Global Development: Views from the Center

Actually, a prominent reason why the MDGs won't be realized in many - nay, most - African countries is because of the utter incompetence of their governments. Sure, the MDGs were poorly conceived (another "Big New Plan") and more or less utopian in nature. But let's face it: until the governments of such one-man-shows like Cameroon, Gabon or Togo give a damn about alleviating poverty and encouraging broad-based development, or at least give those efforts the priority they deserve vis-a-vis the venality of their corrupt politics as usual, no development plan will really do much good.

It's time international donors start calling a horse a horse: we tell the governments who have pilfered and wasted the billions they've been given that we're not going to feed their addiction to banditry any more. Stop paying for Omar Bongo's villa in Paris, or Paul Biya's personal jet, etc. etc., by cutting off all official development aid. Focus on those (few) countries and those governments who will actually use our taxpayer money effectively, and then give generously and concentrate on country-specific development goals whose priorities are set not by white guys in Washington, but by Africans. Just my two franc CFA.

Your biggest criticisms for the MDGs seem to be their global scope and a failure to take into account "reality". Yet I'm not sure how the Copenhagen (which is a similarly worthy exercise) actually succeeds on either count?

First, they are again a global ranking which is totally unaware of local circumstances. Should the main priorities in Georgia or Colombia be scaling up health services, creating community-managed sanitation services, and controlling AIDS and malaria? And, if the ranking is simply for allocating a mythical $50b, how are we to know WHERE this money should be spent to be effective? As they say themselves, the CC UN is to provide a 'to do list of the UN' - exactly like the MDGs.

As you note, the MDGs feasibility is undermined by some supporters use of global averages. The CC UN does avoid this problem - since it simply says how things should be 'prioritized' rather than proposing any sort of metrics. The failure of development in the past has been that talk is cheap. SAYING you think something is important isn't the same as allocating actual resources and holding yourself accountable for performance.

The reality is that nearly every country in the world has produced a country-level MDG report and/or strategy over the past few years. These reports do prioritize the challenges faced (and even occasionaly add a few extra goals, like mine action in Cambodia) because as you rightly note a top-down global ranking would be inappropriate.

I don't mean to criticize CC. I think it is a great addition to our evolving knowledge of how we build a better world. But the reality is that only by creating real targets like the MDGs will progress be made. And while we may 'fail' in 2015, I hope people will take a moment recognize how many millions have been lifted out of abject poverty - before getting back to the business of working with those not yet given a helping hand onto their feet.

Technically, when the DAC members came up with Goals 1-7 and "birthed" the MDGs, the targets were to be measured on a regional basis, except Goal 2, which is set for achievement in every country, as you point out. The MDGs have acquired such resonance across constituency groups that they have become a framework to measure against in every country. And within some countries there is a strong push to go beyond national aggregates and to look at MDG achievement based on income, rural vs. urban populations, vulnerable groups etc. Ultimately that's a good thing to push governments to go farther they want to or think they can. If a government does all it can and doesn't meet its target because it started from such a low place or because it didn't get enough quality aid, or because it couldn't jumpstart its economy due to unfair trade rules, then it would be a problem to jump on that government for failing to meet the MDGs.

But if we give up on the MDGs, we give in to governments- rich and poor- who want an excuse to not take all the actions needed to meet the Goals. If the existence of the Goals- and citizen campaigns to achieve and exceed them- is pressuring governments to deliver more in areas like rural development, basic health and education, clean water and women's empowerment, then the MDGs are totally worthwhile even if they aren't met in every country. And if we can achieve significantly accelerated progress, I find it hard to believe that we won't celebrate that success and have a constituency to demand further gains.

It is a mistake to think that the MDG targets, and whether they are achieved or not, evaluates the impact of the MDGs.

Getting all poor countries to incorporate MDGs in their planning instruments is a huge political and developmental achievement; all governments now have to take seriously how they prioritize health, eduaction etc. over other spenditures that may better benefit the elite.

Our focus should be on what we can do to make governments in weak and corrupt states failing the MDGs have well functioning institutions that can put their country back on track. Throwing the MDGs out because many countries do not meet the targets is not a solution, but leaves us with one less instrument to work with.

Better is to give the poor failing states failing MDG targets another 5-10 years, while giving fame and glory to those countries who achieves them. Do not underestimate the domestic political effects of the Human Development Index ranking, and similar global instruments.

In response to my critique that the MDGs are monolithic, David points out that many countries have produced "country-level" MDG reports. Read several of those reports, and tell me if in general you find them to be well adapted to country circumstances. In Senegal's report, for example, page 14 says that the "tendance" (trend) in Senegal is toward 1) 100% gross primary enrollment by 2015 and 2) 100% literacy among young adults by 2015. This is in a country where half of young adults are illiterate and gross primary enrollment is only 70%.

How will Senegal make those titanic leaps in slightly more than eight years? The document provides no plan at all, except to say that a lot of new schools will need to be built, teachers hired, and textbooks purchased. Such inputs are indisputably not the only constraint to getting African kids into school, as the careful research of Deon Filmer (among others) reveals. So yes, David, "country level" MDG reports exist, but many of them are packed with utopian goals unreflectively imported from New York, not adapted to country circumstances in a meaningful way.

And separately from that, when 2015 comes, will people focus on those country-level reports or will people focus on the stated MDGs -- like universal primary completion -- which Senegal will doubtlessly "fail" to reach? 2015 will be yet another occasion to declare development a "failure" in countries like Senegal, not because President Wade and his predecessors haven't made great strides there -- they have, and should be lauded for it -- but because the MDGs set targets Senegal could never hope to reach.