Abstract
Critical discourse analysis is employed to examine discourses of the private sector within key texts of the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals. Taking a genealogical approach, four discourses are identified in the literature: the dominant, pro-private sector discourse, showing unconditional support for the private sector; the sceptical discourse; the middle-ground discourse with new approaches, specifically designed to leverage development relevance; and the antiprivate sector discourse, which considers that current approaches to the private sector will not be conducive to sustainable development of the global South. The pro-private sector discourse was found to be predominant within the global goals, reflecting the post-Washington Consensus as well as the role of the developed countries and the corporate sector in their formulation. All discourses on the private sector, however, place an emphasis on economic and social development at the expense of the key environmental component of sustainable development.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 759-771 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Sustainable Development |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 2 Dec 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Aug 2020 |
Funding
, ), for example, considers that this emphasis on the private sector by development agencies has a number of strategic implications, which are advocated by the global North because it is in its interest. First, “developmentally questionable market opening” (Langan, , p. 84) allows donors to pursue lucrative business opportunities in developing countries. Second, this approach legitimizes unequal trade relationships, such as the “‘development branding’ of EPAs [Economic partnership Agreements] through egalitarian narratives that inoculate the European Commission from critical contestation of its asymmetric trade arrangements with ACP [African, Caribbean and Pacific] former colonies” (Langan, , p. 426). This argument is also supported by Siles‐Brügge ( ) who argues that EU's developmental trade agenda is being increasingly determined by the EU's own commercial imperatives. Third, it offers a credible alternative to the interventions, which failed to facilitate “meaningful” business development in former African, Caribbean, and Pacific colonies (Langan, ). Fourth are the de facto subsidies to European firms, which disadvantage businesses in the Global South as well as their workers and host communities (Langan, ). A number of academics are sceptical of the win‐win scenario espoused within the pro‐private sector discourse. Langan ( We acknowledge that Sarah Cummings' contribution to this research has been undertaken as part of the project “An unusual suspect: The role of the private sector in knowledge brokering in international development,” funded by the Science for Using Research (SURe) programme, NWO‐WOTRO Science for Global Development, The Netherlands. Final revisions were undertaken after Sarah had been awarded the NWO‐WOTRO NL‐CGIAR project on ‘Improving the effectiveness of public‐private partnerships within the CGIAR: knowledge sharing for learning and impact’ (W 08.240.301). Anastasia‐Alithia Seferiadis' contribution has also been funded by the Fondation Croix Rouge, France. Leah de Haan's contribution was not undertaken as part of Chatham House's research programmes or projects. The authors would also like to acknowledge with gratitude the role played by the anonymous reviewer. We are particularly grateful that he/she challenged us to be more explicit on our political economy perspective.
Keywords
- critical discourse analysis
- international development
- Millennium Development Goals
- private sector
- sustainable development, Sustainable Development Goals
