International | Assessing development goals

The good, the bad and the hideous

Which MDGs did some good and which SDGs might work?

WHEN the Millennium Development Goals were adopted in 2000 they seemed Utopian. But the most important one was achieved five years early. This was to halve, by 2015, the share of people globally living on under $1.25 a day, which was 36% in 1990. Most progress was in China, where the proportion fell from 60% in 1990 to 12% in 2010. Other regions missed their target. In South Asia it fell from 51% to 30%. In Sub-Saharan Africa it went from 56% to 48%. Still, more than 700m people struggled out of extreme poverty in that period.

Of the other targets, those that depended on public money rather than behavioural change are most likely to be reached. Over 2.3 billion people got access to improved drinking water between 1990 and 2012 as countries built treatment plants. The targets for malaria and tuberculosis are also likely to be hit, thanks to ambitious public-health programmes.

But nutrition is also influenced by custom, so though the share of undernourished people has declined (from 24% in developing countries in 1990-92 to 14% in 2011-13), it will not have halved by 2015. Similarly, cutting maternal and child mortality means treating preventable diseases and improving care at home; these targets are far from being met.

An analysis by Britain’s Overseas Development Institute, a think-tank, found that the poorest countries which started furthest from the goals are doing better than expected given their starting point, but that (except for the first goal on poverty reduction) their progress tends to be jerky, with the pace of improvements varying from one period to another.

Those conclusions contain a warning for the proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which set targets for 2030. Overall, countries are better off than they used to be, so it may be harder to meet the new goals than the old ones. And the patchy pattern of improvement means targets of zero (for, say, extreme poverty or deaths from tuberculosis) will be especially tough.

The Copenhagen Consensus Centre, a not-for-profit organisation, asked economists and other researchers to look at various topics covered by the SDGs to see which offer the best rates of return (ie, are most cost-effective). They found that 18 of the 169 would pay back $15 or more for every $1 spent. Half of those are health interventions, such as better treatment of malaria and tuberculosis, immunising more children and making family planning available to all. Three are energy policies, including phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels, which now run at $550 billion a year. Three target education, including the universal provision of primary education in Africa and ensuring that girls receive, on average, two years more education than they now get.

Alas, too many resemble goal 4.7:

“by 2030 ensure all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including among others through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.”

Try measuring that.

This article appeared in the International section of the print edition under the headline "The good, the bad and the hideous"

The whole world is going to university

From the March 28th 2015 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

Discover more

Narendra Modi’s secret weapon: India’s diaspora

Migrants help campaign for the prime minister at home and lobby for India abroad

Why young men and women are drifting apart

Diverging worldviews could affect politics, families and more


We’re hiring a global correspondent

An opportunity to join our editorial staff in London