Whose and what justice? : A content analysis of the United Nations' Post-2015 Development Agenda

• Main Author: Wallin, Pontus
• Format: Others
• Language: English
• Published: Linnéuniversitetet, Institutionen för samhällsstudier (SS) 2015
• Subjects: Post-2015; MDGs; social justice; distributive; retributive; transformative; justice
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-44699

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.