rainbow500
The PelicanWeb's Journal of Sustainable Development

Research Digest on Integral Human Development,
Solidarity, Sustainability, and Related Global Issues

Vol. 6, No. 4, April 2010
Luis T. Gutierrez, Editor

Home Page

pclogo

HOME

LOGO

MISSION

RESEARCH

LINKS

NEWS

TOOLS

LETTERS

LETTERS

DOWNLOADS

ARCHIVE

CALL FOR PAPERS

RELATED GLOBAL ISSUES


INVITED ARTICLE


The Impact and Design of the MDGs:
Some Reflections

Richard Manning
Vice Chair of the Replenishment of the
Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tubercolosis, and Malaria

This article was originally published by the
International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG)
Poverty Practice, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP
Esplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco O, 7º andar
70052-900 Brasilia, DF, Brazil

This article is the second of a series published as
IPC-IG Poverty in Focus, Number 19, January 2010
REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION

The Global Fund for AIDS, Tubercolosis and Malaria is a particularly clear example of a funding agency where the MDGs (specifically MDGs 4, 5 and 6) are central to the agency’s DNA.

There can be no doubt that the MDGs have become highly influential, at least at the level of international discourse about development. Significant resources are allocated to tracking them; the UN leads the production of annual reports about them, convenes regular summit sessions about them, and sponsors an ongoing “Millennium Campaign”; the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) prepare an annual “Global Monitoring Report” about them; and no G8 summit is complete without some reference to them.

In 2010 there will be a special summit session of the UN General Assembly to review the advances to date, and there will be much discussion of a “big push” to secure the maximum progress on the various MDGs by 2015.

How Have the MDGs Affected Policy?

Most individual donor governments, and the European Union (EU) collectively, have made specific and regular use of the MDGs in domestic dialogue about the purpose and effectiveness of development spending. Most international agencies have also paid much attention to progress or the lack of it relative to the MDGs, particularly where the agency has a mandate closely related to one or more of them. The Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria is a particularly clear example of a funding agency to which the MDGs (specifically MDGs 4, 5 and 6) are central.

A study of 21 members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) by Sakiko Fukuda-Parr (2008), however, points out that donors’ policy documents typically pay much attention to issues not explicitly covered in the MDGs, notably in the areas of promoting peace, security and human rights. These matters are covered by the Millennium Declaration, but they are not specifically addressed by the MDGs as such. Nonetheless, there is still a great deal of coherence between donor policy statements and the MDGs.

As to whether the existence of the MDGs has affected resource allocation by donors, for the reasons given above it is not possible to give an unambiguous answer. Undoubtedly the proportion of aid going to the productive sector (not directly covered by the MDGs) has fallen, and the proportion to social sectors (well covered by the MDGs) has risen.

Perhaps the MDGs’ most far-reaching and positive influence on donors—though one that is hard to measure—has been in strengthening the view that if support for aid is to be sustained, measurable progress must be shown in areas that the public in donor countries views as desirable. This shift in perception is by no means universal, and knowledge of the MDGs in donor countries is still not widespread, but arguably it has made it harder for governments to “sell” development aid that does not contribute to real development progress.

Sakiko Fukuda Parr’s study also examined 22 Poverty Reduction Strategies, covering 17 less developed countries, two other low-income countries and three lower middle-income countries. She found that almost all stated a commitment to the MDGs, but that the focus was quite selective. In some respects, this mirrored the approach of the donors (e.g., serious attention to social sector spending but little attention to hunger and nutrition, decent work, or technology transfer). In other respects it differed significantly (a greater focus on economic growth, little attention to democracy, freedom of the media or human rights).

The UNDP conducted its own survey of progress towards the MDGs in 30 countries in 2009. This revealed a wide variety of situations: some countries (generally the better off, such as Bahrain) made virtually no use of the MDGs as a way of measuring or motivating progress, but a large number had integrated the MDGs (or often a locally-adapted version) into their own development planning.

Indeed, the “customisation” of the MDGs is a notable feature brought out by the study. Of the 30 countries, 10 had added or modified goals. Thus, for example, Albania, Iraq and Mongolia had added a goal on good governance and/or fighting corruption. Armenia, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan had included eight or nine years education for all children as a modification of Goal 2. And Colombia and Mongolia had added relevant national infectious diseases to Goal 6. Fifteen countries had added, expanded or modified targets, and no fewer than 25 had added, expanded or modified indicators, for example to reflect national poverty lines. Such steps imply at least a measure of local ownership of the MDGs among a wide variety of countries.

What Lessons Might Be Drawn?

The MDGs appear to have been more influential than most other attempts at international target-setting in the field of development, at least at the level of international discourse. After 2015, any similar set of indicators should address issues such as rights, inequality and connectivity—and perhaps wider global public goods. Sets of indicators such as the MDGs should not be oversold as some sort of magic bullet to accelerate the achievement of desirable targets. All such achievements require hard work, commitment, and financial and human resources. But they can affect how people think, and over time that influence may affect how people and institutions behave.

REFERENCES

Fukuda-Parr, S. (2008). ‘Are the MDGs Priority in Development Strategies and Aid Programmes? Only Few Are!’ IPC-IG Working Paper 48. Brasilia. International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.

Manning, R. (2010). ‘The Impact and Design of the MDGs: Some Reflections’, IDS Bulletin 41 (1): 7-14.

UNDP (2009). Beyond the Midpoint: Accelerating Support for MDG Achievements. New York, United Nations Development Programme.

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in IPC-IG publications are the authors’ and not necessarily those of the UNDP or the Government of Brazil. Rights and Permissions – All rights reserved.

The text and data in this publication may be reproduced as long as written permission is obtained from IPC-IG and the source is cited. Reproductions for commercial purposes are forbidden.

Copyright © 2010 International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG)


Page 1      Page 2      Page 3      Page 4      Page 5

Supplement 1      Supplement 2

PelicanWeb Home Page


There can be no doubt that the MDGs have become highly influential at least at the level of international discourse about development.

The Millennium Development Goals appear to have been more influential than most other attempts at international target-setting in the field of development, at least at the level of international discourse.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Richard Manning is Vice Chair of the Replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tubercolosis, and Malaria.

The author may be contacted via IPC-IG

RELATED WEB SITES:

International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG)

ActionAid International

United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

UNDP Millennium Development Goals

UNESCO Education for Sustainable Development

Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tubercolosis, and Malaria

"Cry out as if you had a million voices.
It is silence that kills the world."


St. Catherine of Siena, 1347-1380

GROUP COMMANDS AND WEBSITES

Write to the Editor
Send email to Subscribe
Send email to Unsubscribe
Link to the Google Groups Website
Link to the Home Page

CREATIVE
COMMONS
LICENSE

Creative Commons License

Page 5      

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

[groups_small]

Subscribe to the
"PelicanWeb's Journal of
Integral Human Development"

via the Solidarity-Sustainability Group

Enter your email address: