In early 2000, the Millennium Declaration articulated a bold vision and established concrete ‘goals’ for improving the lives of those threatened by poverty, disease and hunger. These concrete targets however, were not devised through a consultative process with developing countries. Instead, a working committee drawn from different UN agencies such as the World Bank, IMF, UNICEF and others identified goals and targets for development. Although not a formal UN resolution, the Millenium Development Goals(MDGs)  have played a pivotal role in shaping the international development cooperation agenda till at least 2015.

For the year 2015 , the target was to bring down world poverty by half through a set of 8 goals and 12 targets. Each country has to follow the broad framework provided by the UN. A current UNDP report presents an overview of the progress on MDG indicators in India ,so far. India’s MDG framework is based on the United Nation Development Goals (2003), and out of the 18 targets and 53 indicators suggested , only 12 targets and 35 measures are endemic to India’s case.

Δ : Moderately/almost nearly on track considering all indicators
Θ : Slow/almost off-track considering all indicators
ΔΔ : On-track or fast considering all indicators

Out of the 12 targets, we seem to be on track with only 3. Undoubtedly while this is a cause for concern, but, so is the way we evaluate progress on these 8 goals. For instance 1 of the 3 goals we are on track with is the goal of universalizing primary education. The way to measure this goal is the Net Enrolment Ratio in primary education, the literacy rate of 15-24 year olds and proportion of students starting grade 1 who reach grade 5.

The third measure for this is flawed. The RTE, for example, works with a premise that students will not be held back till Grade 8. This makes the last measure biased as only the children who would have exited the system are the ones that dropped out. It also raises a supplementary question, of whether universal enrolment is the end goal/ outcome we wish to achieve in   Education.  If not, then one should also be focusing on quality of education imparted. In the long run poor quality of education and lack of opportunities following the quality of education can become a deterrent to entering the schooling system

The MDGs in their current form are what Pritchett and Kenny in their working paper on Millenium Development Ideals term as “kinky development”.A kink involves trying to move everyone who in the distribution is just below the average to the average. To make this simpler to understand as a concept let us look at the concept of a Poverty Head Count Ratio which is one of the measures used by India to estimate our progress on eradicating poverty.

A Poverty Head Count Ratio is simply the number of poor people (which defined by a monetary sum per day, in our case Rs 32/day as defined by Tendulkar Committee) divided by the total population. If our aim is to reduce this ratio with celerity, as mandated by the MDGs,progress on this measure may never aid the poor who are worst off. With a resource constraint and an implementer who is interested in showing progress (as all implementers are) the only people who benefit are the ones who are situated right below the poverty line i.e. people with an income of Rs31/ day, for instance. Explained simply, If I have a hundred rupees to alleviate poverty for 2 groups of people – those earning Rs 5/day and those earning Rs 31/day . If I choose to bring the people at Rs 5 above the poverty line there is no doubt that the number of people I could bring above the poverty line would be much lower than if I decided to aid the people at Rs 31. This problem is further exacerbated when we keep redefining the poverty line. After the public outrage over the Tendulkar Committeespreposterously low per day poverty estimates, the Rangarajan Committee (link) has increased the per day estimate which has led to 35% increase in the number of people classified as poor. The problem with any measure, which focuses on absolute numbers, is that the people who actually need the assistance the most seem to be excluded.

Despite these problems, the indicators are not a bad starting point for a country. However, assessing development outcomes holistically requires that we also incorporate the quality or non –quantifiable aspects of a development goal. As is evident, there are shortcomings in the way we track progress on the MDGs. Recognising this is essential going forward as the post 2015 MDG agenda is still being shaped.

The Post 2015 MDG agenda encompasses a broader range of topics such as climate change and water, with poverty eradication and sustainable development continuing to be their core focus.

A Million Voices: The World We Want, Report acknowledges the need to go beyond quantitative targets that only aim to increase access. Despite this recognition worldwide, there is a strong call to retain the focus on concrete, measurable goals but by dramatically improving the way we measure progress. This will require that new forms of data be collected and the existing information be upgraded. The argument is that a data revolution is what will support an accountability revolution. One can hope that these new forms of data include more quality related indicators and is able to better address and frame the international agenda for development.

References

1. http://www.dialoguedynamics.com/content/learning-forum/seminars/the-millennium-development-goals/the-millenium-development-goals/the-millenium-development-goals-69/article/the-millennium-development-goals
2. http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/Pritchett_Kenny_md-ideals_wcvr.pdf
3. http://dansmithsblog.com/2010/09/20/so-whats-wrong-with-the-mdgs/
4. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/mdg_2014%20India%20country%20report.pdf
5. http://issuu.com/undevelopmentgroup/docs/f_undg_millionvoices_web_full/11