Upload
karen-jefferson
View
216
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Post-2015: Learning from the MDG experienceA Cautiously Optimistic View
Aniket Bhushan Governance for Equitable Growth & Canadian International Development Platform The North-South Institute
Outline
• About NSI and CIDP• Post-2015 research at NSI• MDG experience: on track but off the mark? • Key blind-spot and the way forward • New way of thinking about development frameworks
post-2015
About
NSI
• First, and only think tank dedicated to international development research in Canada
• No. 1 small think tank globally by McGann survey 2011
• Three thematic areas: – Governance for Equitable Growth– Governance of Natural Resources – Fragile and Conflict Affected States
CIDPNSI.ca
Web-based data & analytics platform on Canada’s engagement with the developing world•Leverage open data, open government
•Organize, interpret, analyze a range of data through fast and interactive analytical dashboards
•Turning open data into better policy through collaborative inquiry
MDG experience
• Focus: 8 easy to understand, globally agreed goals
• What to measure, how, development progress
• What to spend on
• Reductionist• Imprecise • Not dynamic• Outputs only • Rank, name, shame
MDG: Successes
MDG: Successes
MDG: Successes?
Consequence of imprecision
What is happening to global poverty?
• 1981 to 2008, 648.84 million have been taken out of $1.25/day chronic poverty (from 1990 to 2008 the number is similar at 619.64 million)
• China: 662.14 million (or 510.22 between 1990 and 2008)
• Without China, target unmet • World Bank’s 2005 ICP revised PPP data (cost
of living from China, India)• ‘Found’ 400 million more chronic poor (2010)
The Key Blind-Spot: Distribution
MDG indicators are consistently worse for disadvantaged groups in every regionODI, March 2012
Despite many of the successes of the MDGs, they have not managed to integrate all principles outlined in the Millennium Declaration, including equality. Furthermore, the MDGs’ focus on national and global averages and progress can mask much slower progress or even growing disparities at the sub-national level and among specific populationsAddressing Inequalities, UN System Task-Team on 2015
The Key Blind-Spot: Distribution
Approaches to development that measure success in terms of numbers reached, with no regard to who is reached should not be tolerated. After the MDGs: Setting out the must haves for a new development framework in 2015, Save the Children, April 2012
The Key Blind-Spot: Distribution
Distributional blind-spots and children •Inequality (available income per child) TWICE as high as general inequality•Child in richest 10% household has 35x available income poorest 10%•Gap grown 35% since 1990•Inequality has intergenerational and compound effect on children
The Key Blind-Spot: Distribution
E.g. of compounded effects
•Nigeria: U5 mortality national decline– U5 mortality lowest vs. top 10%: 2x– Urban: 121/1000; Rural: 191– Deaths per 1000 live births (child): top 20 –
87; bottom – 219– Infant mortality: South-West 89/1000;
North-East 222/1000
Assessing proposals on the way forward
Post-2015 universe•22 official proposals and discussion papers•640 targets and indicators proposed (provisional data)
Assessing proposals on the way forward
• We organize goals, targets, indicators into 15 thematic areas
• Infrastructure, health & nutrition – highest frequency; children/youth, environment, governance, peace & security, equality, key areas of expansion over MDG
• Disaster resilience, employment emerging areas, social protection underdeveloped
Assessing proposals on the way forward
BUT
•“Equity” has huge weaknesses (technical, political)
•Lacks anchor
Assessing proposals on the way forward
• “Inequalities in…”?
• “Inequality itself…”?
Targeting Equity
• More than one (3) ways of thinking about inequality (level of analysis)
• Uncertain, diverse determinants
• Non-constant, non-linear, trend pace
• Interactions and compounding effects
• Limits of progressive redistribution
• Policy – highly contexual
Targeting Equity
• Below US$ 700 per cap income –pov redc via redistribution- theoretically impossible
• Country capacity split (>US$ 2000, US$2000-4000); latter can via marginal taxes, former very difficult
• Non-constant, non-linear effects further complicate (short vs. long run)
Targeting Equity
International community does not have good advice:
•Developing countries = be like Brazil!– Not feasible for all, not just transfers,
macro stability, inflation control, constitutional changes. But remember, even now Brazil top 10 = 55x bottom!!
•Advanced = be like Nordics!
What is happening to global inequality?
• The “world” as if it were ONE “country”• “World” inequality >>> typical country• “World” inq. driven by BETWEEN country inq.• Gini: 0.70 (1993); 0.67 (2007)• World inq. DECLINING, catch-up (China,
India); within country inq. rising • Bottom 80% of world pop. INCREASED their
share of world income from 24% (1993) to 28% (2005) – but this is too small
What is happening to global inequality?
• 78 data points (developing countries, sub-national) 1990-2011
• 43 inequality increased: ranging from 4%year to 0.2% (Uganda); China (1.8)
• 35 inequality declined: ranging from -3%year to -0.01%; Brazil (-0.05)
• Majority trend swap 90s vs. 2000s
Equity: 2015 Bottom-line
• Equity targeting has major technical, political weaknesses (not unlike poverty, and for similar technical reasons)
• But further – lacks political anchor
New way of thinking
Occam’s Razor •Conflict between inherent complexity of issues, uncertainty of measures and need for simplicity for consensus
– Complicated framework – risks collapse under its own weight
– Imprecision risks irrelevance – both from a public relations perspective; incentives/results management perspective
New way of thinking
• Viewing inequality from the perspective of inequality of opportunity for children, presents the most powerful entry point (anchor) for success in post-2015 discussions
New way of thinking
• Ways of thinking about “indicators”: not as target (naming, shaming) but as diagnostic tool
• Moving from OUTPUT-RANKING to OUTCOME-DIAGNOSTIC – Too much emphasis on WHAT: country-level
(official) output counts (e.g. enrollment rates); ranks
– Shift focus to HOW: results achieved
New way of thinking
• Agreement on a global standard for disaggregated data gathering, and investing in this capacity would be the single most important benefit of a post-2015 equity agenda – Getting precise, limiting to only OBJECTIVE
measures – Getting serious about how we know what we know
and how we communicate progress
Connect
http://cidpnsi.ca/
•FOLLOW: @CIDPNSI •LIKE: http://www.facebook.com/CIDPNSI
•LIKE: http://www.facebook.com/NSIINS
•EMAIL: [email protected]