Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were launched in 2015 to focus on such issues as climate change related resilience, education, health, inequality, and poverty among others, with targets set for 2030. Unfortunately, there has been very poor progress due to reasons, which include lack of multilateral finance, and rising debt repayments that together meant inadequate fiscal space with developing countries in particular.
In a very important report released recently– prepared by a board chaired by Nobel laureate in economics, Joseph E. Stiglitz– with regard to dealing with debt crisis titled ‘The Jubilee Report: A blueprint for tackling the debt and development crises and creating the financial foundations for a sustainable people-centered global economy’ it was pointed out ‘Today, 3.3 billion people live in countries that spend more on interest payments than on health, and 2.1 billion live in countries that spend more on interest payments than on education. Interest payments on public debt are therefore crowding out critical investments in health, education, infrastructure, and climate resilience. Governments —fearful of the political and economic costs of initiating debt restructurings —prioritize timely debt payments over essential development spending. This is not a path to sustainable development. Rather, it is a roadblock to development and leads to increasing inequality and discontent.’
The main underlying reasons for rising debt repayments– that has led to serious debt distress in a number of developing countries– included firstly a pro-cyclical policy stance about which the same Report pointed out ‘The current debt and development crisis in developing countries is not an isolated fiscal misfortune. The fact that excesses of debt have afflicted so many countries, with debt and development crises occurring so often suggests that there are systemic causes and consequences. …One defining characteristic of this dysfunctional system is that, for developing countries, capital flows are procyclical: During global financing booms, money floods in; in busts, it flows out even more quickly. Successive phases of promising development cannot be counted on to continue. More often than not, a positive phase is a prelude to a painful contraction, especially when they are financed by debt. For advanced economies, the reverse holds true. In times of crisis, capital flows toward them. In a storm, safe financial “havens” become all the more attractive. This asymmetry enriches the rich, impoverishes the poor, and reinforces itself, as the procyclical movements weaken the poor and the countercyclical movements strengthen the rich, making them an ever more attractive safe haven.’
Other reasons mentioned included ineffective sovereign global debt restructuring framework, which mainly required including the private sector in a meaningful manner. Absence of such a framework has made it difficult for countries to go for restructuring to sustainably manage debt, and not make lopsided spending where they use too much of their fiscal space on debt servicing, and are left with little amount to make development, and SDGs related spending.
Moreover, due to over-board exercise of austerity policies, the country has been stuck not only in a low economic growth equilibrium on average over the medium-term, which has resulted in low level of revenues, and exports; both of which negatively affect both debt repayment capacity, and making adequate level of SDGs related spending.
‘The Jubilee Report’ indicated in this regard ‘Sovereigns in distress must negotiate with a complex array of creditors— public and private, bilateral and multilateral— without a guiding framework that ensures equitable, efficient, and timely resolutions. The creditors often have long experience in such renegotiations… [and] are typically well-diversified and can withstand long negotiations… Against this backdrop, new concerns are emerging that further complicate the landscape of sovereign debt and development finance. …the emergence of major new creditors has made restructurings more complex. Since the 2010s, developing countries have increasingly borrowed not only from traditional Western governments and IFIs, but also from bond markets and non-Paris Club official creditors.’
Overall, lack of adequate spending on SDGs has led to very poor performance in this regard, as pointed out by the ‘Sustainable Development Report [SDR] 2025’, which was published in June 2025, and marks the tenth anniversary of both SDGs adoption, and SDR. The Report pointed out a rather abysmal performance with regard to meeting SDGs. It indicated in this regard ‘Based on the rate of progress since they were adopted by the international community in 2015, none of the 17 SDGs will be achieved by 2030… At the global level, SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) are particularly off track, facing major challenges… and showing no or very limited progress since 2015.’
The SDR 2025 pointed out a poor standing of Pakistan with regard to progress of SDGs, where out of a total of 167 countries ranked in this regard, Pakistan stood at the 140th position, with a score of 57, while Finland, which topped the list, scored 87 points. Also, other countries in the region like Bangladesh stood at 114th position, while Sri Lanka that had defaulted in its debt repayments in April 2022, is well above Pakistan, at 93rd position. At the same time, Pakistan is among the top-ten climate change challenged countries, and is under serious debt distress.
Moreover, due to over-board exercise of austerity policies, the country has been stuck not only in a low economic growth equilibrium on average over the medium-term, which has resulted in low level of revenues, and exports; both of which negatively affect both debt repayment capacity, and making adequate level of SDGs related spending.
