MDGs and the narrative of development

The MDGs demonstrate the power of numbers to communicate complex challenges. They have had unprecedented success in drawing attention to poverty as an urgent global priority.  But they have also led to reshaping the idea of development. By reducing the complex challenges of development to a list of 8 goals, they redefined the very meaning of development and created a discourse of development as poverty reduction―devoid of agendas for addressing systemic issues in the global economy, and empowerment of poor people within countries.

The MDG narrative of development convincingly appeals to rich country ‘publics and parliaments’ and has led to increases in social spending. But they have had little real impact on generating new approaches to fostering economic growth combined with social justice that addresses poverty, inequality and the fulfillment of human rights. There has been little rethinking of macroeconomic policy frameworks and the Washington Consensus policy agendas that were introduced under structural adjustment programs continue.  As 2015 draws near, global goals should be renewed but also redesigned. This article highlights the 10 most pressing issues to be considered.

A: Issues of interpretation and how MDGs are utilised

1. Erroneous interpretation as development strategy and planning goals
The MDGs were derived from the Declaration which was a statement of political commitment to their vision of the world in the 21^st century. They are benchmarks for achieving these normative objectives and should neither be interpreted as technocratically defined planning targets nor as a new development strategy.  Not surprisingly interpreted as planning targets they have been criticized as poorly constructed: (i) low ambition for countries that have already achieved the goals – “Minimum Development Goals”;  (ii) unrealistic and overambitious for many countries unlikely to achieve the goals;  (iii) misdirected, ignoring the key issues of systemic reforms in the global economy and challenges of transformation rather than poverty reduction; (iv) blind to the political dimensions of poverty; (v) inadequately aligned with human rights standards and principles; (vi) overly technocratic, assuming resources and technology to be the answer to poverty; (vii) too narrow in scope, neglecting many objectives agreed at global conferences in specific areas – such as health, education, decent work.

2. Erroneous monitoring measure – achieving the targets or making faster progress?
Monitoring reports assess progress by the criteria of whether the goals are likely to be achieved. This is biased against countries with the highest poverty rates. But the more important question is whether governments and the international community are doing more and being more effective. The appropriate measure is the rate of progress made, not the level of achievement. Focus on the level of achievement leads to perverse results; countries making rapid progress are labeled off track and failures and countries that started at low levels of poverty and making very slow progress are labeled successes. Performance of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa in particular should be monitored according to progress rather than level of achievement.

3. Adaptation to national contexts
Interpreting MDGs as planning goals and assessing performance by whether the targets would be achieved is particularly erroneous when applied at the country level. Not only do they have very different starting points, countries of the world face hugely diverse constraints and capacities, in financial, institutional and human dimensions. MDGs need to be recast at the national level to set ambitious but realistic targets.

B. Issues with the composition of the MDGs and the implied policy agenda

4. Lack of attention to inequality within countries
A defining trend over the last decade has been the increase in inequality within countries across the regions of the world in both poor and rich countries, and the exceptional experience of Brazil and several other countries in bucking this trend. The vision of the MDGs is to reduce absolute poverty and does not address inequality except for gender inequality. Of the 60 indicators, only 3 reflect disparity. Many of the targets that were agreed in the UN development conferences of the 1990s that addressed inequality, marginalization and the most vulnerable were not incorporated in the MDGs. Reducing inequality should be added as a goal in and of itself.

5. Lack of attention to democratic governance within countries
Social scientists have learned much about the diverse factors that explain the persistence of poverty. They go beyond economic investments and emphasize that poor people remain poor because they are powerless, and that the multiple dimensions of poverty – poor health and lack of education, resources and access to public infrastructure – all reinforce one another. Poverty reduction strategies require not only economic and social policies but also political empowerment.

6. Lack of attention to systemic issues of global governance and greater voice of the developing countries and to inequalities between countries
While developing countries have become increasingly assertive in global fora such as the WTO and the IFIs, there have been no systemic reforms in global institutions with the exception of the emergence of the G-20. The 2008 financial crisis is a reminder of the urgency of measures needed for a stable global economy that serves the needs of development. Many relevant recommendations were made by the 2009 Stiglitz commission on the global financial and economic architecture .

7. Aid dependence and more radical reforms
Many countries with widespread poverty are aid dependent; many LDCs rely on external aid to finance their entire capital investment budgets. This unavoidably weakens states and democratic accountability of states to their people. Despite Paris and Accra agendas, aid continues to be a donor driven process. New forms of aid that can be more consistent with developing a democratically accountable state are needed, e.g. increased budget support.

8. New sources of financing development
Bilateral and multilateral development aid is unlikely to be adequate to meet the resource requirements of ending poverty especially in Africa. Several proposals have been made to develop new sources of financing development―such as taxes on international transactions.

9. New approaches to financing research and development for critical technological needs for poverty reduction.
Almost all of the most enduring problems of poverty require technological solutions―from higher performing varieties of crops and farming methods to medicines for tropical diseases. The patent based model of financing research and development in new technologies is not appropriate to meeting these needs as the HIV retrovirals have demonstrated. Alternative approaches have been proposed, such as prize funds, need to be pursued.

10. Pro-poor growth strategies and development discourse – beyond conditional cash transfers and social protection measures.
The MDG discourse has emphasized social investments and social protection. These are important for education, health, water and sanitation. Employment and incomes, however, depend less on direct government investments than on growth that is pro-poor, where the benefits accrue to the poor. More attention should be given to macro-economic and labour market policies; recent experience of several Latin American countries are particularly instructive.

Overall, a challenge for African countries would be to develop an appropriate economic growth and development strategy that will deliver on poverty reduction and that will not exacerbate inequalities. The MDGs have created an international development discourse that is narrow, overly focused on social investments and social protection. While these are indeed priorities, so too are: an alternative strategy of national development and global economic reforms.