tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post8560722095825210987..comments2024-02-29T13:07:00.519+00:00Comments on Development Horizons by Lawrence Haddad: The MDGs: Means-Free Development?Lawrence Haddadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17265061444076801962noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post-19676589639739617402010-01-26T15:29:53.309+00:002010-01-26T15:29:53.309+00:00Thanks. This is thoughtful and thought-provoking.
...Thanks. This is thoughtful and thought-provoking.<br /><br />Recall that the MDGs were invented by the DAC (as the DAC goals then the<br />IDGs) on the basis that they had already been agreed, so no one could<br />question them. There were some modifications, but the base on previously<br />agreed international development goals was a huge help. Except for those<br />modification, it would be hard to get something "shaped by a much broader<br />global process". As you say, the benefits are unproven -- although my view<br />is that the political benefits were high relative to the (non-trivial)<br />distortions. The chances of negotiating something new more or less from<br />scratch -- even if it were not to achieve uncertain benefits -- seem not<br />high to say the least. Adding in something on process or that commits those<br />who are unwilling (US on .7%, China on political targets on justice and<br />rights) would lower those chances exponentially. Why get into it?<br /><br />I didn't understand the reference to the "preferences of each country", by<br />the way, but doubt that this could offer a way out without substantially<br />reducing the political value-added.Paul Isenmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post-52845617842853427992010-01-25T18:11:44.387+00:002010-01-25T18:11:44.387+00:00It is interesting that amidst the MDG conversation...It is interesting that amidst the MDG conversation you mentioned the 0.7% - which doesn't have many of the characteristics of indicator targets that you mention but, on the other hand, shows how a simple target can influence assessment but does it impact decision making? My fear of the a "new MDG" is how that process in itself will tie up the development bureaucracy for a good long time. I'd aim for a far simpler and less detailed truth that can be a rallying cry.Don Doeringnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post-12171504832162365622010-01-25T16:52:25.318+00:002010-01-25T16:52:25.318+00:00Just back from 3 weeks in beautiful, delightful bu...Just back from 3 weeks in beautiful, delightful but poor and badly and viciously run Union of Myanmar. Returning to a cold, inward looking UK worried only about how the next Government will cut the deficit. MDGs??? People have to be first weaned off their cynicism about badly spent foreign aid capable of producing bad unintended effects. The Development Community talking to itself does not seem to appreciate the lack of interest and support for the MDGs, maybe even their relevance. Goals must not start from inputs, inputs that lack credibility in the eyes of many decision makers and most of the electorate. To win hearts and minds you must start with outputs and deliver a convincing narrative on how to get there. One narrative that does not work is about attempts to improve governance. If a country has a bad government it is almost impossible for outsiders to work to improve it unless that government asks for the help. Their own people are the only ones who can do that. Even when they cannot, as in Myanmar, outsiders still cannot achieve a change. General trade sanctions just hurt the poorest and take too long. The Development Community must just limit itself to where it can make a difference. Basket bad governance cases must be left until a chance incident opens up the possibility of change and then rapidly organize help. I have just been watching Rory Stewart on Lawrence of Arabia, full of the hubris when trying, unasked, to help other countries.<br /><br />Returning to the 0.7% GDP goal for ODA I keep remembering an IDS presentation where the theory of the Fiscal State was expounded which shows the tendency for Governments to treat well their citizens only when dependent on them for the majority of public revenues. States like Uganda, where too much of government finances regularly comes from foreign aid, are likely to treat their sponsors better than their citizens. There is also that cynical aphorism of C Northcote Parkinson that "foreign aid is a method of taking money from the poor of rich countries to give it to the rich of poor countries". So on the one hand ODA should not be a goal but an input. Secondly citizens of the 1st world need examples of the type of foreign assistance that has worked, if they are to support a limited focused amount of it in the future, especially in these fiscally straightened times.<br /><br />Anyway Good Luck in coming up with something worthwhile and achievable. HUGH BEEVORHugh Beevornoreply@blogger.com