Current and Future Global Development Goals
| Published date | 01 October 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00100.x |
| Date | 01 October 2011 |
| Author | Michael Chibba |
Current and Future Global
Development Goals
Michael Chibba
International Centre for Development Effectiveness and Poverty Reduction
A response to ‘What Next for the Millennium Development Goals?’
Todd Moss*
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs or the goals)
are a set of eight global goals that focus on some of the
main issues in international development, including pov-
erty, hunger, diseases and education. For instance, the
first goal is to reduce poverty and hunger by half by
2015 (with 1990 serving as the base year). In ‘What Next
for the Millennium Development Goals?’, Todd Moss of
the Center for Global Development offers an interesting
perspective and commentary. He focuses on what he
perceives to be the pluses and minuses of the MDGs
and concludes with recommendations for the next gen-
eration of the goals. While the next round of global
development goals is highly likely to occur, Moss’
commentary on the MDGs is especially provocative and
worthy of comment.
To begin with, there are perhaps two key points that
Moss makes that are indisputable: (i) the MDGs have
been a galvanizing force for fundraising; and (ii) country-
based goals must take into account the developmental
context. But the rest of his commentary is arguably
flawed.
The raison d’être of the MDGs, which were conceived
and adopted within a global context of politics, econom-
ics and ideology, is first and foremost to serve as an
advocacy tool for social, economic, institutional and
human development (Millennium Declaration, 2000;
Millennium Project, 2006; UN Summit on the Millennium
Development Goals, 2010). Moss’ commentary fails to
recognize this core and overarching purpose of the
goals.
Second, because of this failure, both his tone and his
focus are misdirected and the commentary engages in
outright cynicism towards the MDGs. As such, he prema-
turely declares the end of the MDGs:
[the MDGs] are coming to an end of their natu-
ral life. Although the official end date is not
until 2015, if your country is not close to reach-
ing the MDGs now, there is simply not much
time to catch up (p. 218).
Unfortunately, this viewpoint is against both the spirit
and the intent of the MDGs. For there is much that can
be accomplished over the next five years – which, specif-
ically, amount to about 30 per cent of the time remain-
ing to (the end of) 2015, given that the goals were
adopted in 2000. As I have elaborated at length else-
where, the current situation does not mean the end of
the MDGs. Instead, an opportunity to move forward by
scaling up action and by pursuing new approaches that
offer real-world solutions is a progressive approach to
take (Chibba, 2011, pp. 86, 88).
An additional flaw in the commentary is that the MDGs
are viewed as ‘not operational’. Au contraire, the MDGs
are toothless unless the MDG campaign receives support
from strong governmental leadership at the country level
and the goals are backed by appropriate plans and pro-
grammes within a context of new development para-
digms (imperative in this post-global financial crisis
period), proven and promising transmission channels, a
critical mass or at least a modicum of operational integ-
rity, adequate budgetary support and an able cadre of
professionals. In Brazil, for example, the Fome Zero (Zero
Hunger) initiative bears testimony to this viewpoint. By
placing poverty, inequality and hunger at the forefront of
governmental action, Fome Zero, which uses a compre-
hensive strategy and programme with diverse but mutu-
ally reinforcing policy and programming objectives, has
been successful in addressing several core developmental
challenges that are part of the MDGs. In recent years,
studies and analysis by a handful of researchers (e.g.
Rocha, 2009) have concluded that effective leadership, a
competent administration, an able cadre of professionals,
adequate budgetary allocations, decentralization and
popular participation can deliver powerful results in the
*Moss, T. (2010) ‘What Next for the Millennium Development
Goals?’, Global Policy, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 218–220.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00024.x
Global Policy Volume 2 . Issue 3 . October 2011
Global Policy (2011) 2:3 doi: 10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00100.x ª2011 London School of Economics and Political Science and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Response to Article
347
To continue reading
Request your trial