Global Sustainable Urban Development : A study of SDG no. 11 in South Korea and Vietnam

(1)

Global Sustainable Urban Development

A study of SDG no. 11 in South Korea and Vietnam

Beatrice Grahn

International Relations, IR 61-90, IR103L Department of Global Political Studies Malmö University Bachelor Thesis, 15 ECTs Submitted: Spring/2021.05.17

(2)

Abstract

The field of International Relations is Western-centric through its main theories, which risks undermining the development of non-Western countries. This thesis aims to implement the alternative analytical, non-Western approach of Global IR through a Comparative Case Study of South Korea and Vietnam to analyse the so-called ‘global’ Sustainable Development Goals through two research questions: How have South Korea and Vietnam managed to fulfil SDG no. 11? and How can Global IR be used to problematise the Westernised and overly universal UN measurement indicators of SDG no. 11 in South Korea and Vietnam? Conclusively, South Korea falls more in line with the Western depiction of development than Vietnam. But Global IR can be used to problematise the UN indicators by arguing historical implications to reach their Western-centric model in non-Western countries and provides indicators that consider countries individualities. This ultimately creates a more global approach, as it acknowledges differences instead of attempting to fit all countries into one specific box of sustainable urban development.

(3)

List of Abbreviations

ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CBDR: Common But Different Responsibilities

CCS: Comparative Case Study

CRI: Climate Risk Index

DAC: Development Assistance Committee

EMT: Ecological Modernization Theory

EPI: Environmental Performance Index

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

GNI: Gross National Income

HDI: Human Development Index

IR: International Relations

IRT: International Relations Theory

MDG: Millennium Development Goal

MDSD: Most Different Systems Design

ODA: Official Development Assistance

PM2.5 & PM10: Particulate Matter 2.5 & 10 (measurement of particles<2.5μm/10μm)

RQ: Research Question

SDG: Sustainable Development Goal

SUD: Sustainable Urban Development

UN: United Nations

UNDP: United Nations Development Programme

UN-DESA: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

UNESCAP: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

UN-HABITAT: United Nations Human Settlements Programme

UNSD: United Nations Statistics Division

UNSDG: United Nations Sustainable Development Group

VNR: Voluntary National Review

(4)

1. Introduction

“In an increasingly urbanised world, global resilience cannot be achieved without cities. Separating a local from a national or international sustainability issue is increasingly difficult – be it climate change, migration, or economic development”. This quote from Ivleva (2019) summarises the importance of sustainable urban development (SUD) in the field of International Relations (IR). As she mentions, the continuous globalisation of our world makes it increasingly difficult to separate local, national, and international, especially in topics such as global warming, which does not contain itself within country borders. These are global issues and must therefore be handled on a global scale. This will be studied through two research questions: How have South Korea and Vietnam managed to fulfil SDG no. 11? and How can Global IR be used to problematise the Westernised and overly universal UN measurement indicators of SDG no. 11 in South Korea and Vietnam?

The field of IR has increasingly acknowledged the impact of global warming since the 1970s due to the increasing level of transboundary environmental issues through the post-WWII economic boom, displayed through a new wave of green theories such as sustainable development and ecological security. Green theories emerged alongside modernisation theories and criticised the long-term environmental damage of certain modernisation approaches such as rapid industrialisation. Environmental issue areas in IR are viewed as “wicked problems” due to their complicated nature of being globally influential, often non-deliberate and including all forms and levels of actors (e.g., countries, non-governmental organisations, and international organisations) (Eckersley, 2016: 260, 261; Vogler, 2016: 386).

The transboundary influence of global warming has resulted in the ratification of multiple global climate change frameworks for the last decades through the United Nations (UN), including the Kyoto Protocol (1997), Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (2000), Paris Agreement (2015) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (2016). What IR scholars have questioned is the long-term impact of such frameworks, especially when they lack implementation by main emitters such as the US and China (Vogler, 2016: 388). The MDGs, while resulting in improvements in poverty, health, and equality, fell short in areas such as suffering due to climate change influence in the poorest countries, gaps between rural and urban areas and inadequate housing and services (UN-DESA, 2016: 8).

(6)

2 Subsequently, the current field of studying SUD in IR highlights the current environmental framework, the SDGs. Consisting of seventeen goals, 169 targets and 247 indicators, the SDGs were implemented by the UN in 2016 as the successor of the MDGs. In contrast to its predecessor, the SDGs cover a wider area of sustainable development by consisting of nine more goals and extending its focus from developing to all countries. SUD is the core of SDG no. 11: “Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (UN, 2021). There are strict guidelines for how countries report their progress back to the UN, which is mainly through voluntary global, regional, national, and thematic reviews and relies on high-quality, reliable data which reflects the SDG indicators (UNSDG, 2017).

However, issues have emerged with implementing the goals globally. While the UN has established the importance of country-led, national SDG implementation frameworks, the SDG progress displayed on UN websites and through the SDG Index is based on the global UN indicators, many of which display no or limited available data (Ritchie et al, 2018; Sachs et al, 2020). Measuring indicators was problematised in the MDGs, and it questions why the approach of developing indicators have not changed to be more inclusive in the SDGs (Clegg, 2015: 950). Available data does not only show remaining challenges to reach goal no. 11, but additionally displays increased challenges for lower-income countries to progress (Sachs et al, 2020: 40). IR scholars Weber and Weber (2020) demonstrate the connection between the SDGs and Ecological Modernisation Theory (EMT), which creates a bias towards already developed countries in the West. This issue area connects to the next section and argues why this field is important to study by outlining the current situation and the theoretical approach of this analysis: Global IR.

1.1. The current importance of the field and contribution of Global IR

Global IR is introduced in Acharya and Buzan (2010) and aims to balance out the Western dominance in International Relations Theory (IRT) with a focus on Asia as a possible source of emerging theories. Asia is a current hotspot of urbanization, with an uprise in population and megacities. It is therefore important to evaluate this development and make sure it is done with sustainability in mind (nationally and internationally) (Sachs et al, 2020: 37). Consequently, the reasons for studying South Korea and Vietnam are similar, such as rapid urbanization, high concentrations of particulate matter (PM2.5 & PM10, hazardous air particles) and slum dwellers (UNESCAP, 2020).

(7)

3 The importance of Global IR stems from the Western foundations of IRTs, which limits the possibility for non-Western cases to be analysed with their historical and cultural individuality in consideration. This creates a bias when studying modernity and development in countries, as the terms stem from a Western model (Acharya & Buzan, 2017: 342). While most IR theories attempt to be universally applicable, Acharya and Buzan (2010) suggest the addition of exceptionalism as the main argument of including non-Western theories deriving from individual Asian countries. Therefore, the Global IR development in South Korea and Vietnam (Southeast Asia) will be displayed as underlying factors when analysing the second RQ and arguing for the inclusion of more individual, non-Western approaches to the SDGs.

This cannot be analysed without mentioning the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, due to its influence on implementing SDG no. 11, and current and future IR research (Sachs et al, 2016). As the pandemic is still ongoing, the upcoming literature review does not cover it extensively and instead includes alternative published research focuses within SUD. While the pandemic has affected the entire world, certain countries have been hit harder than others. Cities have been especially hit by the pandemic due to their large number of people, and their public health and economy are being tested. It is therefore more important than ever to develop sustainable, resilient cities (World Bank, 2020). The pandemic has displayed difficulties in applying universal guidelines to all countries due to multiple factors, such as resources, economic structure, inadequate living conditions, disaster risk management; all factors which influence the possibility of SUD through SDG no. 11 (World Bank, 2020; UN, 2021). If the crucial national components are identified, they influence global SUD and create a framework for current and future disaster management, such as the response to COVID-19.

1.2. Research Questions and analytical goal

This leads to the presentation of this analysis’ research questions: How have South Korea and Vietnam managed to fulfil SDG no. 11? and How can Global IR be used to problematise the Westernised and overly universal UN measurement indicators of SDG no. 11 in South Korea and Vietnam? The first question is descriptive and exists to highlight the differences for the Comparative Case Study (CCS) between the countries in the implementation of SDG no. 11, results which will then be used for the core of this thesis: the analytical second question. It aims to apply the non-Western perspective of Global IR to highlight the difference in the countries’ signs

(8)

4 of progress, illustrates how the implementation of SDG no. 11 is compromised in non-Western contexts, and analyse the importance of considering national concepts of development, both in global goals (such as the SDGs) and IR.

The hypothesis is that the first RQ will suggest a large difference between South Korea and Vietnam for each target, in both implementation and main issue areas of SUD. Following this, the result of the second RQ will be that South Korea, a country that will follow the Western definitions of development better than Vietnam, is displayed as very developed through the UN SDG indicators and without many vast problems. However, when considering the country’s historical and individual approaches through Global IR by measuring additional indicators and studying the country’s VNR (Voluntary National Review), it will result in a more accurate depiction of the country’s status of SUD, and therefore make it easier to apply with but develop the most suitable SUB framework for individual countries.

The aim of this thesis is not to point out what a certain country has done wrong or right in SDG application, but to criticize the Western foundation in both SDGs and IR, and how both individual countries and the globalized world benefit from acknowledging and working from countries individual differences. Global IR is applied to pinpoint Western bias and to create an analysed alternative, improved list of indicators and data relevant to analyse to understand the progress in SUD in non-Western countries. By considering the status of the country from an individual perspective instead of Western-based green IR, the developmental status of the countries changes to better reflect their progress through SDG no. 11 and the current measurement indicators’ bias towards developed Western countries will be criticised. As a result, it is not merely the SDGs that are criticised for their Western bias, but also Green IR theory.

To structure this research, section one argues for the chosen research questions, hypotheses, and goal with said research. Then, section two presents published literature to argue for this research’s contribution to existing IR fields, followed by introducing the theoretical framework inspired by Global IR. The third section outlines the methodological approach, implications and choices of data and cases, followed by the fourth section, where the analysis is conducted by studying four chosen SDG no. 11 targets. Finally, a conclusion restates the main points of the thesis, reflects the analysis, and suggests future development of the topic.

(9)

5

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The introduction and this literature review both desire to identify issues and inconsistencies relating to the research topic to identify it as problem-driven. To further display this, the first three sections of this literature review outline three core themes: The IRT-focused studies of Global IR and Green IR, Sustainable Urban Development through SDG no.11, and Western bias. This is followed by three sections presenting the theoretical framework by displaying a more detailed account of Global IR as a developing theory, finishing by describing the crucial points of the region-precise influences from South Korea and Vietnam of the theory.

2.1 IRT: Global IR and Green IR

Global IR by Acharya and Buzan (2010, 2017) lacks the inclusion of SUD, a gap which this thesis aims to fill. Instead, it focuses on analysing the development of non-Western IR theories to contrast the Western bias of IRTs. A connection between Global IR and Green IRT is mainly through the concepts of development and modernity, and published research critiques IRT’s Westernised foundation through other non-Western exclusive issues. Chen (2011) analyses the published literature discussing non-Western IR theories, such as Acharya and Buzan (2010), and the risk of promoting nativism by excluding critical self-reflection. In contrast, this thesis will apply the proposed Global IR as a complementary theory instead of a replacement of mainstream IR theories by studying the progress South Korea and Vietnam have done following the UN SDG indicator. The results are later enhanced by the proposed additional indicators deriving from taking the historical, individualistic approach displayed and analysed.

As previously mentioned, the development of IR theories from individual countries has been met by varied reactions. Shilliam (2011) criticises nationally developed discourse of modernity as universally applicable, even if it is non-Western, Do (2015) criticises this national discourse for failing to advocate for increased universal knowledge, while Chen (2011) presents the hope of non-Western scholars to “to ‘bridge’ theoretical universalism (the West) with contextual exceptionalism (the East)” (ibid., 12). Acharya and Buzan (2010) closely follow the latter approach when discussing Global IR broadly and in Southeast Asia (Chong, 2010: 136). This presents alternatives that will produce theoretical approaches more suitable for non-Western countries and the ability to create a “substantial comparative advantage when it comes to formulating and applying theory that relates to their own area of the world” (Buzan & Little, 2010: 198).

(10)

6 A common issue discussed in Global IR and Green IR theory-focused studies is universal methodologies when the main IR theories are based on Western ideals, consequently creating hierarchies (Holmes, 2011). Acharya (2014) criticises the pluralistic universalist foundation of IR but suggests the bridging between regionalism and universalism will benefit the field, while Saull (2012) focuses on the complicated relationship between universalism and uneven development. Development issues in East Asia have both historical roots and issues with national inequality between urban and rural areas (Masujima, 2021: 100). Lee (2020) argues for East Asia as a driving force of multiple modernities in contrast to the “universalistic, one-size-fits-all neoliberal paradigm” of IR (ibid., 474). Whereas these publications have prioritised studying how the universalist approach is connected to the Western bias, this research acknowledges this connection from the start and attempts to analyse the concept of universal methodologies deeper through non-Western cases.

2.2 SDG no. 11 and Sustainable Urban Development in South Korea and Vietnam

Following the IRT-focused publications, this section takes a step towards the current global blueprint of SUD: The SDGs. Connected through goal no. 11, published research has not yet analysed this specific goal from both developed and developing non-Western countries. However, the SDGs have been criticized for their means of implementation, such as through the proposed aid scheme for developed countries to aid developing countries by pushing for economic development through increased international trade without many environmental considerations (Weber & Weber, 2020). This is further problematised when considering the historical relationship between developed nations of the West and developing nations of the East, where problems such as the financial instability of developing countries are not taken into consideration and make the country dependent on foreign economic aid (Sheng, 2011).

While a CCS of South Korea and Vietnam is yet to been analysed through Global IR and SDG no. 11, studies displaying the power dynamics between the West and East are common. This is visible through e.g., the social and historical context of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) + 3 (China, Japan, and South Korea), the portrayal of East and Southeast Asian economic structure by American scholars without considering Asian values and alternatives to the Western-based modernity, and the Vietnam War exemplifying the decline of American hegemony (Castle, 2017; Lee, 2020; Saull, 2012). Furthermore, the topic of SUD in the two countries has

(11)

7 been explored through the importance of political transparency with the SDGs in Vietnam, the development of eco-cities in South Korea and the impact on picking sides between the US and China (anti-communist vs communist) for both countries since the 1950s (Hope, 2020; Rapoport & Hult, 2017, Holmes, 2011).

Researching SUD presents a lack of inclusive measurements to track national development. Instead, researchers have either analysed more specified areas of SUD, such as transport, wage inequality, Human Development Index (HDI), Gross Domestic Product (GDP), SDG index score or large-scaled analyses of multiple actors, such as cross-country panel data (Masujima, 2021; Maranghi et al, 2020; Sheng, 2011; Beladi et al, 2016). To combat the issue of universal methods in non-Western countries, this analysis displays complementary indicators, identified through Global IR. This is done by considering the historical backgrounds and analysing their VNRs, reviews published by countries to acknowledge the national status of SDG implementation and discuss issues with them, nationally and globally. Concluding remarks include various levels of doubt whether the current model of the SDGs and SUD can be applied on a global scale, which follows the previous critique of IRT (Hope, 2020; Qiao-Franco, 2021; Maranghi et al, 2020).

2.3 Western bias in the SDGs

This section focuses on criticism of the non-inclusivity of the SDGs, mainly towards minority groups of race, gender, and economical status. While the SDGs are more inclusive than its predecessor which concerned developing countries, the MDGs, its goals fail to highlight important issues of sustainable development. Rose Taylor (2020) analyses the goals connected to gender equality through a critical feminist lens and the unique concept of indicators displayed through the MDGs and the SDGs. It suggests that policy networks result in power structures where certain voices are prioritised, often those who are measurable by numbers and therefore seen as “easier” to analyse and “the framing effects and power relations that indicators bring to global social policy bring with them an obscured bias” (ibid., 355).

Although feminism is a different theoretical approach than that of this thesis, a similar critical approach is applied through the analysis of the SDG indicators of SDG no. 11. The suggested individual indicators presented in the analysis are a result of acknowledging cross-sectional dependence, as not only do countries influence each other as many effects of sustainable development know no state boundaries, but the progress of certain goals will ultimately influence

(12)

8 other goals. This is important as the ignorance of this dependence results in “biased and inconsistent estimates and wrong inferences” according to Guzel et al. (2021: 4). Hirons (2020) discusses SDGs in relation to mining and conclusively argues that SDGs and their indicators “promote an approach to formalisation that risks marginalising the poorest and entrenching inequality, and; privilege techno-scientific knowledge”, which this thesis argues further applies to developing and developed countries (ibid., 321).

While the latter scholars have discussed Western bias (extended to marginalised groups and developed vs developing countries), Weber and Weber (2020) display the connection between the SDGs and EMT. A green variant of Modernisation Theory, which operates a Westernised form of modernisation as the universal goal, EMT has been critiqued for its limited applicability in developing countries (Fisher & Freudenburg, 2001). This displays the core problematisation which drives this thesis: The UN has presented the SDGs as global, but recent events presented through published research suggests the SDGs are foundationally biased towards a Westernised model of development, and subsequently Western countries. Therefore, the approach when analysing South Korea and Vietnam’s implementations of SDG no. 11 strives as far away from the Westernised IR approach as possible by using the approach of Global IR. While this is yet to be an integrated IR theory, the country-specific approaches presented by Acharya and Buzan (2010) will display an alternative to an otherwise Western-biased IR analytical approach.

2.4 Theoretical framework

In this section, the theoretical framework of Global IR applied in the analysis will be introduced. Due to Global IR being an emerging IRT with multiple suggested frameworks, it will focus on the approach discussed in Acharya and Buzan (2010), define key concepts and introduce theories emerging individually from South Korea and Vietnam (Southeast Asia). The purpose is to argue for the chosen theory and evaluate what parts of the theory are relevant to answer the RQs.

2.4.1 Global IR: The possibility of non-Western IR theory

“There are multiple pathways to “doing” Global IR. No single way can be imposed. But the key to any approach in Global IR is to “bring the Rest in”: to end the marginalization of the non-Western and Global South’s ideas, history, voices, and agency” (Acharya, 2016). The unique approach of developing Global IR is that it is not created to be a theory, which then is applied to

(13)

9 different cases to study. Instead, it is a perspective to bring in as many voices as possible in a field that has been biased to the West. Therefore, Global IR can itself be considered a concept, one which will be defined through national models from South Korea and Vietnam in the upcoming sections (ibid.).

While there are multiple regional and national Global IR approaches, main points of how to use Global IR are visible in multiple publications (Acharya, 2014; 2016; Acharya & Buzan, 2010; 2017). These are the key concepts which will be utilised in the upcoming analysis. It is important to acknowledge that key concepts of IR have been defined by the same Western bias as the field of IR, and a Global IR perspective would display how “key concepts of nation-state, nationalism, sovereignty and territoriality could acquire different meanings” (Behera, 2010: 99) Therefore, defining key concepts in this section is not about presenting these Western concepts, but instead displaying what pathway of Global IR will be used in this analysis and where its key components stem from.

Acharya (2016) presents a list suggesting a framework of how to apply Global IR in studies, and this analysis will closely follow this, combined with bringing in common themes seen in Global IR literature. A main theme present is that of non-Western individuality, by focusing on marginalised groups and bringing in as many national perspectives as possible (Acharya, 2014). This is included in this analysis by looking at SDG progress from each country’s VNR, which displays a national implementation focus and more detailed accounts of possible issue areas, which do not derive from a Western bias. As a result, complementary indicators will be presented, deriving from the Global IR approach instead of the West. Similarly, Global IR puts great importance in Global history and its impact on individual countries’ roles in a global society (Buzan & Little, 2010). Subsequently, it acknowledges the importance of time and context. The historical approaches of South Korea and Vietnam will therefore be established in this chapter, and later be introduced in the analysis as possible underlying causes of certain national SUD.

2.4.2 Vietnam: Global IR

The chapter on Southeast Asia in Acharya and Buzan (2010) highlights the relationship between modernisation and tradition (Chong, 2010). As previously mentioned, non-Western countries tend to import Western theoretical structures when such derived from its region is absent. As a result, it must be acknowledged that Southeast Asia has been largely influenced by colonization and

(14)

10 therefore, any attempt to implement Westernised ideals is no surprise (Chong, 2010: 118). Vietnam was colonized by France from the late 19th_{Century to 1945 and later divided into communist North}

and anti-communist South, which resulted in the Vietnam War and its reunification.

Southeast Asian countries have been prone to conflict, and the Vietnam War has been argued to show “solid links with regional feeling in the past and with the Vietnamese search for an alternative worldview to replace Confucianism, which failed so patently to provide an answer to the colonial challenge” (Chong, 2010: 124). Consequently, the country has had various ideological influences, all originating from the West. Because of theories being created through the influence of the historically dominant political order, both IR and SUD in Vietnam (post-war) should display influential signs of communism (Chong, 2010: 118, 121). Instead of taking the American viewpoint of considering communism as the enemy, this should be considered to understand the implementation of SUD more deeply in Vietnam and therefore analyse the possible political implications of implementing SDG no. 11.

In addition, the tactics to display the others as the enemy through reiterating the damage done to the country throughout history could have been implemented to cover up insecurities within the national regime, and/or to simply display the dissatisfaction of the unjust treatment of the country during its colonization period. This could be seen in the 1950s and 60s, when the country displayed foreign relation issues as “instrumental to the pacification of the masses” (Chong, 2010: 123). Therefore, this analysis must consider the possibility of certain issue areas of SUD in Vietnam deriving from the country attempting to apply developmental framework deriving from the West, but also due to current issues in its national politics. Mentions of such shall be highlighted and brought up concerning possible issue areas.

In conclusion, the concept which will be analysed from Vietnam largely concerns power dynamics, both internationally and nationally. It looks at the historical aspect of the analysed target, the possibility of colonial and Western influence, followed by considering the current political influences in the country. How has the international struggle of colonialism and Western hegemony translated to Southeast Asian national levels? How can actors cooperate, both intranational and international (East-East, East-West/developing, developing-developed)? The importance lies in the individuality of the country, which puts the main approach of finding more relevant measurement indicators on analysing the VNR of Vietnam and the city context report of Ho Chi Minh City.

(15)

11

2.4.3 South Korea: Global IR

Whereas Vietnam historically has had a negative view of foreign influence post-Vietnam War, especially towards the US, South Korea and the US have remained strong allies through trade and defence against North Korea (Chun, 2010: 71). South Korea must consider the Westernised modernity, as “Korean international history is still heavily influenced by a clash between traditional regional order and Western civilization, modern and postmodern transitions at an overlapping stage and a composition of multiple organizing principles of regional politics” (Chun, 2010: 74-75). Certain Western IRTs are applicable to the South Korean case, but mainly micro-theories (e.g., balance of power and security dilemma), while the application of macro micro-theories (e.g., neorealism and neoliberalism), would be based on Western-based assumptions which do not apply to South Korea (Chun, 2010: 84). The additional indicators will analyse if this applies to UN SDG indicators, where certain indicators fit the South Korean approaches seen in its VNR but misses crucial points for certain targets.

Despite the country being historically influenced by the contrasting characteristics of the US, Japan, and China, it has transformed an individual South Korean identity during the last decades (Chun, 2010: 75). As a result, the main concept when analysing the South Korean implementation of SDG no.11 is soft power. While international cooperation and IR discussions involving South Korea have focused on international conflict, South Korea has exercised soft power in relation to SUD (Chun, 2010: 74). This is especially noticeable when reading the country’s VNR and prominent in the analysis.

While much of South Korea’s approach in SDG no. 11 applies to other countries more than itself through forms of Official Development Assistance (ODA), knowledge sharing through workshops and city-to-city cooperation, it has failed to mention its national issue areas and how certain targets will be implemented in the country. This gives the reader the impression that South Korea has reached said targets, which in many cases is untrue (Sachs, 2020: 41). Mentioning this is not to criticise the country, but the opposite. As previously mentioned, it is the visibility of impactful, non-Western actors which is of major importance to change the mainstream theories from being strictly Western. The goal is to propose South Korea as a bridge between the East and the West, as a country that has managed to develop historical foreign influence into its own identity and develop from it.

(16)

12

3. Methods

To answer the RQs, the upcoming analysis will combine the previously presented theoretical approaches (or as Acharya (2017) would call it: perspectives) a CCS, a small-N comparison through a Most Different Systems Design (MDSD) (Halperin & Heath, 2017). The CCS aligns with the causal RQs of this thesis and is useful to understand multi-contextual implementations such as the SDGs (Goodrick, 2014: 1,2). The key similarities in the MDSD are directly connected to the second RQ, as while the countries have differences in implementing the SDGs, they should both display issues of the SDG indicators not properly reflecting their SUD status due to their non-Western identity. This is to display that non-non-Western countries can share these issues despite contrast of what the West consider to be “developed”. The upcoming section aims to argue for the relevance of this framework, how it will be used, potential limitations with such methodology and the selection process of the two case studies (South Korea and Vietnam).

3.1 Choice of material and analytical framework

The upcoming two sections will be divided into the two RQs to display and argue for what type of material will be analysed to answer them and how it will be collected and analysed. As the main part of the analysis is divided into subheadings referring to four different SDG no. 11 targets, these structures will be applied to each one individually.

3.1.1 RQ 1: Measuring the UN indicators

The data selection to answer the first RQ is straightforward. It follows the UN’s data collection strategy presented through metadata, of measuring national implementation of the SDG targets through its indicators, by relying on countries providing high-quality, quantitative administrative data (UNSDG, 2017: 27). The choice to include this data is to compare the countries’ alignment with the UN indicators, which is compared to and through the individual indicators in the second analytical section, and additionally reflects the methodology presented by the UN to measure SUD.

This data is acquired through UNSD’s SDG Indicators global database, containing more than 1.4 million observations of national metadata measuring the SDG progress through its indicators (UNSD, 2021b). In addition to this reference, the datasets can be handed in upon request to increase transparency. The analysed data focuses on the period between 2015 and 2021

(17)

13 comparison the countries pre- and post-SDG ratification. However, for certain indicators, the comparison will be conducted through data pre-2015, but this will be clearly stated and analysed as an issue of data availability. When data is unavailable for South Korea and/or Vietnam during this time frame on the UN Global SDG Indicators Database, data will be gathered from other sources, such as additional UN subdivisions (e.g., UN-Habitat, UNESCAP, UNSD), World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Bank. If further sources fail to provide data, it will be displayed to argue for the problematisation of said indicators.

3.1.2 RQ 2: Highlighting issues through Global IR, VNRs and additional indicators

While the benefits of reporting back to the UN through VNRs are displayed in the UN guidelines, it fails to argue for its long-term impacts on the goals. Furthermore, as they are voluntary, there is no guarantee that the UN will gain information on national issues with implementing the SDGs apart from the quantitative data, which is greatly lacking on a global scale (UNSDG, 2017: 9-10). Instead, the VNRs will be studied in a different, more beneficial way: To highlight issues of SDG targets and what additional indicators could encompass the measurement of such development.

Data for RQ 2 are both qualitative and quantitative, a common approach for a CCS, and includes the first to pinpoint which forms of quantitative data is relevant to the countries (Goodrick, 2014: 5). Firstly, it uses the result of RQ 1 and applies Global IR through a CCS to consider why differences in the implementation of UN SDG indicators between the countries exist. Here, it will focus on displaying what historical experiences have influenced their levels of development, including the main concepts of individuality, time, and context. (Acharya, 2016; Acharya & Buzan, 2017: 353). While the inclusion of historical approaches is limited due to the focus being on those connected to national IR theory development, the main goal of Global IR is to display “as many voices as possible” (Acharya, 2016). The parts of history included in Acharya and Buzan (2010) themselves do not only add their voices but display what historical aspect non-Western IR scholars prioritise when focusing on their country.

The next step is the document analysis of VNRs through Global IR, a voluntary report made by countries to display their progress of the SDGs and to recognize which issue areas they are facing or might face in their SDG implementation process (Goodrick, 2014: 1, UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2016; 2018). The inclusion of VNRs is crucial, as it allows gaining knowledge of development from the non-Western countries themselves and not from the

(18)

14 UN, one of the main components of Global IR (Acharya & Buzan, 2010: 17). To further argue how Global IR can problematise the UN indicators, alternative indicators deriving from issue areas presented in the VNRs will be suggested. This presents the second inclusion of CCS, to compare how highlighted SUD issues in South Korea and Vietnam’s VNRs differentiate from each other and their inclusion (or lack thereof) in UN SDG indicators. Thereby, the analysis is conducted to criticise the current bias of the UN indicators, argue for the importance of more approaches in IR than the ones based on a Western model and subsequently, to answer the second RQ.

Despite these additional inclusions to ensure a more well-rounded analysis of these countries SDG no. 11 progress, one must recognize that data including details which would have been relevant to include in this study will be missed due to the time limit of this thesis and lack of access to certain types of data. The latter can be contributed to lack of transparency on a national level in the VNRs, not clear enough guidelines from the UN of what data is supposed to display SDG progress and language barriers (documents in Korean can be analysed but might not appear in google searches, while documents in Vietnamese will be difficult to include due to lack of knowledge of the language).

Small-N studies present the issue of selection bias and that results of such study can be skewed. To combat this issue, the analysis focuses on using the countries to display how these non-Western countries of different levels of development (according to a West-centric model) can benefit from additional indicators created by applying Global IR and acknowledging their differences (Halperin & Heath, 2017: 223). Issues are further presented through implications of time lag in CCS, but this issue is used to the advantage of this thesis due to the historically inclusive approach of Global IR (Goodrick, 2014: 8). Therefore, the analysis has prioritised four out of the ten targets of SDG no. 11, to ensure the inclusion of relevant data examining the progress from 2015 to 2021 and to highlight the main issue areas of Vietnam and South Korea.

3.2 The impact of non-available data covering UN SDG indicators

The main issue when studying the SDGs is a lack of global data for UN indicators and availability varies greatly depending on goal, target, and country. In the Asia-Pacific region, merely goals 3, 6, 7 and 8 have data available from every country for every target and indicator. In contrast, goal 11 has the largest number of unavailability, with nine out of 14 indicators lacking both sufficient and/or insufficient data (UNESCAP, 2020). When ranking countries with the most available data,

(19)

15 South Korea and Vietnam are in the top third, as South Korea has no data for 40% of all indicators and Vietnam has no data for 32%. While the indicators were created to measure the progress of SDGs, this thesis hypothesises that issues using them as measurements are a result of them being either 1) too general and therefore difficult to measure and/or 2) not inclusive of the main issue areas which the country is facing concerning the said target. These hypothetical points answering RQ no. 2 will be brought up with each upcoming target, to explain how this conclusion is reached.

The absence of definitive methodological approaches when measuring SDG progress complicates addressing the national progress. UN indicators are divided into three tiers, depending on how clear its methodology is and the possibility of universal data collection. Tier 1 indicators have the largest chance of providing global data, while tier 2 indicators do not have regularly produced data produced by countries, and tier 3 indicators lack international methodologies or standards (UNSD, 2021a) In South Korea, data in the existing statistical system were only available in 31.3% of the tier 1 SDG indicators in 2016, with goal no. 11 having a small number of tier 1 indicators. This adds to the argument of problematising the SDGs attempting to be “universal”. While attempting to be more inclusive than the MDGs, they fail to equip countries with concrete guidelines/measurements which would have provided a more structured national progress analysis (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2016: 31). However, two main indicators make SDG nr. 11 interesting and available to analyse despite the lack of data.

Firstly, while the SDGs are divided into separate goals, many targets are connected and therefore supplement areas where data is unavailable. Analysing UN indicators with low numbers of available data would have been a much more difficult task to solve, as the Global IR approach would consider using data from other countries and applying it to a different country in a cross-national manner as problematic. Secondly, as goal 11 mainly applies to urban areas, there are relevant non-national data available. For South Korea and Vietnam, their largest cities and metropolitan areas are in focus: Seoul and Ho Chi Minh City. Reports from these cities display development goals for the individual city, progress over the years, main issue areas and future aim (UN-Habitat: 2018a; Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2017).

Both countries have created national indicators to be able to track their SDG progress. While this offers further individuality, these are merely used as a national strategy, are still based on the UN indicators, and subsequently, fail to reach global influence. Furthermore, Vietnam’s national indicators are published in Vietnamese with no official English document available, which further

(20)

16 pushes for the normalisation of displaying the individual targets from non-Western countries (UN, 2019).

3.3 Choice of cases

The region of East and Southeast Asia has progressed the most in terms of SDG implementation since 2015, despite the various levels of national development. Not only does available data show remaining challenges to reach goal no. 11, but increased challenges for lower-income countries to develop (Sachs et al, 2020: 37, 40). SDG goal no. 11, which focuses on SUD, was chosen as it encompasses many of the main issue areas countries and cities in East and Southeast Asia are facing. The cities are critical points of emissions, infrastructure development and disaster affectivity, all points included in SDG no. 11 (UNSD, 2018c). Large urban areas in East and Southeast Asia experience high and dangerous concentrations of particulate matter (PM2.5). Refugees seek refuge in towns and cities, slum dwellers are a large issue in East Asia, a declining rural population creates an issue with agriculture, and many expanding cities lack the space for their ever-growing populations (WHO, 2020).

The decision to include South Korea and Vietnam as the two case studies was made through an elimination process including 19 countries of the East and Southeast Asia region. First, five countries were eliminated due to lack of data, which included North Korea, Timor-Leste, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. The quantitative data available to measure UN indicators for the last three were lacking due to the variety in them being included in data sets as either independent actors or as part of China, which makes their data difficult to find. Secondly, the I sought to include one country part of “the Four Asian Tigers” (aka the Four Dragons), the name given to four East Asian countries that experienced rapid industrialization and economic development during the latter part of the 20th Century (Lee, 2020: 11). As a result, I chose to include South Korea.

Deciding on a country to complement South Korea, I wanted to choose one with multiple differences to South Korea, but a certain part also shows similarities between them to create a MDSD model of the CCS (Halperin & Heath, 2017: 221). Therefore, countries which are either very large or small in geographical area and/or population were eliminated to avoid having to factor in major size difference to interfere with my analysis and/or arguments, which included China, Mongolia, Indonesia, Singapore, and Brunei. Out of the eight remaining countries, five ranks below 100 in the world through the HDI, with a score of less than 0.720 in 2020 (UNDP,

(21)

17 2021). These countries were chosen through this indicator as HDI has been criticised for the exclusion of consumption issues of developed countries and overly critique developing countries through its approaches, such as uneven importance of development indicators. However, HDI displays how these countries are considered to display vastly different levels of development from this biased viewpoint, which is important to answer the second RQ (Hayward & Roy, 2019: 160).

To choose one of the final five countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, Vietnam), their current state and historical background, as these are crucial points when applying Global IR. As Myanmar has been under military rule and is currently experiencing a violent military coup d’état after the 2020 elections, it is considered difficult to compare with South Korea’s different historical background in addition to the difficulties analysing the current and possible future political climate (UN News, 2021). As South Korea experienced its growth after the Korean War, it is both interesting and important to incorporate Vietnam as the second country for this analysis (Choi, 2020: 213). Both countries have experienced a national war where the country was split in two, the North supported by communist allies (such as China and the Soviet Union), and the South supported by the United States and other non-communist states.

4. Analysis: SDG no. 11 in South Korea and Vietnam

To answer the two RQs: How have South Korea and Vietnam managed to fulfil SDG no. 11? and How can Global IR be used to problematise the Westernised and overly universal UN measurement indicators of SDG no. 11 in South Korea and Vietnam?, this analysis will be structured as followed: An introductory section displays a brief overview of SDG implementation in South Korea and Vietnam. The next four sections are the main part of the analysis and focus on four SDG no. 11 targets. In these sections, the analysis is divided into two parts: One presenting progress of the UN SDG indicators to answer RQ 1, and the other focusing on comparing and analysing the differences displayed in RQ 1 and core themes in their VNRs using Global IR.

4.1 Implementation of the SDGs in South Korea and Vietnam

After the adaptation of the SDGs in 2015, the UN created the SDG index to track each country’s progress by analysing the most recent published data measuring the UN indicators for all 17 SDGs. This is included to display how the UN considers the countries’ development from their indicators alone. In 2015, South Korea ranked at no. 27 (SDG index: 72.7), while Vietnam ranked at no. 88

(22)

18 (SDG index: 57.6) (Sachs et al, 2016). As of the latest Sustainable Development Report, South Korea ranked at no. 20 with an SDG index of 78.3, while Vietnam ranked at no. 49 with an SDG index of 73.8 (Sachs et al, 2020). However, due to the issues with missing data and Western bias, the upcoming sections will analyse examples of indicators not properly encompassing areas of development in both countries, and the SDG index, therefore, risks misguiding national progress.

As previously discussed, measurements and data collection capabilities have been criticised in the countries VNRs. Vietnam states that even when the UN attempts to aid individual countries to introduce more relevant national indicators, it is too complicated to collect and analyse from its current statistical system (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2018: 86). Similarly, South Korea addresses the need to analyse “the definitions and meanings of the global indicators”, which further argues for the indicators not being clear (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2016: 31).

This follows one of the major differences in issue areas between the two countries, which affects all discussed targets; Institutions for SUD management, as “successful achievement of SDGs in Viet Nam will heavily rely on the cooperation of ministries, agencies and all other stakeholders in designing and implementing multi-dimensional and multi-sectoral solutions”, especially as the targets of SDG no. 11 are connected to many other goal targets in the country (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2018: 84). In contrast, South Korea includes a variety of GOs, NGOs, and national operators to arrange extensive cooperation between actors to implement the SDGs, such as Statistics Korea, MOFA, OGPC, and additional experts from academia (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2016: 3).

4.2 Target 11.1: Housing

The first target aims to “Ensure access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums” with one indicator: “Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlements or inadequate housing”, a tier 1 indicator (UN, 2021; UNSD, 2021a: 20).

4.2.1 UN indicator: Proportion living in slums.

Target 11.1 has contrasted results in the countries with its single indicator. While the UN indicators dataset has no data for both countries, UN-Habitat displays data for Vietnam that directly corresponds to it, citing 13.8% of the urban population as living in slums in 2018 (from 27.2% in 2014) (UNSD, 2021b). South Korea has no data for slum population (UN-Habitat, 2020). None of

(23)

19 the countries has published distinct data for the terms “informal settlements” or “inadequate housing”, and “slums” are defined as “lacking one or more of the following indicators: a durable housing structure; access to clean water; access to improved sanitation; sufficient living space; and secure tenure” (UN-Habitat, 2018b: 8). From the available data alone, Vietnam displayed immense development in the right direction by decreasing its slum population by approx. 50%. The lack of data from South Korea is interpreted in two ways: Either the country has had a 0% slum population since the SDGs were ratified (but data confirming this is unavailable) or the country has had no available data displaying the percentage of urban population living in slums, which results in the management to fulfil target 11.1 as inconclusive.

4.2.2 Individual indicators: Affordable housing and public rental housing

While the results of the UN indicator for target 11.1 partially answer how it has been fulfilled in South Korea and Vietnam, the two latter sections of the indicator fall under the first depiction of indicator issues analysed in the previous section. While the indicator itself could be considered as not too general, it is the wording that creates issues, especially when the definitions are not even confidently cited in UN documents. The term “informal settlements” is described as “usually seen as synonymous of slums, with a particular focus on the formal status of land, structure and services” (UNSD, 2020a: 5).

A table displaying how most of the criteria of defining all three terms overlap further questions why they are displayed as different entities in the indicator (ibid., 6). This is further problematised through Global IR, which highlights the historical implications of colonisers imposing “law on boundaries that had been vague or dictated by colonial necessity” (Chong, 2010: 137). Consequently, expecting countries like Vietnam who have experienced vague dictations from past colonisers which do not apply to themselves, especially without the proper guidance on how to improve, largely ignores impactful historical experiences.

In comparison, this challenges the tier ranking of this indicator as South Korea does not produce any data displaying its slum population. As it is the only section of the indicator displayed in UN datasets, it gives the impression that the country has no issues with this target which according to its VNR and improvement plans within the housing sector which as seen in the upcoming sections, is not the case (UNSD, 2021; UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2016: 25). The approach by the UN becomes even more unclear when directly after acknowledging this overlap,

(24)

20 it displays the development of an index encompassing all three terms but is only described as being developed “at a later stage” (ibid., 6).

A proposed indicator of affordable housing is mentioned in the metadata for indicator 11.1.1 but fails to push for measurements covering countries with little or no slum population (UNSD, 2020a). The metadata includes measurement of unaffordable housing by UN-Habitat’s Urban Indicators Program, which refers to it as “the net monthly expenditure on housing cost that exceeds 30% of the total monthly income of the household” (UNSD, 2020a: 7).

While the measurement of slum population puts a large burden on developing countries (a majority in the East) and disregards housing issues in developing countries due to their lack of slum population, affordable housing highlights the issue of housing costs in urban centres across all countries (UN-Habitat, 2020). As an additional individual indicator to complement indicator 11.1.1, it would push for housing issues that are non-exclusive to certain areas of the world. Previous development strategies which were blatantly West-centric through its creation, such as the MDGs, have pushed for urbanisation in countries without properly considering important individual factors. These include infrastructure, rural-urban relations (as agriculture is still a key economic source in many developing countries), resources and more (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2018: 81).

Due to the aftermath of the Korean War and the Vietnam War, both countries had to rebuild most of their infrastructure to respond to their rapidly growing population and urbanisation during the latter half of the 20th_{Century (Chong, 2010: 122; World Population Review, 2021a; 2021b).}

Possible stunting of housing policies development is further understood through Global IR in Vietnam due to its historical viewpoint that “foreign policy adventurism is a convenient ‘opiate for the masses’ diverting caustic scrutiny from an incumbent government’s failings” which resulted in blame games commonly seen in modern time between actors influencing national development through the SDGs (Clegg, 2015). In 2015, 20% (around 4.8 million households) of Vietnam’s 24.2 million households lived in poor conditions (World Bank, 2015: xii), and the issue still largely remains for poor and near-poor households in 2018. (UN-Habitat, 2020: 7; 2018: 17).

Contrary, post-war South Korea emerged with influence by the US and its history displays a unique combination of “traditional regional order and Western civilization, modern and postmodern transitions at an overlapping stage and a composition of multiple organizing principles of regional politics” (Chun, 2010: 75). Therefore, the post-war countries have had two different

(25)

21 experiences of Western influence, which displays in the SDGs through South Korea aligning more with the expected West-centric form of development, a concept especially visible in the Four Asian Tigers (Masujima, 2021: 101).

Despite this, South Korea experienced an increase of people living in inadequate housing, from 54,000 in 2005 to 360,000 in 2015, 5.7% of 19.5 million households lived below minimum housing standard and approximately 11% of all households living in unaffordable housing in 2018 (Kim & Yoo, 2021). The concept of public rental housing present in South Korea emerged in Western Europe and North America as a solution to house shortages in cities during and post-industrialisation. However, Global IR displays that while the concept has been considered an additional solution to segregation in multiple Western countries and South Korea has expressed plans to expand the current number, it has had mixed results due to segregation issues (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2015; Chung et al, 2020). The country’s status of public rental housing is displayed through a Western concept that was applied to South Korea without considering certain influential factors which are unique to the country itself (ibid.).

Due to the previously presented national housing issues, it is therefore understandable why one of the main areas of city-to-city projects between South Korea (Seoul) and Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh City) has the goal to increase the number and accessibility of affordable, adequate housing. An example of city-to-city cooperation is displayed through CityNet, an “association of urban stakeholders committed to sustainable development in the Asia Pacific region” through international projects (CityNet, 2019). As of 2021, the two countries are connected through a three-year program on affordable housing, driven by CityNet and UN-Habitat and funded by the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), which aims to assist Vietnam, Nepal, and the Philippines in their implementation of SDG no. 11. The project arranges workshops, monitoring sessions and expert consultation derived from localising successful affordable housing development in South Korea (CityNet, 2021).

Instead of pushing a framework derived from South Korea onto the three other countries as the “right” way to expand the affordable housing sector, it directly acknowledges the project to be a way of aiding the countries and not a way for South Korea to take control of the countries. This is further seen as South Korea recognises its imperfection in the area, and instead displays itself as an example of a rapidly developing non-Western country that is not only dealing with issues of a similar nature but share successful practices which the individual countries mould to fit their

(26)

22 distinct issue areas and transfer much-needed resources (ibid.; UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2018: 85) This approach follows the structure of Global IR and further displays the importance of non-Western countries in power positions, which can present alternatives to the “universal” Western model (Acharya & Buzan, 2010: 7).

Furthermore, this area displays two countries in the non-Western world who, despite being on different levels of development, have a similar issue and decide to work together to learn from each other’s differences. This form of cooperative politics, which has been considered an important argument for the successful development of Global IR in Asia, is therefore seen in the works towards SUD (Acharya & Buzan, 2010: 231). Regional Asian cooperation has in the last decade challenged the EU model as a regionally developmental goal in IR, a similar development which is visible through programs such as CityNet (Acharya & Buzan, 2017). This creates a wider inclusion for countries such as Vietnam, which has negatively depicted foreign influence throughout history, but now have begun to view it as knowledge to understand and develop the country in its best capacities (Chong, 2010: 123, 124).

4.3 Target 11.5: Disaster risk management

The fifth target aims to “Significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations“ with two indicators: “Number of deaths, missing persons and persons affected by disaster per 100,000 people”, which is a tier 1 indicator and “Direct disaster economic loss in relation to global GDP, including disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services”, which is a tier 2 indicator (UN, 2021; UNSD, 2021a: 20).

4.3.1 UN indicators: People affected and economic loss by disaster.

The indicators for target 11.5 align with the implementation of the Sendai Framework of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNSD, 2017a; 2018a). For indicator 11.5.1, the number of deaths, missing people and people affected vary drastically from year to year in both countries. Vietnam, which lacks updated data records, had approximately 616,422 (approx. 701/100k) people affected by disaster in 2010. Furthermore, the country recorded between 698 and 92 deaths and missing persons attributed to disaster between 2005 and 2010 (UNSD, 2021b). While recorded data published

(27)

23 through the UN does not cover later years, approximate numbers have been calculated by WHO and present 15 deaths in 2016, around 200 in 2017 and 30 deaths and missing in 2018 (WHO, n.d.).

In the same period of 2005 to 2010, South Korea recorded between 237 and 23 deaths and missing persons, and the latest data from 2018 records approximately 13,673 (approx. 26/100k) people affected and 146 deaths and missing people (UNSD, 2021b). For indicator 11.5.2, South Korea has recorded a low economic loss of global GDP even before the implementation of the SDGs, recording a maximum number of 0.00004% loss attributed to disaster, scoring 0 in 2015 and 2018. Available UN metadata for Vietnam is greatly lacking for this indicator, with the latest being a loss of 0.00847% in 2010 (ibid.). However, its VNR presents numbers of “damage caused by natural disasters in the percentage of GDP”, with its latest preliminary data showing approx. 0.9% in 2016, similar to numbers in 2013 but a rapid increase from the 2015 number of approx. 0.1% (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2018: 62).

According to the first indicator, Vietnam has had more to improve in the area due to higher initial numbers, but none of the two countries displays a definite improvement or decline. For the second indicator, South Korea is considered to have fulfilled the target, as it has recorded low, non-increasing numbers since 2015. In contrast, available data for Vietnam suggests an increase in GDP loss due to disasters, but the lack of data and definitions of these measurements from different sources concludes the fulfilment level as declining or inconclusive (UNSD, 2017a; 2021b).

4.3.2 Individual indicators: CRI, preventative, and city-to-city cooperation

While the result of measuring the UN indicators for target 11.5 differentiates between the two countries, both are transparent with their issues with disasters, which will be displayed in the upcoming section. The number of affected people, injuries and deaths caused by disaster greatly varies for both countries from year to year, due to the main influence being an external factor (natural disasters). As a result, not only do the two UN indicators fail to cover the main issue areas in South Korea and Vietnam, which will be analysed later in this section, but they fail to include the foundation of the issues and instead present the consequences, such as the number of deaths. Global IR writing further argues for the inclusion of global foundational approaches, which the UN indicators ultimately fail to acknowledge (Acharya & Buzan, 2017: 352). None of the SDG

(28)

24 information documents for the target covers preventative action and does not include suggested preventative measures for countries to implement (UNSD, 2017a; 2018a). While this is beneficial for countries to keep a general track of their progress, some indicators are more relevant for improving the current conditions.

Vietnam is one of the most affected countries by climate change, and these events have intensified since 1990. It is mainly shown through economic loss and internally displaced persons from natural disasters (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2018: 61). According to 2019 Climate Risk Index (CRI) (higher rank = higher climate risk), the country’s collective rank between 2000 and 2019 is at no. 13 with a CRI score of 35.67 (Eckstein et al, 2021: 44, 49). While SDG no. 11 calls attention to the importance of resilient cities in its title, the Southeast Asian region has its distinct relation to the word, as displayed in the upcoming paragraph (UN, 2021).

Due to the tensions in the region during the Vietnam War, which were influenced by perceived threats from political ideologies, five ASEAN members (not including Vietnam) signed for national and regional resilience (Sebastian & Lanti, 2010: 162). However, ASEAN has been criticised by IR contributors for its lack of long-term environmental pollution prevention, which adds to the importance of national acknowledgement of environmental issues (Chong, 2010: 135). This, in addition to the displayed resilience of the Eurocentric state system, puts a country such as Vietnam at a historical disadvantage (Buzan & Little, 2010: 202). It is therefore understandable why the country presents one of its main urban development projects in connection to climate and disaster resilience, and through one major issue in Ho Chi Minh City: Flooding.

Accounting for approximately 23% of Vietnam’s GDP, disasters largely affecting the city of Ho Chi Minh City consequently has a large impact on the country’s economy. Through the implementation of SDG no. 11, a long-term goal for the city is to protect its vulnerable communities from disastrous consequences due to flooding, many of them part of the 9,600 to 633,000 internally displaced people due to disaster (UN-Habitat, 2018a: 6, 32; Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, 2020). This aligns with debates discussing the responsibility of global warming, such as Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR) (Epstein, 2015). Subsequently, implementing target 11.5 relies greatly on global cooperation, an approach which through Global IR is displayed as connected to developing regionalism in South Asia (Acharya, 2014: 652).

(29)

25 In contrast, South Korea ranked at no. 91 with a CRI score of 85.17 (Eckstein et al, 2021: 41, 46). Despite the existence of obvious remaining issues with the impact of disasters on the country, South Korea’s VNR focuses on humanitarian assistance for not only national cases of disaster but instances worldwide. It acknowledges that natural disasters present global challenges and threatens sustainable development (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2016: 16, 27). This follows the country’s main approach of its national focus in Global IR: soft power. It recognises the mutual gain of preventing aid to others and how it results in national improvement (Chun, 2010: 74). A follow-up to the soft power approach, international cooperation connects South Korea and Vietnam through disaster management consulting, prioritising early warning system. Vietnam’s main issue areas are named as “political rather than technical”, e.g., with the necessary data sharing for such systems (UN-Habitat, 2018a: 35). Ultimately, Global IR has further shown the multiple foundational implications which affect the possibility of implementing target 11.5, while the UN indicator only measures the consequences of disaster.

4.4 Target 11.6: Environmental impact of cities

The sixth target states to “Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management” with two indicators: “Proportion of urban solid waste regularly collected and with adequate final discharge out of total urban solid waste generated, by cities”, which is a tier 2 indicator and “Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10) in cities (population weighted)”, which is a tier 1 indicator (UN, 2021; UNSD, 2021a: 20).

4.4.1 UN indicators: Urban solid waste and PM2.5 + PM10 levels

The UN Global SDG Indicators Database lacks data for indicator 11.6.1 for both South Korea and Vietnam (UNSD, 2021b). According to the latest available data. South Korea generated 18,218,975 tonnes of municipal solid waste (Kaza et al, 2018: 200), collected almost 100% of its waste and with treatment and disposal being 58% recycled, 25% incineration, 16% landfill (unspecified) and 1% composting, while Vietnam displays an increase in collecting and treating urban waste (80% in 2016) but its urban areas lack in sustainable planning, participatory settlement planning and management capacity (ibid., 244; UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2018: 62).

Global Sustainable Urban Development : A study of SDG no. 11 in South Korea and Vietnam