Check out our NEW online marketplace.

The UN Millennium Development Goals Merely Scratch the Surface of Africa’s Development Crisis

With big names like Bono, Bill and Melinda Gates, and Jeffrey Sachs offering what seems like limitless ideological support, the United Nations Millennium Development Goals have quickly gained momentum and become a household name during the last few years. The Goals, adopted by 189 nations at the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000, make an attempt to better the developing world by eradicating extreme poverty, achieving universal primary education, and reducing under-five child mortality, to name but a few – all by the year 2015. These eight Goals have become the core around which both governments and relief agencies base their missions and resources. In 2003, the UN Development Program (UNDP) dedicated its annual Human Development Report to the Goals, and set out to analyze where the greatest development problems were, and what needed to be done in order to reverse the harmful trends [1].

The report devotes roughly 150 pages to presenting Goals 1-7: (1) to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; (2) to achieve universal primary education; (3) to promote gender equality and empower women; (4) to reduce child mortality; (5) to improve maternal health; (6) to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; and (7) to ensure environmental sustainability. Another 150 pages is given to statistics that support the proposed diagnosis. Goal 8, to develop a global partnership for development, is allowed one chapter at the end of the report, a total of 17 pages. The basic message of this last chapter is that “rich countries must increase aid, debt relief, market access and technology transfers” in order for the poor countries to achieve Goals 1-7 for which they are “primarily responsible” [2].

The purpose of this paper is to suggest that the UN Millennium Development Goals merely scratch the surface when it comes to solving the current development crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa. To begin with, the Goals are arbitrary and unfair toward the region and give little room for opportunities to - in fact - achieve the targets.

Greatly influenced by the West, it may well be said that the UN Millennium Development Goals were put together by strangers. As the aforementioned West African proverb suggests, a stranger – despite his great observation skills – often does not see everything. Such may be the case with the Goals. For years, international aid organizations, relief agencies, and passionate individuals have poured money and innovative ideas into the African continent. Most development efforts have emphasized the need for fixing the symptoms of poverty. This is also what the Goals set out to do. Thus, the 2003 Human Development Report explains the symptoms (the “where”) and the proposed remedies (the “what”) in great lengths. Yet after years of wonderful work, Africa remains “caught in the spiral of pride, poverty, anger, and self-pity [3]”.

From the Sub-Saharan African standpoint, there are two basic problems with the Goals. First, the Goals are unfair. In defining what “success” or “failure” in achieving the Goals are, the Millennium Project makes some rather unreasonable choices. Africa simply cannot be compared to other poor regions. To say, for example, that the ideal is to halve the proportion of people living on less than one US dollar per day in Mexico and then to assume that the same ideal applies to Ethiopia is not realistic. Both are good-size countries with populations of 109 and 77 million people respectively [4], and therefore quite comparable in terms of size. However, where in Mexico eight percent of the population lives on less than a dollar a day, in Ethiopia the percentage is a shocking 82 [5]. In other words, having to lift up 4 million people out of extreme poverty is hardly comparable to 32 million people – and that without mentioning the vast differences the countries have when it comes to their abilities to cope with poverty.

It is certainly clear that developing countries do not stand on the same level. The Goals do not make this assumption. The point presented here is simply that the Goals are inequitable because as they set out to measure the statistical rate of change, they forget to consider the ample differences in the absolute numerical changes. It is evident and widely acknowledged that Sub-Saharan Africa, then, does not have a chance at achieving the Goals by 2015 [6].

Second, the Goals fail to address the underlying causes of Africa’s development crisis. While succeeding in giving detailed descriptions of both the symptoms of the problem and the logical remedies to the symptoms, the Goals seem to ignore – figuratively speaking – the actual “disease”. In October 2006, a diverse group of academic scholars, development professionals, civil society leaders, entrepreneurs, and researchers - most of them Africans themselves – gathered in Boston, Massachusetts in order to find an answer to the burning question: What are the root causes prompting the well-visible symptoms of Africa’s development crisis? Organized by the International Institute for Justice and Development (IIJD), the International Conference on the State of Affairs of Africa (ICSAA) was the first of its kind. While acknowledging that historical facts such as slavery, colonialism, and mismanaged globalization play a role in where Africa is today, the conference participants found the root causes of the current development crisis and relentless poverty to originate in dysfunctional systems of governance. These systems, supported by less than adequate leadership and weak political and economic institutions, stand at the bottom of most all symptoms of poverty [7].

A number of African governments were simply taken over from colonialists at independence. The colonial style of governance had never reflected the traditional African customs and morals, and therefore, were utterly unsuited for any kind of legitimate democratic governance in the region. This is still true. Not only do these government structures prohibit people from participating in the civil society, they create systemic barriers to protecting and carrying out civil rights. The executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the government are often not clearly, if at all, separated. In many countries, the executive branch simply swallows the judicial which results in the absence of the rule of law, violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (articles 7-11). The absence of clear separation of powers also results in the lack of checks and balances within the government, allowing for unchallenged leadership performance and corruption.

The ICSAA participants also found that Africa’s debt crisis and badly managed international interventions are among the contributing factors to the current development crisis. In addition, poor education systems and the refusal to acknowledge women as essential participants in economic, social, and political development have roles to play [8].

What is Good Governance?

The Millennium Development Goals make several brief references to “good governance”. While addressing the need for developing an open trading and financial system, Target 12 (Goal 8) quickly mentions that “a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction” is also needed. Poor countries are therefore asked to “improve governance” in order to mobilize and manage resources effectively. It is also suggested that rich countries will condition their aid based on the poor countries’ performance and demonstration of “good-faith efforts to … undertake policy reforms, strengthen institutions and tackle corruption and other aspects of weak governance”. In addition to conditional aid, rich countries are encouraged to reduce debt payments for countries that “demonstrate efforts to strengthen governance” [9].

What then is “good governance”? Is it simply a Western, culture-laden term that is of little use in the developing countries? According to the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), good governance consists of eight characteristics: It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law [10]. Additionally, a “good government” guarantees minimized corruption, defends minorities, and takes everyone’s voice into account in decision-making. A “good government” acknowledges and acts on both present and future needs of the governed area. Meanwhile, democracy can be defined as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections” [11]. Good governance, therefore, does not necessarily equal democracy which is certainly a clearly Western form of government. However, a well-functioning democracy so closely reflects “good governance” that in practice the two terms are often spoken of interchangeably.

While the 2003 Human Development Report briefly mentions the importance of strong government institutions, it neither explains the reasons for such a need nor does it offer any kind of insight as to how to reach such ideals. This is unfortunate considering the number of pages devoted to detailed descriptions of the symptoms that exist in the first place largely because of dysfunctional government systems, weak institutions, and corruption. The fact that strong institutions are only mentioned in the last chapter, focused on development aid and the rich countries’ responsibilities toward the Goals, suggests that reforming governments remains an “outside job”, something only the West sees as a necessary goal. The dilemma may well be comparable to having safe drinking water and still needing improved sanitation. Development organizations and local officials often encounter mild resistance to hygiene education and sewer projects. It is clear for people that they need a well in order to improve their water situation. It is an entirely different issue to convince them of their need for expensive plumbing. Yet, without adequate sanitation, it is hard to keep the drinking water clean as sewage water finds its way to the well. Similarly, it takes little effort to understand that achieving Goals 1-7 is necessary. Going deeper and addressing the underlying causes of the development crisis requires a bit more insight and convincing from all stakeholders. Just like sewers, these are issues that lie below the surface.

Where Does Change Come from?

There are several ways to advance good governance in developing countries. Rich countries can offer financial and technological (development) aid, use diplomacy, and political pressure. Technical support may include helping to organize free and fair elections, for example. Of course, the receiver countries can always refuse any unwanted help. When governments do not wish to change, they can and will turn down development aid at the expense of the poorest people in their countries. This is possible because the leadership is not dependent on the public opinion. In practice, this means giving up on those suffering the most, the individuals especially sought after by the Millennium Development Goals. At times, donor organizations have resolved to target the corrupt leadership through frozen bank accounts and international travel bans, all while continuing development projects in the country [12].

Instead of top-down, bottom-up approaches are much more desirable. Here the government is forced to change because of strong pressure from the civil society. Opposition parties usually have a significant role in mobilizing the civil society to protest and demand change. Economic development strengthens people’s desire for good governance, which in turn furthers economic development. Thus the process works both ways.

Former Bolivian President Jorge Quiroga gets it. He underlines the importance of the developing country’s responsibility in institutional reform that at its best minimizes corruption and promotes public participation in political decision making. According to him, strong, democratic institutions “give people a say and hold decision-makers accountable to the public”. In addition, Quiroga promotes the overseeing of the political processes by the civil society as well as the NGO’s. This guarantees that decision-makers along with their respected institutions are held accountable [13].

The first ones to demand better institutions and less corruption are usually young, highly educated working individuals. Sadly, at least 70,000 skilled graduates leave Africa every year in search of better financial security. It is important to mobilize these Africans in the Diaspora – they are “the very people that could be leading an African Renaissance [14]”. According to Alpha Oumar Konare, former Chairperson of the African Union, “it is the top priority of the AU to embrace and encourage Africans in the Diaspora to come home and fully participate in the social and economic development of their continent” [15].

True change should therefore come from Africa itself, from its precious people demanding a better future. Real separation of powers between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches is needed. Free and fair elections need to be organized and supervised by independent and neutral electoral bodies. Anti-corruption agencies need to be established in all African countries to guarantee appropriate use of all resources. African leaders need to cross national and ethnic boarders in order to reach out to each other by forming regional connections, and strengthening trade, research, and education within Africa. Senseless conflicts and wars need to come to an end. People – including the media - need to be free to speak, assemble, and protest. Every individual needs to have a voice. These are but a few of the reforms that Africans themselves can and will demand [16].

It is these exact issues that the IIJD is committed to fight for. Believing that development programs have focused on short term relief efforts for too long, we seek to alleviate poverty by addressing weak institutions that form an atmosphere of corruption, exclusion, oppression and economic stagnation. We believe that poverty can be alleviated and development sustained only by combining institutional reforms, infrastructure building, and the strengthening of the civil society through community-based organizations.

Closing Remarks

According to the 2003 Human Development Report, “[w]ithout sound economic governance, large financial injections are likely to be wasted. And without democratic governance that gives voice to people, development efforts will not empower people” [17]. While this holds true, it is worth noting that good governance or democratization alone does not solve all problems. It is often said that instead of giving a fish to a poverty-stricken person, the rich should give him hook and line, enabling the person to help himself. As true as this might be, it is also true that a hungry, disease-stricken person cannot do much to help himself. When a person’s daily life consists of nothing but a struggle to survive, it is of little use to educate him about the political and judicial processes involved in getting his voice heard. There will always be immediate needs that require immediate attention.

[1-2] UNDP (2003). Human Development Report. Millenium Development Goals: A Compact among Nations to End Human Poverty. New York: UNDP.

[3] INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT, THE (2006). Priorities for the Future. Tackling the Root Causes of the Africa’s Development Crisis and its Persistent Poverty. International Conference on the State of Affairs of Africa. 2006 ICSAA Conference Report. 

[4] CIA (2008). The World Factbook. 

[5] UNDP (2003). Human Development Report. Millenium Development Goals: A Compact among Nations to End Human Poverty. New York: UNDP.

[6] EASTERLY, WILLIAM (2007). How the Millennium Development Goals are Unfair to Africa. Brookings Global Economy and Development.

[7-8] INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT, THE (2006). Priorities for the Future. Tackling the Root Causes of the Africa’s Development Crisis and its Persistent Poverty. International Conference on the State of Affairs of Africa. 2006 ICSAA Conference Report.

[9] UNDP (2003). Human Development Report. Millenium Development Goals: A Compact among Nations to End Human Poverty. New York: UNDP.

[10] UNESCAP (2008). What is Good Governance?

[11] MERRIAM-WEBSTER (2007-2008). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Democracy.

[12] KOPONEN, JUHANI, JARI LANKI & ANNA KERVINEN (ed.) (2007). Kehitysmaatutkimus. Johdatus perusteisiin. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

[13] UNDP (2003). Human Development Report. Millenium Development Goals: A Compact among Nations to End Human Poverty. New York: UNDP.

[14-16] INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT, THE (2006). Priorities for the Future. Tackling the Root Causes of the Africa’s Development Crisis and its Persistent Poverty. International Conference on the State of Affairs of Africa. 2006 ICSAA Conference Report.

[17] UNDP (2003). Human Development Report. Millenium Development Goals: A Compact among Nations to End Human Poverty. New York: UNDP.