Goal Eight

Develop a Global Partnership for Development

Trevor Madore

Senior, double major in Political Science and Peace & Justice. Plans to spend a year of service in LA. Hopes to attend graduate school to study developmental theory from a feminist and queer perspective. 

Photo Courtesy of Matt Miller 


Introduction

At the very core of the Millennium Development Goals is the knowledge that fighting poverty is not something that can be done by one small group, but is rather a huge undertaking requiring cooperative efforts in order to ensure success.  Therefore, every nation in the world shares some part in the success of these goals. Millennium Development Goal 8, developing a global partnership for development, is unique in its objective of providing economic and infrastructure solutions that would enable countries to achieve the other development goals through collaborative work.  Goal 8, different not only in reach, but also in origin, calls for international trade reform, opening of information and communication technologies, and donations from both the public and private sector to create a sustainable system of development.  Relying heavily on the actions of the most developed nations to integrate these tasks, the future success of this global partnership is in question as many of the necessary financial and partnership commitments have yet to be met.

Goal 8 is not only the largest in its scope, but in its text with six different targets: A) develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system, B) address the special needs of least developed countries, C) address the special needs of landlocked developing countries and small island developing states, D) deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries, E) in cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries, and F) in cooperation with the private sector, make available benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications.  To make this goal even broader and more complex, the indicators for the targets don’t seem to correlate with their respective targets.  For targets A-D, the indicators are divided into three categories: official development assistance (ODA), market access, and debt sustainability.  Though these subjects are related, the connection between the targets and indicators is weak and this unorganized formulation has probably impeded progress on this goal, and has made it hard to measure success.

The indicators making up the ODA subgroup were implemented as a measure to hold developed countries responsible for distributing assistance to the least or less developed countries (LDCs).  Market access indicators measure proportion of total developed country imports, excluding weapons, that are imported free of duties and tariffs.  Many of the debt sustainability indicators are borrowed from the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative, which was run through the World Bank.  The HIPC Initiative was a scheme to forgive debts from certain countries, given compliance with a series of criteria set by the World Bank.  These goals were then baked into the MDGs.  Similarly, the indicators from the International Monetary Fund’s Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative were added into the Debt Sustainability indicators of Goal 8.  This program has called attention upon many issues regarding the equality of debt relief and development, which is discussed later.

The last four indicators are quite disjointed, fitting nicely neither in the rest of goal 8, nor the other MDGs.  There were many special interests acting on the international level, campaigning for their respective issues addressed in the MDGs.  Some would argue that this international advocacy has skewed the goals to favor certain interests over others.  On the other hand, some people would argue that we need to harness the power of activism for other development issues, so we can have similarly strong pushes from more diverse interests.  That way, we can create a larger grassroots movement in formulating development goals.  Going forward, there need be emphasis put on gaining insights from developing regions, whose lack of inclusion has been a major flaw of the MDGs and past development strategies.

In illustration of these ‘special interests’ indicators, the first indicator of these remaining four is the “access to affordable, essential drugs on a sustainable basis.” A nice sentiment, but without a tangible goal in this indicator or the target, leaving the most marginalized without the capability to hold more developed countries accountable. The last three indicators monitor cell phones, landline phones and Internet connections in a country. While this is a useful metric of globalization in a given country, advances in cell phone technology have rendered landline phones mostly obsolete, and have lessened the need for broadband internet as well.

Overall, Goal 8 is built off of the foundation of other UN institutions for development, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Following in the footsteps of these institutions, Goal 8 calls for international trade reform, opening of information and communication technologies, and donations from both the public and private sector to create a sustainable system of development.

Historical Development

The first attempt to establish an all-encompassing global partnership occurred during the peace negotiations of World War I. Prior to this, partnerships in the mid to late 19th century had been established to cooperate on matters such as telegraphs or postage (Coyle 1966, 14).  In an effort to limit future conflicts, world leaders formed a global forum, The League of Nations, “to promote international cooperation and achieve peace through collective security.”  It was the first global partnership seeking to limit the sovereignty of states in name of peace; thus, it became one of the first intergovernmental organizations.  The partnership did touch on issues such as trade and protection of minorities, but it barely on development or aid. Nor did it become a strong or successful intergovernmental organization.  Its failure was highlighted, first by an unsuccessful attempt to be ratified by the American Congress, and later by its failure to prevent the breakout of World War II.

After the Second World War, world leaders, having seen the devastation caused by a second European war, realized the need for a strong global partnership to prevent further conflicts.  However, they understood that collective security alone would not do this.  As it turns out, no security goals have been implemented into the MDGs, which has been a huge source of criticism.  Regardless, they needed to create a system that offered economic stability and used it to keep peace between nations.  Thus, world leaders came together to establish a stronger institution of the UN, and an international monetary system that would become known as the Bretton Woods System.　

The Bretton Woods agreement lead to the eventual creation of multiple institutions: The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, The Organization for European Economic Co-operation, the United Nations and others.  Two of these institutions, the United Nations and the Organization for European Economic Co-operation, would provide the basis for many of the goals and ideas for the Millennium Development Goals.

In 1945, the United Nations officially came into existence with 51 member states.  Its mission – to establish a general international organization to maintain peace and security- does not stray far from that of the League of Nations.  Yet, the charter of the UN expanded on to other conflicts and spoke about the importance of economic stability and basic human rights.  Its structure reflected this and consisted of six bodies: General Assembly, International Court of Justice, Security Council, Trusteeship Council, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and Secretariat.  Each body is responsible for its own issue, and each play a role in maintaining peace.  The General Assembly (the main body), comprised of all member states, manages and delegates most work of the United Nations.  Beyond the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council coordinates the economic, social and related work of the United Nations, including the MDGs. One must note that the establishment of ECOSOC clearly illustrates that the UN was concerned with development at its creation.  The establishment of the Bretton Woods Economic System also indicates that world leaders at this time were concerned with development.

As the UN charter was discussed and then signed, another global partnership was developing in the field of economics.  The Bretton Woods System, a compromise between Keynesian economics and neo-liberalism, created the first fully negotiated monetary system.  It consisted of the three pillars: International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). Further, it yielded the formation of the US dollar as a world currency and fixed exchange rates. At the time, the GATT, a global set of trade regulations, embodied the spirit of free trade. Monetary regulations were established in which the US dollar would be pegged to gold and all other currencies would be pegged to gold at a lower rate.  Those at the conference also created institutions to help countries rebuild after WWII through the World Bank, and future disasters could pursue short-term loans from the IMF.  In short, the Bretton Woods agreement tried its best to create a stable world economy that was state-controlled, heavily influenced by the United States, and which would promote a balance between free trade and regulation.

To aid the rebuilding effort of Europe after the Second World War, a number of other partnerships and aid plans were established and maintained, most notably the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC).  The idea behind the OEEC was to implement an aid strategy to rebuild Europe, the Marshall plan.  The Marshall Plan was a series of US grants given to European nations to rebuild after the war.  This was the first of many aid packages that the US would give in the name of development.

After a successful implementation of the Marshall Plan, the OEEC continued and turned to face other economic questions in Europe such as regional free trade.  As a result, the European Economic Community was formed and the OEEC became the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1960, adding the US and Canada as members.  The OECD and the year 1960 would prove to vital steps in history of the MDGs.  This new group would expand its reach beyond Europe to include the United States, Canada, and Japan shortly after. A couple of years later Finland, Australia, and New Zealand would also join the OECD.

Just as the OECD began to focus on global development (rather than European), the UN began to focus more on development as well.  In 1960, the UN admitted 17 new members, almost all African countries, which dramatically shifted the focuses of the UN towards development. (Jackson 2007, 7).  This can be seen as a first step in creating a more inclusive global governance system, an ideal that still requires much attention.

At first, the UN felt compelled to focus on reducing world hunger, but quickly they expanded to illiteracy and diseases.  The UN declared the sixties “the development decade.”  In 1962, developing countries came together at the Conference on the Problems of Economic development in Cairo.  The general assembly immediately recommended an adherence to the provisions set forth in Cairo.  Despite this and other campaigns aimed at combating hunger and diseases, UN only achieved limited success.

On October 24, 1970, the UN declared that it was going to try again and named the seventies the “Second United Nations Development Decade,” adopting a strategy called the International Development Strategy.  Many of the indicators of Goal 8 stem from this strategy, which also required that developed countries provided ODA to the tune of 0.7 percent of their gross national income (GNI).  It also established the difference between developing countries and least developed countries, those who are responsible for donating aid, and those that require the need of such aid.

This new strategy, however, was met with a new challenge.  The Gold standard (a product of The Bretton Woods System) collapsed, highlighting issues within neoliberal economics which are still debated today.  The global economic environment fell apart as worldwide inflation rose and food became scarce.  Thus, a midterm review of the International Development Strategy did not show much improvement.  As one group, developing countries came together again, and demanded a new international economic order.  They believed the decade was a failure because developed countries did not use enough political will to assist the developing countries.

In response, the general assembly did three things.  First, they adopted a set of 20 principles to be used in the new order.  Second, they adopted emergency measures to confront the effects of economic downturn on least developed and landlocked countries.  Third, they, again, declared a development decade for the eighties.  The New Development strategy had a number of targets including eliminating poverty and augmenting developing countries’ GDP by 7.5%. Indicators for the market access portion of Goal 8 were born from a call for a new international economic era and proposed in the New Development Strategy.  The 1980s were challenging times for development, however, because the Reagan Administration in the United States and the Thatcher government in the UK embraced economic orders that were failing on the global level, and didn’t prioritize development as previous administrations had.  Again, the UN did not meet its targets and a new order was not created.

In August 1968, former Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson convened a commission at the request of Robert McNamara, then President of the World Bank. The group was to look at the past 20 years of development assistance and see how future development could be more successful. This commission became known as the Pearson Commission, and on September 15, 1969, they would release their report titled, “Partners in Development.” The report recommended that developed countries should pledge .7% of their GNP through Official Development Assistance.

In 1995 the OECD would come together for a conference to discuss their plans for the future.  This led to the creation of a proposal for how the OECD, and subordinate Development Assistance Committee, would act in the future, and how they would help shape the 21st century.  Two papers were produced that would shape the goals of the OECD in the 21st Century.  The first, published in 1995 was titled, Development Partnerships in the New Global Context. The second paper, building off of the first, was titled Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Co-Operation.

The goal of the conference was for members of the OECD to set goals and show that their development money was going to achieve results and make a difference.  Many of the goals that were set out were eventually used as the goals in the Millennium Development Goals.  Some of the goals set by the OECD were:

• A reduction of one-half the population living in extreme poverty by 2015.

• Establishing universal primary education in all countries by 2015.

• Showing demonstrated progress toward gender equality and the empowerment of women by eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005.

• A reduction by two-thirds in the mortality rates for infants and children under age 5 and a reduction by three-fourths in maternal mortality by 2015.

• Access through the primary health-care system to reproductive health services for all individuals of appropriate ages as soon as possible and no later than the year 2015.

• The current implementation of national strategies for sustainable development in all countries by 2005, so as to ensure that current trends in the loss of environmental resources are effectively reversed at both global and national levels by 2015.

As is evident, one can compare these ideals to the various goals and targets of the MDGs to see which had the political backing to stay, and which others were later excluded.  For example, the goal that calls for reproductive health services being available by 2015 did not make it into the final version of the MDGs because conservative leaders in the United States and the Vatican hold anti-abortion stances.  As for the others listed, they were able to find themselves placed in various MDGs.

Current Status

Today the ideas behind Goal 8 are seeing pushback, calling into question the policies that institutions like the OECD, World Bank and the IMF have been pursuing for decades.  The world has changed significantly since the MDGs were proposed, and Goal 8 is one area where the world has moved faster than expected.  The idea that poorer countries need special attention is still quite apparent, and may be even more important now than when the goals were ratified.

Since 2008 there has been a marked shift in the way the world’s economy has been operating.  Developed nations have been experiencing the recent economic downturn that began in 2008 with the Banking and Housing Crises in America, which then spread to the sub-prime financial markets, and were interlinked globally.  This wreaked havoc on the economy of Iceland and, as of this writing is putting the Greek economy on the verge of bankruptcy.  This link could spread to take down the entire Euro zone.

At this same time, many countries are beginning to question the neo-liberal principles that were being pushed by the IMF and the World Bank.  The recession has exposed the flaws in the beliefs held by the IMF and World Bank as fundamental economic truths about growth.  Many countries, especially China, have proven that ways other than those prescribed by the IMF and World Bank might work.  The economic crisis that has hurt the developed world and the rising power of middle power countries, informally referred to as the BRICS, (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has led to cracks being exposed in the Bretton Woods system.  Many countries previously not in a position to refute the neo-liberal policies being inflicted upon them are now finding their voice and beginning to make their own economic decisions.

The World Bank and the IMF, once influenced by the United States almost to the point of domination, are now led by a Chinese economist, Justin Yifu Lin.  Twenty years ago, it would have been unimaginable that anyone outside the OECD would assume this role.  Developing countries have been able to influence IMF, World Bank and UN policies that are no longer extensions of OECD policies.

In addition, the vast string of revolutions in the Middle East, eventually coined “The Arab Spring,” is clear evidence of how divided and removed players on the global stage have become.  These uprisings, of the discontent base of so many countries, have put most of the global community on its heels.  These unforeseen events have caused the global community to reevaluate their perceptions of the undeveloped and developing world.  It is becoming increasingly evident, with each new revolution, that the old rules are dead.  At this point in time UN officials are scrambling to reevaluate their role in working to facilitate global partnerships.  It is increasingly apparent that developing countries, seizing control of their own destinies from the hands of dictators and oppressive rulers, are demanding their place at the table.

While the world has begun to question beliefs that were the foundation for the Bretton Woods system (and thus many of the targets and indicators of Goal 8), they have not changed.  There is still the emphasis on continuing to open up markets, increasing access and affordability of life saving drugs, lowering debt to sustainable levels, and expanding global access to technology.  The last of these objectives has been perhaps the strongest leg of Goal 8, as will be discussed in the following.

The first, Target A, seeks to develop a non-discriminatory and more fair trading and global financial system, while the second calls for caring to the special needs of least developed countries.  Specifically, we are to create tariff and quota free access to underdeveloped countries’ exports, expedite debt relief, and increase ODA (UN Fact Sheet).  As of November 2001, the international community has been negotiating, without yet concluding, a new round of trade agreements for the WTO, known as the Doha Development Round.  Many were hopeful that these negotiations, along with the MDGs, would be the next step in creating a more equal world, rather than the current paradigm favoring some developed countries.  Unfortunately, the incompletion of this round, over a decade later, indicates the divided interests in today’s world.  These contestations point to the many fundamental shifts in international relations occurring today.  More countries are demanding fairer norms and regulations, while others struggle with sacrificing their power for the sake of development and a more equitable economic paradigm.

As is outlined in the text of Goal 8, both Targets A and B’s indicators deal with ODA and not with what the literal words would seem to imply; a discrepancy alluded to while introducing the goal.  Trade issues may be so deeply rooted that they are easy to gloss over.  Not only are we in the midst of the decade-long Doha Round, but over 60 of the least developed countries do not have the institutional framework to adequately respond to international trade measures (Rege, 2013, 457).  There is either a lack of qualified and available individuals, no existing or functioning government structure, or simply a lack of funds (Rege, 2013, 457).  Three main agreements lacking trade-defensive infrastructure in least developed countries regard anti-dumping measures (ADP), levying countervailing duties on products that have been imported from a country that subsidizes the industry (ASCM), and providing safeguards when domestic industries are being hurt by trade liberation (AOS) (Rege, 2013, 458).  Only when we work to improve access to these agreements, through true collaboration with developing countries, can we move to ensure a global trading and economic system that works for all countries.

Secondly, after fairer trade, there is an understanding that we must also be working toward debt relief for countries that are experiencing debt at crippling levels.  In 1996, the HIPC Initiative was launched by the IMF and the World Bank with the ideal of doing just that.  In light of the MDGs, in 2005 the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) was launched for countries undergoing the original HIPC Initiative process, with the goal of furthering debt relief.  In order to be included, developing countries were required to meet certain criteria that their commitment to poverty reduction.  When these commitments were met, debt relief would be provided (Debt Relief, 2013, 1).  The benefits of debt relief are often felt by those who are most marginalized when the additional money is being spent on social programs that help the impoverished.  This is significant because many other development strategies have been criticized for doing the opposite, excluding the most marginalized populations.

During the economic era of structural adjustment, international economic institutions required countries receiving economic aid to restructure their domestic policies and spending plans to conform to neoliberal, capitalist, privatized principles.  It soon became obvious that these programs hurt those with the least means, who could not engage in a privatized, for-profit society.  As mentioned, the new era of debt relief seems to encourage the opposite.  Countries that have undergone these debt relief programs are now able to spend more money on health, education, and other social services now than ever before, as they are no longer required to dramatically cut public spending (Debt Relief, 2013, 2).  These programs can be viewed as a success given that many post-completion countries have seen their debt decrease.  This is great for those countries with the resources to buy into this system; for others, problems of perpetual debt continue to be a major issue, and this model for debt relief continues to foster global inequalities.

Not only do the indicators for these first few targets of Goal 8 ignore many of the issues described above, but they also link ideals of trade and debt relief to ODA.  This is problematic because it forces conformity for receiving governments.  Countries that align their policies with the interests of donor countries are those most rewarded with development aid (Sundaram, 2011, 32).  Many times, these policies contradict the vision of the country and are damaging for the most marginalized.  While structural adjustment required countries to dramatically cut public spending on public jobs and social services, the current development regime applies many of the same pressures.  Many of the recommended public policy solutions agitate other problems in the receiving countries (Sundaram, 2011, 32).  So while we reward behaving countries with higher amounts of ODA, we are inherently punishing those who do not conform to the standards laid out in traditional development plans.  We need to create a development agenda that does not apply these pressures, but instead allows for flexibility and the understanding that some developing societies will look divergent from developed ones, as evident in the economic development of China and other BRICS.

Though these pressures are surely inhibiting development, there is some recognition that development strategies do not work uniformly in the text of Goal 8. For example, Target C addresses the special needs of landlocked countries. While trade policies need to be revamped to help these countries, the indicators also call for agricultural assistance (United Nations, 2013). However, many argue that current agricultural assistance hurts developing countries because more developed countries, like the United States, export genetically modified seeds that outcompete and ruin domestic agricultural systems. Instead of allowing for the creation of sustainable, local agricultural development, these export strategies of developed countries inhibit the growth of other agricultural systems. Farmers in LDCs cannot remain competitive when these industries are subsidized in other countries and those crops are brought into their communities.  In fact, this issue has been one of the major points of disagreement during the Doha Round.  Additionally, genetically modified seeds destroy biodiversity and there is increasing consciousness of their inherent unsustainability.

Though many targets and indicators are not close to being achieved, globalization has led to a remarkable increase in mobile phone subscriptions around the world with 68% of the world’s population having a cell phone in 2009, to a projected 6.8 billion cell phone subscriptions (96% of global population) by the end of 2013 (United Nations, 2013).  This is an astounding number, indicating that the underdeveloped world is joining the mobile communications arena at an alarming rate.  As mentioned before, many argue that cell phone accessibility is the most important communication device because of the growing obsolete qualities of landlines.

Similarly, the growth of internet access in developing countries has been extraordinary with a growing rate of 12 percent in 2013.  Considering that 65 percent of global internet users in 2013 were from developing countries, up from 40 percent in 2005, we have made great strides in providing internet access around the globe.  This is partially due to the fact that broadband internet has become much more affordable and thus more available.  Though we have seen some success with this target, there is still progress to be made in the hardest-to-reach areas of the world still without access, which is the case in many developing countries (United Nations, 2013).  The most marginalized communities continue to be left behind, though development statistics would lead some to believe otherwise.

While it is evident that many of the targets and indicators are far from being achieved, some progress has been made.  One of the biggest issues with Goal 8 is that many of the ideals surrounding it have become outdated and need to be addressed in a post-2015 era of development.  In addition, there should be a bigger effort to render the goals, targets, and indicators more explicit, as opposed to the current disjointedness of Goal 8.

Successes and Challenges

Goal 8 aims to work with developing countries for its success, but the real burden of this goal falls on already developed countries. The “Global Partnership” that this goal seeks to create calls for already-developed regions to collaborate in ensuring the overall success of the MDGs. The tragedy is developed nations are most able to facilitate development, but most have taken a minimal amount of action, which has arguably exacerbated the failures of many of the MDGs, including some targets of Goal 8.

During the Second Development Decade of 1970, a goal was set for developed countries to designate 0.7% of their GNI for development assistance, as mentioned above. As of 2005, only five countries achieved this: Norway (.93%), Sweden (.92%), Luxembourg (.87%), Netherlands (.82%), and Denmark (.81%). After major public support for the MDGs and development in Great Britain, they too have been on track recently to meet this goal of 0.7% GNI. Although the United States has promised to achieve this level of donor support, they stood at .22% of GNI in 2005. This simple promise does not even ask for 1% of donor countries’ GNI, and it is saddening to see how many countries have failed to live up to this ideal.  If all nations promising to donate at this level actualized their promise, there would be more than enough aid to achieve the MDGs. This being the case, many would agree that this is one major reason many other development goals have not been achieved. We have the capabilities to end global poverty, but we must continue to raise public and political support for these issues. Goal 8 was the opportunity for developed nations to step up after decades of supporting this 0.7% promise, yet many are still neglecting this ideal.

Many countries will claim that they do not have the funds for development, especially after the 2008 recession.  However, social activists have designed a creative way to raise billions of dollars, in the form of a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT).  If there were a FTT, also known as the Robin Hood Tax, implemented in the United States, it could generate up to $350 billion a year.  If this money were put towards human need, there would be more than enough for the United States alone to end global poverty and its many associated maladies.  This would be less than a 1% tax on different types of trading in which only large financial institutions engage.  In a time where these large banks are known to have caused a global financial crisis, the implementation of this tax is appropriate now more than ever.  This is only one of many solutions that have been offered to help solve the problem of raising revenue for development assistance.

Considering many regions require different development strategies, we must recognize the need for LDCs and other developing regions to be more included in global governance and development creation. As a global community, we must design avenues of participation for these countries to participate and shape development agendas. The technology of our globalized world is capable; we need only to harness the political support.  The post-WWII era was when the world decided to create international institutions for the betterment of all.  We are at a similar breaking point where we must actualize the ideals outlined in said institutions. The Millennium Development Goals and other eras of development were created by richer countries for poorer countries, with this notion of privilege explicit. We must deverticialize global governance and truly recognize the place at the table these countries deserve, especially in terms of achieving actual development.

Not only should countries have an equal voice in creating development strategies, but all must be included in restructuring global trade policies.  The Doha Round is a great start, but it must be concluded and efforts made for further inclusiveness.  We must work to not punish countries that don’t follow neoliberal economic philosophies, and dismantle the power of developed countries in international economic institutions.  We are still operating in a global arena that is state-centric and many countries are simply working for their own well-being.  Knowing this, it should not come as a surprise that more developed countries with dominating voices in these institutions structure trade policies that benefit their own lands.  We can no longer privilege countries that have created their economic success on the backs of lesser developed nations. We have seen this throughout history in the form of colonialism, structural adjustment, and now economic dictation and domination. It was stated above that the League of Nations was created to ensure a more peaceful world at the expense of state sovereignty. We are at another turning point in history where this needs to be furthered in order to create true cooperation, where states are not only self-interested.

If the United States were an MDG Country

            Goal 8 is distinct in that it measures development processes in developing countries, and also engages those who are responsible for this development.  Considering this, it is more interesting to critique where the United States has failed in its obligations for development work.  Enacting legislation like the Robin Hood Tax, mentioned above, would require action from the political institutions and civil society of the United States, that has never really existed before.  Although there has been rhetoric, actually working for development hasn’t been a political priority.  The United States has never reached the .7% of GDP to ODA goal, although they are the wealthiest country in the world.  If the United States were to reach this ideal, the amount of money available to development would be substantially higher than it is currently, allowing for better-funded development programs and higher functioning.

As was also mentioned, the subsidized agricultural industry in the United States (and Europe) destroys agricultural economies of other countries.  These practices need to be seriously critiqued and adjusted by those living in developed countries as we enter a post-2015 era of development.  Also, the United States is using its power in global economic institutions to delay the Doha Round of trade agreements, and has historically blocked any global economic regulations that would work against their interests.  International relations today is marked by states acting in their self-interest, which is a flaw, but perhaps the global community would not be quick to criticize the US’s trade policies and agreements if they weren’t quick to implement ones that are damaging to other countries.

Most notably, the United States created the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) as an independent development agency that works outside the MDGs.  This perpetuates the notion that the United States does not need to work with other countries within existing global governance structures, but as an independent actor.  Another example of this is the Global Fund to end HIV/AIDS tuberculosis and malaria versus PEPFAR.  The Global Fund is a multilateral program, meaning several countries donate to the fund and it is used to help countries in need.  PEPFAR is bilateral in that it is independent to the United States and the countries they decide should receive funding.  Though PEPFAR has been a successful program, the same level of success cannot be found in the functions of the MCC.  The MCC has some similar priorities as the MDGs, but also other aspects that are not included in international dialogue.  This has certainly impeded process is achieving the MDGs because the United States has since focused a lot of energy on their insistence of using bilateral agreements, instead of multilateral efforts the UN and MDGs promotes.  In order to have a successful global development era, it is necessary that the US actualize target donor amounts, work on adjusting international trade, and work collaboratively with other countries dedicated to development efforts.

Where do we go from here?

            The restructuring of global society called for by Goal 8 of the MDGs has not been achieved, yet is integral in the success of the other goals.  Creating more inclusive policies not rooted in hierarchies of developed countries over developing countries must be created if we are to create sustainable change in how the world operates.  Poverty is being exacerbated by a few people using a majority of the world’s resources, and this must change.  Many of the ideals in Goal 8 work for this remodeling of international affairs.  However, there has been a severe lack of political accountability in the MDGs, with Goal 8 being the most notable.  In terms of ODA, most developed countries have not come close to the donor targets, and this apathy has influenced attitudes towards development in general.  The UN and MDGs have conceptualized development as something that we should do, not something that is necessary.  The fact that there are no punishments for countries that fail to comply with the development agreements they signed onto demonstrates just that.  In addition, trade continues to be an issue that is devastating developing economics at the expense of richer countries’ interests.  Regions of the world do not develop because they are incapable, but because there are systematic inequalities inhibiting their growth.  Goal 8 works to rectify some of these inequalities, and it is no surprise the developed world has ignored the promises of this goal more than others.  In post-2015 development, we need to create binding agreements with measures that allow developing and developed countries alike be held accountable, to ensure an era where developing countries are included in development agreements, and indiscriminately reap the benefits.