A Rights-Based Approach to Delivering on the MDGs

A rights-based approach to delivering on the MDGs

Governance Workshop

Cairo

June 2009

Eitan FelnerIndependent Consultant

Purpose of Presentation

1

Synergy between Human Rights and empirically-based Socioeconomic Analysis

Assessing governance-relatedissues on MDGs

2

High deprivation and inequality In HD outcomes

Gov’t public policies

Root causes Lack of political will

Progress on MDGs…

Like a Tango Dance

Deprivations and Disparities in MDGs

“Most countries are off track to meet most MDGs”World Bank, Global Monitoring Report 2008

“Many countries with good average performance on the Goals contain population groups — and sometimes entire areas — being left behind.

UNDP, Human Development Report 2003

GOVERNANCE

Good Governance: A crucial element for attaining the MDGs

Primary Education

Maternal health

End Poverty & hunger

Gender Equality

Child Health

Combat HIV/AIDS

Environmental Sustainability

Global Partnership

MDGs

The role of human rights in governance assessments of MDGs

Normative Foundations Universal legal obligations

Moral language of our times

Source of Political legitimacy

Basic challenge to make governments accountable for insufficient progress in MDGs

Deprivations and disparities in progress in MDGs are result of multiple reasons, only some of which can be attributed to government actions or inactions

“Health” […] is influenced by a range of factors – including health-related behaviour, prenatal factors, early childhood, social status, support, living conditions, education, health services, nutrition, and stress.”

WHO and UNFPA, National-level monitoring of the Achievement of universal access to reproductive health, 2008

Focus of human rights approach: avoidable deprivations

Calls attention to the fact that widespread deprivations and disparities are all too often not inevitable

Rather: frequently generated, perpetuated or exacerbated by lack of political will of governments

What is needed…

Simple tools to assess to what extent deprivations, disparities

and lack of progress in MDGs can be traced back to failures of

government policy

3-step Methodological framework

#1 Identifying deprivations and disparities

#2 Identifying inadequacy of policy efforts to address obstacles to MDGs

#3 (OPTIONAL) Structural causes behind inadequacy of policy efforts

Pattern of Massive Deprivation

Step #1 - Identifying deprivations and disparities in MDGs

Niger (1998)

Chad (2004)

Bangladesh (2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Quintille 1(lowest)

Quintille 2 Quintille 3 Quintille 4 Quintille 5(highest)

WHO 2008, based on data from Gwatkin et al, 2007

A pattern of Marginalization

Step #1 - Identifying deprivations and disparities in MDGs (continued)

WHO 2008, based on data from Gwatkin et al, 2007

Nigaragua (2001)

Colombia (2005)

Turkey (1998)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Quintille 1(lowest)

Quintille 2 Quintille 3 Quintille 4 Quintille 5(highest)

Step #2 -Identifying inadequacy of policy efforts to address determinants

A. Sector related policies

Demand Factors

Insufficient availability

Poor Quality

Inadequate Programs to tackle obstacles in use of

services

Unaffordabilityof services

Culturally Inappropriate

Unfair Distribution

Insufficient Coverage

Underfunded Programs

Resource allocation

Supply Factors

Inadequate Provision of services

Step #2 -Identifying inadequacy of policy efforts to address determinants(continued)

B. Non-sector related policies

Unequal Physical

accessibility

Underfunding of nutritional

Programs

Fiscal Policies

Inadequate Programs to tackle obstacles in use of

services

Poverty Reduction Strategies

Land Reform

Policies addressing underlying

determinants

Supply Factors

Factors

Step #2 -Identifying inadequacy of policy efforts to address determinants(illustration)

High incidence of girls out of primary school

Parents refusal to send girls to

school

Parents can’t afford school fees

Cultural belief and practices

Teachers are often absent

Government’s responsibility

School too far away

Gov’t forbids girls to attend

school

Poor quality of teaching

SupplyDemandFactors outsidesector

Inequity between regions in allocation of resources for MDG programs

Insufficient resources for MDGs (in education, health, nutrition, etc)

Corruption

Elite Capture

Ethnic Discrimination

Political Clientelism

Women’s lack of access to basic social services

Discriminatory beliefs and traditional

practices condones or promoted by government

Step #3 – Structural causes behind inadequacy of government efforts

Addressing unequal power relations

“The overly technocratic nature of the MDGs and closely associated institutions has been questioned. The MDG project places great emphasis on the mobilization of financial resources and technical solutions, but less on transforming power relations that are partly responsible for current levels of poverty in developing, and developed, countries.”

UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Claiming the MDGs: A Human Rights Approach

“Inequity in education is linked to wider disparities in the distribution of power, wealth and opportunity. And it is perpetuated by policies that either tolerate or actively exacerbate an unfair distribution of life chances – policies that fuel the transmission of poverty across generations.”

UNESCO, Education For All Report 2009

Some illustrations

Richest 20%

Poorest 20%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1

Poverty’s grip keeps children out of school

Determinants of MDGs-relateddeprivations and inequalities Inadequacy of policy efforts

to address determinants

Structural causes behindinadequacy of

government efforts

Primary school net attendance ratio in Developing countries, richest and poorestQuintile, 2000/2006 (percentage)

UN – The Millenium Development Goals Report 2008

73Zimbabwe

43.7Zambia

75.3Uganda

33.9Nigeria

47.6Kenya

45.4Cameroon

Could not pay School

Country

Reasons for dropping out of primary school, selected African countries, various years (percentage)

Demographic and Health Surveys

Public expenditure on education – skewed against the poor




government efforts

Gap in public spending on education between richest and poorest quintile selected developing countries, various years (%)

0102030405060708090

100

Armenia Cote d'Ivoire Ecuador Ghana Guinea Kazakhistan Madagascar Malaw i Morocco Nepal Nicaragua Pakistan Peru Tanzania Vietnam

Poorest Quintile Richest Quintile

World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001

Why is so little spend on educating the Poor? Elite capture

Determinants of MDGs-relateddeprivations and inequalities

Inadequacy of policy effortsto address determinants


government efforts

“The underlying cause of unequal public spending is the patron-client relationship—between the affluent elite and the government—that prevails in many countries.

Economic power and the wealth associated with it enable the affluent to buy favourable policies from politicians. In contrast, the poor lack the resources with which to lobby and they are less organized...They are, therefore, in many cases unable to influence the government in their favour.”

Tony Addison et al, ‘Why is so Little Spent on Educating the Poor?” 2001

“The ruling elites found it convenient to perpetuate low literacy rates. The lower the proportion of literate people, the lower the probability that the ruling elite could be replaced”

Ishrat Husain, Pakistan: The Economy of an Elitist State

A rights-based approach to delivering on the MDGs

Governance Workshop

Cairo

June 2009

Eitan FelnerIndependent Consultant

End of Presentation

The Right to Education in Guatemala

Education for All Development Index (EDI) and GDP pc, LAC 2005

0.8

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2005 international $)

Educ

atio

n fo

r All

Dev

elop

men

t Ind

ex

Source: WDI 2008 and UNESCO EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008

NicaraguaGuatemala

HondurasEl Salvador

Paraguay

Bolivia

Dominican Rep.

Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

Jamaica

Brazil

Panama

Uruguay

Venezuela

Mexico

Argentina

Chile




government efforts

Secondary Net Enrollment Rate

2005

Primary Completion Rate 2005

Adult Literacy Rates*

100%LAC 98%

90 LAC 90%

80

70 Guatemala 74%LAC 69% Guatemala 69%

60 SS Africa 61%SS Africa 59%

50

40Guatemala 35.4%

30SS Africa 25.3%

20

10

0%Source: UNESCO Source: WDI Source: WDI*LAC and SS Africa: 2005. Guatemala: 2002

MethodComparing one country with different regionshelps flag underperformance




government efforts

Exposing Chronic Underfunding and Insufficient Coverage of Aid Programs for Poor ChildrenFood Programme Money Spent Annually per Student and % of Underweight Children, LAC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Food programme US$ spent annually per student

% o

f pre

-prim

ary

and

prim

ary

stud

ents

und

erw

eigh

t

Guatemala

Honduras

Bolivia

Nicaragua

Colombia

Brazil

Panama

Argentina

Mexico

Costa Rica

Venezuela

Chile

Uruguay

Source: Barros 2005

PeruEcuador

MethodCross-country comparison of resource allocation for specific aid programs




government efforts

Becas and Deserters per Municipality

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

San Ju

an Sac

atepe

quez

Los A

mates

Joya

baj

San Tom

as C

hichic

asten

ango

Palenc

ia

Tajumulc

o

Number of Deserters after 1st Gradeper Municipality, Girls 2006

Number of Becas per Municipality

Source: Mineduc statistics 2005 and 2006. "Initial Enrollment, girls, rural, all sectors, per grade"

MethodDistributional analysis of aid program to identify mismatch between needs and resource distribution

Inadequacy of policy efforts to address determinants –Comparing needs with resource allocation

Sources: ENCOVI 2006, Rubio and Salanic (2005) and UNDP Guatemala 2005

MethodComparing multiple data sets

Poverty IncidenceTeachers’ Reading

Test ScoresConcentration of

Indigenous PeopleDept. Poverty Dept. Score Dept. % Pop. IndigenousQuiché 81 Sacatepéquez 72.6 Totonicapán 98%Alta Verapaz 78.8 Guatemala 66.5 Sololá 96%Sololá 74.6 Chimaltenango 66 Alta Verapaz 93%Totonicapán 71.9 El Progreso 61.4 Quiché 89%Huehuetenango 71.3 Retalhuleu 60.5 Chimaltenango 79%Baja Verapaz 70.4 Petén 60.5 Huehuetenango 65%San Marcos 65.5 San Marcos 60.2 Baja Verapaz 59%Jalapa 61.2 Zacapa 59.9 Quetzaltenango 54%Chimaltenango 60.5 Jalapa 59.8 Suchitepéquez 52%Chiquimula 59.5 Chiquimula 59.3 Sacatepéquez 42%Santa Rosa 57.9 Escuintla 58.8 San Marcos 31%Petén 57 Suchitepéquez 57.4 Petén 31%Suchitepéquez 54.7 Quetzaltenango 56.8 Retalhuleu 23%Zacapa 53.9 Baja Verapaz 56.2 Jalapa 19%Retalhuleu 50.4 Jutiapa 55.6 Chiquimula 17%Jutiapa 47.3 Totonicapán 54.2 Guatemala 14%Quetzaltenango 44 Huehuetenango 53.5 Escuintla 7%El Progreso 41.8 Santa Rosa 52.5 Jutiapa 3%Escuintla 41.4 Sololá 51.4 Santa Rosa 3%Sacatepéquez 36.5 Quiché 51.2 El Progreso 1%Guatemala 16.3 Alta Verapaz 50.9 Zacapa 1%

Inadequacy of policy efforts to address determinants –Assessing whether marginalized children are being taught by the least qualified teachers

Analysing resource allocation for core obligations: UNDP social priority spending ratios

Government share of GDP

Public expenditure ratio

Basic social services share of GDP

Human expenditure ratio

Basic social services share of social spending

Social Priority ratio

Social services share of Government spending

Social Allocation ratio

Human expenditure ratio: The product of the previous three ratios: (PE/GDP)x(SS/PE)x(BSS/SS) The macroeconomic priority assigned to basic social services.

Source: UNDP 1991

Social priority spendingPublic expenditure ratio

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Guatemala

Moroccoo

Lebanon

Zambia

Social allocation ratio

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Social priority ratio

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Human expenditure ratio

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0%

Guatemala

Moroccoo

Lebanon

Zambia

Source: Harrington et al., ‘Financing basic social services’

Basic education expenditure ratio

Basic health expenditure ratio

Why human rights can help hold gov’taccountable?

Why human rights can help hold gov’taccountable?