A Swing and a Miss: The USG's Strategy for Achieving the MDGs Print
Thursday, 12 August 2010 19:00

by Janine Kossen, Director, Public Policy

On July 31st, the Obama Administration released its strategy for achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals, the eight goals 192 nations agreed to achieve by the year 2015. They include eradicating poverty, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, ensuring environmental sustainability, and forging a global partnership.

This strategy should not become just another piece of paper to read and then file away in cabinets filled to the brim with policy statements that never see the light of day again. This document is intended to be a declaration of the priorities of the US government as it moves forward in unveiling its development agenda. It is our duty, as civil society members, to examine it with a fine-tooth comb to determine if our leaders are on the right track or if they have missed the mark entirely. In my opinion, this one is certainly a swing and a miss.

Essentially, the strategy calls for a new model of doing business—one that views development as precisely that—a business. Its four cornerstones include leveraging innovation, investing in sustainability, tracking development outcomes, and enhancing mutual accountability. While it is, of course, important to invest in technology, innovation, and infrastructure as well as policies that will drive economic growth, access to credit, and sustainability, we cannot forget that once you peel away all the layers of the business model, what’s left are the lives of men, women, young adults, and children.



We cannot ignore the plight of human suffering caused by natural disasters or ineffective governments. We cannot forget the faces of the sick and hungry. We cannot let young adults continue to be treated like children who are not capable of making wise decisions when it comes to their sexual and reproductive health. We cannot allow harmful traditional practices to rob our world of innocent girls. We simply cannot accept a national strategy from the world’s leading donor of development assistance that grounds its principles in a business model that ignores both human beings and human rights. Mentioning human rights twice in 28 pages does not a human rights-based strategy make.

So, you might ask, is there anything good in the strategy? Well, yes there is. Three things to be exact, although all of them need further fleshing out in order to truly be effective. The first is a strong commitment to data collection and monitoring and evaluation. Ensuring we invest in the most effective and evidence-based programs will hopefully mean an end to failed policies and programs rooted in ideology rather than science. Yet, the strategy lacks specifics as to how these determinations will be made exactly.

Secondly, the strategy calls for increased transparency and accountability. According to the document, partner countries, and the US government itself, will be accountable for ensuring that aid reaches the intended beneficiaries and doesn’t end up in the pockets of corrupt leaders and political “frenemies.” Yet, there is no mechanism laid out for how this will happen. We know that civil society must be instrumental in ensuring that accountability is real and has consequences. However, there is next to no mention of civil society engagement in the document.

Third, the strategy calls specific attention to empowering women and girls because of the multiplier effect for the development of entire communities. Right on! I’m fully supportive of initiatives to reduce gender inequity. But one core constituency is notably absent: youth—young women and men. Today’s generation of young people is the largest in history. Yet, they are nowhere to be found in the US strategy. Failing to recognize the power of the millennial generation is a huge mistake that will likely undercut any significant gains made over the next five years.

Speaking of the next five years, I can’t help but wonder how the US government plans to achieve any practical gains in such a short timeframe. After all, the strategy, full of rhetoric and a laundry list of vague references to a smattering of disjointed US development initiatives, fails to lay out a specific timeline for achieving goals. In fact, it fails to even lay out any clear goals, measurable objectives, or a holistic approach to development at all.

It is clear that we have made progress toward achieving some of the MDGs, but we certainly have a long way to go, and based on this strategy alone, I dare say we will certainly miss the mark.

So, that’s what I think…what do YOU think?