Skip to content

Ten years into the Millennium Development Goals: another tipping point?

9 June 2010

Michael HubbardMichael Hubbard is Reader in Development Economics and a specialist in public economic management, international aid management, and agriculture policy reform. In this blog post, he comments on the mood in the run up to the Millennium Development Goals summit, 20-22 September in New York

No one predicted collapse of the Soviet Union, global freeze in bank credit from sub-prime mortgage defaults, or loss of confidence in the Euro through misgovernment in Greece.  Similarly unpredicted was how a focus on poverty reduction in the mid-1990s would produce probably the biggest shift in development ideas and effort that has occurred since the post-World War 2 era: the time when the World Bank and IMF were formed, substantial money was invested in impoverished colonies for the first time and decolonisation began.

It produced a concerted attempt via the Millennium Development Goals to specify multiple poverty reduction targets, remove aid from the grasp of political and commercial interests and improve governance — all with the main purpose of poverty reduction.

But ten years on is a less confident time in donor countries.  There are moves to re-harness development policy to foreign policy, and donor agencies face increased demands to show voters that they are getting value from their aid.  Are we at another tipping point which will deliver development cooperation back to where it was twenty years ago, with donors unabashedly promoting their own interests through their aid?  Perhaps abetted by the rise of new donors who seem to do just that?

That scenario is unlikely because the first decade of the MDGs, for all their shortcomings, has built a momentum which will be hard to stop:

Newly born baby Michelle, Sindo District Hospital, Nyanza, KenyaPhoto courtesy DFID

Newborn baby Michelle, Sindo District Hospital, Nyanza, Kenya

First, the MDGs have achieved much, notably in health and education in Africa and more widely, particularly reduced child mortality and increased primary school enrolment. (UN Millenium Development Goals Report 2009)

Second, poverty reduction is far from worn out as a rallying cry.  Its moral foundation is secure:  providing opportunity to those deprived of it (poverty reduction by another name) is the moral winner in debates about fairness and justice (e.g. Rawls, Nozick, Sen).    As aid coordination shifts increasingly to the G20 level (whether under a broadened DAC or under the UN) poverty reduction is likely to remain the common ground on which a wider coalition can be built, and it is in terms of enhancing and protecting vulnerable people’s livelihoods that benefits from raising economic growth and combating climate change will mainly be stated.

Third, efforts to direct aid to where it is most needed have increased in this first decade of the MDGs, whether or not one regards the ‘fragile state’ label as useful.  So too have efforts to tackle stubborn inefficiencies in aid design and delivery, notably through the Paris Declaration and its follow up.  Reducing donor congestion and disruptive unilateral behaviour probably awaits more economic power in individual recipient countries; but the problem is increasingly highlighted. Bringing aid data out of the shadows into standardised accounts has begun — if there can be standardised national income accounts why not aid accounts?

In sum, the efforts of the first MDG decade are not about to be reversed.  If there is a will for change it is for experimentation to make aid management more equal to the challenge of the MDGs.  Donor statements that aid will be ring fenced from budget cuts suggest there is no mood for surrender and return to old ways.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. 10 June 2010 05:13

    Nice piece. I agree there is clearly momentum in support of the MDGs from the G7 , however in this economic climate donor-fatigue is at an all time high (especially in Europe). And with the near collapse of the euro, countries are going to continue to focus on their domestic economies and perhaps neglect their external aid commitments. Italy, for example, is a country that comes to mind in this regard.

    But as you suggest aid design and delivery must become more transparent and streamlined in order for the MDGs to succeed. In addition I think that there needs to be a concerted effort to push for debt cancellation (since it had a proven track record in the war against poverty), and a restructuring of global economic policies which keep many developing countries in a cycle of poverty.

  2. Robert permalink
    12 June 2010 11:23

    I got excited when I read, “Are we at another tipping point which will deliver development cooperation back to where it was twenty years ago, with donors unabashedly promoting their own interests through their aid?”


    The US 3D approach.

    China, China, China!

    Australia (from AusAid’s mission statement): “The aim of the program is to assist developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia’s national interest” (

    “in line with Australia’s national interests” is a far cry from say: “make aid management more equal to (more in line with) the challenge of the MDGs”.

    Neumayer (2005) identified several common variables in ODA bias, none of which addressed a falling in line with principles of the MDGs. Although guess what did appear on his list…

    The level of GDP of recipient countries;
    the geographic proximity of recipient country to donor, in order to “maintain a regional sphere of influence” (p.401)–the EU actually measures the distance to Brussels, and the US measures to Washington;
    the % of protestant and Catholics–as a proxy of “cultural similarity” (p.402);
    the amount of trade between the donor and recipient country;
    and converging political view points (judged on specific proxy indicators).

    I would say it’s an open and close case for unabashed promotion of donor’s own interests.


    Neumayer, E. (2005) Is the Allocation of Food Aid Free from Donor Interest Bias? Journal of Development Studies, 41 (3): 394-411

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: