The United Nations today issued its Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Report 2009. To make a long story short, the accompanying press release says:
The assessment, launched today by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Geneva, warns that, despite many successes, overall progress has been too slow for most of the targets to be met by 2015.
Let’s face it: it’s over. The MDGs will not be met (the above statement was based on trends BEFORE the economic crisis hit, see crisis discussion below).
What went wrong? The UN was very successful in getting lots of people interested in global poverty who had not been interested previously. An enormous advocacy campaign resulted (see the video from YouTube above). The enthusiasm of the young and of many public figures was deeply inspiring.
What was the theory of social change behind the advocacy of the MDGs? Political advocacy is most successful when you can identify WHO is to blame for an injustice, and WHY (according to what principle) the situation is unjust. This points to WHAT the WHO should do.
The trinity of WHO/WHY/WHAT worked for positive social change, for example, for movements such as the American Revolution, the abolition of the slave trade, slave emancipation, the extension of the vote to the working class, the women’s rights movement, the end of colonialism, the civil rights movement, and gay rights.
WHO is to blame for missing the MDGs? Advocates enthusiastically advertised that 189 leaders signed the Millennium Declaration in 2000, but that was actually a sign of weakness rather than strength. Does an agreement have teeth when EVERYONE agrees – including many oppressive governments who had no more interest in alleviating poverty than in promoting Brussels sprouts? And if the agreement is broken, how can you find WHO is to blame, when 189 leaders (not to mention dozens of international organizations and NGOs) are COLLECTIVELY responsible?
The WHY and the WHAT were also murky, since there is little consensus on what causes poverty and how to end it. The responsibility is put on governments (see the YouTube video, for example), but the rest is unclear (WHICH one? WHAT should they do?)
The MDGs only content is that certain outcomes should be achieved by 2015, but all of these outcomes depend on many other factors besides government actions. The effect of the current crisis is a case in point. No doubt the crisis will be used as the excuse for the MDG failure (as the UN MDG 2009 report is already doing). But the MDGs’ attainment depended all along on global and national economic growth. How can you hold somebody accountable for something they don’t control? – that’s not true accountability at all. (Even someone as dense as yours truly pointed out this flaw long before the current crisis came along.)
The inspirational enthusiasm and increased efforts surrounding the MDGs probably did contribute to progress on specific efforts and some partial success stories (mainly in health and education), as pointed out in the UN MDG 2009 report. That can give some hope for the future and some solace to the hard-working and deeply committed participants.
But the point of the MDG campaign was that it precisely defined success and failure using specific goals. So on its own terms, it is a failure.
The MDGs will go down in history as a success in global consciousness-raising, but a failure in using that consciousness for its stated objectives. What a tragedy for all of those who contributed such effort and enthusiasm to the MDG campaign. And a much larger tragedy for the world’s poor.
Why waste any more effort on the MDGs, now that we know they will not be met? The next effort should get the WHO/WHY/WHAT clear. Here’s one suggestion for starters: the WHO is aid agencies, the WHY principle is that they are responsible for these funds entrusted to them to reach the poor, the WHAT is transparency on whether the funds did reach the poor. It is unjust that funds intended for the poorest of the poor wind up enriching somebody else not poor. Let’s have a movement protesting THAT injustice.
18 Comments
Dear Willima
Where can i access the whole MDGs Report 2009? I tried to Google but invain.
Adam
We could not let them go too easily; they should hold the accountability for not meeting the goal of 2015, and, too, for all the efforts–times, labors and money–that have been thrown into the goal which would be otherwise productive in other areas…they should be punished for the poor that were meant to be saved but finally not…they should…
The problem, though, is that they go to the poorest of the poor disguised with a righteous or virtuous will, it’s not that the accountability doesn’t exist it’s more like that they are easily forgiven for they carry a good will. “Anyway, you tried your best!”
The World Bank doesn’t seem to have gotten the news.
Then again, the UN site only shows the 2008 Report right now.
The current economic/credit crisis is a great opportunity to recast or reformulate the MDGs, but all I see is excuses. What we need is a reality-tv style “intervention” or there will be more of the same (injustice).
USAID and the USG generally tried to meet the goals through rhetoric and not money. The more the money dwindled the loftier the rhetoric. While I suppose this makes many practitioners feel good about themselves the truth is that they are not doing good by speaking good. The development situation is indeed dire everyplace but China and this situation must be faced if we are to make any progress.
I agree with Dr. Easterly the next focus should be the WHO,WHY, What – the who being the poor, the why being human solidarity and cooperation and the what being practical cooperation in favor of the poor.
SS
@Adam,
The full text of the 2009 Millennium Development Goals Report can be found here:
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202009%20ENG.pdf
“I agree with Dr. Easterly the next focus should be the WHO,WHY, What – the who being the poor, the why being human solidarity and cooperation and the what being practical cooperation in favor of the poor.”
SS, you missed the point. Without accountability fluffy concepts like solidarity and cooperation mean nothing. Dr. Easterly is calling for some much needed transparency.
As an aidworker in the field, I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve had my fill of “solidarity and cooperation” with the poor–now I want to see them survive and thrive.
Dr. Easterly hit the nail on the head: a movement is needed. Personally, I think the reform-aid movement needs to appropriate the social-justice movement. More of the same aid surely amounts to a human rights violation.
I’m sure the UN and others will not be so ready to call it quits. Indeed, I suspect the purpose of this report is to redouble efforts to raise more funds, hold more conferences, create more initiatives all the while claiming that with only a few more billion or an extension of the date to 2018, then the MDG’s can be met.
I don’t think Aid Watch should be trying to hold anyone accountable for missing the MDG’s. Doing that buys implies that pursuing the MDG’s was a good idea. The concept of the MDG’s is fatally flawed. The MDG’s have not and cannot be operationalized at a national level. Moreover, pushing people to meet some arbitrary target by some equally arbitrary deadline just motivates people to make bad investments in short term approaches that help to get the numbers up but don’t build durable systems for improved long term performance.
Instead of the MDG’s, each country should decide what its priorities are and build the health systems needed to address those problems. Donors should get behind nationally-driven priorities, not those emanating from Washington, New York or Geneva.
@Joel
“SS, you missed the point. Without accountability fluffy concepts like solidarity and cooperation mean nothing.”
Joel, sorry to disappoint you but I got the point and disagree. I too have spent many years in the field and found the programs to be about us, contractors and perpetuating a system of hegemony over the third world. That is why China is growing apace while practically everyone else is stagnating.
Once the programs are about the poor, they need to be accountable to themselves. You need to get out of repeating the development cant, e.g. “accountability, transparency”, it is a charade. The only accountability is to make sure that the programs have the maximum return to us and do not upset our dominance.
SS
Where are the people at the base of the pyramid in this discussion? How would they approach MDGoals?
Indeed, there are multitudes of “stakeholders” for the MDGs. Point well taken Bill, that few of those large entities can be held accountable for their actions (or lack thereof).
I agree with Jeff, but a country level approach still might exclude those who are most impacted. If individuals at subsistence truly had a voice, wouldn’t there be some progress? From my experience with simple communication in 15 countries –think low power local radio broadcast; images drawn in the dirt with sticks– when people share their own knowledge, conditions improve.
In other words, people who are poor and illiterate are not stupid. They are very resourceful, yet they lack the ability to communicate widely about what they know.
And we can learn to listen better. Thanks for letting me add my $.02.
Debbi
I know this may sound politically incorrect, but ensuring good participatory processes involving the poorest of the poor does not guarantee success. The poor are experts on the problems that most impact the quality of their lives and they often have the closest perspective on how poverty programs filter down. For that we must listen to them. The poor are not, however, experts on how to solve the problems that affect them and for that there is still some need for balancing top down with bottom up. My main point is that top down can’t be too far up and it must involve people involved in implementing the programs and being held accountable for results under their control. If, instead of creating the MDG for eradicating poverty and hunger with a target like “achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all including women and young people”, donors had supported selected countries focused on creating a realistic number of jobs, everyone would have been better off. Except perhaps the people running the workshops to formulate the vague targets and making sure that all constituencies were considered in setting the targets.
A couple quick and somewhat random comments that I hope are on point.
1) Words Matter. There is a difference between a poor country and an impoverished country. My suggestion is we first apply these terms. To me a poor country lacks the resources (of many different kinds not just cash) to lift itself out of poverty. An impoverished country has resources but its people remain in poverty due to bad governments. Nepal, where I am now, is not poor as it is often called, it is impoverished. It has many resources but years of bad government have failed to utilize the existing resources for the good of the people. If we look at so-called poor countries from the view of the resource-poor versus the poor by government design we can quickly see where it makes sense to work with government and where the MDG plan simply does not make any sense since it depends on the Sachsonian model of “top down.” If the top is corrupt, there simply is no top down. Dare I invoke the term “trickle down” for this? If it comes down at all, it is certainly a trickle and not more.
2) Words continue to matter. So I had a chat with a person who works for a World Bank supported program here that intends to solve Nepal’s problems by starting more income generation programs. Fair enough. The plan is to give money to only the poorest and most marginalized people. Still fair enough. Now for the however…. however to get the money these poorest and most marginalized people need to form community organizations and apply for the funds. Am I missing something here? First, why do these people need to form community organizations. Second, how are the poorest and least educated people supposed to have the skills to form these organizations, much less author proposals to receive funding? I was not amazed to hear that money was going unspent under this program’s guidelines. Nor, was I amazed that the staff person assigned to the district where I work is (a) not from that district and (b) tied to a desk in Kathmandu, a fair distance from the people the program intends to serve. And, in the end, does World Bank really think buying a few chickens or cows is the path to salvation? Please, can someone at WB have an original thought?
Mr. Easterly, I hope you write about McNamara since he was probably the most famous World Bank President
I’d like to second the request for some thoughts on Robert McNamara. Thanks.
Largely speaking, I think you are correct. The MDGs are almost unattainable particularly since they are for the most part unsustainable. Where they fall down, and this is in context of programs where much international aid is applied, is that they act with social welfare motives instead of development strategies when both are necessary.
In all of the countries I have worked for the past decade, in each case improvements in the economic indicators are largely ignored, unemployment, productivity, growth in GDP, are not on the map so far as measuring the effectiveness of aid.
I have become an advocate and write about on my link for more emphasis being applied to the development of industry that is not related or tied to world trade but focuses on import replacement. In a country like Afghanistan, the trade figures are in the range of 300 million of exports, 5 billion on imports. It is just not sustainable.
June 23 through 26, 2009 I attended the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development.
The outcome document states a dramatic emergency in that this “crisis will contribute to the number of hungry and undernourished people worldwide rising to a historic high of over one billion”.
Given an emergency like that I was aghast to see there was not a word on a temporary formal reprioritization of the millennium development goals, those which were agreed upon by the development community during other seemingly much more prosperous times, times that now seem ages ago.
It is not that I disagree with any of the MDGs, of course not, but to go on as if nothing has happened, as if money grows on a tree, is an act of surrealistic irresponsibility and to say in the outcome document “Today, we have …prioritized required actions,” is an outright lie.
@Steve Hutcheson
” have become an advocate and write about on my link for more emphasis being applied to the development of industry that is not related or tied to world trade but focuses on import replacement. In a country like Afghanistan, the trade figures are in the range of 300 million of exports, 5 billion on imports. It is just not sustainable.”
SS-
A good idea but one that will never happen. The donors no more want to replace their imports than to see the third world actually grow and become a partner or in their terms competitor like China. It could work to everyone’s benefit but it won’t because the donors and World Bank won’t let it. I hope it doesn’t take you another ten years to find out, it took me long enough which explains my heightened disgust at donor hypocrisy.
SS
How very sad! The pathology of poverty will continue beyond 2015 and will likely worsen due to the current financial global crisis. The MDGs exemplify basic concepts that are sound. So did the Health for All 2000 principles! What we all need to address is why can we not get it right when so many intelligent people are committed to colllectively do good for the alleviation of global poverty. Is WHO part of the problem? Are our goals hyperinflated? Do some have a hidden agenda that fail to reflect true needs? Or, as one frustrated intellectual said about Health for All 2000 – health for all in 2000 years!!! There must be a better way! The challenge is cane we find it?