Talking about the MDGs
I expect all of you know what the MDGs are: the Millennium Development Goals, signed up to by donor and developing countries alike, as targets for alleviating poverty in the world. For more information go to: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
This blog is to share with you a presentation I made about these goals and taking them forward, at the launch of the mid-term MDG review publication for the Asia region at the UNDP Regional Centre in Colombo. I had been rather hesitant in accepting the invitation because I have always been rather uncomfortable with the MDGs. But I decided to take the bull by the horns and start by explaining why I am saying I am uncomfortable with the MDGs. This in no way denies the fact that the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs served to focus the world’s attention on poverty, and on issues like hunger, infant mortality, education etc. There are many reasons for my discomfort, and several of them have implications for what I would like to see as the way forward.
Explaining by numbers
Firstly, I must warn you that I am a sociologist and a communication specialist, not an economist, statistician or engineer. This means that the power of numbers to “explain” the human phenomena that I have had to deal with in my work has little impact on me. S0 I am uncomfortable with the MDGs in the same way I was/am uncomfortable with GDP as THE measure of a country’s development/progress.
[Incidentally, to digress a little bit, there IS a move initiated by the European Commission, European Parliament, Club of Rome, OECD and WWF to move beyond GDP as a measure: see http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/ and a colleague, unionblack, is having another conversation on the "persuasive power of numbers" on groundviews - see http://www.groundviews.org/2008/01/03/the-persuasive-power-of-numbers-part-2-54-per-cent-of-tamils-live-outside-the-north-and-east/#comments]
Of course I see the usefulness of statistical measures for comparisons, for targeting, for providing easily comprehensible snapshot pictures etc. etc. Without targets, programmes and policies can become rather woolly, so yes, targets are important. But at the end of the day, these statistical measure are just that. Measures and indicators that describe the “outcomes” rather than processes, and I think if we are serious about dealing with poverty we need to go beyond/behind the numbers and ask the question WHY?
Amartya Sen defined poverty as “deprivation of a person’s effective freedom to live the way he or she has reason to want to live” - and I think the MDGs are very useful in that they measure the extent of this deprivation. But the question we must be asking, if we want to address the problem of poverty reduction, is why is he or she so deprived? Who or what is depriving him or her? What are her/his rights? Why are they not being fulfilled? This in a sense is recognising that development is a political process and is about power relationships at the international, national and even household levels.
The numbers themselves
The second source of my discomfort with the MDGs is the statistics themselves. There are three dimensions to this
firstly there is the aggregation of numbers which could mask very severe problems within countries and regions. I am happy to see that this is being recognised and that the progress report on the MDGSs in the Asia region is focusing on inequality, and highlighting the very real differences within countries – between urban and rural areas, and between rich and poor groups within these areas. In fact the report says that in the 1980s the benefits of growth in the region were distributed rather equitably, resulting in reductions to poverty, whereas in the last seventeen years, even though growth proceeded apace, the benefits are now being skewed towards the better off. (p20). It also goes on to describe some of the negative consequences of this, but I think its also important to apply my first question to this scenario and ask WHY? WHY do these inequalities exist?
With regard to the statistics the other point is that we are halfway to 2015, and despite the work that the UNDP and other multilaterals are doing to improve data collection, it seems from the report itself, that there are lots of gaps. Alarmingly, one of the major gaps (identified in the report) is in MDG3 – Promote Gender Equality and empower women. Could this be an indication that women’s issues have not been given priority in ‘indicator development’ or in improving data collection?
The last point about the statistics is the overall picture of countries on and off track. The indicators make a very confused (if very colourful) pattern – so the unevenness of achievement across the Asia region is very apparent, and this kind of raises the question about what sort of driving force the MDGs has been over the last seven years. What is also interesting is the downward red arrows (no progress/regressing) on forest cover and CO2 emissions in our region.
Separate realities
A third source of discomfort with the MDGs, is that the attention to the MDGs (good in itself) seems to happen separate from other development activity that is taking place. There is a tendency for governments to have development plans that deal with transport, energy/power, telecommunications and poverty and livelihood – as if investments in transport, energy/power etc have no impact on poverty or on the livelihood of poor people. In this sense I was pleased to hear what Richard Vokes, the Sri Lanka Country Director of the ADB said at this same event – because I’ve seen the same dichotomy often reflected in ADB officers’ presentations. e.g. “ADB has two objectives, poverty reduction and economic growth. Our transport sector strategy is about economic growth”. I think it is important to make stronger links about the implications of HOW one supports investments that lead to growth, and ensure that these investments have a positive impact on poverty reduction.
The Way Forward
I have then two main messages for those thinking about how to take the MDG discussion forward till 2015 – or more broadly for people interested in dealing with poverty.
Message 1: Start thinking beyond the numbers. Ask the question WHY poverty persists. This would mean addressing some of the structural, institutional causes of poverty. It would mean looking at some of the rights based conventions that already exist within the UN system and working to ensure that the commitments within those conventions are kept.
This blog is to share with you a presentation I made about these goals and taking them forward, at the launch of the mid-term MDG review publication for the Asia region at the UNDP Regional Centre in Colombo. I had been rather hesitant in accepting the invitation because I have always been rather uncomfortable with the MDGs. But I decided to take the bull by the horns and start by explaining why I am saying I am uncomfortable with the MDGs. This in no way denies the fact that the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs served to focus the world’s attention on poverty, and on issues like hunger, infant mortality, education etc. There are many reasons for my discomfort, and several of them have implications for what I would like to see as the way forward.
Explaining by numbers
Firstly, I must warn you that I am a sociologist and a communication specialist, not an economist, statistician or engineer. This means that the power of numbers to “explain” the human phenomena that I have had to deal with in my work has little impact on me. S0 I am uncomfortable with the MDGs in the same way I was/am uncomfortable with GDP as THE measure of a country’s development/progress.
[Incidentally, to digress a little bit, there IS a move initiated by the European Commission, European Parliament, Club of Rome, OECD and WWF to move beyond GDP as a measure: see http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/ and a colleague, unionblack, is having another conversation on the "persuasive power of numbers" on groundviews - see http://www.groundviews.org/2008/01/03/the-persuasive-power-of-numbers-part-2-54-per-cent-of-tamils-live-outside-the-north-and-east/#comments]
Of course I see the usefulness of statistical measures for comparisons, for targeting, for providing easily comprehensible snapshot pictures etc. etc. Without targets, programmes and policies can become rather woolly, so yes, targets are important. But at the end of the day, these statistical measure are just that. Measures and indicators that describe the “outcomes” rather than processes, and I think if we are serious about dealing with poverty we need to go beyond/behind the numbers and ask the question WHY?
Amartya Sen defined poverty as “deprivation of a person’s effective freedom to live the way he or she has reason to want to live” - and I think the MDGs are very useful in that they measure the extent of this deprivation. But the question we must be asking, if we want to address the problem of poverty reduction, is why is he or she so deprived? Who or what is depriving him or her? What are her/his rights? Why are they not being fulfilled? This in a sense is recognising that development is a political process and is about power relationships at the international, national and even household levels.
The numbers themselves
The second source of my discomfort with the MDGs is the statistics themselves. There are three dimensions to this
firstly there is the aggregation of numbers which could mask very severe problems within countries and regions. I am happy to see that this is being recognised and that the progress report on the MDGSs in the Asia region is focusing on inequality, and highlighting the very real differences within countries – between urban and rural areas, and between rich and poor groups within these areas. In fact the report says that in the 1980s the benefits of growth in the region were distributed rather equitably, resulting in reductions to poverty, whereas in the last seventeen years, even though growth proceeded apace, the benefits are now being skewed towards the better off. (p20). It also goes on to describe some of the negative consequences of this, but I think its also important to apply my first question to this scenario and ask WHY? WHY do these inequalities exist?
With regard to the statistics the other point is that we are halfway to 2015, and despite the work that the UNDP and other multilaterals are doing to improve data collection, it seems from the report itself, that there are lots of gaps. Alarmingly, one of the major gaps (identified in the report) is in MDG3 – Promote Gender Equality and empower women. Could this be an indication that women’s issues have not been given priority in ‘indicator development’ or in improving data collection?
The last point about the statistics is the overall picture of countries on and off track. The indicators make a very confused (if very colourful) pattern – so the unevenness of achievement across the Asia region is very apparent, and this kind of raises the question about what sort of driving force the MDGs has been over the last seven years. What is also interesting is the downward red arrows (no progress/regressing) on forest cover and CO2 emissions in our region.
Separate realities
A third source of discomfort with the MDGs, is that the attention to the MDGs (good in itself) seems to happen separate from other development activity that is taking place. There is a tendency for governments to have development plans that deal with transport, energy/power, telecommunications and poverty and livelihood – as if investments in transport, energy/power etc have no impact on poverty or on the livelihood of poor people. In this sense I was pleased to hear what Richard Vokes, the Sri Lanka Country Director of the ADB said at this same event – because I’ve seen the same dichotomy often reflected in ADB officers’ presentations. e.g. “ADB has two objectives, poverty reduction and economic growth. Our transport sector strategy is about economic growth”. I think it is important to make stronger links about the implications of HOW one supports investments that lead to growth, and ensure that these investments have a positive impact on poverty reduction.
The Way Forward
I have then two main messages for those thinking about how to take the MDG discussion forward till 2015 – or more broadly for people interested in dealing with poverty.
Message 1: Start thinking beyond the numbers. Ask the question WHY poverty persists. This would mean addressing some of the structural, institutional causes of poverty. It would mean looking at some of the rights based conventions that already exist within the UN system and working to ensure that the commitments within those conventions are kept.
Message 2: Do not separate the discussion on poverty from the discussion of development in general. They are interlinked. Some of the answers to the WHY question may very well link to HOW we engage in development activity.
P.S. There were lots of congratulatory remarks from members of the audience who seemed to think I was "brave" for speaking my mind. Sara (of the Centre for Policy Alternatives) however thought I'd been too mild - and I am not sure despite the smiles what the UNDP, ADB and other donor representatives thought. Time will tell.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment