Millennium Development Goals

Ideas, Interests and Influence

Sakiko Fukuda-Parr

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315414232
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Heralded as a success that mobilized support for development, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) ushered in an era of setting development agendas by setting global goals. This book critically evaluates the MDG experience from the capabilities and human rights perspectives, and questions the use of quantitative targets as an instrument of global governance. It provides an account of their origins, trajectory and influence in shaping the policy agenda, and ideas about international development during the first 15 years of the 21st century. Thechapters explore:

• whether the goals are adequate as benchmarks for the transformative vision of the Millennium Declaration;

• how the goals came to be formulated the way they were, drawing on interviews with key actors who were involved in the process;

• how the goals exercised influence through framing to shape policy agendas on the part of both developing countries and the international community;

• the political economy that drove the formulation of the goals and their consequences on the agendas of the South and the North;

• the effects of quantification and indicators on ideas and action; and

• the lessons to be drawn for using numeric goals to promote global priorities.

Representing a significant body of work on the MDGs in its multiple dimensions, compiled here for the first time as a single collection that tells the whole definitive story, this book provides a comprehensive resource. It will be of great interest to students, researchers and policymakers in the fields of development, human rights, international political economy, and governance by numeric indicators.

Part I

Shaping the international development agenda

From human development and human rights to basic needs

1 Prospective circa 2003

The Millennium Development Goals—why they matter¹

• The MDGs as a human development agenda

• The MDGs as a framework of accountability

• The MDGs as a compact

• The importance of national ownership

• Conclusion

The MDGs originated from an unprecedented assembly of the world’s heads of state, who met in September 2000 to set out an inspiring vision for the world and a clarion call to take action. This chapter, originally published in 2003, presents a prospective view, arguing that these goals embody four important innovations that could bring accelerated progress in human development—a promise that did not fully bear out. First, the goals put human development—poverty and people and their lives—at the center of the global development agenda for the new millennium, a shift away from growth as the central objective of development. Second, the MDGs are not just aspirations but provide a framework for accountability; they do not simply state ideals but go on to define concrete goals that can be monitored. Third, they address not only development outcomes but also inputs from rich countries, thus forming a compact that holds both rich and poor governments accountable for opening markets, giving more aid and debt relief, and transferring technology. This chapter elaborates on each of these points in turn.

The MDGs as a human development agenda

The eight MDGs—poverty, education, gender equality, child mortality, maternal health, HIV/AIDS and other diseases, environment, and global partnership—have been areas of concern for some time, but they have not been at the center of the international development agendas agreed at the UN. The first, second, and third UN development decades (1960s, 1970s, and 1980s) were focused on economic transformation and growth, especially industrialization. The adoption of the MDGs reflects an important endorsement of poverty and human well-being as central concerns. The MDGs speak directly to improving human lives.

In the development debates of the past four decades, concern with human needs has been overshadowed by the preoccupation with economic growth and economic transformation. Economic expansion is critical to human flourishing, but it is a means, not an end in itself. Economic development can be: ruthless, benefiting some at the expense of others; voiceless, excluding the voice of people; jobless, creating wealth but not jobs; futureless, exhausting the next generation’s resources; and rootless, destroying cultural traditions and identities.

Many alternative frameworks to this mainstream thinking have been proposed. In the 1970s, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and economists such as Hans Singer and Richard Jolly argued for the importance of employment. In the 1980s, Paul Streeten, Frances Stewart, and others argued that the priority of development was to meet basic needs. Starting in the 1980s, Sen began to define development as expanding people’s capabilities to lead lives that they value. Building on these ideas, Mahbub ul Haq launched the concept of human development, which defines development as a process of creating an environment in which all people can lead full, creative lives. He launched the annual Human Development Reports in 1990 to track the progress of countries according to measures of human well-being rather than economic growth. The Human Development Index (HDI) was introduced to reflect capabilities in three critical areas: to survive, to be knowledgeable, and to enjoy a decent standard of living. These reports have applied this conceptual framework to explore different capabilities, such as being educated and healthy, but they also investigate areas such as political freedoms and cultural liberties, and suggest policy tools to promote expansion of these capabilities. Over the years, a human development approach or paradigm has evolved.²

The Millennium Declaration and human development share a common vision, guided by the values of freedom, dignity, solidarity, tolerance, and equity among people and nations. These principles are also fundamental human rights, and the MDGs set standards for the “progressive realization” of economic and social rights. They are part of a multidimensional vision of human well-being that integrates political factors such as civil rights and democratic representation, social factors such as education and health, and economic factors such as growth and employment. This vision considers people not only as the beneficiaries of progress but also as the key agents of change. The MDGs address some of the most critical areas of human development, although they do not deal with participation, democracy, and human rights.³ The MDGs are not in themselves a paradigm, but they are benchmark indicators of how we are progressing in human development and social and economic rights.

The MDGs as a framework of accountability

The MDGs are not a new development strategy but a new instrument for mobilizing action. The MDGs are not a technocratically defined set of goals that emerged from an analysis of development constraints accompanied by a finely tuned set of policy prescriptions. Rather, the MDGs are a politically negotiated global commitment and a framework of accountability.

The MDGs’ newness is not attributable to their content but to how they have mustered political consensus on common objectives. They also explicitly commit world leaders to a collective responsibility for all people irrespective of national borders. The MDGs were not formulated overnight. They build on a global consensus reached in the 1990s among governments—a dialogue to which many civil society groups actively contributed.⁴ All but two of the eight MDGs are outlined in the agendas negotiated and adopted at various UN conferences during the 1990s. The MDGs also draw on goals proposed by rich countries; the OECD had earlier drawn up its own development goals.⁵

The MDGs are more powerful tools than mere UN declarations because time limits and quantifiable outcomes, by which progress can be objectively measured and monitored, are specified. They provide a framework for accountability at local, national, and international levels.

The most divisive element in negotiating the MDGs was the eighth goal—global partnership—which includes trade, debt, aid, and technology transfer. This goal is important for the developing countries, but it is weak on accountability; it is the only MDG without quantified and time-bound indicators. Developing countries are not interested in opening themselves up to global scrutiny unless there is a real commitment to joint accountability.

An accountability framework is useful only if it is based on evidence. The UN system is mounting a systematic procedure for global monitoring and support. The MDGs are monitored by specialized agencies that report annually to the UN General Assembly. The Statistical Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) consolidates information into an integrated data system. At the country level, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) is helping countries develop progress reports based on national data.

Many UN resolutions have been passed, only to be left with no follow-up. Other proposals have succeeded in mobilizing massive action and effectively realizing their objectives, such as achieving universal coverage in child immunization. The leadership role of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in advocating and monitoring progress was key to the success of those important goals.⁶

The UN secretary-general’s personal leadership has helped energize and activate the entire UN system, including the World Bank and the IMF. The UN has established a special project with three components: support for countries in defining national strategies and monitoring progress; a campaign to advocate for MDG priorities and for the mobilization of all stakeholders; and a research program to identify an agenda for action.

Unlike other UN goals, which have been inconsistent with one another or ignored by the Bretton Woods institutions, international cooperation is gradually being aligned with MDG priorities. Although still not implemented fully, the Washington-based financial institutions are committed to including the MDGs in their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). These are national policy frameworks being prepared in the world’s poorest aid-dependent countries; they define poverty reduction targets, priorities, and measures on which donors can agree. To achieve the MDGs in most of the world’s poorest countries requires dramatic acceleration of progress. The PRSPs then should be first to reflect such ambitious goals and targets.⁷

The MDGs as a compact

The MDGs differ from previous international goals in another politically significant way. For the first time, rich countries’ inputs are considered alongside the objectives of poor countries. Of the eight MDGs, the eighth—global partnership—is the most significant departure. It commits rich countries to do more in the areas of access to trade, aid, debt relief, and technology transfer. If this goal had not been included, developing countries would not have agreed to the MDG package.

The MDGs have been followed by the Monterrey Consensus, adopted at the International Conference on Financing for Development held in March 2002.⁸ This agreement emphasizes shared responsibility and accountability for achieving the goals. Recipient countries should do more to improve the effective use of resources by employing measures such as combating corruption and strengthening institutions, and donor countries should provide greater support in return.

However, like other international compacts, the MDGs suffer from two related weaknesses: asymmetry and noncompliance. Accountability of developed country performance is weak because goal eight has neither timetable nor quantified targets. Moreover, there is little pressure on them even to report efforts. Sweden has taken the lead in presenting a self-assessment to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), but others have not yet followed. Attempts to make reporting a requirement have failed.

The importance of national ownership

The MDGs are not without critics and skeptics. Some academics, social activists, and government officials have argued that the MDGs create false incentives and distortions.⁹

They leave out many objectives such as employment, reproductive health, human rights, and many other issues that developing countries and civil society groups have been advocating. They do not go far enough on global partnership: they leave targets vague and neglect institutional reform. Issues such as the decision-making processes of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the governance of multilateral institutions, and the restructuring of the global financial architecture are excluded. They impose a large data collection and reporting burden on under-resourced government offices.

They could lead to top-down planning and implementation, thereby promoting a donor-led agenda at the expense of a participatory approach in which communities and countries set their own priorities. They could distort priorities by focusing on issues that appear arbitrary. For example, certain diseases are singled out (e.g. malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other communicable diseases), but other emerging issues (e.g. tobacco) are ignored.

They could weaken the bargaining position of developing countries because the MDGs can be hijacked by the World Bank to create opportunities for further conditionality.

They could lead to a preoccupation with quantitative rather than qualitative achievement, such as the number of children enrolled in schools rather than the quality of the education. They could encourage excessive optimism and lead to discouragement and cynicism if the goals are not achieved.

Although these legitimate concerns do not challenge the fundamental usefulness of the MDGs, they do indicate the need for critical choices. The MDGs can be meaningful only if they are “nationally owned” and utilized appropriately in the context of national challenges and constraints.

Governments and the international community bear responsibility for achieving the MDGs, and civil society has an essential watchdog role at both the national and the global levels. As the guardian of collective responsibility, the UN must use its leadership to maintain and mobilize global political commitment. Donor support an...