Revision summary
The 2030 Agenda set 17 Sustainable Development Goals in 2015. They are universal, unlike the more South-focused MDGs. Review is political and statistical, not judicial. Finance and COVID shocks are the main delivery problems. They complement, and do not replace, peace-and-security UN reform.
Model answer
Introduction
The Sustainable Development Goals are the UN’s 2015–2030 development agenda. Seventeen goals replace the narrower Millennium Development Goals. They bind poverty, planet, and institutions in one list. They are political commitments, not a new Charter court.
Body
What they are
- Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda, adopted at the UN summit in 2015.
- 17 goals and 169 targets, from no poverty and zero hunger to climate, oceans, gender, and strong institutions (Goal 16).
- Universal: unlike MDGs, they apply to rich and poor members. Common but differentiated capacities remain the climate ethic inside them.
How they work
- Voluntary national reviews at the High-level Political Forum.
- Indicators watched by statistical offices and UN agencies.
- Finance: Addis Ababa, ODA, tax, and private capital — the weak link.
Political meaning
- They recast development as a UN reform of mandate after 2015, beside peace and rights.
- Critics see a long menu without hard enforcement, a lowest-common-denominator consensus.
- Supporters see a shared language for planning, including India’s NITI Aayog SDG index practice.
Links to other files
- Climate goals overlap NDCs and, for India, the later COP-26 Panchamrit capacity and intensity pledges.
- Goal 17 (partnerships) is the North–South finance argument in polite form.
Limits
- COVID reversed several indicators. Wars and debt set them back again.
- SDGs do not reform the Security Council. They reform the development story.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD MDG[MDGs 2000-2015] --> SDG[SDGs 2015-2030] SDG --> G[17 goals 169 targets] G --> HLPF[Voluntary reviews] F[Finance gap] -.limits.-> G
Conclusion
UN SDGs are a universal 17-goal agenda to 2030, broader than the MDGs and softer than a treaty with sanctions. Their power is agenda-setting and national planning language. Their weakness is money and enforcement.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Identify the drivers of India's new interest in Africa
Next question in the 2021 paper (Q8). View answer →
-
Are SDGs legally binding?
They are a UN General Assembly agenda. Domestic law and budgets decide delivery.
-
Do SDGs include climate?
Goal 13 is climate action, to be read with the Paris Agreement, not as a substitute for NDCs.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2021 · Q1(d) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
What measures have been undertaken by the United Nations for its reforms?
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the political economy approach to the comparative analysis of politics.
Comparative Politics
Political economy joins the study of power with the study of wealth. Marx and Wallerstein locate States in production and in a hierarchical world-economy. Almond’s functions describe roles; they do not explain ownership and dependence. Alavi’s overdeveloped State is a comparative PE thesis about post-colonial bureaucracy. The method compares markets, classes, and external ties, not only constitutions.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
"Political parties and pressure groups are sine qua non of democracy." Comment.
Politics of Representation and Participation
Schumpeterian democracy is a party contest for the vote. Almond split aggregation to parties and articulation to groups. Dahl’s polyarchy needs organised opposition, which parties supply. Groups carry specialised claims between elections. Mere organisation is not democracy; pluralism and contest are.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
"Marxist approach to the study of international relations has lost its relevance in the post-cold war era." Comment.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
The USSR’s fall discredited State socialism, not every Marxist question. Waltzian polarity does not explain core–periphery production. Wallerstein and Cox remain usable after 1991. WTO, finance, and a capitalist China keep class and hierarchy on the agenda. Relevance is critique of order, not a second Soviet Union.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.