7.
Conclusions
The achievement of the broad set of precise, fixed targets embodied in the MDGs through
the management of complex socio-economic systems raises doubts about the feasibility of
the goals. Thinking about the MDGs in terms of instruments and objectives helps frame
problems of target achievement, the measurement of progress and the valuation of
outcomes all of which are difficult. We have also seen that sustainability of the targets is an
issue which is inadequately addressed in current approaches. In addition, we argued that the
need for coordination between different parts of countries’ policy making systems will
stretch the capacity of governments.
How useful are a set of ahistorical targets?
The issues of structural change discussed in section five expose the lack of historical context
surrounding the MDGs. Most of the targets are expressed as rates of change in objective
variables; two important ones - the achievement of universal primary education and the
elimination of educational gender disparities - are in absolute levels. A remarkable feature
of the MDGs is that the same quantitative targets are applied to all countries. Many of these
countries are, however, at different stages of development. Structural change and
sequencing are components of the concept of a stage of development. Countries at different
stages have contrasting structural characteristics and patterns of relationships between
instruments and objectives; in a dynamic perspective, certain socio-economic outcomes may
be prerequisites for the transition to a more advanced stage.
None of this is taken into account of in the MDGs’ absolute and universal targets. At first
sight the targets seem to be a level playing field for assessing and comparing countries. In
fact, that they do not explicitly account for the long term dynamics of structural change tilts
the field towards those countries who have built up the critical mass of internal
transformations necessary for developmental take off; countries which have yet to enter this
virtuous cycle are at risk of being unjustly chided in the likely event that they fail to achieve
many of the goals by 2015.
Taking a longer historical view underlines this point: in the 19th century when today’s rich
nations had educational enrolment rates similar to those of today’s poor countries the
evolution towards high enrolment was much slower than that seen in many developing
countries in recent decades. This is even the case for some developing countries which are
on course to “fail” on the educational targets (Clemens, 2004). Today’s rich countries only
made universal primary education an explicit development goal when they had higher
income levels than today’s poor countries and had nearly achieved universality. If the MDGs’
educational targets had been applied to today’s industrialised nations during their own early
stages of development, they may well have missed the targets (for similar historical evidence
on some of the other targets, see Clemens et. al., 2004).
The history of today’s rich countries shows that development is a drawn out, uneven and
contradictory process full of reversals and discontinuity. The MDGs, with their ambitious,
linear and broad set of socio-economic goals belie this complexity; contemporary developed
11