In September 2000, the member nations of the United Nations unanimously adopted the Millennium Declaration (http://www.un.org/millennium/). This was an inspiring act by the United Nations, and confirmation that issues of poverty could not be denied or sidelined much longer. A series of goals focusing on 8 critical areas were unveiled and targets where set that must be achieved by the year 2015 if the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are to be attained. The challenge is clear and has been put before the world.
With ten years left, it seems as though these goals will be missed unless incredible efforts are made to meet them, or unless the goal posts are shifted. The world cannot afford to fail in addressing the global poverty. The poorest people on the planet cannot do an evaluation exercise in 2016 looking back at the missed opportunities and putting together 200 pages evaluation documents with recommendations for the next exercise to eradicate poverty and its associated ills.
I frankly believe that despite all the intentions, strategies and investments, the MDGs and targets CANNOT be met. In this brief paper, I will look at what to me are three key reasons why they cannot be met and I will also highlight three major shifts in perspective that are needed if global efforts to end poverty are to be met.
1. The 15-year timeline is unrealistic
It has taken hundreds of years to establish current economic and political systems. We cannot disconnect the current levels of poverty with the systems that have created them. Together with these systems come ways of living and cultures that will need to shift radically if the MDGs are to be achieved. The changes and shifts cannot simply be economic. There are some real trade offs in terms of lifestyles. If economics is about matching unlimited wants with limited resources, the definition of those wants need to change, because the resources we need to end poverty are very much limited. This means changing production and consumption patterns amongst other things.
Additionally, the current global economic system is extremely inequitable. There is no way economic prosperity can attained if the systems that have created it do not shift as well. Given the environment in which the global economic system is managed, overhauling it in 15 years is almost an impossibility. Whilst the known how, the technology, the finances and knowledge to achieve the MDGs in this present timeline exist, overcoming the vested interests that defend and sustain this system without causing destructive revolution is perhaps a greater challenge that ending poverty itself.
Why do we always have to give ourselves goals and targets that make us feel good about ourselves? It is nice to believe that the world will be a different place, half-a paradise in 15 years, which is within the lifetime of most of us. It is inspiring to think that this is possible. If we are honest with ourselves, achieving the goals laid out in the MDGs will take much more time than 15 years. For example, building the capacities of African countries alone to be able to reduce the poverty of their people by half and to sustain those levels whilst making greater gains in other development areas is a multi-year project in itself. Perhaps a 30-year project. Think of political and institutional reform, investment in basic healthcare, education and infrastructure as well and developing adaptive cultures to this growth and change. 15 years to change the behavior of large, diverse groups is extremely ambitious. It’s nearly unrealistic!
Perhaps we should re-visit the question of the MDGs timeline. Let us think beyond ourselves and the need to be present at the finish line to accept the medals of achievement. How much time do we really need to achieve those goals in the most sustainable way possible?
2. Levels of Investment
Large amounts of money are needed to make the MDGs a reality. Given current levels of financing and the existing financing structures, especially those of bilateral and multilateral bodies and the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budgets of ‘developed’ nation budgets, there is insufficient money to meet the needs of the MDGs.
Take for example, the United States government’s ODA budget. The US government in 2002 had an ODA budget of US$12.9 billion (an 11.6% increase from previous years due to the response to the September 11 attacks). That is the largest dollar figure of ODA of any country in the world, but the lowest as a percentage of the USA’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Income (Source: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp). If you pull in the amounts given my all donor countries, which are roughly 22 nations that belong to a committee of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD – a gathering of the world’s richest nations), their combined ODA total is not too impressive either relative to the global need. In 2000, the combined total of ODA form OECDs Development Assistance Committee members was US$53.7 billion (Source: http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2087449_1_1_1_1,00.html).
These are large sums of money, which usually come with strings attached that see parts of that money ploughed back into the economies of the contributing countries, reducing the dollar for dollar impact that the figures portray. However, a lot more money is needed to make a significant dent on the 8 MDG focal areas. A lot of capacity in distributing and spending that money is also required, which is a process that alone would take up a good chunk of the 15 year timeline (back to point #1). Large sums of money also require adequate accountability, which is an added cost, and the capacity to effectively be accountable.
Privately, the US gives over US$34 billion a year (Source: www.globalissues.org), of which US$18 billion is in remittances from people in the US to ‘developing’ countries. That would make the US’s global contribution annually around US$50 billion dollars.
Zambia in 2003 had a proposed national budget of about US$1.56 billion dollars, roughly 36% of its GDP (Source: http://www.thezambian.com/business/budget2003.aspx). Zambia is considered to be one of the world’s “Least Developed Countries.” Zambia’s needs therefore, to be at the level of the MDGs are huge and require that its budget be significantly larger that US$1.5 billion dollars. If you were to then add the needs of all 54 African countries, and the developing countries of Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, the levels of investment made by the donor community fall far short.
An interesting observation in doing my [shallow] research was that there are many quotes and declarations of how much money should be given to address poverty, but there is no easily available information as to how much money is actually needed. What are these levels of financing based on? For all we know, 0.7% could actually still fall way short of the actual development needs of many countries.
If levels of development spending are to have an impact, they need to be significantly increased, together with a focus on increasing the capacities for these dollars to have meaningful impacts.
3. Political will and the impact of the political environments on the performance of governments
The MDGs are a political initiative and require high levels of government commitment and political will to succeed. In the first 5 years of the MDG initiative, governments have changed repeatedly with many signatories of the MDGs pact now out of power. Although governments are bound to the MDGs and not political parties, differing levels of commitment will come with differing governments.
Another thing to take into consideration is how governments operate. Their priorities are determined by political events in their countries. Governments need to win elections, and referring to international agreements doesn’t always get people re-elected. In short, the political environment in many countries can be a deterrent to meeting political goals.
Take for example, the United States. When the Millennium Declaration was signed, Bill Clinton was president. He was elected as a member of the Democratic Party, which is generally friendlier towards the U.N than the Republican Party of his successor, George W. Bush. The Republicans have been rather hostile towards the U.N and have very differing approaches and interests to the international agenda. This is very likely to affect the contribution and participation of the US to meeting commitments like those of the MDGs. The same can be said of numerous countries worldwide.
Are such factors and the political environment and political will considered when hammering out 15-year development programs and targets? The MDGs are certainly presented with an underlying assumption that the will be an accommodating political environment for their implementation over 15 years, which is of course not true. Currently, issues such as terrorism and security (which are intricately connected to development and poverty) are taking up all the oxygen in the global development room.
These are but three challenges that I see in implementing the MDGs. Addressing the issues of poverty, I feel, require that we take a deep look into some areas that I feel the MDGs either do not address at all, or do not pay significant attention to. It requires looking beyond numbers and economic figures and being equally daring in making difficult changes to the systems we live in and how they operate. I see three main areas that require urgent global attention if the MDGs are to be achieved—and these three areas, in my view, will take over 15 years to address, but could lead to more sustainable results and longer terms positive results. Making these changes would create greater tensions within government and economic circles, but that is where the challenge of change emerges—how much are you willing to risk to actually make a difference? It’s never easy!
1. Re-engineering the economic and political systems that the world is run on
The world currently is running a very unstable operating system. The economic approach of western style capitalism is based on an underlying assumption that economic growth leads to lasting and favorable prosperity. This philosophy is very much evident in the praise been given to the Chinese miracle that has seen growth levels of around 10% of GDP since 1978 when major reforms were done to its economy. If such growth was to be rolled out globally, the consequences on the planet would be devastating as there are not enough resources on the planet to meet needs demanded at those levels (see http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-03.htm). In other words, if every planet achieved levels of consumption and ‘development’ as high as most developed countries, the world would move in the opposite direction to where the MDGs are trying to take us.
The question therefore is, how do we reform the economic and political systems that run the world so achieve the interconnected goals of economic development, sustainable development and environmental conservation? Questions that revolve around these issues are probably the world’s most pressing ones and require the most honest, open dialogue about creating solutions that work. Failure to address these issues will lead to cycles of unrest, economic upheaval and struggles for power and dominance unlike anything we have seen at a global level.
It is therefore really urgent to re-engineer these systems. Initiatives like the Earth Charter (see www.earthcharter.org) provide promising frameworks that can be used to develop different, more sustainable systems. But there has to be a real shift from dialogue to action on these issues. We need committed political and economic ‘engineers’ or leaders to help create this transformation with the greatest urgency.
2. More trade (as opposed to aid) and a focus on economic development
It may seem as though this point is contradictory to my last statement, but actually, the two work together. Most people are poor because they are not capable of participation in economic activities that generate a livelihood. Increase access to global trade can reduce the number of people living in poverty without relying on international aid as a primary tool. But this increased trade will need to be under a system that promotes equitable trade and sustainable development.
A major opportunity lies in agriculture. Involving more people from developing countries in a global food system that also promotes equitable and sustainable agriculture is something that is very possible and that could have a great impact on reducing poverty. Farmers in the United States and Europe receive enormous subsidies that keep them in business and provide unfair competition against farmers elsewhere, directly going against the aims of the MDGs.
The global economy has to integrate the economies of poorer countries and unnecessary barriers to trade must be removed. Aid alone will not achieve poverty reduction. It fosters a dependency that reduces the ability of developing nations to be masters of their own development. Perhaps a strategy should be included in the framework of the MDGs that makes increasing sustainable trade one of the main pillars of the goals. Trade is already included as one of the goals, but I would like to see if get more emphasis because of the potential it has for creating employment and livelihood opportunities in the world’s poorest communities.
3. Invest in people, especially youth
Poverty affects people more than anything else. In creating new systems and promoting trade and increasing investments and international aid, people must be at the center of these movements. More can be done to improve the ability of people to address their developmental challenges.
Young people make up over 50% of the world’s population, and increasing population growth means that there will be increases in the number of youth in the world. The current disengagement of youth at large in addressing development challenges, and the failure of the world’s leading institutions and bodies as well as governments and other organizations to harness the energies and resourcefulness of youth is a big deterrent to achieving development goals. Additionally, the unemployment of youth is critical. Gainfully employed, productive youth add tremendous value to their communities. If a certain percentage of development dollars were channeled directly to youth development, it would be interesting to see the impact this would have on levels of poverty in areas where such a policy was implemented.
The MDGs must be applauded for their commitment and reference to education. This is a clear example of how human-investment can be undertaken. Giving people the skills and capacities to be productive and to participate in many affairs affecting their lives. A different debate can be held on the types of education and what education should really achieve. That’s a separate conversation altogether. But as a starting premise, it is really important to focus on developing people if we are to reduce poverty and achieve other MDGs at all.
Conclusion
2015 is fast approaching. I doubt very much that given current trends, systems and approaches, that the world will be a better place then with half of its population living above the poverty line. The forces creating those cruel, inhuman conditions are too great and merit enormous attention before they can be transformed. However, ending poverty is an attainable goal. It’s a real goal that must be reached and doing so, as has been acknowledged by everyone involved in this struggle, will never be easy. Changing our approach to ending poverty can however help to make this objective more reachable, and put in place ways of being that continue to assist in reducing poverty, in line with global efforts at all levels.
« return.