Empty Wallets and Empty Stomachs
Gregory BakerSophomore, Political Science and Religious Studies double majors. Interested in foreign policy and international development, and hopes to work on either of those things after college.
 |
| Photo Courtesy of Claire McQuillen |
Target 1.A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of
people whose income is less than $1 a day.
Target 1.B: Achieve full and productive employment and decent
work for all, including women and young people.
Target 1.C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of
people who suffer from hunger.
The successes of Goal One and its three targets are
varied and subject to much argument and disagreement. Some say that it’s not
ambitious enough, as in the case of target 1.A. Others say that the Goal has
been successful. Overall, the progress is mixed. Target 1.A has been reached,
however there are still 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty (United
Nations, 2013, 6). In the following sections, Goal One will be examined from a
number of angles. First, there will be a brief survey of the Millennium
Development Goals, with Goal One particularly in mind. Then we’ll move on to
look at how Goal One is doing now in relation to where it needs to be, and
whether the targets will be achieved by 2015. Then we’ll move on to look at the
successes, challenges, and failures of Goal One, ranging from the meeting of
target 1.A to the failures of the Goal as a whole. Finally, questions will be
raised on how to move forward after the 2015 deadline for the Millennium
Development Goals has passed, including what should be changed, whether another
set of goals is required, and what is needed to continue to address the
eradication of global poverty and hunger, as well as the creation of more
equal, substantive employment around the world.
Historical
Development
The path of development and the
realization of the Millennium Development Goals is a long and winding one – 66
years of continuous goal setting by the UN led up to the Millennium Summit in
2000 (Wilkinson, Hulme, 2013, 20). It all started with John F. Kennedy who
announced the first “development decade”, from 1960 to 1970 (Wilkinson, Hulme,
20). The second “development decade” occurred from 1970 to 1980, and was the
first time that emphasis was put on global poverty reduction. The idea that
everyone should have a decent place to live and that this issue is
interconnected to others like poverty goes all the way back to the Declaration of Human Rights published in
1948. It stated: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care… (Hulme, 2009, 6-7).” Poverty reduction truly came to
the forefront in 1990, when both the World Bank (WB) and the UN Development
Program (UNDP) stated that poverty was a major issue that would be addressed
with the intention of seriously improving the lives of people around the world
(Hulme, 2009, 8).
A major theme in poverty reduction
is that it’s interconnected with other issues as well, especially those
addressed by targets 1.B and 1.C, employment and hunger. The International
Labor Organization (ILO) first championed the realization that the problem of
employment needed to be addressed globally. Created in the Treaty of Versailles
in 1919, they held the first International Labor Conference in Washington DC
the same year, where six International Labor Conventions were approved,
handling hours of work, maternity protection, unemployment, night work for both
women and young people, and the minimum age for work. (“Origins and History,”
2013)
Hunger was first addressed on the
world stage in early November of 1974, at the World Food Conference in Rome
hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). There were three topics
of conversation: creating a Fund for agricultural development, addressing world
food security and, finally, creating an institutional framework for applying
the decisions made and policies created at the conference (Food And Agriculture
Organization, 1974, 1). Among these were the creation of an emergency
information system for agriculture and food, which was adopted by everyone but
the USSR and China (Food And Agriculture Organization, 1974, 2). The conference
also decided to increase, in cereals, the amount of food aid to 1,000,000 tons
(Food And Agriculture Organization, 1974, 4). The most important outcome,
however, was the “universal declaration for the definitive elimination of
hunger (Food And Agriculture Organization, 1974, 6),” and that “every man,
women and child has the right to be free from hunger and malnutrition (“United Nations,
2005”).” This meant that everyone had the right to be able to live free from
hunger and malnutrition, the first time that the issue of hunger was truly
addressed on a global scale.
The 90s were the busiest years in
terms of conferences and summits, with 1995 being the peak. Perhaps most
important was the World Summit on Social Development held in Copenhagen and
attended by 117 world leaders. Two of its main focuses were on global poverty
reduction and employment, which were given considerable attention in the final
declaration of the conference (Hulme, 2009, 10-11).
Interestingly, the first goals to be
drawn up were not the Millennium Development Goals, but the International
Development Goals (IDGs) by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). The
idea was to have a list of goals that would quickly and effectively decrease
poverty around the world. The creation of the IDGs “unleashed a genie (Hulme,
2009, 21).” The idea that a list of goals, signed off on and ratified by all
the nations of the world, could be used to quickly reduce poverty around the globe
was not a new idea: goals had been created since the concept of development
began, but not at this scale and level of ambition.
The actual creation of the
Millennium Development Goals was a battle. In April of 2000, Kofi Annan
published his We the Peoples: The Role of
the United Nations in the 21st Century report. It paralleled the
DACs Shaping the 21st Century,
which laid out ideas for the IDGs by setting out concepts that would eventually
be incorporated into the Millennium Development Goals. There were some major
differences, particularly on views for poverty reduction (Hulme, 2009, 26). The
UN and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) hashed
out their disagreements in the summer of 2000, with the UN on the side of the
Millennium Development Goals and the OEDC on the side of the IDGs. There was
particular focus on the content of the goal on poverty reduction, which got the
most publicity (Hulme, 2009, 33). In the
end, one goal with three targets was agreed upon, and Goal One of the
Millennium Development Goals was born (Hulme, 2009, 34).
Current
Status
Much progress has been made on Goal
One of the Millennium Development Goals, but there is still a long way to go
for each of the three targets, 1.A, B, and C. The rates have been halved, but
1.2 million are still living in extreme poverty. The recent global economic
crisis has worsened the jobs gap to 67 million. One in eight people will go to
sleep hungry tonight, and one in six children around the world are underweight
(United Nations, 2013, 6). Let’s break it down target by target to get a sense
of the full picture.
Target 1.A
Halve,
between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a
day
Target 1.A has been met 5 years
ahead of schedule, but there’s still a long way to go before we achieve
complete eradication. 700 million people are no longer living in extreme
poverty, but there are still 1.2 million who are. The regional disparities are
large: Sub-Saharan Africa is severely lagging behind, with 48% of people living
under on $.1.25 a day. Southern Asia comes in second worst, at 30%. Not
surprisingly, North America has fared the best – 1% live on under $1.25 a day.
China has had the most improvement, reducing from 60% to 12% the poverty rate
in the country. Sadly, and predictably, Sub-Saharan had the worst improvement,
only reducing their poverty rate by 8%. The number of people living in poverty
there has actually increased recently, from 290 million to 414 million – 1/3 of
the global total (United Nations, 2013, 6-7).
Poverty is most prevalent where there’s
a lack of education and decent health services, a deficiency of respectable
jobs, places where corruption, bad government and violence are rampant, and
environmental resources are lacking or used up (United Nations, 2013. 7). Poverty
is extremely interconnected to a number of other issues, especially hunger and
jobs – both which fall under Goal One as well – but also things like the
absence of sufficient education, equality and opportunities for women, and
violent conflict. This issue of interconnectedness will be addressed in more
depth later on. Another point to address is the ambition of target 1.A: some
have said that merely halving the number of people living under $1 a day
Target 1B
Achieve
full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and
young people
Target 1.B has not enjoyed as much
success as 1.A. Its goal to “achieve full and productive employment and decent
work for all, including women and young people (United Nations, 2013, 8)” has
not been met. Unfortunately, the ratio of unemployment for working-age people
has actually gone down. In 2007 it was at 61.3%, however by 2012 it has been
reduced to 60.3%. This slow decrease is in part due to the terrible financial
crisis that sickened the global economy, which in turn reduced the number of
jobs and reduced participation in the labor force (United Nations, 2013, 8).
The gender gap is still strong too: a 24.8% employment gap between women and
men (United Nations, 2013, 9).
As for regional and economic
disparities, Southern and Eastern Asia experienced decreases in the employment-to-population
ratio, while Sub-Saharan Africa has stayed the same. Improvements have been
seen in Latin America and Central Asia. Overall, in both developed and
developing regions, there has been a decrease in the ratio. The gender-gap is
most severe in Northern Africa and Southern Asia, and overall the world is
severely lagging behind in the goal of eliminating the gap entirely (United
Nations, 2013, 9).
Considerable work needs to be done
to meet target 1.B. Both the developing and developed worlds need to make large
strides in order to reach full and productive work for all – over 60% of people
in the developing world still only make $4 or less a day. This connects back to
poverty and hunger: when you make $4 a day, you don’t have much money for food
or a home. To meet the goal, there needs to be a broad focus to “improve
productivity, promote sustainable structural transformation and expand social
protection systems to ensure basic social services for the poor and most
vulnerable workers and their families (United Nations, 2013, 9).”
Target 1.C
Halve,
between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger
Target 1.C has also struggled to
meet its goal: “halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who
suffer from hunger (United Nations, 2013, 10).” 1 in 8 people, or roughly 870
million, don’t eat enough food to cover their daily energy requirements. A
majority of these people live in developing areas of the world. The good news
is that the overall percentage of the undernourished has gone from 23.2% in
1990 to 14.9% in 2012. At this pace, the overall target is achievable by 2015 (United
Nations, 2013 10).
Once again the region with the
biggest hill to climb is Sub-Saharan Africa, where 27% of people living there
are underfed. Other areas that most likely will not meet the target are
Southern Asia, Oceana, and the Caribbean. Eastern Asia and Central America are
on target however, as well as Latin America. Interesting, Western Asia has
actually gotten worse, going from 7% in 1990 to 10% in 2012. Overall the developing
world is much worse off than the developed. Only 1% of the population in the
developed world is undernourished, while 15% are in the developing (United
Nations, 2013, 10).
Within 870 million undernourished
people, 101 million children under the age of five are undernourished and
therefore underweight. Thankfully, there has been improvement since the
initiation of the Millennium Development Goals, but there is still a long way
to go (United Nations, 2013, 11). The issue of malnutrition of children is
important for a couple of reasons. First, undernourishment of children stunts
growth, which will make them weak, sick, and put them at a disadvantage to
other children, as well as making it more difficult for them to care for
parents or family members in the event that they’re sick too. Second, obesity
is also a form of malnutrition, which has risen since inception of the
Millennium Development Goals. 1 in 4 obese children around the world live in
Sub-Saharan Africa (United Nations, 2013, 12).
A continuing theme when looking at Goal
One and its three targets is the interconnectedness of the problems each one
addresses, as well as with other issues that influence poverty. There is a vicious
cycle where those that are stuck in poverty don’t have enough money to get an
adequate amount of food to live off of without being undernourished. This in
turn means that they will lack energy and be less productive at work, if they
even have a job, and as a result they make less money, and so don’t have
sufficient resources to live in good housing. This is the poverty trap, and it
victimizes millions every day. And it’s not merely the subjects of hunger and
employment that affect it. Lack of education can also lead to poverty, because
those that don’t have an education are not viewed as qualified for
higher-paying employment, therefore getting stuck with jobs paying lower wages,
which means that they won’t have enough money for good quality housing, and
might even have to pick between housing and food.
Successes
And Challenges
As
discussed above, the success of Goal One: Eradicating Extreme Poverty and Hunger
has been mixed, and there are many challenges ahead to accomplish the targets.
The biggest achievement is, of course, the completion of target 1.A, to halve
the number of people living on under a dollar a day. However, Target 1.B is
terribly behind and will not be met by 2015. Target 1.C has been relatively
successful, especially in specific areas, but still needs a final push to get
it over the finish line for 2015.
One challenge facing the Millennium
Development Goals is the fact that they weren’t a huge change from the past:
perhaps they are not radical enough to create the change that is needed. They
also rely on human decency, which has been a problem when it comes to corrupt governments
in developing countries siphoning off aid money and resources for themselves,
and in doing so severely hindering development (Poku, Whiteman, 2011, 182).
Another challenge is that of
conflict. It’s almost impossible to do development work in areas that are home
to anything from a small struggle to all-out war. Countries that are under such
conditions are hard to safely get in to, and even if you do, you have to worry
about your security and the security of the people you are helping. Since it’s
harder to get into conflict-ridden countries in the first place, and without a
specific goal directed towards providing security and reducing conflict,
development in these countries will continue to be stagnant. (Institute of Development Studies, 2013, 1).
A major obstacle for development has
been the worldwide economic disaster. It reduced the gains made by the
Millennium Development Goals leading up to the start of the crisis in 2007 –
215 million people were living in poverty by 2009 that weren’t at the beginning
of the disaster (United Nations Development Grouping, 2010, 2). There’s another
cruel cycle here: because of the falling GDP and wages accumulated through
work, more and more people are becoming vulnerable to falling below the extreme
poverty line, if they haven’t already (United Nations Development, 2010, 1).
The targets of Goal One have also
been criticized for their lack of ambition. Some have said that only halving
poverty is a tragically meek goal, and Fidel Castro had this to say of target
1.C: “This goal is, just for its modesty, a shame (Poku, Whiteman, 2011, 183).”
Another issue is that the goals were developed based on the problems of the
1990s, for development during the 21st century. This is why the
reference point for most of the Millennium Development Goals are statistics
from 1990. Another challenge is that the goals are not tailored to the specific
needs of certain places and cultures – they’re global standards that everyone
is expected to achieve, whether they meet their needs or not. The Millennium
Development Goals can be met without helping the most affected, a trend most
prevalent in Africa (Poku, Whiteman, 2011 185). There is also a level of
disorganization and dysfunction that limit the Millennium Development Goal’s
effectiveness. Sometimes the actual numbers for the reference points in 1990
are not available, can’t be found, or simply aren’t there. The countries and worst
off areas within them are the hardest to reach and don’t get the help they
need. Data isn’t consistent because different countries get it from different
places and measure it in different ways. Sometimes there aren’t even systems in
place to measure or even acquire statistics (Poku, Whiteman, 2011, 184).
The biggest accomplishment of Goal
One has been successfully halving the number people around the world living on
under a dollar a day, and achieving this feat five years early. However, even
in that success is a challenge – we only halved the amount. What about
eliminating poverty altogether? Target 1.C has also enjoyed success in places,
although in some areas hunger is still a major issue and the target won’t be met
by 2015. Interestingly, hunger could be seen as a barrier to reducing poverty,
because it’s itself both a cause and result of severe poverty.
What is the cost of all this? That
question has been disputed and revisited numerous times. A report done by the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that to
reach the Millennium Development Goals, $120 billion must be spent every year
until 2015. And that’s only for the first six goals (McNair, 2012). There are a
number of suggestions for how else to fund the goals that will be looked at in
the following section.
What If The
United States Was A Millennium Development Goal Country?
How does the United States measure up to Goal One?
Interestingly, the United States does not have a fixed poverty line – it
changes each year based on inflation and other indicators. Each year the
threshold changes, with different ones for different family sizes. If a
family’s income, before taxes, is less than the threshold then that family is
in poverty. The level per day is also different than the one the Millennium
Development Goals use of under a dollar a day: for an individual under 65, the
threshold is 11,945, which boils down to roughly 33 dollars a day, so while
national poverty numbers have gone up since 2000, increasing from 12.2 to 15.9%
in 2012 (United States Census Bureau, 2013), the poor in America are much
better off than the poor in other regions of the world.
Achieving full and equal employment
is a fairly ambitious task for any country, and the US is no different.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the employment-to-population ratio
is 58.3% ("Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject,” 2013). This is
only slightly better that the global average in developed regions of 55%
(United Nations, 2013, 8). Thankfully, the numbers for undernourished people in
the US is slightly more uplifting. Only 5% of the population is undernourished
("Prevalence of Undernourishment (% of Population)," 2013), lower
than almost every other region in the world except for Northern Africa (United
Nations, 2013, 10).
Where Do We
Go From Here?
The 2015 deadline for the Millennium Development Goals
is fast approaching. Undoubtedly, much progress has been made in eradicating
extreme poverty and hunger. But there is still a long way to go in completely
getting rid of it, and there are a number of ways that the policies and goals
themselves could be changed and improved to continue development after 2015. The
question of how future development projects will be funded also lingers.
First, there are major regional disparities globally,
with some doing much better than others. Sub-Saharan Africa has fared
particularly poorly. These failures have led to the realization that top-down
development will not have the effect needed, and instead development must be
country-led, with specific goals for each, instead of general targets for
everyone (United Nations Development Group, 2010, 1). Even here there are
problems: small, less-developed countries economies might experience difficulty
in taking on large amounts of foreign aid (Poku, Whiteman, 2011, 190). However,
this is only a problem of aid: specific, nationally focused goals are the way
forward after 2015.
A larger focus on jobs is also
needed. Job creation needs to be accepted as its own goal, and not thrown onto
another as merely an added target. Because of the interconnectedness of decent,
safe work to other problems like poverty, it’s extremely important for this to
happen, otherwise development on things like poverty and hunger will be held
back (United Nations Development Group, 2010, 2-3). Within this new goal, a
greater focus is needed on creating employment in rural areas. Home to 75% of
the world’s poor, people living there feel the pain of unemployment the most.
Migration to cities is common, however even then the poor aren’t guaranteed
qualities jobs – most work in the informal economy, meaning that there are few
regulations, if any, including business protection and taxes. Jobs in this
sector are uncertain and especially common among women (United Nations
Development Group, 2010, 3-4). Finally, emphasis should not only be put on
creating jobs, but also green jobs that help the environment, in order to
create more stable, sustainable economies around the world (United Nations
Development Group, 2010, 5).
Moving forward, a better system for
data collection is necessary. Unfortunately, there is a pattern of the
worst-off countries also being the most corrupt and unable to produce accurate information.
It’s also in these countries that the UN has the most trouble conducting
surveys. Data gathered is vital to successfully measuring what needs to be
fixed and where things are working or not, and to track progress (Poku,
Whiteman, 2011, 191-192).
How will development be financed
after 2015? There are a number of opinions on this topic. One option is
microfinance. Used to help development on a smaller to medium scale for
specific issues has shown to be effective, especially in poverty reduction and
employment creation projects. There is merit in the idea of attempting to
replicate this on a larger scale to have a greater amount of populations and
areas (United Nations Development Group 3). Another facet to funding
development is that sometimes it’s not about the money, it’s about the policy.
Throwing money at an economy might help it in the short term, but in the long
term, how will that help job creation? Permanent policy adjustments are needed
that favor the creation of more jobs for the poor, especially reaching out to
ones in rural areas. Finally, another option for aid money besides large aid
packages is money from inside the countries themselves, through tax revenues.
For some countries this is difficult, and aid is necessary. But an increased
emphasis on raising more revenues via taxes is vital to fund development in the
future (McNair, 2012).
Goal One of the Millennium Development Goals,
Eradicating Extreme Poverty and Hunger, has achieved varied success since its
inception. There have been many gains, but also numerous areas where progress
has not met expectations. Target 1.A is the main triumph on the global level,
although it’s lagging in some regions. Target 1.C has been somewhat successful,
but 1.B has not. Numerous questions linger about the creation of the goal, like
whether the targets are over or under ambitious, and whether they’re too
general in their efforts. Questions also exist about what should be done after
the Millennium Development Goal deadline of 2015, such as what was missed the
first go around that should be included this time, with a focus on more
regional and even national needs, instead of worldwide standards. There is also
the issue of how all this will be funded, both currently and then with the next
phase of development. The road ahead will most certainly be a difficult one,
but there is much hope for the eradication of poverty and hunger, and with the
correct adjustments in the future, this realization is realistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment