UN Part 2: The Effectiveness of Development
10/3/25
The United Nations (UN) as an institution is focused on development at its core. Indeed, it was founded in 1946 with a mission of peace amid the post-war consensus that such a global situation could never happen again, backing up this agenda with security (United Nations, 2024). This way of thinking is the first in a long line of development ideas from the institution as it sought to rebuild those affected by the war during this period, and develop the political context of the world in a much more harmonious way. As the global institution evolved, it began to focus more on the concept of sustainable development, and taking a multi-dimensional co-ordinated approach to development focusing on the advancement and betterment politics, the planet, people and economies (United Nations, 2020). This new regard for development focused on Harry Truman’s attitude of how the “old imperialism- exploitation for foreign profit has no place here” (Truman, 1949). In a world that was moving away from colonial attitudes, this new understanding of development was important to begin to rebuild the post-war world, and to allow for peoples across the world to have greater social and economic prosperity. Efforts are co-ordinated by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and are delegated towards different approaches. To understand the impact of the UN’s Development Agenda we will study the Human Development Approach, the Sustainable Development Approach, the Rights-Based Approach and the Economic Approach, concluding that it can be impactful, however, it is limited by its linear nature and western-centric nature.
Firstly, we must understand the wider context to development within the UN. The first institution that is relevant is the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Formed in 1966, this is central to the development system of the UN and helps to achieve development goals in fragile economies and those effected by conflicts (GOV.UK, 2011). This is an advantage in terms of its ability to target support where it is most needed, it uses the principle of rebuilding on which the UN was founded to be able to go into the countries that need it most and assist where needed. Fragile economies are unlikely to be able to commit to major development work themselves, as they are at risk of shocks or inflation that could make any domestically co-ordinated development unfeasible. With the UNDP focusing on projects in these states, it means that the burden is taken off the states themselves and development can take place without the risks that are associated with fragile economies and the effects of conflicts. However, the issue does exist here that this could clash with sovereignty (Missoni and Bhouraskar, 2014), and this risk tensions from those who would wish for the UN not to intervene with development programmes.
The next key item to introduce is the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) and the transition to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The MDGs were collaborative goals that were agreed in 2000 to combat poverty, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation and discrimination against women, with a fifteen-year timeline. By 2015, significant progress had been made on the MDGs- for example infant mortality had fallen by over 50% between 1990 and 2013 (World Health Organisation, 2018). They were replaced by SDGs in 2015, for the following fifteen-year period. SDGs had learnt lessons from MDGs for a more unified approach, with a greater focus on environmental considerations (Miyazawa, 2012). The strengths and limitations of the sustainable development approach will be considered later.
The final institutions to introduce are the major agencies of the UN. As mentioned, ECOSOC provide much of the co-ordination efforts to the UN’s economic and social development work, and this feeds down to the ‘Bretton Woods’ institutions, which will be discussed in more detail on analysis of the UN’s economic based approach to development. The World Bank provides low-interest loans and interest free credit to developing countries, in a way that they could not do themselves without reserve currencies, or through the traditional global finance system. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) serves to maintain international co-operation and balanced trade, using macroeconomics to assist in poverty reduction. Stability was placed at the heart of the Breton Woods system, and the creation was backed up by major economists at the time such as John Maynard Keynes (Ghizoni, 2013).
The first approach to explore in depth is the Human Development Approach, specifically through the way that the United Nations chooses to measure and understand human development. This is mainly understood through the Human Development Index (HDI), as introduced by the UNDP. HDI uses three key indicators to develop a score between 0 and 1 (Herre and Arriagada, 2023) for development within a country, it observes life expectancy, educational attainment and access to resources, a de facto measure of living standards. Equal weight is provided to all three components, which come together to provide an aggregate score as to how human development functions in a particular country. As it stands, Switzerland holds the highest level of human development at a rating of 0.967, and Somalia at a score of 0.38 (UNDP, 2024a). A great strength of this system is that it puts three important measures together that are entirely relevant to the human interface of a nation. The alternative to a measure like this could be simply using traditional economic measures such as GDP, which, whilst there is a correlation between economics and development, do not bare a direct relevance to the relationship between population and development. Hypothetically, a country with a high GDP could have a poor quality of life, this would be considered fairly as part of HDI. It also creates an easy-to-understand indication of development in one place, giving a broad overview as to where development stands around the world. This means that development agencies, such as the UNDP, know where would be most effective to target the resources, allowing for the quicker rollout of development projects. However, an issue it suffers with is that the aggregate scoring can create anomalies, where one indicator is an outlier and affects the score in a way that may be seen as unrealistic, such as with Australia and New Zealand in 1997, where educational outcome meant that New Zealand managed to rise above Australia in the rankings, despite its other two factors being below the Australian standard (Castles et al, 2014, pg. 259). Therefore, results can be deceptive. It also does not dive into the structural reasons that can underpin development or a lack thereof. For example, whilst it discusses life expectancy, this can only serve as a proxy measure for other issues within health, and social inequality in many instances is entirely disregarded. Therefore, the Human Development Approach is impactful in how development can be measured, and therefore delivered, however, it needs to be supplemented in such a way that gives it depth. This should be done through the GINI co-efficient, which measures inequality from 0-1 (Hassel, 2023), and therefore provides structural insights in a way that HDI alone can’t.
The next UN approach to Development is the Sustainable Development Approach. As discussed, the Sustainable Development Approach sees the principles of the MDGs renewed for another fifteen years, until 2030, but with long-term sustainability prioritised as the link between climate change and global inequality becomes more profound (Griggs et al, 2014). The UN focused on the importance of pluralism in developing the SDGs, with the largest consultation in its history in this process, with 70 countries involved, among other processes that enhanced collaboration for this approach. The 17 goals stretch from erasing poverty to clean water, to responsible consumption and sustainable cities. One of the key differences between the SDGs and MDGs is the separation of goals on poverty and hunger, seeing them as two separate issues. This is an advantage for the Sustainable Development Goals as it represents them being more inclusive to different states, as the two issues may not necessarily be linked, as food supply issues could theoretically create hunger in any country. This is part of the wider ‘2030 Agenda’, which seeks to improve the planet, people’s lives; install peace and prosperity by 2030 (United Nations, 2015). A key advantage of the Sustainable Development Approach at large is that it deals with multiple issues at once, specifically climate issues and economic issues. With climate change likely to be a more significant issue for the human experience of low-income countries, incorporating sustainability in a bid to build greater prosperity is generally advantageous as it safeguards the environmental future of these countries, as well providing much needed multi-dimensional development. However, limitations to the SDGs do exist. The first being that there will be many nations without the ability to focus on both issues. Under-developed nations will not have industrialised in many cases, therefore opportunities for prosperity are limited, therefore, to develop in a way that is fiscally possible, they would have to disregard climate objectives. Without serious help from the UN institutions, the link between prosperity and greenhouse gas emissions would be tough to break (Serin, 2022). The sustainability-based approach is a very valid approach in how to increase prosperity sustainably, however its impact could be limited in certain parts of the world.
The counterbalance to the issues of the Sustainable Approach is the Economic Approach to development. With the Bretton Woods financial institutions within the UN, The World Bank and IMF, support exists for the SDGs to be implemented in the countries that need it. The World Bank can provide loans that fund much of the development needed, with low interest that can be paid from returns on investment. The IMF maintains the order in financial interactions (Lizarzaburu et al, 2012, pg. 89). With the World Bank distributing $49bn in 2016, there is scope for it to assist in implementing the goals and helping developing nations meet their climate and economic objectives (Muhamed and Gaas, 2016, pg. 40). A core strength of the Bretton Woods system, specifically the World Bank, is the incentive for capital to flow through it. With higher income countries providing the capital, the incentive of a profit through the slight interest on the loan is worthwhile, meaning that there is a desire for the system to work, thus creating a positive cycle of cash injection. However, the linear nature of the Bretton Woods system lends itself to western dominance. Firstly, voting rights are distributed based on openness of economies, therefore neoliberal economies will gain much of the control, and those receiving the support of the institutions will not have a say in how they are run (Bretton Woods Project, 2019), creating a blind spot in its operations. It also fails to give sufficient weight to the rising of emerging economies, who are generally growing at twice the rate of the major established economies. The rise of China is also not truly understood in this approach as, despite it now being an established powerful economy, as it only has a 6% vote share on the IMF, as opposed to America’s 16% (Pickford, 2019). Therefore, the Economic Approach to development is impactful in its operations and ability to help lower income countries achieve growth, however its structure will need major reform to be able to navigate current complexities and a changing economic order.
Finally, we must understand the key social driver of development, a Human Rights Approach. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pillar of the UN, feeding into the ideas of a good standard of living (United Nations, 1948). The significance of the Human Rights Approach is its universality, and general acceptance around the world. The Right to Development is also central to this, a later addition to the approach, it encompasses economic, social, cultural and political development as a right of all peoples to empower communities (OHCHR, 2025). The UDHR sets out a decent standard of living, which is applicable universally, and redresses the imbalance of rights between those in developed and those in developing nations, it makes important safeguards such as equality before the law and freedom from persecution, thus greatly developing the human interface globally. However, despite universal rights going some way to guarantee social development, some states will use sovereignty as a block against the enforcement of these rights, however, this criticism is limited as the traditional school of thought is that the sovereignty of signatories brings together a customary norm, standardising human rights (Cassel, 2001). A struggle for global leadership from China has seen some impact on the implementation of universal human rights, as it seeks its methods of rights and global governance (Pils, 2022). The Human Rights based approach is generally impactful, as it has standardised rights globally, and greatly improved quality of life, despite challenges of sovereignty, it is well regarded.
Overall, the UN’s work on development is impactful, it deals with issues of economics, the environment, the human interface and human rights. It generally sets out strong parameters for development to take place, be that through the ability of the world bank to give out affordable loans to developing nations or through universal human rights guaranteeing humane treatment by governments. The UN plays a crucial role in facilitating this development alongside other stakeholders globally, who will play their role in development. Whilst limitations exist on the linear nature of the development agenda, as well as western dominance over many aspects of the system, these limitations do not necessarily provide working alternatives, and other alternatives would create separate issues, therefore these approaches are the most impactful.
Firstly, we must understand the wider context to development within the UN. The first institution that is relevant is the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Formed in 1966, this is central to the development system of the UN and helps to achieve development goals in fragile economies and those effected by conflicts (GOV.UK, 2011). This is an advantage in terms of its ability to target support where it is most needed, it uses the principle of rebuilding on which the UN was founded to be able to go into the countries that need it most and assist where needed. Fragile economies are unlikely to be able to commit to major development work themselves, as they are at risk of shocks or inflation that could make any domestically co-ordinated development unfeasible. With the UNDP focusing on projects in these states, it means that the burden is taken off the states themselves and development can take place without the risks that are associated with fragile economies and the effects of conflicts. However, the issue does exist here that this could clash with sovereignty (Missoni and Bhouraskar, 2014), and this risk tensions from those who would wish for the UN not to intervene with development programmes.
The next key item to introduce is the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) and the transition to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The MDGs were collaborative goals that were agreed in 2000 to combat poverty, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation and discrimination against women, with a fifteen-year timeline. By 2015, significant progress had been made on the MDGs- for example infant mortality had fallen by over 50% between 1990 and 2013 (World Health Organisation, 2018). They were replaced by SDGs in 2015, for the following fifteen-year period. SDGs had learnt lessons from MDGs for a more unified approach, with a greater focus on environmental considerations (Miyazawa, 2012). The strengths and limitations of the sustainable development approach will be considered later.
The final institutions to introduce are the major agencies of the UN. As mentioned, ECOSOC provide much of the co-ordination efforts to the UN’s economic and social development work, and this feeds down to the ‘Bretton Woods’ institutions, which will be discussed in more detail on analysis of the UN’s economic based approach to development. The World Bank provides low-interest loans and interest free credit to developing countries, in a way that they could not do themselves without reserve currencies, or through the traditional global finance system. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) serves to maintain international co-operation and balanced trade, using macroeconomics to assist in poverty reduction. Stability was placed at the heart of the Breton Woods system, and the creation was backed up by major economists at the time such as John Maynard Keynes (Ghizoni, 2013).
The first approach to explore in depth is the Human Development Approach, specifically through the way that the United Nations chooses to measure and understand human development. This is mainly understood through the Human Development Index (HDI), as introduced by the UNDP. HDI uses three key indicators to develop a score between 0 and 1 (Herre and Arriagada, 2023) for development within a country, it observes life expectancy, educational attainment and access to resources, a de facto measure of living standards. Equal weight is provided to all three components, which come together to provide an aggregate score as to how human development functions in a particular country. As it stands, Switzerland holds the highest level of human development at a rating of 0.967, and Somalia at a score of 0.38 (UNDP, 2024a). A great strength of this system is that it puts three important measures together that are entirely relevant to the human interface of a nation. The alternative to a measure like this could be simply using traditional economic measures such as GDP, which, whilst there is a correlation between economics and development, do not bare a direct relevance to the relationship between population and development. Hypothetically, a country with a high GDP could have a poor quality of life, this would be considered fairly as part of HDI. It also creates an easy-to-understand indication of development in one place, giving a broad overview as to where development stands around the world. This means that development agencies, such as the UNDP, know where would be most effective to target the resources, allowing for the quicker rollout of development projects. However, an issue it suffers with is that the aggregate scoring can create anomalies, where one indicator is an outlier and affects the score in a way that may be seen as unrealistic, such as with Australia and New Zealand in 1997, where educational outcome meant that New Zealand managed to rise above Australia in the rankings, despite its other two factors being below the Australian standard (Castles et al, 2014, pg. 259). Therefore, results can be deceptive. It also does not dive into the structural reasons that can underpin development or a lack thereof. For example, whilst it discusses life expectancy, this can only serve as a proxy measure for other issues within health, and social inequality in many instances is entirely disregarded. Therefore, the Human Development Approach is impactful in how development can be measured, and therefore delivered, however, it needs to be supplemented in such a way that gives it depth. This should be done through the GINI co-efficient, which measures inequality from 0-1 (Hassel, 2023), and therefore provides structural insights in a way that HDI alone can’t.
The next UN approach to Development is the Sustainable Development Approach. As discussed, the Sustainable Development Approach sees the principles of the MDGs renewed for another fifteen years, until 2030, but with long-term sustainability prioritised as the link between climate change and global inequality becomes more profound (Griggs et al, 2014). The UN focused on the importance of pluralism in developing the SDGs, with the largest consultation in its history in this process, with 70 countries involved, among other processes that enhanced collaboration for this approach. The 17 goals stretch from erasing poverty to clean water, to responsible consumption and sustainable cities. One of the key differences between the SDGs and MDGs is the separation of goals on poverty and hunger, seeing them as two separate issues. This is an advantage for the Sustainable Development Goals as it represents them being more inclusive to different states, as the two issues may not necessarily be linked, as food supply issues could theoretically create hunger in any country. This is part of the wider ‘2030 Agenda’, which seeks to improve the planet, people’s lives; install peace and prosperity by 2030 (United Nations, 2015). A key advantage of the Sustainable Development Approach at large is that it deals with multiple issues at once, specifically climate issues and economic issues. With climate change likely to be a more significant issue for the human experience of low-income countries, incorporating sustainability in a bid to build greater prosperity is generally advantageous as it safeguards the environmental future of these countries, as well providing much needed multi-dimensional development. However, limitations to the SDGs do exist. The first being that there will be many nations without the ability to focus on both issues. Under-developed nations will not have industrialised in many cases, therefore opportunities for prosperity are limited, therefore, to develop in a way that is fiscally possible, they would have to disregard climate objectives. Without serious help from the UN institutions, the link between prosperity and greenhouse gas emissions would be tough to break (Serin, 2022). The sustainability-based approach is a very valid approach in how to increase prosperity sustainably, however its impact could be limited in certain parts of the world.
The counterbalance to the issues of the Sustainable Approach is the Economic Approach to development. With the Bretton Woods financial institutions within the UN, The World Bank and IMF, support exists for the SDGs to be implemented in the countries that need it. The World Bank can provide loans that fund much of the development needed, with low interest that can be paid from returns on investment. The IMF maintains the order in financial interactions (Lizarzaburu et al, 2012, pg. 89). With the World Bank distributing $49bn in 2016, there is scope for it to assist in implementing the goals and helping developing nations meet their climate and economic objectives (Muhamed and Gaas, 2016, pg. 40). A core strength of the Bretton Woods system, specifically the World Bank, is the incentive for capital to flow through it. With higher income countries providing the capital, the incentive of a profit through the slight interest on the loan is worthwhile, meaning that there is a desire for the system to work, thus creating a positive cycle of cash injection. However, the linear nature of the Bretton Woods system lends itself to western dominance. Firstly, voting rights are distributed based on openness of economies, therefore neoliberal economies will gain much of the control, and those receiving the support of the institutions will not have a say in how they are run (Bretton Woods Project, 2019), creating a blind spot in its operations. It also fails to give sufficient weight to the rising of emerging economies, who are generally growing at twice the rate of the major established economies. The rise of China is also not truly understood in this approach as, despite it now being an established powerful economy, as it only has a 6% vote share on the IMF, as opposed to America’s 16% (Pickford, 2019). Therefore, the Economic Approach to development is impactful in its operations and ability to help lower income countries achieve growth, however its structure will need major reform to be able to navigate current complexities and a changing economic order.
Finally, we must understand the key social driver of development, a Human Rights Approach. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pillar of the UN, feeding into the ideas of a good standard of living (United Nations, 1948). The significance of the Human Rights Approach is its universality, and general acceptance around the world. The Right to Development is also central to this, a later addition to the approach, it encompasses economic, social, cultural and political development as a right of all peoples to empower communities (OHCHR, 2025). The UDHR sets out a decent standard of living, which is applicable universally, and redresses the imbalance of rights between those in developed and those in developing nations, it makes important safeguards such as equality before the law and freedom from persecution, thus greatly developing the human interface globally. However, despite universal rights going some way to guarantee social development, some states will use sovereignty as a block against the enforcement of these rights, however, this criticism is limited as the traditional school of thought is that the sovereignty of signatories brings together a customary norm, standardising human rights (Cassel, 2001). A struggle for global leadership from China has seen some impact on the implementation of universal human rights, as it seeks its methods of rights and global governance (Pils, 2022). The Human Rights based approach is generally impactful, as it has standardised rights globally, and greatly improved quality of life, despite challenges of sovereignty, it is well regarded.
Overall, the UN’s work on development is impactful, it deals with issues of economics, the environment, the human interface and human rights. It generally sets out strong parameters for development to take place, be that through the ability of the world bank to give out affordable loans to developing nations or through universal human rights guaranteeing humane treatment by governments. The UN plays a crucial role in facilitating this development alongside other stakeholders globally, who will play their role in development. Whilst limitations exist on the linear nature of the development agenda, as well as western dominance over many aspects of the system, these limitations do not necessarily provide working alternatives, and other alternatives would create separate issues, therefore these approaches are the most impactful.
Bretton Woods Project (2019). What Are the Main Criticisms of the World Bank and the IMF? [online] Bretton Woods Project. Available at: https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2019/06/what-are-the-main-criticisms-of-the-world-bank-and-the-imf/#_Toc10127387.
Cassel, D. (2001). A Framework of Norms: International Human- Rights Law and Sovereignty. [online] Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1840&context=law_faculty_scholarship.
Castles, I., Podger, A. and Trewin, D. (2014). Measuring Wealth and Welfare: Why HDI and GPI Fail. In: Measuring and Promoting Wellbeing. [online] ANU Press, pp.253–270. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wp80q.15.
Chowdhury, O.H. (1991). Human Development Index : A Critique. The Bangladesh Development Studies, [online] 19(3), pp.125–127. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40795411.
Ghizoni, S. (2013). Creation of the Bretton Woods System. [online] Federal Reserve History. Available at: https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/bretton-woods-created.
GOV.UK (2011). Multilateral Aid Review: United Nations Development Programme (including the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery) D Summary Organisation: UNDP (including BCPR). [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c2dc9ed915d76e2ebb987/UNDP-response.pdf.pdf [Accessed 1 Feb. 2025].
Griggs, D., Smith, M.S., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.C., Gaffney, O., Glaser, G., Kanie, N., Noble, I., Steffen, W. and Shyamsundar, P. (2014). An integrated framework for sustainable development goals. Ecology and Society, [online] 19(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/26269703.
Hasell, J. (2023). Measuring inequality: What is the Gini coefficient? Our World in Data. [online] Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-gini-coefficient.
Herre, B. and Arriagada, P. (2023). The Human Development Index and related indices: what they are and what we can learn from them. [online] Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index.
Lizarzaburu, E., Moysidis, A. and Salquero, J.Q. (2012). A discussion paper for emerging markets: The role of IMF and the World Ban. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 1(3), pp.89–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.22495/jgr_v1_i3_c1_p2.
Missoni, E. and Bhouraskar, D. (2014). The Twists and Turns of the History of the United Nations Development Programme. Public Administration Review, [online] 74(5), pp.679–681. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/24029418.
Miyazawa, I. (2012). What are Sustainable Development Goals? [online] JSTOR. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep00768.
Muhumed, M. and Gaas, S. (2016). The World Bank and IMF in Developing Countries: Helping or Hindering? International Journal of African and Asian Studies www.iiste.org ISSN, [online] 28(2409-6938). Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234690231.pdf.
OHCHR (2025). OHCHR | Development and human rights. [online] OHCHR. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/development/development-and-human-rights.
Pickford, S. (2019). Renew the Bretton Woods System. [online] Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/06/renew-bretton-woods-system [Accessed 2 Jan. 2022].
Pils, E. (2022). Autocratic Challenges to International Human Rights Law: A Chinese Case Study. Current Legal Problems, 75(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuac007.
Serin, E. (2022). Can we have economic growth and tackle climate change at the same time? [online] Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment. Available at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/can-we-have-economic-growth-and-tackle-climate-change-at-the-same-time/.
Truman, H. (1949). Inaugural Address | Harry S. Truman. [online] www.trumanlibrary.gov. Available at: https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/19/inaugural-address.
UNDP (2024a). Human Development Insights. [online] Human Development Reports. Available at: https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/country-insights#/ranks.
UNDP (2024b). Sustainable Development Goals. [online] United Nations Development Programme. Available at: https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals.
United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [online] United Nations. United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf.
United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. [online] United Nations. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
United Nations (2020). Research Guides: UN Documentation: Development: Introduction. [online] Un.org. Available at: https://research.un.org/en/docs/dev.
United Nations (2024). Our Work. [online] United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/our-work.
United Nations Development Programme (2018). UNDP. [online] UNDP. Available at: https://www.undp.org.
World Health Organization (2018). Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). [online] World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/millennium-development-goals-(mdgs).
Comments
Post a Comment