A few weeks ago Duncan Green posed the question on a number of our minds: what comes after the Millennium Development Goal deadline in 2015? It's an important question that both proponents and critics should be considering. It is highly likely that political pressure will result in some sort of framework to replace it, and so it would be great if we all did our homework beforehand.
We should keep in mind the arguments of both sides when considering the future: skeptics argue that the MDGs are immeasurable and unrealistic, that the goals are implicitly heterogeneous across countries and override domestic ownership. Advocates insist that the creation of the MDGs have generated an unprecedented rally around the elimination of both poverty and its awful byproducts.
How should they change? Do they need to change at all? Should they be eliminated all together? Green has some suggestions for issues that should at least be considered: social protection, global warming, aid commitments (both levels and effectiveness e.g. Paris Declaration), other indicators of well being, as well as dealing with the problem of failed or fragile states.
I know what I think (I'll make my suggestions the end of the weekend). What, savvy readers, do you think should come after the MDGs? Don't be shy, there's a comment section just below.
2 Comments
I was going to e-mail you this, but thought it should be said in public: this is the greatest picture Aid Thoughts has ever run. I salute you.
Any global deal on ending poverty must include a vision that's more than 'giving aid' which the discourse of aid and MDGs implies...