Adam, interesting blog - two comments. 1. For the record, while I think that inequality/equity (I sometimes think the difference between these two ideas is overstated, but that's another issue) is important for post-2015, that doesn't mean I think an inequality goal is the answer. I'm pretty agnostic on that point. I think a goal that's well specified - e.g. on gender equality, where the dimension of inequality that is relevant is quite clear, and where targets could be set in specific areas like violence, access to services, income etc, might be helpful. I'm less sure about a general inequality goal, as I think there's a risk of it being quite non-specific and therefore unhelpful, though I can also see the political point of having something there to focus minds and attention on disparities. So on that issue I am genuinely uncertain. 2. But I do think that addressing inequality in some form is essential for any level of aspiration for post-2015. Improving health and education outcomes, eradicating extreme income poverty, tackling crime and violence (which comes out as a high priority for poor people in the MY World survey), would all be much easier if a new agreement contained some incentives (in the form of a goal, targets or indicators, or, most likely, some combination of these) to tackle horizontal inequalities. DHS data suggest that around two-thirds of those still living in extreme poverty are from an ethnic minority in their own country. It is likely that given poor data this is just the tip of the horizontal inequalities iceberg. If the aspiration is to end extreme poverty, I would very much doubt if that can be done without attention to the different dimensions of inequality that form a barrier to progress for some groups. An agreement that had incentives to uncover, tackle and measure progress on these barriers would be a more effective agreement.