

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Putting wind in the sails of the flagging UN Sustainable Development Goals
Building on the legacy of the first summit held in Copenhagen in 1995, the primary goal of the second World Summit for Social Development is to advance global social development and bolster much-needed momentum for the Sustainable Development Goals set out in the 2030 Agenda. This high-stakes event will be held November 4-6, 2025 in Doha, Qatar, and Better World Info has carried out thorough research on the event.
With just five years to go, the recent United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Progress Report revealed that we are on track to meet only 35% of targets by 2030. Progress on 50% of the targets is weak, and 18% are actually in reverse.
The 2025 UN World Social Report revealed a "global social crisis" characterized by insecurity, inequality, crumbling social cohesion, and diminishing trust.
Recognizing this mammoth task, the Second World Summit for Social Development (WSSD2) is a vital opportunity to assess the biggest challenges; identify omissions; and recommit to inclusivity, equity, social protection, and sustainability. The event is organized by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), which will collaborate with various stakeholders to facilitate the crucial discussions. WSSD2 will attract over 8,000 participants.
This WSSD2, let's strengthen global partnerships, implement effective policies, foster international cooperation, set concrete proposals, and make it another historic leap for social development.
As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, "True development is not about prosperity for the few. It is about opportunities for the many, grounded in social justice, full employment, and human dignity.”
The WSSD2 takes place during the same month as the COP30 climate conference. Both summits share the common goals of creating a more just and sustainable world for everyone. Climate change threatens the foundations of our lives; without concrete action, our efforts to enhance social protections are futile. Progress in education, poverty reduction, and social justice will be undermined if we cannot bring global warming under control.
The first summit brought together 186 countries and was a landmark moment in global efforts to address critical social challenges, including poverty, unemployment, public health, and social exclusion.
Its ambitious agenda concluded with the adoption of the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action, which outlined several targets and initiatives, and became a foundation for future policies worldwide. Although the summit was, at the time, a historic moment for global progress, many of the hopes and expectations of the declaration were not realised.
More than 30 years have passed since the first summit. A lack of urgency and budget has left the WSSD2 long overdue, as the United Nations' attention has been diverted to Climate and Biodiversity summits (COP Conferences), of which there have been many.
This summit is an essential part of the United Nations' work in an area that has been overlooked for too long. Organized by civil society organisations, the World Social Forum is the only other event which addresses the planet's social needs and alternative visions of globalization.
As UN General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock said, "Without social justice there will never be long-lasting peace and security."

This year's summit will be co-facilitated by Philippe Kridelka, Belgium's permanent representative to the UN, and Omar Hilale, Morocco's permanent representative. With mounting global tensions and spiraling humanitarian crises worldwide, this conference must go beyond other United Nations summits.
The Doha Political Declaration, which was negotiated well in advance of the summit, does not contain any new or binding indicators, nor obligations for monitoring. This lack of concrete measures and quantifiable goals leaves implementation simply to the goodwill of nations. As we have seen with various climate and biodiversity goals, this does not work.
Even before the summit, the effectiveness of the WSSD2 has drawn sharp criticism from hundreds of NGOs, who have labelled the pre-negotiated declaration insufficient.
Increasing militarization, decreasing effectiveness of multilateralism, widening inequalities, the potential for future pandemics, and a right-wing shift in many influential nations have led to the redirection of vital resources away from our planet's most pressing societal needs.
Instead of ensuring the well-being, safety, and prospects of society, money is siphoned into the production of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear programs, military bases, and the promotion and justification of wars around the world.
The WSSD2 will focus on the weakest performing Sustainable Development Goals.
No Poverty: Over 2.8 billion people, more than one-third of the world's population, live in extreme poverty. Since the last summit, 35% of the people who exited poverty have relapsed back into it.
Zero Hunger: Rates of hunger and food insecurity have increased alarmingly since 2015. Two billion people worldwide lack regular access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food. In 2024, 23% of children had stunted growth, and 6% of those under the age of 5 were affected by wasting.
Gender Equality: If the 2023 rate of progress remains, it would take an estimated 300 years to end child marriage, 286 years to remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in workplace leadership roles, and 47 years for equal representation in national politics.
Clean Water and Sanitation: In 2024, 2.2 billion people lacked access to safe drinking water, 3.4 billion people lacked safely managed sanitation, and 1.7 billion people did not have basic hygiene services at home.
Affordable and Clean Energy: In 2024, 645 million people lacked access to electricity. Almost 2 billion people are still using polluting fuels for cooking, exposing them to severe health risks.
Decent Work and Economic Growth: Informal employment remains stubbornly at an estimated 2 billion people, accounting for 58% of the world's employed population. Approximately 65% of the world's population lives in countries where income inequality is widening. There are still 160 million children involved in child labor.
Climate Action: The year 2024 was confirmed as the hottest year ever on record. A recent report by the UN revealed that current policies put the planet on track to reach a catastrophic 3.1°C warming by 2100. This scenario would expose 600 million people to flooding, reduce food yields by half, cause severe water shortages, lead to insurmountable habitat and biodiversity loss, create month-long brutal heatwaves and wildfires, heighten the risks of insect-borne diseases, and profoundly deepen inequalities.
Life Below Water: In 2019, 35% of global fish stocks were overfished. An estimated 5-12 million metric tons of plastic enters the ocean each year, costing the global economy $19 billion every single year. Record-breaking global coral bleaching began in 2023, affecting 84% of global reefs across more than 80 countries. Marine life populations have declined by 49% between 1970 and 2012. One-third of shark and ray species are now threatened with extinction. Goal 14 is the least funded of all the Sustainable Development Goals.
Life on Land: One million animal and plant species are currently threatened with extinction. Habitat loss and land degradation have led to a staggering 73% decline in wildlife populations between 1970 and 2020. Deforestation destroys around 10 million hectares of forest every single year. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework aimed to protect 30% of land by 2030, but progress has stagnated since 2015.
We need to start building a society where people can thrive, rather than merely survive. With 60% of the planet struggling and 12% suffering, many, unsurprisingly, believe that life is worse now than it was 50 years ago.
Looking back at various climate, biodiversity, and economic summits, it is easy to imagine another lackluster fanfare of fake promises, greenwashing, and corporate lobbying. The stalled progress after the 1995 WSSD and the lack of other social development-focused initiatives puts huge pressure on this year's event in Doha to be a conference of action.
Social development progress has been seriously hindered by underinvestment, a lack of regulation and legality, greenwashing, outdated policies, and a lack of political will. Multiple global crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic, conflict, the climate crisis, and economic downturns, have exacerbated many existing global issues.
Ageing populations reshaping society, a right-wing shift in the political arena, increasing polarization, and international pressure to fund military alliances add additional challenges. The financing gap must be closed. Binding targets have to be set. Nations must be held accountable for inaction.
This WSSD2, let's strengthen global partnerships, implement effective policies, foster international cooperation, set concrete proposals, and make it another historic leap for social development.
As Baerbock said, "Social development is not only a matter of principle, it is also the smartest investment we can make."
There is a truth that many of those who think themselves untouched by war are unable or unwilling to understand. War never goes away.
Not long ago, I received a Facebook "friend" request from Jean, an individual I had known in grammar school. It was nice to hear from her, that she was in good health, and doing well. Over the subsequent weeks, we exchanged pleasantries, read each other's posts, and caught up somewhat with how our lives had progressed over the past 50 or so years.
The pleasantries were rather short-lived, however, as Jean rather quickly became disenchanted, perhaps annoyed is more accurate, with my "preoccupation" with politics, social issues, and the "fact" that my Facebook commentaries and analyses—"rants" she called them—were, in her opinion, "unhealthy, self-destructive, and downright anti-American." She expressed what I took to be a heartfelt concern for my well-being, that I was such a sad and angry man, unhappy with my life and my country, and obsessed with a war some 50 years gone. She knew I had been a Marine in Vietnam, had heard over the years that I had been affected by the experience, but only now realized the severity of my condition—a Facebook diagnosis.
"As a friend," she counseled me that I should stop with the politics, protests, and dissent, put the war behind me and go on with my life. None of this, of course, was new to me, and, I would guess, to many others who had participated in war. So, I politely thanked her for her concern and advice, and continued with my protests, dissent, and "rants" about politics, issues of social justice, and war.
Not long afterward, however, having grown frustrated, I guess, with my unwillingness to follow her advice and make the necessary "positive" changes in my life, she wished me well. After a final expression of concern for my well-being (she was aware of the 17.6 veterans who committed suicide each day), Jean terminated our interaction, “unfriended me” in Facebook jargon.
She was right, of course, at least about how the war had seriously impacted my life, how I had become both sad and angry. Sad that upon returning home to the "world," I no longer fit in. How I felt alone, alienated from friends and family members and how for the longest time, I was unable to maintain a relationship or keep a normal job. She was right as well about my being angry. Angry about how I felt used by my country, lied to about the necessity and justice of the cause for which so many lives were devastated. Angry that the hopes and dreams I had for my life were never realized, and, most tragic, angry that many of our leaders and fellow citizens learned nothing from the debacle... and we are doing it all again.
She was wrong, however, in her assumption that in a life amidst the chaos and unrest, I hadn't tried to achieve a sense of normalcy and well-being. Damn, I had tried a whole lot. Perhaps Jean was right, however, and my inability to heal was the result of a choice that I made, to recognize and accept responsibility and culpability for the crimes perpetrated upon the Vietnamese people. That I had no right to “come home” when so many others were never afforded the opportunity; the 3.8 million Vietnamese, the 58,281 fellow Americans whose names are inscribed on the Wall of Remembrance in D.C., and the over 50,000 Vietnam Veterans who died by their own hand.
Eventually, I realized a truth that many of those who think themselves untouched by war are unable or unwilling to understand. War never goes away.
Perhaps the best that can be hoped for, I think, is to continue the struggle to accommodate the trauma, the pain, and the suffering (the PTSD); the guilt, the sadness, and the anger (the Moral Injury); and to find a place for it in one’s being. Easier said than done, of course, a Sisyphean task I will struggle with for the rest of my life.
In a significant new study published by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Canadian economist Mohsen Javdani reveals that gender shapes views on power, equality, and inclusion in ways politics alone can’t explain.
Men and women might check the same box on election day, but they see the economy through different lenses. Just ask professional economists.
That’s the striking implication of a new study by Mohsen Javdani, associate professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, who surveyed over 2,400 economists across 19 countries. His research reveals that gender shapes how they understand economic issues in ways politics alone can’t explain—and warrants attention from policymakers and campaigns alike.
Javdani wasn’t just chasing numbers; he was looking for patterns in what economists believe and focus on. What he found: Women in the field (still underrepresented) are more likely to challenge traditional theories, promote equality and social justice, and push for a more inclusive economics. They tend to lean further left than their male colleagues, who are more often centrists or right leaning.
Probably no surprise there.
But here’s the twist: Even when the men and women shared the same political beliefs, they still interpreted economics differently. Right-leaning female economists, for example, were more likely than their male peers to question orthodox ideas and emphasize equality and inclusion. Javdani’s data suggests that as economists shift right politically, men abandon progressive views more quickly than women do.
Simply put, political labels often try to explain it all, but they miss a big piece: Gender is at work behind the scenes.
If right-leaning women are more receptive to progressive economic ideas than their male counterparts, then campaigns that speak directly to these women could unlock a powerful, untapped base for fairness and inclusion.
So, just pack the room with more women and expect the conversation to shift? Not so fast.
Javdani points to earlier research by Giulia Zacchia and others, showing that numbers alone don’t cut it, especially if the loudest voices still echo the same old male-dominated, market-centered dogma. Without structural changes and real efforts to open the field to new ideas, the issues women tend to bring to the table, like labor protections, inequality, and a more hands-on role for government, keep getting sidelined. New faces, same soundtrack. Female economists are out there pushing for redistribution, calling out bias, and demanding better, but if no one’s listening, the system stays stuck.
This isn’t just academic—what’s at stake is a real understanding of how the economy hits women, what they contribute, and why their labor keeps getting undervalued.
Javdani’s study breaks new ground by showing how politics can blur—but never erase—the gender gap in economic thinking. As he writes:
While moving rightward on the political spectrum is consistently associated with weaker support for progressive and equity-oriented positions, the decline is less steep among women. In several cases—particularly among right- and far-right-leaning economists—women remained more supportive of positions emphasizing inequality, structural disadvantage, and concern about corporate power.
For anyone trying to grasp how voters think about the economy, this research is very suggestive.
Javdani study samples only economists, but it is difficult to believe that the differences he documents do not extend far more broadly, and that if we want to understand economic opinions at the ballot box, we have to look beyond party lines and pay attention to gender.
A recent NBC News poll, for example, shows a wide gap between conservative young male voters and their liberal female counterparts on issues like financial independence, debt, and home ownership. And a new Gallup survey reveals meaningful differences in how male and female respondents view capitalism and socialism—with men viewing capitalism more positively than women, and the reverse for socialism.
But significantly, there are also large gaps among men and women in the same political categories. A March 2025 Pew analysis found Republican women were more than twice as likely as Republican men to see employer bias as a major cause of the gender wage gap (43% vs. 18%). Meanwhile, polling by Navigator Research shows American women are consistently more pessimistic about the economy than men, across race, income, and party lines. This stems from how women experience the economy day-to-day—focusing on costs like groceries, rent, and healthcare rather than abstract numbers like GDP or the stock market.
As a result, women tend to strongly support policies that directly ease these burdens, from paid family leave and the Child Tax Credit to cracking down on corporate price gouging.
Yet much economic messaging still treats the economy as gender-neutral—a costly oversight for anyone hoping to connect with voters. Javdani’s research points to a missed opportunity: If right-leaning women are more receptive to progressive economic ideas than their male counterparts, then campaigns that speak directly to these women could unlock a powerful, untapped base for fairness and inclusion.
Talking about economics like gender doesn’t matter is like playing checkers in a chess game. When you meet people where they actually are, not where your ideological playbook says they should be, you stop talking past each other, and start building something real, like an economy that works for everybody.