After 2015: promoting pro poor policy after the MDGs

On June 23, a High Level Policy Forum entitled 'After 2015: Promoting Pro-poor Policy after the MDGs' took place in Brussels. It was organised by DFID, ActionAid, DSA, EADI, and IDS, in partnership with The Broker.

The MDGs have played a major role in focusing development policy since their original incarnation in the 1990s. Some development agencies, notably DFID, have gone as far as to judge their activities on the contribution to achieving the MDGs. What happens when we no longer have the MDGs? How will we promote pro-poor policy after 2015?

The Forum debated these issues and addressed three questions:

• What has been the impact on poverty reduction of the MDG paradigm?
• What are the major global processes shaping development up to 2015 and beyond?
• How can we promote pro-poor policy after the MDGs and amid global changes?

The Broker has published a background article 'Beyond 2015: Rethinking development policy' by Andy Sumner (IDS).

To support the communication and outreach activities of the High Level Policy Forum, Euforic has published a dossier presenting a rich collection of background information plus reports and impressions of the event. We published blog stories, blips, presentations and pictures. You can follow the discussions by subscribing to the High Level Policy Forum newsfeed.

See also Euforic's newsfeeds about the MDGs and the activities of Euforic members

This project is co-financed by the European Union. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission

Towards an MDG plus agenda

At the After 2015 High Level Policy Forum, held in Brussels on June 23 2009, Andrew Steer (DFID) led through the third plenary session, which discussed the question ‘Towards an MDG plus agenda’?

Louis Kasekende, chief economist of the African Development Bank, called for a rethinking of pro-poor policies after the MDGs in Africa. Recent events have shown the fragility of Africa, reflected in the income inequality and the associated social tensions in Kenya or South Africa, the vulnerability to the food crisis, or the reversal of gains in just six months after the financial crisis on the entire continent. Consequently, Mr. Kasekende made three proposals on how to re-design the MDGs:

• Refocusing economic growth: MDG 1 could be split in two goals, namely economic wealth creation and reduced inequality;
• Focus on fragile states: Action may be needed beyond regional effort, because costs for the country and their neighbours are enormous once the country has fallen into fragility like Somalia, DRC or Zimbabwe;
• Broaden ecological sustainability: for example by recognizing the danger of external shocks.
  

Claire Melamed (ActionAid UK) put forward several points, which should be taken into account in the MDG plus agenda:

• Any new narrative has to increase the understanding of the realities of power and gender, which block poverty reduction;
• We need to move to a global welfare state, which is characterized by social justice and redistribution;
• We should stop looking at averages, but move forward to the individual level. Not the average national wealth counts, but we should commit to ensure every individual has access to basic minimum services and income;
• Funding mechanisms should shift from uncertain aid provision to more predictable, redistributive mechanisms, such as innovative taxing;
• The future MDGs should rather be based on rights instead of on charity.

Being the final speaker, Andreas Rechkemmer (UNU-IHDP) put the interrelations between environment and development to the fore. Ecosystems are the precondition for any human well-being, due to the provision of cultural, provisional and regulatory services. Therefore, development, climate change and ecosystem communities have to overcome fragmentation and instead join forces. Essentially, “it is all about resilience building at ecosystem and social system level”, Mr. Rechkemmer argued. We need innovation and social learning to design a transitionary regime which can address the MDG plus, global governance and climate agenda.

See also:

• Euforic dossier on the event
• 'Blips' recorded during the event
• Debate on The Broker
  
• Euforic's newsfeeds on the After 2015 High Level Policy Forum and the MDGs

This project is co-financed by the European Union. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission

Development 'game changers' and the MDG plus agenda

At the After 2015 High Level Policy Forum, held in Brussels on June 23 2009, Jean-Luc Maurer, president of EADI, introduced the second panel which aimed to identify the key meta-processes shaping development (game changers) over the next 10-15 years and their implications on the MDG plus agenda.

Charles Gore (UNCTAD) claimed that the financial crisis is not simply a failure of the financial system, but rooted in the weaknesses and contradictions of the global development paradigm. These shortcomings include market fundamentalism, radical global income inequality, global interdependence without global institutions, the socio-institutional mismatch with the emerging new technological paradigm, and the environmental limits to growth.



So how can the current economic and development downturn be understood? According to Mr. Gore, there are long-wave cycles in development, also known as the Kondratieff cycles, of which one can last between 50-60 years.

• The Kondratieff spring was experienced in the 1950s and 1960s, when national development and economic growth were predominant
• The 1970s coincided with the summer, when economic growth was accompanied by redistribution
• The autumn in the 1980s and 1990s was characterized by global integration and the Washington Consensus .
• Since 2007, we are in the Kondratieff winter period, the focus lying on the Washington Consensus plus poverty reduction. In this downturn period, the MDGs are crucial to fill the gap to the next spring, which can be expected to start in 2012-15.
  

For Mr. Gore the way forward is not to abandon the MDGs, but to develop a new consensus on global sustainable development. We should embed the MDGs in a different policy narrative around productive capacities. MDGs could become social and economic rights which are guaranteed at the global level. In the long-term, they would not be financed through aid, but through innovative global sources of finance, such as taxes on global transactions.



Alfred Nhema of the Pan African Development Center highlighted the African view on the MDGs. Acknowledging that most African countries fail to achieve main MDGs, Mr. Nhema pledges for a coherent assessment of the current situation. How can Africa learn from other regions, such as Asia? Why did the past policies did not push Africa substantially forward on the way to reach the MDGs? Moreover, universal indicators such as the MDGs should be buttressed by locally defined measures. Public involvement from Southern peoples would be essential in the designing of a post-2015 framework.

Richard Morgan (UNICEF) argued that we need to “seriously review or even junk the results-based management approach of the MDGs”, because it is too far away from people’s real life. The basic needs approach and the participatory development approach would be good ways forward.

See also:

• Euforic dossier on the event
• 'Blips' recorded during the event
• Debate on The Broker
  
• Euforic's newsfeeds on the After 2015 High Level Policy Forum and the MDGs

This project is co-financed by the European Union. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission

Impact of the MDG paradigm on poverty reduction

The first panel of the ‘MDGs After 2015’ event in Brussels on June 23, jointly organized by DFID, DSA, EADI, IDS, ActionAid and the Broker, focused on the impact of the MDG paradigm on poverty reduction.

Lawrence Haddad (IDS) introduced the topic by underlining that the preconditions for realizing the MDGs are very different from 2000, the year of their creation. Whereas the millennium year was characterized by growth and stability, our times today are marked by climate change, financial and economic crises, pandemics, and the rise of new economies. This triggers questions on the post-2015 MDG framework: “Should the MDGs focus on outcome or process, should they be global, national or local, should there be less or more accountability, and finally, should there be MDGs or not?”

Salil Shetty (United Nations Millennium Campaign) underlined the achievements of the MDGs from 2000 until 2009. We do not spend enough time on reviewing the successes, although “the MDGs help to make change happen!" Instead of being a 'straight jacket', they are a public good, which can be interpreted differently. However, he acknowledged weaknesses, such as the donor and state-driven and technocratic nature and the ignorance for processes of change and structural causes of poverty. As key challenges, he identified the economic, food and climate crises which create a 'cloud of uncertainties'. Successes have been the weakest in the areas of maternal health and child mortality, and the trade element of MDG 8. The action plan until 2015 should, according to Mr. Shetty, focus on the 'de-aiding' process of the MDGs, move action from the global to the local, and serious reporting.

Enrico Giovannini, the chief statistician of the OECD, clarified that the word ‘statistics’ actually comes from ‘science of the state’. What we need would be 'sotistics, statistics for the society. Further, confronted with multiple crises, he underlined that we need to develop a new narrative which goes beyond mere aid narratives. Equitable and sustainable well-being definitions should be participatory and decided on local levels. “We have to be careful in preparing the repeated game in 2015”, claimed Mr. Giovannini.

Sakiko Fukuda-Parr from the New School University, New York presented her analysis of how the MDGs have influenced policy priorities and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). On the one hand, the MDGs were created as a reaction to the Washington Consensus, instead embracing the idea of inclusive globalization. On the other hand, the strategies of the 22 researched countries focused on the Washington Consensus (liberalization and privatization with little government intervention) plus social investments. In this way, many PRSPs undercut inclusive globalization and counteract the driving motivation of the creation of the MDGs. Despite the lack of impact on policy and the development paradigm, the MDGs did have a huge impact at a normative level. They are a very powerful message, which succeeded to shift international norms, although in a truncated way. Finally, Mrs. Fukuda-Parr underlined that we have to recast the MDG agenda. Most importantly, we have to add a goal on reducing inequality.

See also:

• Euforic dossier on the event
• 'Blips' recorded during the event
• Debate on The Broker
  
• Euforic's newsfeeds on the After 2015 High Level Policy Forum and the MDGs

This project is co-financed by the European Union. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission