The Millennium Development Goals Beyond 2015: Old Frameworks and New Constructs

Abstract

This paper seeks to analyse Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in prospect rather than retrospect. In doing so, it begins with a critical evaluation of their conception and design to focus on limitations that must be addressed. In contemplating the future of MDGs beyond 2015, it suggests that such a framework is necessary but should not be more of the same. Thus, it explores possible options, such as structural flexibility at the national level and cognition of inequality in outcomes, which could provide the foundations of a modified framework or alternative construct. The paper argues that developing countries also need to reformulate policies, redesign strategies and rethink development in their respective national contexts for attainment of the MDGs. In the international context, where the focus has been narrow and the progress has so far been slow in the MDGs, there is need for cooperation among developing countries, through better bargaining and collective action, which provides an opportunity to reshape unfair rules in the world economy that encroach upon policy space so essential for development.

Keywords:

• Economic growth
• Millennium Development Goals
• Developing countries
• Inequality
• Macroeconomic policies

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Gustav Ranis and Jan Vandemoortele for helpful discussion and constructive suggestions on the theme of this essay. I am also grateful to Yilmaz Akyuz, Diana Alarcon, A.K Shiva Kumar, Seeta Prabhu, Rob Vos and Guanghua Wan for valuable comments on presentations at different stages. I would also like to thank two anonymous referees and the Editor of this journal for comments on an earlier draft.

Notes

There were two resolutions in the United Nations in 1970, on the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade, which set out the objective that official development assistance to developing countries should reach a level of 0.7% of GDP of industrialized countries by middle of the decade (United Nations, 1970).

For a discussion on MDGs in historical perspective, see Jolly (2010).

In retrospect, it is clear that turning points in thinking about development during the second half of the twentieth century, which reshaped strategies, and were strongly influenced by history and conjuncture, reinforced by the dominant political ideology of the times. This hypothesis is developed, at some length, elsewhere by the author (Nayyar, 2008b).

There is an extensive literature on the subject that attempts to provide an assessment of progress on MDGs. See, for example, United Nations (2009), UNDP (2010b), ESCAP-ADB-UNDP (2010), and United Nations (2010b). See also Vandemoortele (2010) and Fukuda-Parr and Greenstein (2010). It would mean too much of a digression to enter into a discussion here because the purpose of this paper is somewhat different.

Studies carried out by the United Nations, which review the experience so far, suggest some correctives in the MDGs agenda for the period 2010–2015. See, in particular, UNDP (2010a, 2010b). See also United Nations (2009, 2010), and ESCAP-ADB-UNDP (2010).

For a lucid and critical analysis of this world-view, see Vandemoortele (2010).

For a more detailed discussion on the importance of inequality in the context of MDGs, see Fukuda-Parr (2010) and Vandemoortele and Delamonica (2010).

It has been convincingly argued that the MDGs set the bar too high for countries in sub-Saharan Africa. See, for example, Easterly (2009). See also Vandemoortle and Delamonica (2010, p. 61), who highlight this problem with the MDGs in a pointed manner: ‘… [this] begs the question whether Africa is missing the targets or the world is missing the point.’

There is substance in such critiques. Yet, it must be recognized that the problem arises in part from the definition of poverty in the head-count measure. For any given poverty line, those below are poor and those above are not. If the definition is binary, so is the target.

For a detailed discussion, see Vandemoortele and Delamonica (2010). See also Vandemoortele (2010).

The results of a survey of civil society organizations in developing countries suggest strong support for something like the MDGs (Pollard et al., 2011).

The earliest discussion on social indicators of development is in Baster (1972). This was followed by a focus on meeting basic human needs. See, for instance, Streeten (1981) and Stewart (1985). There is now an extensive literature on possible indicators of human development. See, for example, Fukuda-Parr and Shiva Kumar (2003) and UNDP (2010a).

These correctives and interventions are discussed, at greater length, in Nayyar (2003).

This proposition is developed, at some length, in Nayyar (2007).

The discussion that follows in this paragraph, on rules of the game in the world economy, draws upon earlier work of the author (Nayyar, 2002b, 2003).

For a discussion on the rationale for such a multilateral framework to govern cross-border movements of people, see Nayyar (2002a).

This evidence on the significance of developing countries in the world economy is from Nayyar (2009).

For more detailed evidence on this concentration, see Nayyar (2009).

The implications and consequences of the emerging significance of Brazil, China, India and South Africa in the wider context of the world economy are analysed, at some length, in a recent paper by the author. For a detailed discussion, see Nayyar (2010).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Deepak Nayyar

Deepak Nayyar is Emeritus Professor of Economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India and Distinguished University Professor of Economics at the New School for Social Research, New York, USA