Blog
The MDGs: ‘M’ for Misunderstood?

by Jan Vandemoortele

The Millennium Development Goals recently marked their fifth anniversary. They have generated tremendous support, globally as well as in many individual countries. However, several misunderstandings are jeopardizing their future. A quick historical recount of their genesis is in order. It is likely to challenge received wisdom, but as the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith said, ‘The conventional view only serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking’.

Origin

Global target setting became common practice in the 1990s. It started in 1990 in New York with the children’s summit and in Jomtien (Thailand) with the education summit. World summits and international conferences subsequently moved to Rio de Janeiro for the earth summit (1992), to Cairo for the population conference (1994), to Copenhagen for the social summit (1995), to Beijing for the women’s conference (1995), and to several other locations. In 2000, the Millennium Summit synthesized the previously agreed global goals and targets in a document called the ‘Millennium Declaration’.

Such documents tend to have a short shelf-life. Hence, a UN inter-agency group extracted the key commitments with a view to keeping them in the spotlight beyond the shelf-life of the Millennium Declaration. The targets that came to be known as the ‘MDGs’ were selected on the basis of two criteria: (i) whether internationally agreed indicators existed for measuring progress and (ii) whether reasonably good data were available to document global trends. The MDGs with their 8 goals, 18 targets and 48 indicators were endorsed by the UN General Assembly in late 2001.

Power of quantification

They have gained widespread attention since, in large part because of their relative simplicity and their measurability. Not only do they embody an internationally agreed agenda for human development, they also represent a measurable agenda.

The MDGs aim to reduce, on a global scale, hunger by one-half, infant and child mortality by two-thirds, and maternal mortality by three-quarters. The obvious question that arises is: Why are these targets not the same? Why not cut everything by threequarters?

The simple answer is that most of the global MDG targets are based on global historical trends. They were set on the premise that progress, as observed at the global level over the previous 25 years, will continue for the next 25 years—the period from 1990 to 2015. Thus, the MDGs are essentially an extrapolation of global trends of the 1970s and 1980s and projected forward till 2015.

Global versus local targets

Thus, assessing whether progress is ‘on track’ for meeting the 2015 targets can only be done at the global level. It cannot be done for any specific region or particular country because the quantitative targets were set in line with global trends, not on the basis of historical trends for any particular regional or specific country.

It is erroneous, for instance, to lament that sub-Saharan Africa will not meet the MDGs. These targets were not set specifically for that region. Rather, concern should be raised about Asia’s performance, which is lagging behind its own historical trends.

The content of the MDGs applies universally because they reflect fundamental social and economic rights. But their quantitative dimensions should not apply uniformly to all countries or regions. 

World leaders agreed on a set of global targets on the understanding that aggregate trends in the recent past made them feasible for the near future at the global level but not necessarily in each and every country. The spirit of the Millennium Declaration was not to impose a ‘one-size-fits-all’ benchmark for appraising and comparing country performance, regardless of their historical background, natural endowments and particular challenges.

MDG yardstick

Yet, it is common to misinterpret the MDGs as a uniform yardstick. Statements such as ‘55 countries are off track to reach this target’ or ‘sub-Saharan Africa will reach that target by 2076’ exemplify this misunderstanding. The correct yardstick is not whether a country or a region is on track for meeting the global targets by 2015. Rather, it is whether the country or region is maintaining, as a minimum, the same pace of progress it achieved in the recent past.

If all countries were to keep up their specific rate of progress, the world would meet the 2015 targets—even though many countries would not reach several global targets.

The misinterpretation of the MDGs is not only an academic matter; it has tangible consequences. Nothing is more disempowering than to be called a poor performer when one is doing a perfectly respectable job. The real enemies of the global anti-poverty agenda are pessimism, scepticism, and cynicism. A ‘one-size-fits-all’ interpretation of the MDGs is likely to add to such perceptions because they will inevitably condemn more than half of the countries to the category of ‘poor’ performers— thereby undermining the support for the global targets among politicians and the public at large.

Some even argue that the allocation of official development assistance and debt relief should be based on the country’s performance as measured against the global MDGs. Such use of the global targets would not only be inappropriate, it could also be irresponsible; as it would deny the basic fact that individual countries face very specific challenges in fostering human development.

For instance, a comparison of Malaysia’s and Malawi’s performance vis-à-vis the global MDGs would yield more aid and debt relief for the former. But such comparison would be unfair as it would ignore that Malawi is landlocked, that it faces high incidence of malaria and HIV, that it is endowed with few natural resources, and that its soil productivity is low.

Since the global targets assume the continuation of the same progress as in the recent past, some see the MDGs as ‘minimum’ development goals. However, the targets are extrapolated from the global trends of the 1970s and 1980s; when there was no HIV and Aids. The fact that the Aids pandemic is still expanding makes the MDGs quite ambitious at the global level.

At the country level, several of the MDGs are beyond reach. Without a miracle, countries with high HIV prevalence cannot possibly meet the global targets by 2015. Categorizing them all as ‘failures’ while several are vigorously trying to stem the Aids pandemic would be both unfair and unhelpful.

Making sense at the country level

Before dismissing the MDGs as targets that are ‘easily set but never met’, there are four practical steps that can be taken to make sense of the MDGs at the country level. The first two are essentially political in nature; the latter two are more technical.

First, the global MDG targets must be tailored to make them contextsensitive—which is essential for generating a sense of national ownership. Global targets are meant to encourage countries to strive for accelerated progress. Their applicability, however, can only be tested and judged against what is realistically achievable under country-specific circumstances. To be meaningful, national targets require adaptation; not a mindless adoption of global targets. 

Viet Nam set its own ‘VDGs’ (Viet Nam Development Goals) that are more ambitious than the global MDGs. On the other hand, Cambodia’s ‘CDGs’ are less ambitious than the global ones. No stigma should be attached with setting national targets that are less ambitious then the MDGs.

Second, intermediate targets are essential for political accountability. The MDGs must be linked to the political agenda of today’s government. If the onus for achieving the targets does not fall on the current government, the lofty goals are unlikely, by themselves, to shape policy reforms and action plan because the deadline will not occur on its watch. Hence, intermediate targets are needed to sustain and solidify the political commitment to a quantifiable and time-bound agenda for human development.

Third, intermediate targets must be translated into actionable propositions and short-term reforms. Actions will range from immunising children to iodising salt, training teachers and building schools, drilling boreholes and planting trees, treating Aids patients and distributing bed nets, enforcing laws against gender discrimination and child labour, abolishing user fees for primary education and basic health care, and some economic reforms such as progressive taxation, restructuring budgetary spending in favour of the poor, and sequencing home-grown financial and trade policies.​

Finally, the fourth step is to cost these programmes and policies to inform the national budget and aid allocations. The last step will ensure that the national budget adequately reflects the tailored targets—a link that is often missing in practice. Given the methodological and data weaknesses, it would be ill-advised to estimate the costs of the MDG targets over an extended period of time. The longer the time horizon, the less reliable they become; with each additional year lessening their accuracy. MDG costing will only yield results that have a certain degree of accuracy when done within a 2-3 year timeframe.​

In short, global targets such as the MDGs have their place but they also have to be kept in their place. If the incorrect interpretation persists, a great silence is likely to befall the MDGs as the 2015 deadline draws closer

Jan Vandemoortele is currently UN Resident Coordinator in Pakistan. In 2001, he co-chaired the UN inter-agency group that put the MDGs together.