asking how global goals might be redesigned to better reflect power, responsibility, and constraint, some conclude that the entire enterprise should be abandoned. Scepticism toward global goals is increasingly articulated in the language of sovereignty, national interest, and domestic priority-setting. In this context, rejecting the SDGs would not merely reflect frustration with multilateralism, it would reinforce a worldview in which shared responsibility is treated as naïve or illegitimate.
If the SDGs are to be replaced or reimagined after 2030, the most urgent task is to identify what must not be lost.
First, universality. Any post-2030 framework that reverts to a donor–recipient model would represent a conceptual regression. Climate change, financial instability, pandemics, and displacement are not problems that afflict only the poor; they are global in origin and consequence, and they demand differentiated but shared responsibility. Securing recognition of this principle was an important achievement for developing countries during SDG and other international negotiations, and India has been an active and committed participant in advancing the universal framing of the 2030 Agenda through its diplomatic engagement and alignment of national development policy with the global goals.
Second, the multidimensional conception of development. One of the SDGs’ most important contributions was to try to establish the idea that development includes health, education, gender equality, environmental sustainability, peace, and institutional quality. Narrowing this vision in the name of focus risks reinstating a model that has already proven inadequate.
Third, the moral claim that global conditions are interconnected must be preserved. Development goals should be understood not as acts of charity, but as responses to systemic injustice. Global inequality is not merely unfortunate; it is the product of a past shaped by colonial extraction and a present structured by transnational economic and political arrangements that have often disadvantaged developing countries. A post-2030 agenda that ignores this reality would lack both moral and analytical credibility.
What, then, might replace the SDGs? Rather than offering another exhaustive list of targets, it may be more productive to think in terms of orientation rather than architecture.
The SDGs were accompanied by ambitions that were never matched by credible, sustained financial commitments. This gap was not accidental.
A post-2030 framework could be more explicit about trade-offs and constraints, rather than obscuring them behind universal aspirations. It could focus on a smaller number of core commitments while allowing for contextual variation in pathways. It could emphasise systems—economic, political, ecological—rather than discrete outcomes, and foreground the global public goods that no state can secure alone.
Crucially, a post-2030 framework must be more honest about power. Development is not a technocratic exercise; it is a political process shaped by debt regimes, trade rules, corporate influence, and geopolitical rivalry. The persistent reluctance to acknowledge these dynamics has long frustrated developing countries, for whom “development” often appears detached from the global structures that constrain their options. Any successor framework should resist reproducing the same evasion.
A related and unavoidable issue is financing. The SDGs were accompanied by ambitions that were never matched by credible, sustained financial commitments. This gap was not accidental. It reflected long-standing reluctance among wealthier states to confront questions of redistribution, debt relief, and global fiscal responsibility, even as expectations placed on developing countries continued to expand. Across international forums, developing countries—including India—have repeatedly drawn attention to this imbalance, emphasising that calls for domestic resource mobilisation cannot substitute for serious engagement with the global financial architecture within which states operate. Any post-2030 framework must therefore be more honest about the political constraints surrounding development finance. Without confronting who pays, under what conditions, and with what consequences for policy autonomy, global goals risk once again becoming aspirational commitments detached from material possibility.
Finally, legitimacy must be central. Global goals endure not because they are perfect, but because they provide a shared language through which priorities can be contested and revised. Civil society, marginalised communities, and smaller states must have meaningful opportunities to shape agendas, not merely report against them.
Whatever replaces the SDGs after 2030 should begin from the premise they articulated—however imperfectly—that dignity is indivisible, that development is more than growth, and that our futures are intertwined. The alternative is resignation.
Mitu Sengupta is a Full Professor at the Department of Politics and Administration, Toronto Metropolitan University.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Mitu Sengupta is a Full Professor with the Department of Politics and Administration at Toronto Metropolitan University. She is also a Visiting Professor at the ...
Read More +
PREV
