BoekWorc in discussie met Jan Vandemoortele over MDGs en SDGs

Op 13 oktober is Jan Vandemoortele te gast bij BoekWorc om te discussiëren over zijn publicaties over de Millenium Development Goals (MDGs).

Het boek dat besproken wordt is “The Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights: Past, Present and Future”. Het is te verkrijgen bij bol.com en in de boekhandel. Ook zal een exemplaar via NEDWORC gekocht worden en beschikbaar zijn.

Jan Vandemoortele is een Vlaamse doctor in de ontwikkelingseconomie, met een langdurige staat van dienst bij de Verenigde Naties, het laatst als UNDP Res Rep in Pakistan. Hij is direct en langdurig betrokken geweest bij het opmaken en installeren van de MDGs en heeft veel gepubliceerd daarover, en ook over de recente evolutie naar de “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs).

 Lees hieronder verder voor enkele van zijn artikelen:
- Three Flaws in the Sustainable Development Goals
- SDGs and 'Leave No One Behind' : Does LNOB really merit so much attention?

BoekWorc bijeenkomst met Jan Vandemoortele, dinsdag 13 oktober 2015 in de Openbare Bibliotheek Amsterdam OBA. Meer over de bijeenkomst lees je op Vereniging Nedworc | BoekWorc

SDGs and 'Leave No One Behind' : does LNOB really merit so much attention?

This post, written by Jan Vandemoortele, co-architect of the Millennium Development Goals and a “critical friend” of the Sustainable Development Goals, is the tenth in our blog series which aims to explore how the Sustainable Development Goals can be drafted to include all social and economic groups.
| also posted on www.post2015.org |

The MDGs report card contains two salient features. First, it shows progress for people but regress for the planet—hence the focus on sustainability. Second, progress for people has seen a systemic bias against the least well-off—hence the mantra ‘Leave No One Behind’ (LNOB). The response to the second feature is less than adequate.

Despite the considerable progress achieved across the world—in terms of monetary and non-monetary indicators—the evidence reveals that people at the bottom of the social ladder have seen little of it. In 2003, two UNICEF colleagues examined in detail data on infant mortality in 24 developing countries. They concluded that, during the 1980s and 1990s, progress for the bottom quintile (i.e. the poorest 20 per cent of the population) was “modest, and in most countries it was not statistically significant”. Several other studies have since confirmed similar findings. The emergence of solid evidence regarding growing gaps in human development has led to the LNOB-slogan. Given the evidence, the motto may look as a no-brainer. But appearances can be deceiving. Although LNOB can hardly been seen as objectionable, the attention being paid to it is not really justified.

While apparently innocuous, LNOB is potentially harmful because it shifts the focus away from the real issue. It focuses the attention on the symptom rather than on the cause. The LNOB-mantra is based on the old worldview that extreme poverty constitutes the biggest global challenge today. In the first paragraph, the preamble to the proposed SDG-text says, “we pledge that no one will be left behind”. The second paragraph goes on by stating the basic premise that, “Eradication of poverty […] remains the greatest challenge facing our world today”. Then, the very first of the 169 targets is to “eradicate, by 2030, extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day”.

This train of thought is internally coherent and sounds quite convincing. But is it correct? Several scholars and stakeholders think it is not. Robert Shiller, Nobel laureate in economics, puts it quite categorically: “The most important problem we are facing now, today, is rising inequality.” Another Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, argues, “We need to begin thinking of inequality not just as a moral issue—which it is—but also as a fundamental economic concern”. The Economist says, “Growing inequality is one of the biggest social, economic and political challenges of our time.” Many other voices could be added to the refrain, including those of Robert Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, Thomas Piketty, Danny Dorling, Tony Atkinson, James Galbraith, Branko Milanovic, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Economic Forum.

LNOB is potentially harmful because it diverts the attention away from extreme inequality, which actually is the greatest challenge the world is facing today. Although the SDGs pay attention to inequality, they do so superfluously and in name only. While goal 10 deals with inequality, target 10.1 is not about inequality but about poverty. It says, “by 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average”. One cannot claim to deal with inequality when the target covers only the bottom 40 per cent of the population. To be genuine about inequality, the target must cover the entire spectrum; not just the poorest one. It is perfectly possible, for instance, for the bottom 40 per cent to see faster income growth than the national average, and yet to witness growing inequality within the country—i.e. through the hollowing out of the middle class.

In short, the attention paid to LNOB is misplaced because it evades the real challenge of our times. The SDGs should focus on the elimination of extreme inequality, which would resolve extreme poverty.

The fact that the SDGs fail to focus on extreme inequality is not a simple oversight. Extreme poverty offer a more convenient scenario for all member states, than to zero in on extreme inequality. For the rich countries, concentrating on poverty and hunger is in line with the still prevailing worldview based on a North/South divide; while developing countries prefer to talk about inequality between countries. Hence, LNOB is little more than a diplomatic construct to hide the fact that member states have succumbed to political expediency, and have failed to lead and act with courage. While not total unwelcome, any irrational exuberance about LNOB is therefore out of place.

Three Flaws in the Sustainable Development Goals

Post written by Jan Vandemoortele | 27 July 2015

Conceptually, the development agenda is becoming more holistic. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) contain more areas of concern. The process has seen more participation and consultation, compared with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The discussions have paid more attention to the link between global goals and national targets. Given that the report card regarding the MDGs can be summarised under the one-liner ‘Progress for people, regress for the planet’, it is absolutely justified to focus on sustainability this time around. All this is commendable, yet the SDGs fall short on three essential aspects.

A focus on poverty rather than equality

First, the SDGs are based on the wrong premise. The preamble states that, “Poverty eradication is the greatest global challenge”. Logically, the very first of the 169 targets is to ‘eradicate, by 2030, extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day’. But is this a valid premise? The World Economic Forum states, “…societies are increasingly under pressure from rising income inequality.” Robert Shiller, Nobel laureate for economics, puts it more categorically: “The most important problem we are facing now, today, is rising inequality.” The Economist says that “Growing inequality is one of the biggest social, economic and political challenges of our time.” Joseph Stiglitz argues strongly that “we are paying a high price of our inequality – an economic system that is less stable and less efficient, with less growth, and a democracy that has been put into peril”. Nevertheless, the SDGs repeat the old view that poverty rather than inequality remains the central issue, and negates the reality of extreme inequality.

One may respond that the SDGs do pay attention to inequality. Ok, but not quite. Yes, goal 10 is about reducing inequality but the formulation of target 10.1 is not about inequality. It says, ‘by 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average’. On careful reading, this target is not about inequality, it concerns poverty. One cannot pretend to talk about inequality when the entire income spectrum is not covered. It is possible, for instance, that the bottom 40 per cent sees faster income growth than the national average and yet the country to experience growing inequality – i.e. through the hollowing out of the middle class. In short, the priority on poverty is misplaced. The SDGs should focus on eliminating extreme inequality, through which extreme poverty will be eradicated. The Palma ratio offers a relevant indicator.

A global agenda, not a universal one

Second, it is common to hear that the SDGs represent a universal agenda. This is seen as a major achievement as it moves the discourse beyond the reigning North-South dichotomy. Not quite. Global targets do not necessarily make for a universal agenda. Global and universal are not synonymous. Take nutrition, for example. An agenda that is genuinely universal would not only deal with underweight but also with overweight and obesity – a growing public health concern in most countries. Yet, the proposed SDGs do not mention overweight or obesity; they merely set targets ‘to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition by 2030’. These may be global in scope but their reach is not universal. It would be naive to believe that this is due to an oversight. Developed countries are not ready or willing to commit to a universal agenda. For them, it is more convenient to focus on extreme poverty, hunger and malnutrition. The reigning worldview of North and South is not yet something of the past.

Most SDGs are not measurable

Finally, the SDGs violate the three C’s that lay at root of the MDGs’ success: clear, concise and computable. A global agenda cannot be comprehensive and concise at the same time. Had all the aspects mentioned in the Millennium Declaration been incorporated in the MDGs, they would never have had the same staying power. Any belief in the perfectibility of a global agenda for development is illusionary. Regarding computability, take the example of target 10.7, ‘Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies’. How can one track progress on this target? Measurability is not the be all and end all of a target. The maxim ‘not everything that counts can be counted’ is valid, but targets should, nevertheless, maintain a degree of objective measurability.

Solid evidence is the last defence against ideology. The British economist, E. F. Schumacher, wrote a seminal book in 1973 entitled Small is Beautiful – a study of economics as if people mattered, in which he says, “To measure the immeasurable is absurd and constitutes an elaborate method of moving from preconceived notions to foregone conclusions.” More recently, another economist, Thomas Piketty, wrote his bestsellerCapital in the 21st century. The very last sentence of this book reads, “Refusing to deal with numbers rarely serves the interests of the least well-off.”

Jan Vandemoortele PhD is an academic specializing in development economics. He worked for the UN for thirty years and was involved in the creation of the Millennium Development Goals.