It is also questionable to what extent the ‘goal, target, indicator’ format is useful, not just for security-related issues but for all areas of programming. This process tends to lead practitioners to monitor progress on indicators, rather than monitoring the goal itself. Unfortunately, it is not always clear whether the causal path between the indicators and the desired goal are so straightforward. While few would disagree that security is an important foundation for development, not every ‘good’ can or should necessarily be included as a global goal under the post-MDG framework. Given the challenges set out above, it is important to consider whether increased security (in all its possible manifestations) is best pursued through a global goal.
Conclusion
This paper has set out some of the key proposals for including a security-related theme within the post-MDG framework. Five proposals are apparent from the policy literature, each incorporating aspects of security in a different manner. Of these proposals, the armed violence proposals are the most developed options on the table for including security. They offer a tangible addition to the current list of MDG targets that could clearly lead to policy and programme action. In contrast, the proposals to make the post-MDG framework conflict-sensitive or frame new goals through the lens of human security seem vague and open to interpretation, without a clear policy process that would emerge from them. Proposals emerging from the UN System, which bundle security-related goals together with a number of governance, rule of law and human rights dimensions, may seem attractive but are not necessarily the most politically feasible way of ensuring the inclusion of a security-related goal. The proposals for an armed violence target are more precise and less controversial, clearly articulating a focus on a specific kind of insecurity (which, in practice, triggers a multitude of associated social problems). The g7+ proposal to include the PSGs as either a set of pre-