|
|
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
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Dumisani
I write because I believe in the power of ideas! Thoughts are what have changed the world... Every revolution, every legislation, every act started off as a thought. All thoughts are inspired by other thoughts expressed in song, essays, research, poetry, spoken word, action...
I write because I love. I hope that my writing inspires and informs you as much as the writings of others has done to me in my life.
~dumisani
|
Comments
Damian Profeta | Apr 26th, 2005
Me fascinó la claridad y contundencia del análisis. Coincido plenamente.
Un abrazo, Dumi!
True... Antony Felix O. O. Simbowo | May 4th, 2005
But what are you doing to solve the poverty issue in your own way...Let the truth about unfair global trade, horrendous debts, corruption, misrule and misgovernment etc be told..It would be futile to reduce poverty while some goonic leader somewhere is looting his country's resources, buffoonic rebels are still fighting in DR-Congo, Uganda, Ivory Coast, Colombia....Among other plethora of realities..
Walk the talk..Ideas are powerful..Niccolo Machiavelli agrees with you.
Excellent Analysis Chloe | May 6th, 2005
Your analysis of the current MGD situation is excellent. Well written, as well. I love that you included The Earth Charter as a viable alternative solution to global development.
changing the finance structure Kate Moore Davenport | May 9th, 2005
great stuff!! just have to add that i have come across a growing phenomenon, complimentary currency. check out www.accessfoundation.org
to me this addresses changing those dibilating systems and making a difference with our own lives. your three steps are on!!!
Tahita Khan | May 29th, 2005
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1494543,00.html
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
