THE MDGS AND THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN
11. The passing of the mid-point to the MDGs
and the onset of the global financial crisis have triggered debate
over the Goals' continued relevance and usefulness. Some commentators
take the view that the MDGs exist more as political tools than
as a means to formulate policy. Others argue that the targets—set
by "northern" policymakers and imposed on "southern"
governments—were unrealistic from the outset. Because sub-Saharan
Africa will miss so many of the targets, it has been suggested
that the MDGs risk further entrenching African poverty rather
than spurring governments into action. For example, Michael Clemens
of the US-based think-tank the Center for Global Development has
said, "As a statement of common values [the MDGs] may have
been a great idea. But as they were quantitively realised, they
are insulting and destructive."[11]
12. In contrast, Robert Zoellick, President of
the World Bank, pointed to the continued urgency of achieving
the MDGs at the World Bank's Autumn Meetings on 12 October 2008:
The poorest and most vulnerable groups risk the most
serious and in some cases, permanent damage [from the financial
crisis] [...] We must […] ensure that as governments and
publics turn their attention close to home, they do not step back
from their commitments to boost overseas assistance to meet the
Millennium Development Goals. Aid flows must be maintained.[12]
The Prime Minister told the High Level Event that
adhering to global development assistance commitments was vital
despite the financial downturn. He said:
Some say a time of financial turbulence is the time
to put our ambitions on hold, to cut back or postpone the dream
of achieving the Millennium Development Goals, but this would
be the worst time to turn back. Every global problem we have
requires global solutions, involving all the continents of the
world. […] Africa and developing countries are not
the problem—they are part of the very solution to today's
problem.[13]
13. The Secretary of State told us on 21 January
that the Department's latest estimate was that 140 million people
would fall back into poverty as a result of food price rises in
2008 and the global financial crisis.[14]
The Department's 2008 Autumn Performance Report highlighted the
impact which global economic conditions were already having on
economic growth in African countries: the GDP per capita growth
rate fell from 4.4% in 2007 to a forecast rate of 3.1% for 2008.[15]
The necessity for the international community therefore
to fulfil its development funding pledges was reinforced by Martin
Dinham, DFID's Director General International:
[…] reducing aid at a time when domestic revenues
are already reducing would be a kind of double blow for developing
countries, compounding their difficulties. The G20 really must
reassert donor commitments to maintaining aid flows as well as
open markets. It is worth harking back to the recession of the
early 1990s, when many donor governments let aid efforts decline,
which impacted on agriculture production, on infrastructure and
social welfare as well as political stability and it took 13 years
to recover to 1992 levels, so the important thing will be not
to let those kinds of mistakes happen again.[16]
14. We welcome the strong support
from the Prime Minister and the Department for International Development
for maintaining the momentum on development and continuing to
work towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by
2015. We agree that in times of financial turbulence low-income
countries need more rather than less support from the developed
world.
We are examining the effects
of the global economic downturn on development expenditure in
our current inquiry into Aid Under Pressure.
The UK's progress towards
its commitments on development expenditure is examined in more
detail in Chapter 4.
4 
