Have the Millennium Development Goals (Meds) been a more successful approach to development than previous approaches? Use examples when explaining your response to this question. Introduction Millennium Development Goals has been a current framework of International development cooperation since 2000 until 2015. It has been globally accepted with all the UN member countries complying with this framework and has been a successful approach towards the human development. However, there has been flaws identified and criticism accompanied in the attainment of Megs targets.
Inequality and environmental degradation are the critical issues and they are often ignored and bypassed. In the face of such criticisms, Megs are evaluated and compared against the previous development approaches. Various other development approaches have been crestless for their respective Ideas In development. Modernization theory has been mainly criticized as it is not always ideal to replicate the development model of the West in the poorer countries. Similarly dependency theory is generally criticized for making the poor countries poorer through the transfer of resources to the richer nations.
Unilateralism approach to development is viewed as too corporate in nature. In light of these serious criticisms of the previous approaches to development, this essay evaluates Megs If they are any better. The evaluation of development approaches The approaches to development are continuously changing as the ideas are critiqued and replaced continuously to achieve desirable change in the society. Therefore, the Megs reflect how the approaches to development has changed since the conception of modernization theory post World War Two. When development became global concern, wide variety of development theories came Into place.
Major development approaches such as Modernization theory, Dependency theory and Neo;liberalism theory are discussed in this section in juxtapose with the Megs. Modernization theory maintains that countries are autonomous units that develop through stages and transform from traditional societies to modern form (Fang]UN, 2009). However, Fanning (2009) argue that modernization theory is too generalized as modernization of the west was made the criterion for modernization worldwide, thus leaving the transformation of many more countries unexplained although China would have minded stagnant without it (Wheeler, 2005).
The values and development institutions developed in one country often prove to be dysfunctional in another country. Gibbous and Kumara (2012) support this argument by stating that African countries report high levels of growth and GAP per capita and yet possess the inability to tackle problems such as women empowerment and quality education which Is successfully addressed by Megs. The Megs show that modernization theory social prejudices of mid-century American establishment (Gibbous & Kumara, 2012). Dependency theory rose as a reaction to the modernization theory.
Chew and Denmark (1996) argues that the dependency theory sees the world’s nations divided into two, the core being the wealthy nations which dominate a periphery of poor nations whose main function in the system is to provide cheap labor and raw materials to the core. The benefits go entirely to the rich nations while the poor nations do not advance (Chew & Denmark, 1996). Dependency theorists argue that it is necessary for the underdeveloped nations to break their ties with developed nations if they were to develop and pursue internal growth Jeffrey , 2012).
However, his approach to development only depletes the resources of the poorer countries and put global inequality on rise through exploitation. Goal 8 of MEG to develop a global partnership for development seems to be an answer to the major criticism of the Dependency theory of development. Unilateral policies advocate market forces and commercial activity as the most efficient methods for producing and supplying goods and services by shunning the role of the state and discouraging government intervention into economic, financial and even social affairs (Mackinaw, 2006).
Unilateralism produced negative economic consequences in the form of inequality. Howell and Dialog (2007) argue that unilateral policies have contributed to a U. S. Economy in which 30% of workers earn low wages thereby widening the gap of equality. Mackinaw (2006) also argue that the unilateral experiment has failed to combat extreme poverty, has exacerbated global inequality, and is hampering international aid and development efforts. Major exponents of unilateralism like WTFO, MIFF and World Bank are also accused of advancing corporate interests (Mackinaw, 2006).
Latin America and South Asia in the sass were left with no choice UT to follow the unilateral model of prevarication and deregulation, due to their financial problems and pressure from the MIFF. MEG on the other hand provide agendas to combat extreme poverty and gender equality. As UN is not continuously lobbied by corporations and is not politically and financially dominated by corporations and their agencies, Megs remain free from the vested interests of the corporations. From this analysis, Meds seem to provide a better framework for development than the previous approaches as they take care of what the previous approaches have missed.
However, the attainment and the implementation of these locals have to be critically evaluated to conclude if Meds have been a better approach to development. The evaluation of Meds as development approach In 2000 at the UN Millennium Summit, the world leaders established Meds to be achieved by 2015. The Meds target to address extreme poverty in its many dimensions ;income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion ;while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability (Millennium Project, 2005).
Each goal of Meds has specific targets and time period during which they should be achieved. Several targets of Megs have been achieved substantially so far. The proportion of people living in extreme poverty has been halved at the global level. Ghana, Ethiopia, Liberia, Uganda, DRY Congo, progress in eradicating poverty with a drastic drop from 47% in 1990 to 22% in 2010 (Kidded, 2013). The proportion of slum dwellers in the cities and metropolises of the developing world is declining (United Nations, 2013).
A low debt burden and an improved climate for trade are leveling the playing field for developing countries (United Nations, 2013) which is not addressed by the unilateral policy. Over two billion people gained access to improved sources of drinking water. With broadened access to health and education services, United Nations (2013) report that remarkable gains have been made in the fight against malaria and tuberculosis. Few of the countries have steadily met the number of targets while some of the poor countries are still lagging behind. There is a report of improved maternal and infant mortality rate and growing numbers of women in power.
However, MEG indicators lacked in quality data due to the uneven level of statistical development of countries (Belle & Salesman, June 2011). The data on latest year are not available for all countries and when available they often have lags of several years, implying that comparison of countries will be based on different years for different countries (Belle & Salesman, June 2011). Tartan (2005) also argue that goals related to maternal mortality, malaria and tuberculosis are impossible to measure and that current UN estimates lack scientific validity or are missing.
The World Bank Group (2013) reports that 20 fragile and conflict- affected countries have also already met few of its targets before 201 5 deadline with six of the other countries on its track despite its lattice and economic challenges. However, the progress of meeting the targets of Meds is not even in all the countries. Despite attractive concreteness and achievements, Meds continue to attract criticisms. Jabber (2010) argues that Meds do not have strong objectives and indicators for equality within the country. Belle and Salesman (2011) also argue that Meds targets are too ambitious and unrealistic.
According to Easterly (2009), to half the poverty level, African country is suppose to grow 7% over 25 period. This targets are impractical and this could undermine future government reforms and aid constituencies. Easterly (2009) further agrees that many of the Megs target measure progress in terms of development outcomes instead of development outputs. Meds have failed to recognize human rights as essential to any sustainable development strategy (Schuster, 2010). Schuster (2010) argues that people in poverty have a human right to adequate food and governments have corresponding duties.
Meds also has failed to listen the voices of those they seek to assist. In some countries MEG progress looks impressive, while the situation for the very poorest is actually getting worse (Save the Children, 2010). Therefore, Meds are criticized for neglecting some of the poorest and most vulnerable people who fall through the net. The MEG goal of universal primary education emphasizes on primary enrolment. The UN report 2013 portray that the primary school enrolment rates in Sub-Sahara Africa has increased from 60 per cent to 77 per cent between 2000 and 2011.
Although in some countries primary enrolment increased, in some cases, the emphasis on primary education has negatively affected secondary and post-secondary education (Wage, Banners, Campbell, & Chicer, 2010). Although the sources, technology and knowledge existed to decrease poverty by improving gender equality, the political will was missing (Grown, 2005). Grown (2005) also is often limited by their responsibilities at home and this can be reduced by providing relevant infrastructure. Jabber (2003) further argue that there are not enough emphasis on tracking gender inequalities in poverty reduction and employment in the MEG targets.
As stated in a UNDO Report (2003), the two most critical issues in development are the inequality and environmental degradation and they are often ignored and bypassed. Global inequalities have reached “grotesque” levels (UNDO 2003: 39). MEG targets are overlooking inequality at large level whereby regional, national and sub-national inequalities are all on the rise. Inequalities are high even in the developed countries which in turns slow the growth of the county and are prone to crimes, disease and environmental problems resulting in a weak civil society Lowly, 2014).
Although literacy have shown quite an improvement in India, the poorest states lag behind and the lowest castes experience severe normalization and deprivation (UNDO 2003: 64). The crucial aspect of inequality in relation to quantitative goals and targets is that the poorest countries, regions and peoples are suffering from the most deprivation. They are provided with most task to meet but with the least infrastructure to make the needed improvements. Although Meds achieved targets, Meds are not necessarily the best approach to development.
Megs like the previous approaches failed to address the increasing inequality and environment degradation which are of utmost concern today. Although the United Nations is free from the corporate bullies, Meds in themselves are inherently obstructed by the political wills of the targeted nations. Conclusion From the evaluation of various approaches to development, Megs are better approach. Meds addresses issues such as reducing extreme poverty, woman empowerment, education, health, global partnership and gender equality which other approaches fail to address.
Besides successful in embroiling public and political support for development and other major achievements, Meds also face severe criticisms. It can be argued that the Megs do not address the current developmental problems that the world is facing. However, it is worth mentioning hat Meds were conceptualized in sass when current issues like global inequalities, climate change and environment degradation were not much debated. The success and failure of Meds however provide a platform for post 201 5 development agenda which will be more relevant to us then.
