In addition, they highlight complexities in devising policies during structural change where
uncertainty and learning effects are critical (section five). Finally, they show the importance
of coordination between different policy institutions (section six).
3. Measuring progress and achieving outcomes
In a static perspective, points (1) and (3)-(5) may mean that not all targets are achievable at
a certain date. If the number of MDG targets exceeds the number of instruments available,
then governments may not have enough levers to reach all of the targets. The
interdependencies defined in (4) and (5) complicate the picture: trade-offs may frustrate the
simultaneous achievement of certain targets while complementarities could offset the
problem of insufficient levers defined in point (1). Even if the problems identified in section
two do not hold and we revert to an easily soluble policy problem, trade-offs may still be
present if moving policy levers requires scarce resources: in this case if different instruments
“compete” for resources, trade-offs will be generated at the level of outcomes. In the case of
MDG achievement both of these kinds of interdependencies are relevant.
The interaction between levers and targets takes place over time; the static problems
contained in (1)-(6) have dynamic counterparts. Points (1) and (3)-(5) mean that a desired
path of objectives and instruments may not be feasible. (4)-(6) imply that there may be
varying speeds of progress towards different targets. Point (8) adds to this, but in a dynamic
sense suggests a further complexity in the achievement of multiple targets. Instruments and
outcomes may need to be sequenced over time: certain values of instruments may be
required for certain values of other instruments later on; the same may apply to outcomes.
Whether variables are instruments or objectives then changes over time. There may be a
complex, shifting pattern of variables’ status as means or ends. Point (10) is an explicitly
dynamic problem which reinforces this point; indeed, one would hope that the structure of
the economy would change as development takes place (see section five).
Interdependencies: examples from the MDGs
Trade offs— The large number of targets in the MDGs reflects the now established view of
development as a multi-dimensional process. This breadth means that the problem of
interdependence is likely to bite. There may be direct trade-offs at the level of outcomes.
For example, some aspects of environmental sustainability (Goal 7) could conflict with the
eradication of extreme poverty and hunger (Goal 1) within certain time frames. This would
be so if the livelihoods of some segments of the poor depend on the exploitation of natural
resources such as forests or minerals in ways which conflict with the goal of long-term
environmental sustainability.
There may also be trade offs between instruments leading to policy conflicts over outcomes.
For example, economic growth is a key instrument for reaching a range of targets, including,
for example, universal primary education (Goal 2), the achievement of which calls for
considerable resources best generated through output expansion. Cutting poverty requires
growth but can also be achieved by reducing inequality through redistributive policies; the
relative effectiveness of these two routes depends on certain underlying structural
parameters of the economy (Dagdeviren et. al. (2000)).