MDG Presentation

599 views
557 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
599
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

MDG Presentation

  1. 1. Millennium Development Goals Spring 11 Child Rights From Jan Vandemoortele
  2. 2. MDGs <ul><li>1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger </li></ul><ul><li>2. Achieve universal primary education </li></ul><ul><li>3. Promote gender equality and empower women </li></ul><ul><li>4. Reduce child mortality </li></ul><ul><li>5. Improve maternal health </li></ul><ul><li>6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases </li></ul><ul><li>7. Ensure environmental sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>8. Develop a global partnership for development </li></ul>
  3. 3. Changing development climate <ul><li>Changes in development assistance and financing </li></ul><ul><li>MDGs: Unifying agenda </li></ul><ul><li>Monterrey Consensus: Aid linked to strong governance </li></ul><ul><li>PRSPs: Gained prominence </li></ul><ul><li>SWAps: Direct budget support, coordinated action </li></ul><ul><li>BUT </li></ul><ul><li>MDGs: Little progress on children’s rights and gender equality </li></ul><ul><li>PRSP, SWAPs: Lacklustre results for women, children, marginalized and poorest groups </li></ul><ul><li>Fragile states not benefiting </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><ul><ul><li>economic growth - 1961 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>education – 1959/61 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>smallpox - 1966 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>water & immunisation - 1980 </li></ul></ul></ul>MDGs : really new ? Easily set, seldom met ?
  5. 5. Target setting: dangers <ul><li>bias national priorities </li></ul><ul><li>neglect non-measurable results </li></ul><ul><li>inflate reported progress </li></ul>
  6. 6. Three key questions <ul><li>Is MDG progress on track? </li></ul><ul><li>Is ‘average’ progress reaching the poor? </li></ul><ul><li>Are MDGs affordable? </li></ul>
  7. 7. Poverty headcount in developing countries (below $1/day) 16%
  8. 8. Most regions fail to reduce poverty (below $1/day) SSA SA EA LAC MENA
  9. 9. U5MR and NER ( developing countries ) U5MR NER 2015
  10. 10. The poor & ‘average’ progress (ratio of U5MR of bottom to top quintile)
  11. 11. Progress by-passes the poor (children not completing 5yrs of education)
  12. 12. No reliable and comparable data 1990 2000 2015 MDG progress in 1990s 40%
  13. 13. <ul><li>Story of 1990s </li></ul><ul><li>progress slowed down </li></ul><ul><li>progress by-passed poor </li></ul><ul><li>It can be done </li></ul><ul><li>committed leadership </li></ul><ul><li>genuine participation </li></ul><ul><li>extra money </li></ul><ul><li>strong partnership </li></ul>
  14. 14. Averages are deceiving <ul><li>Different ways to meet a target </li></ul><ul><ul><li>by improving situation of better-off </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>by increasing level for worse-off </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>any combination in-between </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Evidence suggests most countries follow top-down approach </li></ul><ul><li>Groups that see fastest progress seldom represent the poor </li></ul>
  15. 15. <ul><li>Global cost estimates range from $50b-$100b+ per year </li></ul><ul><li>Differences depend on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>absolute vs. relative unit costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>marginal vs. average unit costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>regional vs. national average costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>efficiency gains vs. quality costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>savings from synergies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>implications of HIV/AIDS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>domestic vs. external resources </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Globally, MDGs are affordable </li></ul>Are MDGs affordable?
  16. 16. Pro-poor policies <ul><li>Avoid ‘small government’ ideology. </li></ul><ul><li>Shun tight inflation targets. </li></ul><ul><li>Deregulate financial markets with great care. </li></ul><ul><li>Liberalise trade cautiously. </li></ul><ul><li>Address equity & narrow gaps. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Pro-poor mythology <ul><li>Poverty reduction is not an ‘universal’ good. </li></ul><ul><li>Neither an automatic by-product of macro-economic stability & growth. </li></ul><ul><li>An honest search for real solutions leads to hard trade-offs & tough policy choices. </li></ul><ul><li>Tendency to stick to conventional wisdom, generalities & myths. </li></ul>
  18. 18. <ul><li>Prioritise – focus on human poverty. </li></ul><ul><li>Pro-poor budgetary spending. </li></ul><ul><li>Participation. </li></ul>PRSPs: 3 achievements
  19. 19. <ul><li>Align policy framework and national budget with MDGs . </li></ul><ul><li>Translate pro-poor growth in concrete measures. </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporate equity targets. </li></ul>PRSPs: 3 challenges
  20. 20. <ul><li>Growth has an obvious place. </li></ul><ul><li>But evidence shows that high inequality inhibits growth. </li></ul><ul><li>Equity is good for the poor because it is good for growth. </li></ul><ul><li>Yet, most PRSs overlook equity. </li></ul>Is equity good for the poor?
  21. 21. The goal <ul><li>Equitable and Sustainable human well-being beyond the narrow domain of economic growth </li></ul>
  22. 22. Target population Programme E mistake: excessive coverage (leakage) F mistake: failure to reach target population Targeting
  23. 23. Narrow targeting: use sparingly <ul><li>Difficult to identify & reach the poor. </li></ul><ul><li>F mistake </li></ul><ul><li>Poor get bumped-off by near-poor. </li></ul><ul><li>E mistake </li></ul><ul><li>Administrative costs are high. </li></ul><ul><li>avoid F/E mistakes; oversight </li></ul><ul><li>Proving eligibility is not without costs. </li></ul><ul><li>documents, fees, bus fares, stigma </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainability is undermined. </li></ul><ul><li>poor’s voice weak to maintain scope/quality </li></ul>
  24. 24. Cost recovery: caution <ul><li>User fees generate modest amounts. </li></ul><ul><li>But they reduce access, esp. for poor. </li></ul><ul><li>Exemption & waivers perform poorly. </li></ul><ul><li>User fees deepen gender bias. </li></ul><ul><li>Price signals do not always lead to optimal use. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Cost recovery: 7 good practice s <ul><li>Retain revenue & spending authority at local level. </li></ul><ul><li>Invest in quality-enhancing inputs. </li></ul><ul><li>Accept different types of contributions. </li></ul><ul><li>Base exemption scheme on observable criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Use graduated fees. </li></ul><ul><li>Maximise community participation. </li></ul><ul><li>Conduct regular M&E. </li></ul>

×