MDG’s Tutorial Essay

Samarth Chaddha

This paper argues that the MDG’s have become a symbol for global

governance, and cannot be disregarded as its weakness. Global governance is

defined as the sum of formal values, norms, procedures, and institutions that foster

transnational responses to local problems.1 The rich countries lead the way for the

MDG’s to be constructed, with most of the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI’s)

implementing goals for developing countries through National Poverty Reduction

Strategy Papers (PRSP’s). Once these decide on what the most important goals are,

everyone starts to march to that drum.2 Some felt this was an exclusionary process,

since many of the richer nations constitute the BWI’s but actually BWI’s such as the

International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have worked together on the

Global Monitoring Report that assesses the progress towards the MDG’s.3 The fact

that countries could get together and prioritize on a set of goals for development is

itself an act of global governance. Each country would come with its “pet rock” or

favorite symptom of poverty that it would like to tackle,4 and it takes an

international institution such as a BWI to coordinate each developed countries

interests to produce a global agenda. The International Development Goals (IDG’s)

and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s) were merged by the Organization

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the BWI’s and the UN

Secretariat.5 Critics felt a lot of social development expenditure was left out from the

construction of the MDG’s,6 but that was the mentality of the time dominating the

1 Definition given in Professor John Gledhill’s lecture at the University of Oxford, 2015. 2 Leith Greensdale, “The Road from the MDG’s to the SDG’s,” Google Hangout by the United Nations Foundation, Accessed 15th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hITbBRiaoDw 3 The IMF and the World Bank Fact-Sheet, Accessed 14th July, 2015: https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/imfwb.htm 4 The Post-2015 Millennium Development Goals: A Conversation with Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal, Accessed 12th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2GeCSXxP0 5 David Hulme and James Scott, “The Political Economy of the MDG’s: Retrospect and Prospect for the World’s Biggest Promise,” New Political Economy, Vol. 15, No.2, 2010, pp. 293-306.6 Ibid.

1

thinking of the institutions. As Navi Pillay has said7 that they treasured what they

could measure. Even after the MDG’s were created through the Road Map Towards

the Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, they followed an

“iterative course” with different global agencies helping to bring changes in the

content of the MDG’s.8

Poverty before the eight MDG’s was seen as a local problem, but after them it

became a global phenomenon9 to address the eight root causes of poverty. The

MDG’s are an agreement to reduce human deprivation through collaborative, multi-

lateral action.10 It has lead to the emergence of a norm that sees poverty as

unacceptable in an affluent world.11 Such commitment for an anti-poverty push was

unprecedented and the MDG’s represent a somewhat “fragmented” compromise

between the proponents of human development and the neo-liberal ideas of

development.12 In a region such as Africa, 80 to 90% of the countries have met the

MDG with regards to education.13 Now the question with the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDG’s) is to build on the good work done by the MDG’s and

think about bringing quality in that improved access to education.14 With respect to

the MDG’s, maternal mortality has fallen by 45% and smallpox has been eradicated.

How can we say that the goals fail to address root causes when extreme poverty has

been halved?15

7 MDG’s – Governance and the post-2015 development agenda: Interview by Navi Pillay: Accessed July 13, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPg2SyFOzoQ 8 David Hulme and James Scott, “The Political Economy of the MDG’s: Retrospect and Prospect for the World’s Biggest Promise,” New Political Economy, Vol. 15, No.2, 2010, pp. 293-306.9 David Hulme on MDG’s at Kapuscinski development lectures, Accessed 15th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RnRoHGmHok 10 David Hulme, “Millennium Development Goals: A Short History of the World’s Biggest Promise,” BWPI Working Paper 100, Accessed 14th July, 2015: http://www.bwpi.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/publications/working_papers/bwpi-wp-10009.pdf 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.13 Millennium Development Goals Post 2015, The view from Africa, Accessed 15th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWXmsgoxgE0 14 Ibid. 15 8 Millennium Development Goals: What we Met and what we missed, Accessed 12th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5giOGjj5X8

2

The creation of a post-2015 agenda and the SDG’s is testimony to the success

of the MDG’s. The world feels that the progress made by the MDG’s needs to

continue even after 2015 – even in the face of shortfall. As Bill Gates has said,

“disappointing does not mean discouraging.”16 The MDG’s helped health ministries

share lessons and compare progress.17 They were helped by their non-binding

nature and the fact that they could be implemented as a set of moral and practical

commitments.18 Legally binding commitments despite being the gold standard of

international diplomacy take a lot of time in negotiations. The MDG’s, in contrast

were adopted with great speed.19Aid agencies were able to align investments and

were able to mobilize and galvanize action because of the goals.20 The SDG’s are a

step up from the MDG’s and today represent how the private sector can be involved

in the process of development.21 The MDG’s helped foster new partnerships, and

new actors were engaged22 especially to combat malaria. A coalition of worldwide

leaders in business (Ray Chambers, co-founder of a New York private equity firm),

helped foster the effort to meet MDG 6 that lead to the formation of the MDG Health

Alliance in 2011 that aims to work towards MDG health targets. The spread of

HIV/AIDS has been reversed even in the worst affected areas such as sub-Saharan

Africa, and there has been significant progress in improving access to sources of

clean drinking water.

Critics have argued that the MDG’s failed to bring a substantial shift in

tackling global poverty, and were a successful false promise that just maintained the

legitimacy of rich countries as donor nations. They lacked a social movement, and

16 Bill Gates Speech at the United Nations, Accessed 13th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ypvVgK7Eis 17 “SDG’s a “step up from” MDG’s, Interview with Tony Pipa,” Accessed 14th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ccVwn0gYTM 18 Jeffrey D. Sachs, “From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals,” The LANCET, 9-15 June 2012, Vol. 379, No. 9832, pp. 2206-2211. 19 Ibid.20 SDG’s a “step up from” MDG’s, Interview with Tony Pipa,” Accessed 14th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ccVwn0gYTM21 Ibid. 22 MDG’s – “We Must Finish the Job,” says UN Secretary General, Accessed 15th July, 2015: http://www.endpoverty2015.org/en/2014/09/25/mdg-advocates-outline-challenges-opportunities-for-achieving-mdgs/

3

found themselves in the wrong epistemic community.23 Scholars’ felt they didn’t

even address the most disadvantaged, as by looking at averages and proportions the

MDG’s discriminated between lower-income and middle-income countries with

varying poverty levels.24 It was almost as if achieving goals was made easier by

going for the low-lying fruit – or the country wherein it was easier to achieve the

optimum target for each MDG. Through achieving average rates, countries with

much worse absolute poverty measures could still be conveniently ignored. Many

richer countries have not shifted their policies25 and have shied away from

recognizing a rights-based approach to development – lest that they should be

pressured to provide aid. The goals have played more of a support role to existing

campaigns rather than inspire support from themselves.26 Countries have simply

relegated the MDGs as part of the introduction to major agreements, and do not

think ideas about immunization or child mortality should affect the economic

content of such agreements. Thus, there is a paucity of pro-poor policies, and it

unlikely the MDG’s have had much impact – with the IMF even seeing them as just a

facet of European social policy! Goals 1 to 7 have tight targets and dates whilst Goal

8 that is for the rich countries, doesn’t have the Results based management

approach of the earlier targets. The countries that had insisted that global goals

should be results focused, stepped back when it came to the goals about them in

Goal 8. The rhetoric has been greater than actual substantial movement on the

ground – rich countries did not want to be nailed down to particular dates. The

MDG’s are simply a failed opportunity to mobilize global governance.27 Developed

behind closed doors and mostly among the OECD countries, they were simply a way

for the richer nations to endow themselves with grand, larger-than-life goals.

23 David Hulme and James Scott, “The Political Economy of the MDG’s: Retrospect and Prospect for the World’s Biggest Promise,” New Political Economy, Vol. 15, No.2, 2010, pp. 293-306.24 Nayla Kabir’s opinion in Interview with Maria Ramos, Accessed 11th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ostj_xxAGMg 25 David Hulme and James Scott, “The Political Economy of the MDG’s: Retrospect and Prospect for the World’s Biggest Promise,” New Political Economy, Vol. 15, No.2, 2010, pp. 293-306.26 Ibid. 27 Ibid.

4

While it is true that We The People, the seminal document that formed the

basis of the MDG’s left out important goals about gender equality and women’s

empowerment,28 the MDG’s collapsed the wider agenda of development into a

compact form. Their narrowness meant that one did not feel overwhelmed by them,

and their relatable nature helped to mobilize aid to developing countries and gave

them a sense of ambition and optimism.29 The goals marked an effective form of

prioritization as the global convergence ensured these goals were what countries

would have to stick to whilst formulating their domestic policies. The United

Nations Development Program has pushed for national development strategies to

become in line with meeting the MDG’s.30 While it is true that averages were used,

this was more to offer some discretion to national governments, and the success of

many countries in meeting MDG’s 4 and 5,31 proves that these can become effective

as parts of national goals. Those that criticize individual countries or regions for not

meeting the MDG’s are actually missing the point,32 because the MDG’s were meant

to be “useful servants but poor masters.” They were aimed at a wide audience such

as policymakers and development practitioners who would use them to foster

national policies.33 They were meant to be collective goals and not country-specific

targets.34 The low-lying fruit argument is misguided as if an entire region of

countries is working towards a collective goal, and tweaking their various national

policies in order to do so then the MDG’s can be considered a success irrespective of

whether Country A’s poverty rate differs from Country B’s. The pathway from the

2000’s to currently has gotten us half the way – and the emergence of the SDG’s will

ensure that that no one is living on less than a $1 a day by the time we are in 2030.

28 Ibid. 29 Jonathan Glennie, “The Road from the MDG’s to the SDG’s,” Google Hangout by the United Nations Foundation, Accessed 15th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hITbBRiaoDw30 Jeffrey D. Sachs, “From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals,” The LANCET, 9-15 June 2012, Vol. 379, No. 9832, pp. 2206-2211.31 Countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh, East Timor as per https://www.devex.com/news/how-investing-in-women-drives-mdg-success-84106, Accessed 11th July 2015. 32 Mac Darrow, “The Millennium Development Goals: Milestones or Millstones?” Human Rights Priorities for the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Yale Human Rights and Development Journal, Vol. 15, Issue 1. 33 Ibid.34 Ibid.

5

The MDG’s include mechanisms for increasing the financing of poverty reduction,35

mechanisms for implementing poverty reduction mechanisms around the world, for

monitoring them and advocacy exercises. In a way, they have a strong focus on

results. With child mortality rates being cut in half,36 it is vain to say these goals have

been simply rhetoric.

The MDG’s are the “worlds greatest promise,”37 and a true example of the act

of global governance in response to common problems – the problems of poverty

and how to reduce the root causes, and possibly its symptoms. The idea is that with

targets, governments together can inspire each other to move towards addressing poverty

concerns. The idea of inspiring changes in national policy through goal setting has lead to

a move away from self-interest in development. A true implication of this outcome are

the SDG’s which go further than the MDG’s by incorporating economic and

environmental concerns and build on positive work done in addressing the root causes of

poverty by the MDG’s.

35 David Hulme on MDG’s at Kapuscinski development lectures, Accessed 15th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RnRoHGmHok.36 Leith Greensdale, “The Road from the MDG’s to the SDG’s,” Google Hangout by the United Nations Foundation, Accessed 15th July, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hITbBRiaoDw37 David Hulme, “Millennium Development Goals: A Short History of the World’s Biggest Promise,” BWPI Working Paper 100, Accessed 14th July, 2015: http://www.bwpi.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/publications/working_papers/bwpi-wp-10009.pdf Ibid.

6