Search results

While the world is yet to fully recuperate from the social and economic repercussions of COVID-19, the Russia–Ukraine conflict poses another major threat causing a humanitarian crisis and economic shock. Although the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and its pledge to “leave no one behind” is a universal commitment to protect the livelihoods of vulnerable groups, the Russia–Ukraine ongoing conflict is causing immense suffering and a gloomy future for the 2030 Agenda. The purpose of this study is to provide a holistic understanding of the ramifications of the Russia–Ukraine war in SDGs progress around the world. Further, the authors shed light on how stakeholders can help engage in support of SDGs in such a challenging time.

This study is qualitative in nature and relies on secondary sources. The motive behind this study is to allow social and economic policy researchers and practitioners to learn from the Russia–Ukraine dispute. The authors conduct a preliminary factual analysis to determine patterns of how the conflict affects the SDGs Agenda. On this basis, the authors propose some recommendations.

While it is still early to measure the full impact of the war on crises worldwide, it is clear that the repercussions will be multi-dimensional. The authors argue that the conflict in Ukraine is severely threatening the achievement of the SDGs. As such, the authors identify patterns of this crisis that have halted progress on SDGs worldwide. Of all SDGs, the authors argue that SDG16 (i.e. peace and justice) is an absolute pre-requisite to sustaining other goals. Further, refugees should be economically empowered, resilient and sustainable food systems need to be put in place and renewable energy transition is required.

This study serves as a springboard for future research by identifying patterns of war crises that have halted progress in achieving sustainable development worldwide. Empirical evidence needs to be conducted on the impact of this ongoing conflict on sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda.

This study could provide guidance to leaders and stakeholders across the globe on patterns for the impact of the Ukraine–Russia conflict on undermining global sustainable development while highlighting the need for major additional efforts to achieve the relevant SDGs.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to analyse the threats the Russia–Ukraine dispute presents to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for SDGs.

This study aims to compare the impact of Australian onshore and offshore immigration detention centres (IDCs) on detainees’ health and health-care events.

It uses data extracted from the Australian Government’s quarterly health reports from 2014 to 2017. These reports contain a range of data about the health and well-being of detainees, including complaints/presenting symptoms and number of appointments and hospitalisations. To compare onshore and offshore data sets, the authors calculated the rate of health events per quarter against the estimated quarterly onshore and offshore detention population. They ran a series of two-proportion z-tests for each matched quarter to calculate median z- and p-values for all quarters. These were used as an indicator as to whether the observed differences between onshore and offshore events were statistically significant.

The results suggest that adults detained onshore and offshore have substantial health needs, however, almost all rates were far higher in offshore detention, with people more likely to raise a health-related complaint, access health services and be prescribed medications, often at two to three times the rate of those onshore.

This paper adds to a modest body of literature that explains the health of people detained in Australian IDCs. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to explore health service utilisation and a range of other variables found in the Australian Government’s quarterly health reports. These findings bolster the evidence which suggests that detention, and particularly offshore detention is particularly harmful to health.

Employees facing challenges in their careers – i.e. female, migrant, elderly and lower-educated employees – might expect job searches to have a low likelihood of success and might therefore more often stay in unsatisfactory positions. The goal of this study is to discover inequalities in job mobility for these employees.

We rely on a large sample of Dutch public sector employees (N = 30,709) and study whether employees with challenges in their careers are hampered in translating job dissatisfaction into job searches. Additionally, we assess whether this is due to their perceptions of labor market alternatives.

Findings show that non-Western migrant, elderly and lower-educated employees are less likely to act on job dissatisfaction than their advantaged counterparts, whereas women are more likely than men to do so. Additionally, we find that although they perceive labor market opportunities as limited, this does not affect their propensity to search for different jobs.

This paper is novel in discovering inequalities in job mobility by analyzing whether employees facing challenges in their careers are less likely to act on job dissatisfaction and therefore more likely to remain in unsatisfactory positions.