The Millennium Development Goals
The MDGs are new in many respects. First, together they cover a broad and rather complete terrain of basic human well-being. They represent nearly all the relevant dimensions of poverty. At the Johannesburg Summit, after lengthy negotiations, the original set of goals was extended with the pledge to halve the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation. This is a crucial addition: providing access to safe drinking water is not enough. Lack of sanitation, having neither a place nor the means to discharge human excrement without creating new health risks, is essential in the fight against poverty. The goals are part of an integrated whole. The main dimension which is still lacking is poverty resulting from inadequate access to energy and natural resources.
Second, the MDGs concern the world as a whole, but they are not so global that they become vague or unbalanced. The goal is not to halve the proportion of the world’s population that is poor by concentrating only on certain countries. Statistically that would be an option, but not politically. The call was to reach the target in every region and in every country. In their declarations responding to that call, world leaders regularly refer to ‘each country’, ‘all countries’, ‘national programmes’, ‘concerted measures’, ‘all levels’ and similar concepts. There can be no doubt: the Millennium Development Goals are both global and national.
Third, they are output targets, result-oriented. Not input targets, like the pledge to spend 0.7% of national income on foreign aid. Output targets refer to welfare increases and poverty reduction, not to the means to be used for that purpose. Nor are they process targets, such as combating the tendency to exclude the poor by enhancing their participation and integration in society. To agree on the need for full integration is politically important, but it would be difficult to measure progress in achieving such an objective. Output targets are concrete.
Fourth, they are direct. The Millennium Development Goals are not growth targets, chosen in the expectation that by meeting them less people would stay poor. Apparently the time that world leaders thought that poverty could be reduced with the help of trickle-down mechanisms is behind us. They seem to have decided in favour of direct poverty reduction rather indirect measures like safety nets intended to compensate the poor for the negative effects of growth. The aim is poverty reduction, whatever the level and character of growth. Adopting the MDGs implies that the nature and composition of economic growth should be considered paramount to growth itself, rather than the other way round.
Fifth, they are precise and quantified. Not vague, not ‘less’ poverty. Not qualitative, such as to change and reverse the trend, or to further improve the lot of the poor. The MDGs are very precise: halving percentages in 15 years. Performance against such goals is measurable and accountable.
Sixth, they are ambitious. Some might ask: what about the other half, the remaining 50% poor? They might claim that the goals are not ambitious enough. However, the world has never seen poverty halved in the relatively brief period of fifteen years. Individual countries may have been rather successful in this respect – China is a case in point – but never the world as a whole. So, it is an ambitious goal. But not over-ambitious. It will require intensive concerted action at all levels, by all policy-makers and actors. It will require structural change in priorities, investment allocations and resource use patterns. But it is doable. To my knowledge there are no ecological, physical, technical or other autonomous reasons why it would be inherently impossible to halve poverty rates within a reasonable period. There may be economic or political reasons, but that is always a matter of choice.
Well, the choice has finally been made, inspired by ambition and reason. Or so it seems. Of course, efforts cannot halt once these goals are reached. The other half of the world’s poor cannot be neglected. Moreover, care should be taken that policies aimed at meeting the target do not make things worse for the other half. In principle, it is possible to choose different paths: halving poverty while simultaneously stimulating poverty reduction for the other 50%, or doing so at the expense of better prospects for those others. That again is a political choice. The first option may be the more difficult of the two. Choosing that path would make the target even more ambitious. Not doing so would run the risk of frustration among those whose prospects become more sombre. So, a higher ambition would be justified by considerations of equity as well as by the political necessity to enhance the cohesion in society.
Finally, the MDGs represent a Political Target with a capital P and a capital T, not just another promise like all those made earlier but easily forgotten. Here we have a set of goals agreed and pledged at the highest possible level. The decision to adopt them was well prepared and well thought through. The goals were chosen consciously, in the awareness of the needs of the poor and of alternative options. All sorts of alternatives (input targets, indirect approaches) had been tried out in the course of the twentieth century. But they had not worked well and had not delivered the hoped-for result. That is why, at the turn of the millennium, world leaders chose a radically different approach. They must have felt: it is now or never.
Is this a too rosy interpretation? Did political leaders really mean all this and did they realise that they were making a U-turn? Were they aware that expectations would grow as a result? Did they understand that from now on they will be accountable and that, if expectations – which can be measured in precise terms – are not met, poor people might see this as a betrayal? After all, political leaders had a second chance, when they came together in Johannesburg. But they did not take the opportunity to come back on the promises and commitments made at the Millennium Assembly, they did not dilute the targets or impose conditions on them. They reconfirmed and even expanded them.
Cynical analysts may come to a different conclusion and argue that in politics agreed goals and explicit promises have little significance. It is true: politics is a matter of power and interests. That is why, in the implementation of political decisions, practical reality so often differs from theoretical models. But I hope to have made clear that the decision to adopt the Millennium Development Goals was not made arbitrarily, incidentally or by accident. Those who, as world leaders, had the power to take decisions must have come to the conclusion that it was in their nations’ interest to take this course and that the alternative options were inferior. Then they must also have understood that non-implementation of the goals would have a counterproductive effect. It would resemble the broken promises and unmet targets of the past and lead to even more frustration, resulting in a threat to the stability and well-being of their nations.
So, let us assume that the MDGs represent a serious political commitment. Why then are references to them so often followed by qualifications that they are unlikely to be met or – even more pessimistic – will definitely not be met? Is that a statement of fact, a general disclaimer expressing an attitude of resignation, another example of the prevailing distrust in political leaders or in politics as such, or is it a self-fulfilling prophecy? Is there any chance that global poverty will really be halved by 2015? Will we fail in the future because we failed in the past, for the same reasons?
Second, the MDGs concern the world as a whole, but they are not so global that they become vague or unbalanced. The goal is not to halve the proportion of the world’s population that is poor by concentrating only on certain countries. Statistically that would be an option, but not politically. The call was to reach the target in every region and in every country. In their declarations responding to that call, world leaders regularly refer to ‘each country’, ‘all countries’, ‘national programmes’, ‘concerted measures’, ‘all levels’ and similar concepts. There can be no doubt: the Millennium Development Goals are both global and national.
Third, they are output targets, result-oriented. Not input targets, like the pledge to spend 0.7% of national income on foreign aid. Output targets refer to welfare increases and poverty reduction, not to the means to be used for that purpose. Nor are they process targets, such as combating the tendency to exclude the poor by enhancing their participation and integration in society. To agree on the need for full integration is politically important, but it would be difficult to measure progress in achieving such an objective. Output targets are concrete.
Fourth, they are direct. The Millennium Development Goals are not growth targets, chosen in the expectation that by meeting them less people would stay poor. Apparently the time that world leaders thought that poverty could be reduced with the help of trickle-down mechanisms is behind us. They seem to have decided in favour of direct poverty reduction rather indirect measures like safety nets intended to compensate the poor for the negative effects of growth. The aim is poverty reduction, whatever the level and character of growth. Adopting the MDGs implies that the nature and composition of economic growth should be considered paramount to growth itself, rather than the other way round.
Fifth, they are precise and quantified. Not vague, not ‘less’ poverty. Not qualitative, such as to change and reverse the trend, or to further improve the lot of the poor. The MDGs are very precise: halving percentages in 15 years. Performance against such goals is measurable and accountable.
Sixth, they are ambitious. Some might ask: what about the other half, the remaining 50% poor? They might claim that the goals are not ambitious enough. However, the world has never seen poverty halved in the relatively brief period of fifteen years. Individual countries may have been rather successful in this respect – China is a case in point – but never the world as a whole. So, it is an ambitious goal. But not over-ambitious. It will require intensive concerted action at all levels, by all policy-makers and actors. It will require structural change in priorities, investment allocations and resource use patterns. But it is doable. To my knowledge there are no ecological, physical, technical or other autonomous reasons why it would be inherently impossible to halve poverty rates within a reasonable period. There may be economic or political reasons, but that is always a matter of choice.
Well, the choice has finally been made, inspired by ambition and reason. Or so it seems. Of course, efforts cannot halt once these goals are reached. The other half of the world’s poor cannot be neglected. Moreover, care should be taken that policies aimed at meeting the target do not make things worse for the other half. In principle, it is possible to choose different paths: halving poverty while simultaneously stimulating poverty reduction for the other 50%, or doing so at the expense of better prospects for those others. That again is a political choice. The first option may be the more difficult of the two. Choosing that path would make the target even more ambitious. Not doing so would run the risk of frustration among those whose prospects become more sombre. So, a higher ambition would be justified by considerations of equity as well as by the political necessity to enhance the cohesion in society.
Finally, the MDGs represent a Political Target with a capital P and a capital T, not just another promise like all those made earlier but easily forgotten. Here we have a set of goals agreed and pledged at the highest possible level. The decision to adopt them was well prepared and well thought through. The goals were chosen consciously, in the awareness of the needs of the poor and of alternative options. All sorts of alternatives (input targets, indirect approaches) had been tried out in the course of the twentieth century. But they had not worked well and had not delivered the hoped-for result. That is why, at the turn of the millennium, world leaders chose a radically different approach. They must have felt: it is now or never.
Is this a too rosy interpretation? Did political leaders really mean all this and did they realise that they were making a U-turn? Were they aware that expectations would grow as a result? Did they understand that from now on they will be accountable and that, if expectations – which can be measured in precise terms – are not met, poor people might see this as a betrayal? After all, political leaders had a second chance, when they came together in Johannesburg. But they did not take the opportunity to come back on the promises and commitments made at the Millennium Assembly, they did not dilute the targets or impose conditions on them. They reconfirmed and even expanded them.
Cynical analysts may come to a different conclusion and argue that in politics agreed goals and explicit promises have little significance. It is true: politics is a matter of power and interests. That is why, in the implementation of political decisions, practical reality so often differs from theoretical models. But I hope to have made clear that the decision to adopt the Millennium Development Goals was not made arbitrarily, incidentally or by accident. Those who, as world leaders, had the power to take decisions must have come to the conclusion that it was in their nations’ interest to take this course and that the alternative options were inferior. Then they must also have understood that non-implementation of the goals would have a counterproductive effect. It would resemble the broken promises and unmet targets of the past and lead to even more frustration, resulting in a threat to the stability and well-being of their nations.
So, let us assume that the MDGs represent a serious political commitment. Why then are references to them so often followed by qualifications that they are unlikely to be met or – even more pessimistic – will definitely not be met? Is that a statement of fact, a general disclaimer expressing an attitude of resignation, another example of the prevailing distrust in political leaders or in politics as such, or is it a self-fulfilling prophecy? Is there any chance that global poverty will really be halved by 2015? Will we fail in the future because we failed in the past, for the same reasons?