Are the MDGs feasible?

This paper argues that if MDGs appear feasible at the global level, it does not necessarily imply that they will be feasible in all nations or at all locations. Averages are commonly used at each level to measure MDG progress, which can be quite misleading. A failure to understand that the average is an abstraction from reality can lead to unwarranted conclusions that are based on deduction from abstractions, not on real observations.

Not only was global progress inadequate in the 1990s, much of it by-passed the poor. Slow ‘average’ progress was compounded by limited progress for the poorest and disadvantaged groups within countries. Unfortunately, the poor have benefited proportionately little from ‘average’ progress, as evidenced by widening disparities in terms of income, education and mortality.

Some of the conclusions from this paper include:

• national indicators hide wide disparities with disaggregated data confirming that social indicators vary enormously across groups within the same country
• some of the major reasons why the millenium development goals appear to be unaffordable are that (i) there is under-investment in basic social services; and (ii) public action that frequently fails to take advantage of cross-sectoral synergies
• debt servicing often absorbs between one-third and one-half of the national budget - making macro-economic stability an elusive goal
• the full implementation of the 20/20 initiative would generate enough resources to close the financial deficit on global public spending on basic social services. The requirement of US$80 billion represents about one-third of 1 per cent of global annual income. Indeed, achieving the MDGs is more about setting priorities than about mobilising extra resources or making technological breakthroughs