As the timeframe of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is running out this year, the Post-2015 Development Agenda soon arrive at its final negotiations. Criticisms of the MDGs have primarily concerned the inaccurate implementation of social justice to the most vulnerable and poor, and the limited understanding of the underlying interconnectedness of the goals. In several recent reports, it has been stated that the various aspects of social justice and inclusiveness shall permeate the new development agenda. I have therefore made it my task to conduct a content analysis of three key reports, providing the most likely basis for the new agenda. With this, my aim is to examine what different concepts of social justice is being expressed, whom the agenda foremost seems to favour in terms of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, and what possible implications this could have for global development work. My analytical framework is constructed from three concepts of social justice: distributive, retributive and transformative justice. Ideal types of these three concepts have been constructed as the analytical instrument of the study, in order to simplify the content analysis.      In the study, it is concluded that it is likely that the new development agenda will aim for distributive justice, although the road to get there leads through major transformational shifts. The structural and societal causes (transformative injustice) of inequalities, poverty and unsustainability are targeted to finally achieve universal equality (distributive justice). The most marginalized, vulnerable and poor can thus been classified as the utmost winners of the suggested new agenda. Moreover, vague expressions of retributive justice were found regarding foremost climate justice. The possible implications of this could prove to be a more welcoming attitude towards the agenda negotiations, albeit on the cost of decreased accountability.

This study examines how economic growth is framed in the UN post-2015 development agenda, which is centered on the Sustainable Development Goals. It uses a transdisciplinary approach combining Ecological Economics and Critical Theory. Through a qualitative content analysis of nine official documents from different work streams in the post-2015 process, the thesis seeks to answer what the goal of ‘sustained, inclusive, and sustainable’ growth actually means, how it relates to the aim of transformative change which is central to the agenda, and how the agenda addresses the relationship between growth and the environment. The results show that there is a strong consensus to maintain and increase growth levels, while changing the quality of growth to make it more socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable. Thus, the agenda reinforces the ‘sustainable development’ concept which has been established over the last three decades as the mainstream approach to international environmental governance. No limits to growth are recognized; poverty reduction and greater equality are to be achieved mainly by aiming for higher growth rates in developing countries than developed ones. It is acknowledged that the GDP metric has many shortcomings and needs to be revised to better account for externalities and complemented by alternative measures of welfare and well-being. However, no existing alternative measures are used in the SDGs. The goal is to develop better ones by 2030, which effectively postpones the necessary shift away from GDP. The documents express a strong belief in ‘green growth’ (the decoupling of growth from material resource use and emissions), but this optimism seems to be unfounded since the documents fail to account for several aspects that are crucial to determining the feasibility of green growth. Most notably, there appears to be no evidence of absolute decoupling ever having occurred. At the same time, the scale of decoupling that is required appears to be physically impossible to achieve. Since the agenda does not question growth dependency at all, and fails to distinguish between the intrinsic and instrumental value of GDP growth, my conclusion is that it does not fulfill the promise of transformative change.

Set in 2000, with a completion date of 2015, the deadline for the Millennium Development Goals is approaching, at which time a new global development infrastructure will become operational. Unsurprisingly, the discussions on goals, topics, priorities and monitoring and evaluation are gaining momentum. But this is a critical juncture. Over a decade of development programming offers a unique opportunity to reflect on its structure, function and purpose in a contemporary global context. This article examines the topic from an analytical health perspective and identifies universal health equity as an operational and analytical priority to encourage attention to the root causes of unnecessary and unfair illness and disease from the perspectives of those for whom the issues have most direct relevance.