mdg after 2015

8/3/2019 MDG after 2015

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mdg-after-2015 1/7

The Millennium Development Goals: Three Years to 2015—What Waits After?

by Engels C. Del Rosario

Introduction

In September 2000, United Nation (UN) members came together to forge a commitment toachieve a set of objectives by 2015 collectively known as the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs). The major concern of this global initiative is to reduce extreme poverty by half andameliorate other social ills that hamper development in the South by 2015. After more than adecade, poverty rates across developing and least developed countries (LDCs) havesignificantly and dramatically dropped by 22% (UN 2011). Primary school enrollment andprevention of deadly diseases also showed positive progress. Based on the latest UN MDGprogress report of 2011, more than half of these targets are unlikely to be met due to variousreasons. With three years left to go, much work still needs to be done to close the gap in therest of the MDGs. Already at this point, assessment and prognosis are as timely as exertingdrastic efforts to fulfill the goals as satisfactorily as possible by 2015.

This essay will provide a brief background and overview of the current progress and prospectsof MDG project, discuss the critique of the project from the point of view of official developmentdiscourse, discuss the story and theories of development and their lessons, and situate theprospect of the project in light of current political and economic realities. The essay concludesby pointing to the need to shift focus from “development as economic growth” to “developmentas equality.”

MDG as the latest global development project

The UN leads the advocacy, campaign, and monitoring of the MDG project. Before theMillennium Declaration of the MDGs in 2000, no equivalent efforts in terms of scope, specificity,

and timeline have been started. In fact, the indicators and baseline data by which monitoring ofMDG progress could be measured were neither made uniform nor available until 1990 when UNcame up with the Human Development Index (HDI). Prior to 1990, each sub-organization withinthe UN had individual sets of task to perform and each pursued their separate mandates.Notable examples of huge UN-led international efforts were the Live Aid campaigns in the1980s and 1990s to combat poverty, hunger, diseases, in Africa, Bangladesh and other fragilestates. But these were one-off episodes of intervention rather than medium- or long-termdevelopment programs.

Though the MDG project is mostly associated with the UN as a whole, its origin could be tracedto a paper written in 1996 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), an international partner organization of UN comprised of 34 of the richest nations.

The paper entitled Shaping the 21st

Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation (1996), pushed for the achievement of the following goals by 2015, namely, (i) a reduction byone-half in the proportion of people living in extreme poverty; (ii) universal primary education inall countries; (iii) demonstrated progress toward gender equality and the empowerment ofwomen by eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education; (iv) a reduction bytwo-thirds in the mortality rates for infants and children under age 5; (v) reduction by three-fourths in maternal mortality; (vi) access through the primary health-care system to reproductivehealth services for all individuals of appropriate ages; and (vii) implementation of nationalstrategies for sustainable development in all countries by 2005, so as to ensure that current

8/3/2019 MDG after 2015


trends in the loss of environmental resources are effectively reversed at both global and nationallevels (Ibid). All of these have been adopted by the UN with the addition of a set of targets underone goal: pursue global partnerships to address issues in trade, debt relief, employment,technology, and special needs of LDCs.

Table 1. The Millennium Development Goals and Current Progress Status

The 8 MDGs Progress Status

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Progress in poverty but no

change in hunger

2. Achieve universal primary education Moderate

3. Promote gender equality and empower women Progress in enrolment parity

but lagging in jobs parity

4. Reduce child mortality On track

5. Improve maternal health On track 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases On track

7. Ensure environmental sustainability Moderate, no change

8. Develop a global partnership for development Moderate

Note: This is derived from UN Millennium Development Goals Report 2011.

Curiously, the OECD paper did not see the need to include in their proposed agenda issues onglobal trade and finance. Just a year later, the 1997 Asian financial crisis indicated that macro-economic issues could no longer be ignored. Retrospectively, it was wise for the UN to add theeighth goal to precisely address the long-standing challenges posed by the realities ofunderregulated trading and financial systems then and now.

Of the 18 targets1, at present the gains are mainly in the areas of poverty reduction (but nothunger), reduction of child mortality, improvement of maternal care, fighting diseases(HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis), access to safe drinking water, and spread of informationand communication technologies (UN 2011).

With a cursory look at the current MDG gains (See Table 1), it is not difficult to notice that thesegoals have been the areas the UN has been working on ever since. Achievements in theseareas, we may say, could have been made easier by long-running efforts directed at povertyand health issues. On the other hand, the remaining challenges for these MDG targets are inthe areas of hunger, literacy, gender equity, environment, aid, trade, debt relief, andemployment. If achievement gaps in these targets persist or worsen, the UN can definitely claimsuccess in its primary goal—reducing extreme poverty by 2015—but without any sense ofsatisfaction. But even this can be contested as the decline in the number of poor people from1.8 billion in 1990 to 1.4 billion in 2005 was mainly driven by improvements made by China andIndia, two of the most populous nations in the South.

1The number of target or sub-goals has varied from 18 to 21. This figure is based on the latest UN MDG Report of

2011.

8/3/2019 MDG after 2015


With only three years to go, it is safe to say that at the rate progress is going, half of these willnot be satisfactorily met. Why? Let us take a look at some of the criticisms from the officialdiscourses.

Too ambitious, too little time

The Center for Global Development (2005) issued a working paper exactly four years after thelaunch of the MDG project that said “The vast majority of developing countries will miss most ofthe MDG targets in 2015. Nearly all African countries will miss most of them” (ibid). The reportargues that the MDGs are not practical targets because they are not realistic. It would require aconsistent 7% growth rate in the economies of, for example, Sub-Saharan Africa to reduceextreme poverty by half. Fifteen years will not just be enough for such LDCs to catch up withdevelopment. They agree, however, that MDGs are noble goals, except that UN should bereminded that “development is not a sprint, but a marathon” (ibid).

Lack of policy coherence, economic security, and ODA

Bourguignon et al (2008) offered an analytical framework to understand why progress in MDG

achievement is slow. In a report commissioned by the European Union, they suggested thatthree things must be considered namely, the global economic environment, official developmentassistance (ODA), and policy coherence. The current crisis in the North hindered the economicgrowth opportunities for much of the LDCs, especially in Africa. Aid, though slowly increasing inthe past several years, was not enough and was not efficiently used. And lastly, harmonizing theMDGs with each country’s national and sectoral policies has proven to be a challenge.

In a quite circuitous reasoning, Jeffrey Sachs (2005) identified four major reasons why some ofthe MDGs will not be met. He mentions governance failure, poverty traps, pockets of poverty,and some areas of specific policy neglect. Sachs’s recommendations point to securing thatcapital accumulation, including most especially human capital, goes on smoothly by curbingcorruption, pouring in public investment, attracting foreign direct investment (FDI), and

sustaining economic growth.

Development: Narrative and Theories

To better appreciate the context of MDG as a global development project, we must take a quickreview of how development was conceived, practiced, and debated. As we shall see, the fate ofthe MDG project, besides the issue of whether the 2015 deadline will be met, rests on the ideasand habits we cultivated, for better or worse, as we struggle to attain better quality of lives forall.

Before the end of World War II, the world was not divided into First, Second, and Third Worldsor into developed and developing countries. The emergence of developmental thinking is

associated with the Marshall Plan of the United States, an international effort to provide aid forthe rehabilitation of European countries most devastated by war. This was largely understood tobe a geopolitical move of the US to fend off threats and win the ideological war against theSoviet Union and later, against the spread of communism in regions that are now classified asThird World. Then US president Harry Truman spoke of the need to help the “underdeveloped”parts of the world (Escobar 1995). In the wake of reconstruction efforts, nations subscribed invarying manner to the following set of development theories and policies; modernization theory,Keynesianism, import substitution industrialization (ISI), dependency theory, world systemstheory, and lately, neoliberalism, globalization, sustainable development, and

8/3/2019 MDG after 2015


postdevelopmentalism. Their individual definition and comparative merits and demerits cannotbe taken up here. For the purposes of this essay, these ideas about development are roughlygrouped into three complexes of tendencies, a classification that is familiar today: (i) tendency toemphasize the importance of free market capitalism; (ii) tendency to emphasize the importanceof state and protectionism; and (iii) tendency to mix both free market and state intervention inthe economy.

The most familiar narrative of development goes like this (See for example, Peet and Hartwick2009): Each development theory enjoyed its own period of popularity and relevance. Thesuccession of one set of ideas by another happened by way of critique and out of frustration.Keynesianism was used in the aftermath of the Great Depression in the 1930s. Modernizationand growth theories were dominant during the first few postwar decades followed by the short-lived application of ISI. Marxist-inspired theories of dependency and world systems gainedprominence in the 1970s, but these were overtaken by the rise of neoliberalism then sustainabledevelopment in the following decades. Dependency theories were a reaction to the faults ofmodernization theory. Neoliberalism and globalization theory overthrew dependency theory inthe 1980s, only to be tempered by sustainable development as a result of growing concern forthe environmental effects of economic development. The most recent school of thought to tackle

development, and perhaps the exception to the three-way classification above, ispostdevelomentalism. Postdevelopmentalists reject altogether the premises of development asled by and defined by rich, imperialist nations and technocrats of whatever ideologies. As acrude summary of the story of development, development efforts swung from free market tostatist protectionism (1950s to 1970s), then back to free market (1980s to 1990s) then hoveredat the center of the mixed economy model. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the currentdilemma of experts in pointing out what made China as successful as it is today.

There is an underside to the development story above that demonstrates it takes more thaneconomic strategies to initiate dramatic progress. A number of authors have written about thesignificant political role the United States played in steering the fast track growths of nations likeJapan, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore in the early stages (See Bello

2006; Johnson 2005). In the context of the Cold War between US and Soviet Russia, Americamade sure that it would win the ideological battle by propping up the economies of the saidnations which served as satellites that guarded the only superpower’s geopolitical interests. Inexchange for ideological allegiance and establishment of military bases, America opened itsmarket for the exports of these countries. With its sizeable middle class, well-oiled creditsystem, and lowered tariffs, the US market provided a haven for the products of its allies, in turnfueling the export-led growth of the East Asian Miracle. The newly industrializing countries(NICs), for their part, ushered in an arguably unique development model known as “Capitalismwith Asian values” or “Asian Modernization.” Roughly speaking, it is a relatively authoritarianpolitical regime directing a capitalist economy, an idea that betrays the classical paradigm offree market with the least government intervention.

This unique confluence of political and economic maneuverings is not contained in theprinciples of any past development theory. Even the political economy-heavy dependency andworld systems theories, their critics remarked, were not able to explain how a very small islandnation like Singapore could achieve and develop so much without delinking itself from thesupposedly predatory global capitalist system that was managed by the core nations. It is like atemplate for success that Japan and the NICs created for China to follow later on after the deathof Mao Zedong. It was no secret after all that a strong state must steer capitalist elements to itsown desired achievements. The mixed economy model that delegates disproportionate steeringfunction to the state is the way to go. At least that was how British and Dutch capitalism gained

8/3/2019 MDG after 2015


ground and came to dominate the global economy in the 1700s to 1800s). In today’s so-calledneoliberal economy, most developed nations actively intervene in economic managementthough arguably protectionist gestures of reluctant reduction of tariffs and heavy subsidies whilethey pressure developing countries to liberalize their economies further. In defense, developingcountries demonstrate that they, too, can play the same game of paying lip service to free tradewhile jealously guarding their market advantages.

What unites the mainstream development theories are their common focal concern foreconomic growth. In fact, one can also say that the idea of “development as economic growth” is the thread that runs though the criticisms of the MDG project. However, it is worth arguingthat a respectable rate of growth is not all there is to development. Continuous growth meanshaving a bigger and bigger pie to share. But how equally the pie is shared is a different thingaltogether. Poverty, inequality, economic growth can exist side by side with each other (Todaroand Smith 2006). Such ironic cases are major reasons for the postdevelopmentalists rejection ofdevelopment as the way to end poverty and inequality among nations through the benefits ofabiding by the western, industrial, capitalist, or socialist model. Postdevelopmentalists areespecially antagonistic to development as a thinly veiled form of Westernization with theiremphasis on cultural difference and trust in local knowledge and practices (W. Sachs 1992)

At roughly about the same time in the mid-1990s, major postdevelopment texts appearedalongside efforts to define the international development agenda for the 21st century. Whether itwas a conscious effort or not, the OECD seemed to have a timely response to thepostdevelopmental critique that development “did not work” and is now “obsolete” (Ibid.).However, instead of offering a new and radical approach to development challenges, the OECDpaper continues to believe in the benefits of ODA. As Bourguignon et al (2008) has shown, aidhad not been so much of a factor in development.

Crises, Clashes, and Conservatives

Having reviewed theories of development that accompanied the evolution of related attitudes

and practices, we now turn back to the MDGs and its present context.

The events of 2011 throw into sharp relief the deep the need to focus on the issue of equality.Discontented citizens of Middle East and North Africa have risen up and toppled theirauthoritarian governments in their quest for democratization. They live in a region that is as veryrich (because of oil) as it is highly unequal (Todaro and Smith 2006). Statistics show that thewide income disparity has remained constant through the years (Ibid). In Europe, protests, riots,lootings have become frequent and more militant in the midst of the implementation of austeritymeasures that would cut pensions and raise tuition fees in order to save the bankrupt nations. Inthe US, Americans took to the streets to New York City to demand accountability from WallStreet bankers. The working and middle classes felt cheated that the federal government bailedout the perpetrators of the worst economic crisis to hit the America since the Great Depression

while they continue to lose their homes and jobs. These are reminders that within developednations of the North, equally tragic circumstances, like famine and epidemics in Africa, can takeplace in a different guise. Challenges to development do not stop when a country reaches aFirst World status.

In view of the present realities, what can we look forward to as far as the MDGs are concerned?

Moving beyond economic growth, the first seven MDGs constitute some elements of what wecan call “development as equality.” The first seven are survival goals in the sense that wider and

8/3/2019 MDG after 2015


more equitable access to livelihood, food, health services, education, potable water, sanitation,and habitat should now be taken as vital as the three basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing.These presume that no one can lead a basic, functional life in a world of rapid obsolescence ofknowledge, rapid spread of diseases, and rapid depletion of life-sustaining natural resources. Inaddition, gender parity and women empowerment must go hand in hand with investment inhuman capital (the first seven MDGs) to fully eradicate poverty characterized today as

becoming more “feminized.”

It is highly commendable and providential that the UN included targets like favorable tradeagreements to LDCs, debt relief, and spread of technology, under the goal of develop globalpartnership for development. In contrast to the first seven goals that any responsible state mustobtain for its citizens, the last set of goals can be seen to be directed more to the developednations than to LDCs. Every UN member nation is engaged to forge an “open, rule-based,predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system.” For a long time, rich countriesthat attribute their wealth and progress to free market have likewise been models ofprotectionism. As more developing nations reduce their tariffs and quotas to almost zero in linewith international trade agreements, developed nations hardly make progress in eliminatingsubsidies. The eighth MDG will be a good measure to really level the playing field. This is good

for “development as economic growth” and for “development as equality.”

Conclusion

The latest UN progress report indicates that “lives have been saved or changed for the better”but “despite real progress, we are failing to reach the most vulnerable” (UN 2011). Ironic as itmay be, it is not unrealistic to predict that we can have progress without development, just asthere is jobless growth. No amount of openness in the economy or ODA or FDI can make forgenuine development if the channels through which economic gains are distributed remainhierarchical.

Clearly, much greater effort must be done to ensure fairness, justice, and equality not just

distribution of assets and delivery of public goods within and among nations. If the currentcomposition of G8 leadership is of any indication, much of the same or perhaps even worse canbe expected. Except for US President Barack Obama who is a Democrat and liberal, the rest ofthe national leaders of the richest nations are from Conservative parties, and conservativepoliticians are known to be unresponsive to demands for greater equality. But it will beinteresting to see the struggle for democracy in the Middle East will gain a foothold once theArab Spring wanes.

The MDG has been criticized for being unrealistic. As a project it did not promise low and maynot deliver high. But that is because it is only the start of bolder development efforts in thefuture. It is ambitious. On balance, it is definitely necessary.

8/3/2019 MDG after 2015


References:

Bello, W. (2001). The Future in the Balance: Essays on Globalization and Resistance. University of the Philippines Press. Quezon City.

Bourguignon, F., Benassy-Quere, A., Dercon, S., Estache, A., Gunning, J.W., Kanbur, R.,

Klasen, S., Maxwell, S., Platteau, J.P., & Spadaro, A. (2008). Millennium Development Goals at Midpoint: Where do we stand and where do we need to go? Paper written inthe framework of the joint initiative "Mobilising European Research for DevelopmentPolicies" for the European Commission (DG Development and Relations with African,Caribbean and Pacific States), Luxembourg, Finland, Spain, Sweden and the UnitedKingdom.

Center for Global Development. (2005). CGD Brie f: What’s wrong with the MillenniumDevelopment Goals? Written by Clemens, M. and Moss, Todd.

Escobar, A. (1995.) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press. New Jersey.

Johnson, C. (2000). Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire. MetropolitanBooks. Henry Holt and Company. New York.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1996). Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation. Development Assistance Committee.Paris. Retrieved December 12, 2011, fromhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/35/2508761.pdf

Peet, R., & Hartwick, E. (2009). Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments,Alternatives. Second Edition. The Guilford Press. New York. London.

Sachs, J. (2005). Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Report to the UN Secretary General for the Millennium Project.United Nations.

Sachs, W. (1992). Dictionary of Development: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Zed Books Ltd.London and New Jersey.

Todaro, M.P. & Smith, S.C. (2006). An Introduction to Economic Development. 9th Edition.Pearson Addison Wesley.

United Nations. (2011). United Nations Millennium Development Goals Report 2011.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/35/2508761.pdf



mdg after 2015

Documents