In my opinion, the main way that international and national factors interact in empowering certain states to achieve progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals revolves mainly around political and economic stability. Let me explain, the main international factors that govern whether a country can invest in the SDG goals are their funding, including international trade, economic standing, investments or loans from other countries, and their relationships with their immediate neighbors as well as the entirety of the global order. If other wealthy countries (usually those part of the western world) view an investment in other countries work towards an SDG goal as secure and potentially beneficial to their relationship, the country in question will be much more likely to succeed in achieving their SDG goal.
By secure, wealthy countries look for political stability, followed by low amounts of corruption, as well as the potential to become a viable economic partner at some point in the future, thus recouping the expenses spent on their partner’s behalf. If those domestic factors do not meet the standards of other countries, the likelihood of receiving outside help for achieving their goals is highly unlikely. In other words, they are not empowered to complete the SDG goal and must rely solely on their own domestic institutions (which are weak and ineffective) to provide the funding, resources, and stability to complete the project.
A country’s relationship with their neighbors is also extremely important. Whether relations with their neighbors are poor or good due to their own works or not, political instability on one’s doorstep affects the stability of your own territory. If a country is forced to invest time, resources, and effort into securing their borders, the resources needed to complete an SDG goal are either hindered or non-existent. In the worst cases, any progress made towards these goals could be immediately undone by war or domestic institutional collapse brought on by outside forces. Economic ties are also put into jeopardy.
Domestic economic factors and international economic factors directly affect the funding and resources needed to complete an SDG goal; this is the reason why some countries in the west have felt the necessity to invest in other countries’ programs, so that their economy can develop to produce the needed resources to further a cycle of growth and stability in regard to the UN’s SDGs. In the case of global economic turmoil, no country, no matter how developed, would have any other option than to divert resources to the problem at hand (unless somehow unaffected or benefitting from the economic downturn).
“The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals”
7 responses to “The Interaction Between National and International Factors in Empowering States to Achieve the UN’s SDG Goals”
This seems like a reasonable argument. Which cases did you study to draw these conclusions?
I used my own research on Singapore and compared it to the cases of Nicaragua and Egypt as my main point of study. This was mainly the result of a conversation my breakout group was having during our last meeting with students from the AUS (as I had chosen to listen to the podcast about Botswana and Turkey beforehand). They themselves noticed that their countries were struggling to succeed in their SDG goals while Singapore was objectively doing much better.
Botswana and Turkey were making better progress in comparison, but less so than Singapore (it had become the gold standard at this point), and the group consensus was that it was a result of the weak domestic stability in their government resulting from corruption and other outside factors such as conflict with direct neighbors. Now this conflict was not war along its border, but building off of the ideas being discussed, it would make sense that a country would sense a threat to its security and thus act upon it. With resources being finite, reallocation of said resources would be required.
In the case of funding, it was clear that Singapore had an extreme advantage in comparison to most other countries due to its large amount of income coming from international financing and trade. This allows them to invest a large quantity of resources into achieving strategic SDG goals.
The idea for outside funding was one of my own. States rarely give out resources to each other unless trying to pursue some kind of cooperation or good standing. If a state has a bad reputation, investment into its development will be avoided as not to waste finite resources.
Hello Ashlan, I really liked reading your post, as well as your reply. Focusing on the relationship of states with their close neighbors was a topic I wish I had more time to look at in my presentation. Did you find in your research that high influx of refugees, and few resources to support them also created instability within states?
I’m glad you enjoyed my post and I thank you for your reply!
I had not actually thought about the impact that mass immigration has in this context, but it is actually a very good facet that I should explore further. I think that I would put this in the category of political stability, and I would agree with your analysis. With each state having limited resources, mass migration could drain said resources and hinder their development.
Furthermore, mass migration can be caused by a multitude of different domestic and international causes such as war, natural disasters, poor job opportunities, high crime, etc. so it makes sense that a sudden influx of refugees could cause instability for underdeveloped countries (in comparison to the western world) and cause problems for developed countries if in excessive amounts.
Ashlan, thank you for this post! I enjoyed the exploration of economic growth and the role it plays in sustainability. As you pointed out, foreign investment typically occurs in countries with strong governance and general stability. What do you think this means for the future spread of democracy? Looking at Singapore, for example, its success is dependent on the strict, authoritarian regime in power. Today, however, there is growing political unrest. Should we hope for the state to move toward more democratic practices, or should we hope such disturbances are temporary in the name of preserved stability and therefore preserved economic success?
I’m glad you liked my post Claire! Thanks for your comment!
This is actually a very complex question that I feel contains facets pertaining to sociology, ethics and morality, domestic politics, economics, and (of course) International Relations. Although many of the world’s major powers and most developed states are those with strong democracies, I don’t believe this is a mandatory factor in deciding which nations will ultimately flourish. Generally, it is a good government structure for states to adopt, but if not implemented sociological factors become the main concern. I think the main question with Singapore is “why is there political unrest; what are the demands of the citizens?”. If the regime can appease their citizens and continues to treat them well, I would hope that the unrest settles down.
For other non-democratic states however, the questions that dictate my response would be “what traditions and virtues and being taught and upheld in the society”, “what is regime’s treatment of their citizens”, “who is leading and what is their level of knowledge and expertise”, etc.?
With the majority of prosperous states being democratic, it is no wonder that many people around the world look to them as examples. However, if these democratic states are willing to accept the legitimacy of a non-democratic regime and begin trading with them and making bilateral deals, the success of a country is already secured unless unforeseen events occur. If the regime is stable, just, and has the consent of their people, democracy is not needed to create prosperity.
In regard to the question of whether democracy will be the leading government in the future, all I can say is that there has been a trend of people becoming increasingly willing to sacrifice freedom for security, safety, and prosperity. As governments across the world pick up on this trend, they will take whatever power they can in the name of providing such security and prosperity. This will ultimately lead to governments that are increasingly less democratic gaining the support of their citizens.
PS. I know this was a very long reply, lol.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply. It is certainly interesting to consider the possibility of a western world pivoting away from the pursuit of universal democracy and toward a broader acceptance of whatever governance best serves its peoples and their norms and culture.