The Millennium Development Goals and the politics of globalisation
'I call on the international community at the highest level - the Heads of State and Government convened at the Millennium Summit - to adopt the target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, and so lifting more than 1 billion people out of it, by 2015. I further urge that no effort be spared to reach this target by that date in every region, and in every country.' [United Nations, 2000: 12] This appeal was made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, in his report to the Millennium Assembly 'We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the twenty-first century'. These were more than just empty words or a reflection on the state of the world at the turn of the century. The Millennium Assembly of the United Nations marked the turn not only of the century, but of the millennium. In September 2000, the Secretary-General called the Heads of State and Government of all countries to New York to assess the situation in the world at the end of the millennium. In his words: 'The arrival of the new millennium is an occasion for celebration and reflection. … There is much to be grateful for. … There are also many things to deplore, and to correct.' [United Nations, 2000: 3] In his report, Kofi Annan pointed to economic progress for many as one thing to be grateful for, and ruthless conflict, grinding poverty, striking inequality and a degraded natural environment as the main things to deplore and correct. Poverty figured prominently in the analysis, also because of the relation between poverty and wealth, inequality, conflict and natural resources.
The world leaders gathered at the Millennium Assembly responded by adopting a Millennium Declaration pledging, among other things, to halve world poverty by 2015. They also adopted a number of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): to reduce the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day, suffering from hunger, and without access to safe drinking water by half; to reduce the mortality rate among children and the maternal mortality rate by two-thirds; to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases; to ensure primary education for all boys and girls; and to eliminate gender disparity. They also adopted a final eighth Millennium Development Goal: to develop a global partnership to achieve the other goals, including specific commitments in the field of trade, finance, aid, debt, technology and essential drugs. The partnership was explicitly meant to imply a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction, nationally and internationally. [United Nations, 2000b]
Two years later, at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, world leaders reconfirmed their pledge by unanimously adopting a Plan of Implementation. In this document they stressed that 'eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.' [United Nations, 2002] They explicitly committed themselves to achieving the goal of halving the proportion of the world's poor and to concerted and concrete measures.
What is all this worth? Does it make sense to set goals and targets at the highest political level?
Are the Millennium Development Goals the right ones? Is there any chance that they will be met?
If so, how? If not, what could the consequences be? I would like to discuss these and related questions in this inaugural address here at the Institute of Social Studies. The title of my Chair is the Theory and Practice of International Development. Is there any field where the difference between theory and practice is as great as the daily reality of development, international cooperation and poverty reduction? Some might say that this is a rhetorical question. So let me rephrase it. How big is the gap between the image of progress and the reality of poverty, the things to be grateful for and those to be deplored? Is that gap increasing or decreasing in the age of globalisation? Will the Millennium Development Goals help to bridge the gap or will they only serve as a diversion in the global battle for riches, leaving the world's poor, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Friedman, as 'road-kill'? [Thomas Friedman, 1999] And, the final question: what can researchers and students of development - for instance at this Institute - contribute to a theory of welfare, progress and development that can become practice and reality for many more people than in the previous century?
The world leaders gathered at the Millennium Assembly responded by adopting a Millennium Declaration pledging, among other things, to halve world poverty by 2015. They also adopted a number of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): to reduce the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day, suffering from hunger, and without access to safe drinking water by half; to reduce the mortality rate among children and the maternal mortality rate by two-thirds; to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases; to ensure primary education for all boys and girls; and to eliminate gender disparity. They also adopted a final eighth Millennium Development Goal: to develop a global partnership to achieve the other goals, including specific commitments in the field of trade, finance, aid, debt, technology and essential drugs. The partnership was explicitly meant to imply a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction, nationally and internationally. [United Nations, 2000b]
Two years later, at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, world leaders reconfirmed their pledge by unanimously adopting a Plan of Implementation. In this document they stressed that 'eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.' [United Nations, 2002] They explicitly committed themselves to achieving the goal of halving the proportion of the world's poor and to concerted and concrete measures.
What is all this worth? Does it make sense to set goals and targets at the highest political level?
Are the Millennium Development Goals the right ones? Is there any chance that they will be met?
If so, how? If not, what could the consequences be? I would like to discuss these and related questions in this inaugural address here at the Institute of Social Studies. The title of my Chair is the Theory and Practice of International Development. Is there any field where the difference between theory and practice is as great as the daily reality of development, international cooperation and poverty reduction? Some might say that this is a rhetorical question. So let me rephrase it. How big is the gap between the image of progress and the reality of poverty, the things to be grateful for and those to be deplored? Is that gap increasing or decreasing in the age of globalisation? Will the Millennium Development Goals help to bridge the gap or will they only serve as a diversion in the global battle for riches, leaving the world's poor, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Friedman, as 'road-kill'? [Thomas Friedman, 1999] And, the final question: what can researchers and students of development - for instance at this Institute - contribute to a theory of welfare, progress and development that can become practice and reality for many more people than in the previous century?