Post-2015: Learning from the MDG experienceA Cautiously Optimistic View

Aniket Bhushan Governance for Equitable Growth & Canadian International Development Platform The North-South Institute

Outline

• About NSI and CIDP• Post-2015 research at NSI• MDG experience: on track but off the mark? • Key blind-spot and the way forward • New way of thinking about development frameworks

post-2015

About

NSI

• First, and only think tank dedicated to international development research in Canada

• No. 1 small think tank globally by McGann survey 2011

• Three thematic areas: – Governance for Equitable Growth– Governance of Natural Resources – Fragile and Conflict Affected States

CIDPNSI.ca

Web-based data & analytics platform on Canada’s engagement with the developing world•Leverage open data, open government

•Organize, interpret, analyze a range of data through fast and interactive analytical dashboards

•Turning open data into better policy through collaborative inquiry

MDG experience

• Focus: 8 easy to understand, globally agreed goals

• What to measure, how, development progress

• What to spend on

• Reductionist• Imprecise • Not dynamic• Outputs only • Rank, name, shame

MDG: Successes

MDG: Successes

MDG: Successes?

Consequence of imprecision

What is happening to global poverty?

• 1981 to 2008, 648.84 million have been taken out of $1.25/day chronic poverty (from 1990 to 2008 the number is similar at 619.64 million)

• China: 662.14 million (or 510.22 between 1990 and 2008)

• Without China, target unmet • World Bank’s 2005 ICP revised PPP data (cost

of living from China, India)• ‘Found’ 400 million more chronic poor (2010)

The Key Blind-Spot: Distribution

MDG indicators are consistently worse for disadvantaged groups in every regionODI, March 2012

Despite many of the successes of the MDGs, they have not managed to integrate all principles outlined in the Millennium Declaration, including equality. Furthermore, the MDGs’ focus on national and global averages and progress can mask much slower progress or even growing disparities at the sub-national level and among specific populationsAddressing Inequalities, UN System Task-Team on 2015

The Key Blind-Spot: Distribution

Approaches to development that measure success in terms of numbers reached, with no regard to who is reached should not be tolerated. After the MDGs: Setting out the must haves for a new development framework in 2015, Save the Children, April 2012

The Key Blind-Spot: Distribution

Distributional blind-spots and children •Inequality (available income per child) TWICE as high as general inequality•Child in richest 10% household has 35x available income poorest 10%•Gap grown 35% since 1990•Inequality has intergenerational and compound effect on children

The Key Blind-Spot: Distribution

E.g. of compounded effects

•Nigeria: U5 mortality national decline– U5 mortality lowest vs. top 10%: 2x– Urban: 121/1000; Rural: 191– Deaths per 1000 live births (child): top 20 –

87; bottom – 219– Infant mortality: South-West 89/1000;

North-East 222/1000

Assessing proposals on the way forward

Post-2015 universe•22 official proposals and discussion papers•640 targets and indicators proposed (provisional data)

Assessing proposals on the way forward

• We organize goals, targets, indicators into 15 thematic areas

• Infrastructure, health & nutrition – highest frequency; children/youth, environment, governance, peace & security, equality, key areas of expansion over MDG

• Disaster resilience, employment emerging areas, social protection underdeveloped

Assessing proposals on the way forward

BUT

•“Equity” has huge weaknesses (technical, political)

•Lacks anchor

Assessing proposals on the way forward

• “Inequalities in…”?

• “Inequality itself…”?

Targeting Equity

• More than one (3) ways of thinking about inequality (level of analysis)

• Uncertain, diverse determinants

• Non-constant, non-linear, trend pace

• Interactions and compounding effects

• Limits of progressive redistribution

• Policy – highly contexual

Targeting Equity

• Below US$ 700 per cap income –pov redc via redistribution- theoretically impossible

• Country capacity split (>US$ 2000, US$2000-4000); latter can via marginal taxes, former very difficult

• Non-constant, non-linear effects further complicate (short vs. long run)

Targeting Equity

International community does not have good advice:

•Developing countries = be like Brazil!– Not feasible for all, not just transfers,

macro stability, inflation control, constitutional changes. But remember, even now Brazil top 10 = 55x bottom!!

•Advanced = be like Nordics!

What is happening to global inequality?

• The “world” as if it were ONE “country”• “World” inequality >>> typical country• “World” inq. driven by BETWEEN country inq.• Gini: 0.70 (1993); 0.67 (2007)• World inq. DECLINING, catch-up (China,

India); within country inq. rising • Bottom 80% of world pop. INCREASED their

share of world income from 24% (1993) to 28% (2005) – but this is too small

What is happening to global inequality?

• 78 data points (developing countries, sub-national) 1990-2011

• 43 inequality increased: ranging from 4%year to 0.2% (Uganda); China (1.8)

• 35 inequality declined: ranging from -3%year to -0.01%; Brazil (-0.05)

• Majority trend swap 90s vs. 2000s

Equity: 2015 Bottom-line

• Equity targeting has major technical, political weaknesses (not unlike poverty, and for similar technical reasons)

• But further – lacks political anchor

New way of thinking

Occam’s Razor •Conflict between inherent complexity of issues, uncertainty of measures and need for simplicity for consensus

– Complicated framework – risks collapse under its own weight

– Imprecision risks irrelevance – both from a public relations perspective; incentives/results management perspective

New way of thinking

• Viewing inequality from the perspective of inequality of opportunity for children, presents the most powerful entry point (anchor) for success in post-2015 discussions

New way of thinking

• Ways of thinking about “indicators”: not as target (naming, shaming) but as diagnostic tool

• Moving from OUTPUT-RANKING to OUTCOME-DIAGNOSTIC – Too much emphasis on WHAT: country-level

(official) output counts (e.g. enrollment rates); ranks

– Shift focus to HOW: results achieved

New way of thinking

• Agreement on a global standard for disaggregated data gathering, and investing in this capacity would be the single most important benefit of a post-2015 equity agenda – Getting precise, limiting to only OBJECTIVE

measures – Getting serious about how we know what we know

and how we communicate progress

Connect

http://cidpnsi.ca/

•FOLLOW: @CIDPNSI •LIKE: http://www.facebook.com/CIDPNSI

•LIKE: http://www.facebook.com/NSIINS

•EMAIL: abhushan@nsi-ins.ca