International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Professor Howard White, 3ie, c/o Global Development Network
Executive Summary
The MDGs have played an important role in setting the development agenda, and should be repeated in their current form in terms of number of goals, duration and mainly having an outcome focus.
The existing goals should be maintained with some modifications, eg learning outcomes in education.
But new areas also need to be added, notably in peacekeeping and disaster relief, as well as distributing the burden between developed and developing countries.
Monitoring progress against goals and targets tell us what is happening, but not why. The international statement for the new goals should include a commitment to learning what will work in achieving those goals through rigorous impact evaluation.
Introduction to the Submitter
Howard White is the Executive Director of the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), co-chair of the Campbell International Development Coordinating Group, and Adjunct Professor, Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Geelong University.
His previous experience includes leading the impact evaluation programme of the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group and before that, several multi-country evaluations. Other experience includes leading large projects like the World Bank published report African Poverty at the Millennium, developing the overall direction of poverty training for 2,000 DFID staff at country offices around the world and co-editor of Targeting Development: Critical Perspectives on the Millennium Development Goals.
Howard has worked extensively on development-related issues in countries across Africa and Asia and has published over 60 papers in internationally refereed journals and several books, focusing on aid effectiveness and poverty reduction. He is Managing Editor of the Journal of Development Studies and the Journal of Development Effectiveness. He has taught at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague and the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, and continues to engage worldwide via workshops and training opportunities for policymakers on topics related to development effectiveness and impact evaluation.
The Role of Development Goals and Targets in Focusing Development Efforts
The Millennium Development Goals, and their forerunners, the International Development Targets, have played an important role in defining the development agenda since 2000. Whilst development targets are not new, the MDGs were the first such targets to cover the full development agenda, and to receive such sustained attention over the period they covered. They have played a role in reallocating development resources toward programmes more focused on priority outcomes, with the restructuring of DFID being a prime example.
Hence whatever goals and targets are set for the post-2015 year period are likely to play a key role in defining the development agenda for the coming decade or so.
First, some parameters for such target setting:
Set realistic targets: achievable but not too easily. The MDGs got this about right, so some countries achieved the goals but others didn’t.
A 10–15 year time frame is about right. Although the MDGs use a 1995 baseline they were set in 2000, so effectively used 15 years. The next set of goals should also use 10–15 years. Not more, but also not less.
Keep the goals and the higher level, they should manly be about what to achieve not how to achieve it.
Avoid goal, target and indicator proliferation; the MDGs managed this. There are rather many targets, but the overall number of goals was sensibly limited.
Of course there are well known cons to setting targets, the main ones of which are:
“Teaching to the test”, ie only doing things that achieve the goal and ignoring other things. This relates to.
Focusing on what can be measured, not what matters, which is linked to...
Non-priority sectors get excluded but in balanced development everything matters.
And finally, fiddling definitions and data to achieve goals.
These problems should be acknowledged by a reasonably comprehensive coverage including “soft sectors”.
Key Issues for the Post-2015 Goals
Whether to keep going in the existing goal areas? Yes, there are shortfalls w many countries, so the main MDGs should not be abandoned. But the goals need some modifications, such as (i) including a focus on learning outcomes in education not just enrolment, (ii) paying attention to what constitutes clean water, and (iii) a more balanced focus across diseases based on the burden of disease rather than the current almost exclusive emphasis on HIV/AIDS.
What areas need to be added or changed? Goals should be added on peace-keeping/conflict resolution (but not clear what this would be) and disaster relief. The environment goal needs to be re-aligned in accordance with the current consensus around climate change.
Making the goals truly international by placing more burden on developed countries, which will be principally in areas of climate change, development finance, and commitment to a free flow of goods, capital and labour.
Using Development Targets as a Basis for Results Measurement
Whilst the MDGs have been very useful they have been misused in the “results agenda”. Monitoring progress on outcomes, which is what all most MDG reports do, give useful information on what is happening but not why it is happening. Development agencies have too frequently judged effectiveness on the basis of outcome monitoring (eg the DFID PSA). The effectiveness of development programmes can only be properly assessed by rigorous impact evaluations. We will not know which programmes are most cost effective in achieving current and new goals without comprehensive use of impact evaluation summarized in systematic reviews.
The international statement for the new goals should include a commitment to learning what will work in achieving those goals through rigorous impact evaluation.
Getting Targets Right: Outcome versus Output Targets
The MDGs are mostly outcome targets, with some outputs, such as access to WSS. In general the goals and targets should be at the outcome level. They should be about what we want to achieve, not how to achieve it. This focus is necessary to make consensus easier to achieve on the goals, but also because the evidence base is currently too weak to support specific views on what inputs, activities and outputs and the most cost effective means towards specific outcomes. But there are exceptions, eg the link between immunization and child health, treated bednets and malaria, and the adverse impact of school fees on attendance. Hence selected output level targets can also be included.
Target Proliferation
The MDGs had about the right number of goals, and should not be allowed to go above 10–12. A larger number of associated targets is acceptable, but should not proliferate too much (to the extent that collecting data is unduly onerous and the data are not used).
November 2012