The case studies in this special issue illustrate how the real locus of power in setting international agendas has shifted to the selection of indicators. The exercise of power takes place through multiple steps in the process of setting the goals, and measuring them; and it is, for the most part, obscured in what are purportedly strictly technical processes with technocrats in charge.

In order to transform the debate it is necessary, and should be sufficient, to show that–already today–agro-ecological approaches can achieve high yields.

There is a need to locate feminist mobilizing for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the context of the history and persistence of gender inequality and violations of girls’ and women’s human rights, and the struggle against these violations.

We need to ask how people who experience the injustice of education exclusion, locally, nationally and internationally, view the process of developing metrics .In what ways they can participate in reviewing metrics and indicators?

Indicators are a remarkably recent way of ordering the world, and the implications of the use of this technique still need to be more fully considered.

As the field of international development turns increasingly to governance by data, greater scrutiny will be needed on the policy implications of measurement choices, and the politics of indicators.

The ultimate impact of the SDGs on environmental sustainability may depend on whether governments and other actors focus on the spirit of the SDGs or merely ‘check the boxes’ of the individual indicators.

Most of the targets under SDG 12 do not yet have satisfactory indicators. Enunciation of the targets may yet spur further work and real actions.

The promise of SDG 16 must be tracked by indicators that can measure people's own experience of access to justice--and injustice.

The IHME might be exacerbating the problem of data gaps from poor countries because of its move away from an exclusive reliance on government statistical data and towards collection of data from private sources.

There is a new gold rush underway - a data rush. Talk of big data and data revolution are everywhere. In that rush, NSOs and IOs are feeling the pressure to be seen to utilize big data. They are also under pressure to populate the SDG global indicator framework. It will be a bumpy road with many challenges along the way.

By revealing the politics behind the selection of SDG indicators, the articles in this special issue can inform the design of more pragmatic and actionable national frameworks for monitoring the 2030 Agenda.

The roots of the power struggle over global goals lie in conflicting theories of economic and social change embraced by different development actors: national governments, civil society groups, multilateral agencies and the private sector.

The SDGs hold the promise of a revolution. The degree to which it materializes depends on us all.

A balance has been sought between what is feasible in the short term and what is required in the long term, in such a way as not to dilute the ambition of the 2030 Agenda.

Measuring development is clearly an important strategy for promoting it, but it should not be the only one, particularly considering how it shapes what development means and how it is implemented. Such a heavy reliance on quantification ignores the constraints on accurate knowledge resulting from the infrastructure of measurement.

While indicators and data can be very useful for monitoring progress, they can hardly substitute for a robust accountability framework, one that allows independent reviews and supports women's rights organizations and other civil society actors to hold governments and other duty-bearers to account.

After initial euphoria around the historic adoption of a global development goal 16 dedicated to the promotion of ‘Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies’, the measurability of such a dense amalgam of concepts, let alone the wisdom of doing so, is regarded with mounting scepticism.

There is a recognized need for innovative ways to supplement already existing data. The use of proxy measurements is already underway, and initiatives such as a collaboration between some UN agencies and Gallup.