What comes after the MDGs?

Gave a presentation on this last week. I’ve blogged before on the strengths and weaknesses of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), but if you mdg-iconswant more,  ‘Promoting Pro-poor Policy after the MDGs’ a recent conference organized by EADI, ActionAid, IDS and others has dozens of background papers (prize for most world-weary title goes to Pietro Garau for ‘The MDGs are modest, poorly defined and unreachable. Full speed ahead’). But this time I was focussing on the different narratives jostling to fill the sought-after slot of what comes next, in advance of the UN High Level Meeting to review progress on the MDGs in September 2010. Here are some prime candidates, in no particular order

The obvious one is – the MDGs. Why not stick with a winning formula that, according to Salil Shetty, director of the UN Millennium Campaign, is getting significant traction in many developing countries? At some point the 2015 deadline would have to be extended or dropped, and maybe the targets deepened, or expanded to include more attention to issues such as equity, eg in access to education, healthcare or water and sanitation.

Social Protection: The increased attention to SP as a result of the crisis has given extra importance to some excellent academic work, eg the Chronic Poverty Report, and some high level support from the ILO and UN system via their proposal for a world-wide ‘Universal Social Floor’. Is this the moment to push for something akin to a minimal, but global, welfare state?

Low Carbon Growth/Transition: anyone who reads this blog knows that this is an issue whose prominence will only grow. Improving global carbon efficiency by x% a year is essential to averting catastrophic global warming, and could be unpacked into a series of sectoral targets (energy, cement, agriculture etc) that would achieve it.

Narratives of the futureAid targets: the MDGs have always had more impact on aid than on development per se, so why not make that explicit and ramp up the international commitments to improve the quality of aid (Paris Declaration, Accra Agenda for Action etc) and while we’re at it, sort out a process for rationalizing the proliferation of vertical funds?

Wellbeing: The spate of international activity on this (see previous blog) could result in a shift to explicitly wellbeing-based indicators for, say 2020

Politics: The issue of ‘states with adjectives’ (fragile, failing, weak, failed etc) has become one of the biggest challenges in development – how could we use the post-2015 international spotlight to promote this agenda?
The problem is that although some of these ideas have some degree of institutional backing, others are just the clever thoughts of sundry policy entrepreneurs, and none have the level of momentum and consensus generated by the series of UN conferences in the 1990s that led to the MDGs. Nor are they likely to, as the danger of talking about plan B too early is that it could sap the momentum behind the MDG effort. Any discussion has to be part of an inevitable, but complex two track strategy of pushing the MDGs while thinking about what comes next. MDGs 2.0 are likely to be messier than the original.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our Privacy Policy.

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


3 Responses to “What comes after the MDGs?”
  1. jnorins

    Duncan, there is little doubt that the MDGs have had some positive impacts for developing countries, but there have also been some challenges in meeting the targets, as you point out. What do you think have been the main contributing factors to the limited success of meeting the MDGs by 2015? In my view, I think it has much to do with lack of coordination among various donor agencies and lack of political will or capacity within developing countries. Thoughts?

  2. Miguel Gorospe

    When I look at the actual Millennium Development Goals, there is one extremely important area not included in them, and it is the area regarding the causes of poverty : Where is the origin of poverty?.

    I find at least four causes that should be analized and included in future MDG, if we want to eliminate poverty, and all of them are connected :
    · Poverty is the consequence of the violation of human wrights (AI )
    · Transnational corporations abuses produce poverty
    · Corruption and lack of accountability of governments cause poverty
    · The financial activities without control, such as speculation and tax haven, cause poverty

    Nevertheless these items scarcely appear in the actual MDG, and if we do not attack the origin of the cancer but the effects, we will never be able to eliminate poverty.

    For the elimination of the climate change, the IPCC was created to work on it during the whole year, and big meetings are held twice a year with high level politicians, and they sign agreements to reduce CO2 emitions. But that is because we are worried about a possible future catastrophe, or at least about suffering the effect of the global warming in our countries and even more our sons, daughters, grandchildren, ect.

    But we are not as worried with the poverty, and we do not have any global panel to sign agreements of the governments to reduce their corruption, or prosecute normal abuses of corporations, etc.. I think that we do not even have a global think tank to eliminate poverty.

    I might be wrong, but bearing in mind the progress of the MDG, unless something like an International Panel to Abolish Poverty or similar is created, this generation will not have the means to be “the first that can end poverty”

    Hope it changes

  3. You’re right but the point is that the people who are in position to decide what happens in the world simply don’t want to address these issues. It pays a lot to make someone poor. They don’t need any kind of panel to address these issues thus there doesn’t exist any. Those people simply prefer to keep the power exclusively to themselves. And they are not going to share it willingly.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.