In 2000 every member of the UN signed up to a set of millennium
development goals (MDGs) due to be achieved by 2015. As the deadline
approaches, the targets seem less and less attainable, particularly
in sub-Saharan Africa. The inevitable question is: why have we not
gone further in achieving the MDGs?
A variety of answers have been supplied, all of which have some
validity. Some argue that the goals were too top-down, did not focus enough on
economic development or were simply too ambitious. This debate is
probably premature: the deadline is still three years away and until we have
the full data it is impossible to say which goals were hardest to achieve,
where and why.
However, with the announcement on 13 April that David Cameron is set to
chair a UN committee establishing
a new set of development goals for after 2015 and the upcoming Rio+ summit in
June which is due to decide on a set of sustainable development goals
critically evaluating the MDGs is now essential.
For Cameron,
the focus is likely to be on arranging the goals around economic growth with an
emphasis on private sector involvement. This is worrying.
It would be disingenuous to deny the positive effect economic development has had on the MDG outcomes in China; economic growth can be harnessed to achieve fantastic results. However, in and of itself it does not improve healthcare, provide education or reduce inequality. In many instances, it can exacerbate existing problems or create new ones in these areas - when economic growth is not harnessed for good by an effective government it can mean more for the rich and less for the poor. Case studies demonstrating this have been highlighted in a book called Dying for Growth co-edited by new leader of the World Bank Jim Yong Kim.
Cameron has used his positive move to commit to 0.7% of the UK’s GDP on aid as a stepping stone to enforce his outdated and potentially disastrous view about world development. Unless this focus on economic growth is clearly stipulated to mean only economic growth for all the next set of goals will be worse and not better than the MDGs.
Take a
comparison of two countries for which data is available regarding achievement
of the MDGs: India and Cuba. India has achieved remarkable economic growth in
recent decades while Cuba’s has been more or less stagnant. And yet Cuba
has already achieved three of its MDG targets, being on course to achieve most
of the rest while India
looks set to fail on almost all counts. What is the reason for this difference?
The answer is political
will.
I will leave the last word to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon from the 2011 MDGs report: 'Achieving the [millenium development] goals will require equitable and inclusive economic growth - growth that reaches everyone and that will enable all people, especially the poor and marginalised, to benefit from economic opportunities.'
This article originally appeared in Voices of the 7 Billion
No comments:
Post a Comment