I remember discussing the Millennium Development Goals at the beginning of the term (p. 22-24, Ch.1), and asking what the progress was. It is apparent from this article that at least the United States has not been up to par with its contributions, falling short $50B a year each year. That is embarrassing. While some of these MDGs seem quite extravagant in scale, including reducing extreme poverty and hunger by 50% and providing universal primary education, Sachs points out that these goals are not impossible to achieve. It will simply require participation and cooperation form all the developed countries involved to ensure development of the LDCs. Also, Esther Duflo points out the importance of women in the development process, which we discussed again in class today. To ensure that the MDGs are met by the proposed 2015 deadline, the plan needs to be scaled-up and implemented...plain and simple.
I remember reading something earlier in the semester (I can't remember if it was in the textbook or in an article somewhere), that described the MDGs along the lines of being "easily attainable." Guess not.
At this point, if the success of meeting the MDGs is so limited, it seems more crucial than ever to carefully determine what the available funding (limited though it may be) will actually go to. For instance, would there be a bigger impact if we could meet all of the goals halfway, or half of the goals all the way? A good strategy would probably be promoting certain goals that have the greatest effects on (or linkages with) other goals. Duflo seems to have the right idea in arguing in favor of vaccinations, because as she points out, such health concerns are "critical to several of the goals." I would also agree that empowering women is a good goal to focus quite a bit of effort on, since, as we have been discussing in class, women play a big role in other important aspects of development, such as improving nutrition of children, or choosing to have less children.
To me, this problem is one that we see a lot in politics: people saying they are going to do one thing and then actually doing another. When the U.N. implemented these goals in 2000, it made the mistake of not laying out an adequate financing structure that participant countries like the U.S. needed to follow. It's all well and good to say that poverty needs to be reduced by 50%, etc. The disconnect however lies in an in adequate appropriation of funds to reach this goal. The fact that we, the U.S., fall $50 billion short is not only embarrasing, but also unfair. Other countries and other countries' leaders look to us for guidance in many of these issues. It is our responsibility to set a good example and fulfill the committments in which we engage, otherwise the snowball effect may set in and these developing countries will keep receiving less and less money.
Though I agree with Sachs and Duflo on their conclusions re: the unfunded commitments of large, western and industrialized nations, I can't help but wonder if we are financially in a position to even fund these types of programs. With our own health care, financial and even political system in utter disarray and the precarious nature of funding for our own entitlement programs, I wonder if these types of commitments are even justifiable? Especially since much of the US funding for these ventures would be completely debt financed. Given the economics learned in class and the negative impact that government debt-financing has on the domestic and developing nations' Loanable Funds Market, couldn't the argument be made that the lack of funding almosts make sense (obviously, from a monetary standpoint, not a social perspective). However, I do readily accept that helping the developing nations economically will have an appreciable effect on worldwide progress and growth. Perhaps more resources can be focused on specific programs instead of blanket funding. Direct manpower seems empirically far more effective than direct appropriation often subject to corruption and misuse???
Clearly the current economic crisis has played major a role in the under-funding in terms MDGs. The fact that the U.S. is falling $50 billion short a year in terms of funding the global fund goes to show its unlikely the 2015 goals will be met. Our current economic situation points to no signs of the U.S. improving this gap. I agree with Duflo's suggestion for increased in-kind incentives to get more people medical aid, as health and education are at the foundation of meeting many of the MDGs. The lack of continued investment in teachers could undermine the one area where considerable progress has been seen. Though primary education has improved, we must continue to improve it to further increase human capital and the returns on education. This will likely create a positive multiplier coupled with increased healthcare that can spur improvements in many other MDGs.
It is certainly unfortunate that the MDG's are currently off target. In reviewing Esther Duflo's comments regarding MDG's, it is particularly interesting and fitting that she addresses two key elements we have discussed: the role of health and human capital in development and women's role in development. Her concern regarding child health is fitting as childhood education is limited by illness. Also, she mentions that women are not equally represented from a political standpoint. Perhaps the road to getting the MDG's back on track requires attention to these two serious issues.
I think the biggest issue behind the lack of funding is the general OECD population's unawareness of how much people in developing nations suffer. Just as the women in the clip today stressed, policies are enforced and implemented when enough people care. If US citizens were faced with blaring headlines about absolute povery and the change they have the power to promote, perhaps the attainment of MDG's would be more feasible.
That said, I think that once the money is raised and distributed, it should go to the acting female head-of-households. As Duflo emphasizes, when women have increased power, postive change is realized. An increase in female income often propogates an increase in child attendance and health--both of which are at the core of MDG's.
I think that the Millenium Development Goals may be too generalized and idealized to be applicable in today's global political climate. There needs to be a specific plan set up by world leaders in how to raise the funds and most efficiently distribute the funds. The fact that the US is 50 billion dollars short every year just shows that the US needs to be more concerned with development, especially considering the positive returns that development will have on the nation. While I think that Duflo and and Sachs have strong arguments for speedier progress, I think that Sachs is naive in saying that the world is not complicated. There is no perfect formula for economic development and the MGS may have to be reevaluated to take that into consideration.
It seems to me that this is another example of an unfulfilled commitment. Time and time again, we make promises just to break them. By the U.S. falling short by $50 billion a year clearly show the lack of integrity of our country. We as U.S. citizens need to hold ourselves accountable and make sure that we each do our part to fight poverty. In order to alleviate severe poverty it would only take decreasing the consumption expenditure of the rich in high income countries by 1/70 ($300 billion) and targeting that money towards those in severe poverty (Pogge, 2002: 3). I agree with Duflo that the policies need to be targeted towards empowering woman and increasing the health of children. Ultimately, the children are the future and if we do not start investing in their capabilities now, the vicious cycle of poverty will continue indefinitely.
Pogge, Thomas. “Introduction.” World Poverty and Human Rights, Malden, MA: Polity Press, Blackwell Publishing, 2002: 1-26.
The MDGs were set high and effort has been made to accomplish those goals. However, under the current scenario it seems unlikely that the goals will be reached. The article pointed out that US was falling short in terms of its monetray committments. While it is critical that the nations committed to the MDGs stand upto their promises, there is yet another aspect of MDG that needs to be evaluated time to time. Several programs must be in place working toward achieving MDG. Economists and the MDG council needs to evaluate those program and their empirical usefulness from time to time and then assess whether the program should be continued or not. The approach resembles the approach taken by Chris Udry.Economic models should be evaluated empirically and then changed to produce the best results.Hence, while we should definitely make sure that the countries committed to MDG are fulfilling their promises, it is also important to evaluate the programs that are used to achieve the MDG goals.
I think that it is clear that the MDGs will not be met by 2015 as intended. Regardless of the impact of the economic crisis on the U.S. falling $50 Billion short every year, I think that it is still unexcusable for the U.S. to fall this short. The goals are important ones that determine whether some people live or die, but they do need to be more realistic. For instance, reducing the poverty level by 50% does not seem realistic. The goals should be reassessed and then the U.S. needs to put programs in place to ensure that they are met.
I think that Mr. Sachs summed it up best when he said,"I believe the world is not a game, and I believe it is not that complicated". He stopped appealing to some goals that are attained through statistics, and started appealing to the hearts of the UN Members. This is not an option, this is a necessity! He does an excellent job of puttin these things in perspective when he says,"If you don't fund the Global Fund, the children will die." He is saying that goals are all well and good, but if you continue this complacency, people have and will continue to die. This is something that must change, and you have the power to change it. How do you sleep at night knowing this? That people are dying while you have the power to save their lives. I think this is the kind of thing the U.N.and the world needs to hear.
The point of funding is always a very difficult issue when it comes to aid. It is very easy to say we want to help people and that to do so will probably benefit all in the long run, but people generally think in the short term. An American worker who has never left the country and has never seen true absolute poverty at the level that is seen in many developing countries, will most likely not be willing to forfeit a piece of his paycheck in order to help faceless numbers that are being given to him by people like Sachs. As much as the evidence shows that funding these developmental projects would be ultimately beneficial, it is a difficult sale to someone who may believe that they themselves are actually living in poverty. It can very much be a difference in perspective and until people have actually made the effort to see the poor quality of life many in developing countries are leading to put a face to these numbers, it will always be a difficult sale back home, which means politicians will be less likely to listen to their economist advisors.
I think the key thing here is providing the right incentives. As Duflo points out in this article, even parents of sick children in the developing world need certain incentives to get their kids vaccinated. And you don't need a lot of education to realize that your child might die if you don't do it. So it is quite hard to understand why they need these incentives in the first place. The same is the case with funds from developed countries. It would be globally/socially beneficial if they invested more money but the optimal level is still not attained. So here we are in a bad equilibrium, we might say. Easier said than done, but I think the key is to come up with incentives for the industrialized nations to contribute more; a "what's in it for them" kind of story.
One of the most important things we've learned throughout this semester is that poverty is a complex problem, influenced by many factors besides income. Certainly, income is a "means" for making progress in other areas, but flooding the third world with money is not the solution (Furthermore, as Prof. Casey pointed out, the trillions of dollars of aid from foreign countries does not amount to much on a per capita level). An extra billion dollars in Africa will not prevent climate induced hardships, and the same amount in Asia will not end the oppression of women. Maybe this is a little bit more like rocket science than we thought. We must address the many intricate causes of poverty, which is neither simple nor feasible in a short amount of time, and much attention needs to be paid to allocation! While the MDGs are the first step, we cannot be discouraged because they will not ALL be accomplished by 2015. We are tackling some major issues here...if the struggling economies of developing nations do not have funds for aid right now, in the mean time, let's use what we do have plenty of...brainpower! However, Sachs' words were crucial in reminding his audience what needs to happen and not letting them lose sight of its goals. After all, rocket science has come a long way, and so can world poverty alleviation.
I don’t think that we can blame the economic crisis for the lack of funding of the MDGs. It certainly has played a part and reduced the availability of funds for aid worldwide but that money can be found. As the U.S. continues to fund policies/programs that have weak to no economic backing and have yet to be proven effective it seems like the time has come to reevaluate our priorities. Also, the fact that the U.S. falls 50 billion dollars short a year is astounding. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the developed world about the severity of poverty, and the value of the two million children’s lives lost each year?
There really isn't enough discussion of these types of issues in politics today. We just signed off on an $800 billion stimulus bill this year, and most people were fine with it because they understood the economic issues at hand and that this was simpyly "what needed to be done." But in this case, no one is championing the cause except for Sachs himself, and it's getting very little publicity. Did I know anything about these goals before reading about them in this class? No. And politicians won't take the time to champion these issues because it does nothing for them by ways of re-election here at home. But it needs to be talked about more. We need to remember that we're not just citizens of the U.S. We're citizens of the world and have a responsibility to the millions of people who are hungry, poor, and sick.
This is all too typical of the United Nations...it is a spectacular idea filled with civic minded idealists all striving for a better world, unfortunately there is a huge disconnect between the goals and the reality. With that said, if even a quarter of Sach's Millennium Development Goals can be attained by the target date, it will be a far greater improvement in the quality of living for millions of individuals than had the goal never been brought up.
As a perfectionist, I hate seeing a goal set, then not fully met. But in the case of human capital development through eradication of extreme poverty, improvement of health conditions, primary education and equality for women...these are individual lives we are talking about.So who cares if the UN's ability to put political pressure on nations to comply is incredible porous; because of the MDG and the UN's efforts, millions of real human beings will live longer, better, and fuller lives.
With all that said, go Sachs...keep complaining about the bureaucracy and the promises nations have fallen through on and pushing for more commitment from nations.
On a more positive note, I'm very excited that Sachs believes "its not that complicated."
After a few classes studying American poverty with Prof. Beckley, I've seen that much of American poverty is multifaceted and there is not one good solution that can end poverty in the Mississippi Delta or the plains of South Dakota.
When the one of the leading intellectuals studying poverty essentially says, "guys, I've solved the problem--here's what you need to do," I'm very excited. I don't mean to minimize the half-hearted attempts at foreign aid by the West or the fact that most people just don't care, but at least private citizens who care have an action plan. Fight disease among children. We, as private citizens have resources and if we really care, we can send some of our money to the many organizations that fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis
The ending line of the article struck me as unfortunately naive and seems to undermine the complexity of fighting poverty in any nation.
However, Sachs seems to bright to light one of the most important aspects of fighting poverty: the interconnected relationship of health, poverty and education. Duflo also makes an excellent point when she states, "Children miss a quarter of school days due to illness."
Which raises the question, what good is investments in education (teachers, classrooms, etc.) when it seems childrens' health is a significantly larger factor in overall human capital development?
I think that the MGDs need to be revisited to account for the significant weight of health investments in overall development.
In the OECD countries we have seen and felt the impact of the current economic crisis; however, the consequences of the downturn on the less developed countries has been even more severe. During difficult economic times politics make it easier to justify domestic spending than foreign assistance, and as we can see with the U.S., many OECD countries are falling short on their monetary promises to the developing world (although since the US falls short every year, the economic crisis can’t be there excuse.) Sachs says “this is our last chance to get things right,” and therefore the OECD countries must continue aiding the accomplishment of the MDGs even in tough times. When you look at the MDG goals, they strive for things in developing countries that we take for granted—education, health, food. It is a matter of life or death for many. I thought Duflo’s suggestion to distribute food to every person that gets vaccinated for diseases in parts of the developing world, served as another example of how creative strategies are often necessary to provide incentives for families to make choices we in the developing world would deem positive for them. For instance, in the pilot program in rural India they provided bags of lentils to the people in exchange for getting vaccinated. It would initially seem everyone would get vaccinated to save themselves from being sick in the future; however if they must take a day off from work to go the location to get the vaccination, they may choose not to get it when they weigh the current cost and benefits. The article noted that the lack of political representation of women is undermining the MDG of gender empowerment. We have learned and reiterated time and time again in class the important role women play in the development process. If more women held positions of political power, more decisions would be made in favor of women and it would serve as a symbol to other women that they have more opportunity.
If we intend to achieve the MDGs on schedule, we better get on it. (5 years and counting...)
Although, like most people, I would love to see all of the MDGs met on or ahead of schedule, at this point that seems like an impossibility. I would like to see the US cough up more than that embarrassing $50 billion we are short. I would like to see the eradication of malaria and the empowerment of women. Like Sachs says, it is common decency to try to prevent the death of 2 million children if we can do it.
Sachs is correct in claiming that this is not rocket science. It is a lot more complicated than rocket science. There are only a few ways that you can make tons of metal fly. The laws of physics are pretty rigid. The laws of humanity, however, are anything but. Esther Duflo's suggestion of incentives for vaccinations is a good one, as it improves the health care of children and pertains to several of the development goals. And as James's says, that is great for private citizens with a clear vision. But as Jarrett says or rather alludes to, are investments in health the most important because of their capacity to help improve other areas of development or should we focus on education? Or should we focus on empowering women because that will improve both healthcare and education of children?
I think evaluating the goals to determine where the most progress can be made in the most feasible time limit (like Catherine said: half of the MDGs all the way or all of the MDGs halfway) is the most effective strategy at this point. After that, using creative solutions and strategies, like Duflo's incentives for vaccinating children, that are relatively low-cost and pertain to several of the MDGs should be implemented. These will provide as much progress as possible in as many areas as possible, helping to achieve the goals in the swiftest way possible. And finally, although I am hesitant to suggest sending money down the rabbit hole, we need to increase funding as much as we can.
(Also, as a side note: According to an Oxford study in 2008, "It's not rocket science" is one of the top 10 most irritating phrases. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/3394545/Oxford-compiles-list-of-top-ten-irritating-phrases.html)
I completely agree with Jeffrey Sachs' point that this isnt rocket science, it is simply common decency. The MDG's were not something pledged upon the presentation of theory and research, they were pledged upon because most of them involve equality and morality. There is no theory involved there other than to do the right thing. Moreover, the article points out, which I agree with, that there needs to be updated studies to judge the progress that some of these developing countries are making. This way we can see who truly needs the most help so that we can assist them in accelerating their progress towards meeting the MDGs as well.
I think the budget targeted for MDGs should be placed prior than many other concerns, such as the economic crisis persisting throughout the nation. This must be stressed despite the fact that there is a shortage of 50 billion dollars a year. MDGs are considered to be long-term objectives and rather complicated, however, as Sachs concluded in the last sentence, each step for these goals are not long-term. For example, providing food to every person who get vaccinated can be regarded as a short-term goal, if we really concentrate on this particular objective. Also, I have a feeling that we are misled by economic theories, which make our process more complicated. In this sense, the articulation made by Sachs has a strong impact on our image of development.
Talking about gender empowerment, focusing on women's potential is a good approach, however, I am worried about reverse discriminations. Simultaneously, people in LDC (both male and female) should go through sufficient education to understand why women must be empowered. Therefore, lacking in sustainable education system (long-term effects) will be a great impediment in gender empowerment for next generations.
I remember discussing the Millennium Development Goals at the beginning of the term (p. 22-24, Ch.1), and asking what the progress was. It is apparent from this article that at least the United States has not been up to par with its contributions, falling short $50B a year each year. That is embarrassing. While some of these MDGs seem quite extravagant in scale, including reducing extreme poverty and hunger by 50% and providing universal primary education, Sachs points out that these goals are not impossible to achieve. It will simply require participation and cooperation form all the developed countries involved to ensure development of the LDCs. Also, Esther Duflo points out the importance of women in the development process, which we discussed again in class today. To ensure that the MDGs are met by the proposed 2015 deadline, the plan needs to be scaled-up and implemented...plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading something earlier in the semester (I can't remember if it was in the textbook or in an article somewhere), that described the MDGs along the lines of being "easily attainable." Guess not.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, if the success of meeting the MDGs is so limited, it seems more crucial than ever to carefully determine what the available funding (limited though it may be) will actually go to. For instance, would there be a bigger impact if we could meet all of the goals halfway, or half of the goals all the way? A good strategy would probably be promoting certain goals that have the greatest effects on (or linkages with) other goals. Duflo seems to have the right idea in arguing in favor of vaccinations, because as she points out, such health concerns are "critical to several of the goals." I would also agree that empowering women is a good goal to focus quite a bit of effort on, since, as we have been discussing in class, women play a big role in other important aspects of development, such as improving nutrition of children, or choosing to have less children.
To me, this problem is one that we see a lot in politics: people saying they are going to do one thing and then actually doing another. When the U.N. implemented these goals in 2000, it made the mistake of not laying out an adequate financing structure that participant countries like the U.S. needed to follow. It's all well and good to say that poverty needs to be reduced by 50%, etc. The disconnect however lies in an in adequate appropriation of funds to reach this goal. The fact that we, the U.S., fall $50 billion short is not only embarrasing, but also unfair. Other countries and other countries' leaders look to us for guidance in many of these issues. It is our responsibility to set a good example and fulfill the committments in which we engage, otherwise the snowball effect may set in and these developing countries will keep receiving less and less money.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree with Sachs and Duflo on their conclusions re: the unfunded commitments of large, western and industrialized nations, I can't help but wonder if we are financially in a position to even fund these types of programs. With our own health care, financial and even political system in utter disarray and the precarious nature of funding for our own entitlement programs, I wonder if these types of commitments are even justifiable? Especially since much of the US funding for these ventures would be completely debt financed. Given the economics learned in class and the negative impact that government debt-financing has on the domestic and developing nations' Loanable Funds Market, couldn't the argument be made that the lack of funding almosts make sense (obviously, from a monetary standpoint, not a social perspective). However, I do readily accept that helping the developing nations economically will have an appreciable effect on worldwide progress and growth. Perhaps more resources can be focused on specific programs instead of blanket funding. Direct manpower seems empirically far more effective than direct appropriation often subject to corruption and misuse???
ReplyDeleteClearly the current economic crisis has played major a role in the under-funding in terms MDGs. The fact that the U.S. is falling $50 billion short a year in terms of funding the global fund goes to show its unlikely the 2015 goals will be met. Our current economic situation points to no signs of the U.S. improving this gap. I agree with Duflo's suggestion for increased in-kind incentives to get more people medical aid, as health and education are at the foundation of meeting many of the MDGs. The lack of continued investment in teachers could undermine the one area where considerable progress has been seen. Though primary education has improved, we must continue to improve it to further increase human capital and the returns on education. This will likely create a positive multiplier coupled with increased healthcare that can spur improvements in many other MDGs.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly unfortunate that the MDG's are currently off target. In reviewing Esther Duflo's comments regarding MDG's, it is particularly interesting and fitting that she addresses two key elements we have discussed: the role of health and human capital in development and women's role in development. Her concern regarding child health is fitting as childhood education is limited by illness. Also, she mentions that women are not equally represented from a political standpoint. Perhaps the road to getting the MDG's back on track requires attention to these two serious issues.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest issue behind the lack of funding is the general OECD population's unawareness of how much people in developing nations suffer. Just as the women in the clip today stressed, policies are enforced and implemented when enough people care. If US citizens were faced with blaring headlines about absolute povery and the change they have the power to promote, perhaps the attainment of MDG's would be more feasible.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think that once the money is raised and distributed, it should go to the acting female head-of-households. As Duflo emphasizes, when women have increased power, postive change is realized. An increase in female income often propogates an increase in child attendance and health--both of which are at the core of MDG's.
I think that the Millenium Development Goals may be too generalized and idealized to be applicable in today's global political climate. There needs to be a specific plan set up by world leaders in how to raise the funds and most efficiently distribute the funds. The fact that the US is 50 billion dollars short every year just shows that the US needs to be more concerned with development, especially considering the positive returns that development will have on the nation. While I think that Duflo and and Sachs have strong arguments for speedier progress, I think that Sachs is naive in saying that the world is not complicated. There is no perfect formula for economic development and the MGS may have to be reevaluated to take that into consideration.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that this is another example of an unfulfilled commitment. Time and time again, we make promises just to break them. By the U.S. falling short by $50 billion a year clearly show the lack of integrity of our country. We as U.S. citizens need to hold ourselves accountable and make sure that we each do our part to fight poverty. In order to alleviate severe poverty it would only take decreasing the consumption expenditure of the rich in high income countries by 1/70 ($300 billion) and targeting that money towards those in severe poverty (Pogge, 2002: 3). I agree with Duflo that the policies need to be targeted towards empowering woman and increasing the health of children. Ultimately, the children are the future and if we do not start investing in their capabilities now, the vicious cycle of poverty will continue indefinitely.
ReplyDeletePogge, Thomas. “Introduction.” World Poverty and Human Rights, Malden, MA: Polity Press, Blackwell Publishing, 2002: 1-26.
The MDGs were set high and effort has been made to accomplish those goals. However, under the current scenario it seems unlikely that the goals will be reached. The article pointed out that US was falling short in terms of its monetray committments. While it is critical that the nations committed to the MDGs stand upto their promises, there is yet another aspect of MDG that needs to be evaluated time to time. Several programs must be in place working toward achieving MDG. Economists and the MDG council needs to evaluate those program and their empirical usefulness from time to time and then assess whether the program should be continued or not. The approach resembles the approach taken by Chris Udry.Economic models should be evaluated empirically and then changed to produce the best results.Hence, while we should definitely make sure that the countries committed to MDG are fulfilling their promises, it is also important to evaluate the programs that are used to achieve the MDG goals.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is clear that the MDGs will not be met by 2015 as intended. Regardless of the impact of the economic crisis on the U.S. falling $50 Billion short every year, I think that it is still unexcusable for the U.S. to fall this short. The goals are important ones that determine whether some people live or die, but they do need to be more realistic. For instance, reducing the poverty level by 50% does not seem realistic. The goals should be reassessed and then the U.S. needs to put programs in place to ensure that they are met.
ReplyDeleteI think that Mr. Sachs summed it up best when he said,"I believe the world is not a game, and I believe it is not that complicated". He stopped appealing to some goals that are attained through statistics, and started appealing to the hearts of the UN Members. This is not an option, this is a necessity! He does an excellent job of puttin these things in perspective when he says,"If you don't fund the Global Fund, the children will die." He is saying that goals are all well and good, but if you continue this complacency, people have and will continue to die. This is something that must change, and you have the power to change it. How do you sleep at night knowing this? That people are dying while you have the power to save their lives. I think this is the kind of thing the U.N.and the world needs to hear.
ReplyDeleteThe point of funding is always a very difficult issue when it comes to aid. It is very easy to say we want to help people and that to do so will probably benefit all in the long run, but people generally think in the short term. An American worker who has never left the country and has never seen true absolute poverty at the level that is seen in many developing countries, will most likely not be willing to forfeit a piece of his paycheck in order to help faceless numbers that are being given to him by people like Sachs. As much as the evidence shows that funding these developmental projects would be ultimately beneficial, it is a difficult sale to someone who may believe that they themselves are actually living in poverty. It can very much be a difference in perspective and until people have actually made the effort to see the poor quality of life many in developing countries are leading to put a face to these numbers, it will always be a difficult sale back home, which means politicians will be less likely to listen to their economist advisors.
ReplyDeleteI think the key thing here is providing the right incentives. As Duflo points out in this article, even parents of sick children in the developing world need certain incentives to get their kids vaccinated. And you don't need a lot of education to realize that your child might die if you don't do it. So it is quite hard to understand why they need these incentives in the first place. The same is the case with funds from developed countries. It would be globally/socially beneficial if they invested more money but the optimal level is still not attained. So here we are in a bad equilibrium, we might say. Easier said than done, but I think the key is to come up with incentives for the industrialized nations to contribute more; a "what's in it for them" kind of story.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most important things we've learned throughout this semester is that poverty is a complex problem, influenced by many factors besides income. Certainly, income is a "means" for making progress in other areas, but flooding the third world with money is not the solution (Furthermore, as Prof. Casey pointed out, the trillions of dollars of aid from foreign countries does not amount to much on a per capita level). An extra billion dollars in Africa will not prevent climate induced hardships, and the same amount in Asia will not end the oppression of women. Maybe this is a little bit more like rocket science than we thought. We must address the many intricate causes of poverty, which is neither simple nor feasible in a short amount of time, and much attention needs to be paid to allocation! While the MDGs are the first step, we cannot be discouraged because they will not ALL be accomplished by 2015. We are tackling some major issues here...if the struggling economies of developing nations do not have funds for aid right now, in the mean time, let's use what we do have plenty of...brainpower! However, Sachs' words were crucial in reminding his audience what needs to happen and not letting them lose sight of its goals. After all, rocket science has come a long way, and so can world poverty alleviation.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that we can blame the economic crisis for the lack of funding of the MDGs. It certainly has played a part and reduced the availability of funds for aid worldwide but that money can be found. As the U.S. continues to fund policies/programs that have weak to no economic backing and have yet to be proven effective it seems like the time has come to reevaluate our priorities. Also, the fact that the U.S. falls 50 billion dollars short a year is astounding. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the developed world about the severity of poverty, and the value of the two million children’s lives lost each year?
ReplyDeleteThere really isn't enough discussion of these types of issues in politics today. We just signed off on an $800 billion stimulus bill this year, and most people were fine with it because they understood the economic issues at hand and that this was simpyly "what needed to be done." But in this case, no one is championing the cause except for Sachs himself, and it's getting very little publicity. Did I know anything about these goals before reading about them in this class? No. And politicians won't take the time to champion these issues because it does nothing for them by ways of re-election here at home. But it needs to be talked about more. We need to remember that we're not just citizens of the U.S. We're citizens of the world and have a responsibility to the millions of people who are hungry, poor, and sick.
ReplyDeleteThis is all too typical of the United Nations...it is a spectacular idea filled with civic minded idealists all striving for a better world, unfortunately there is a huge disconnect between the goals and the reality. With that said, if even a quarter of Sach's Millennium Development Goals can be attained by the target date, it will be a far greater improvement in the quality of living for millions of individuals than had the goal never been brought up.
ReplyDeleteAs a perfectionist, I hate seeing a goal set, then not fully met. But in the case of human capital development through eradication of extreme poverty, improvement of health conditions, primary education and equality for women...these are individual lives we are talking about.So who cares if the UN's ability to put political pressure on nations to comply is incredible porous; because of the MDG and the UN's efforts, millions of real human beings will live longer, better, and fuller lives.
With all that said, go Sachs...keep complaining about the bureaucracy and the promises nations have fallen through on and pushing for more commitment from nations.
On a more positive note, I'm very excited that Sachs believes "its not that complicated."
ReplyDeleteAfter a few classes studying American poverty with Prof. Beckley, I've seen that much of American poverty is multifaceted and there is not one good solution that can end poverty in the Mississippi Delta or the plains of South Dakota.
When the one of the leading intellectuals studying poverty essentially says, "guys, I've solved the problem--here's what you need to do," I'm very excited. I don't mean to minimize the half-hearted attempts at foreign aid by the West or the fact that most people just don't care, but at least private citizens who care have an action plan. Fight disease among children. We, as private citizens have resources and if we really care, we can send some of our money to the many organizations that fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis
The ending line of the article struck me as unfortunately naive and seems to undermine the complexity of fighting poverty in any nation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Sachs seems to bright to light one of the most important aspects of fighting poverty: the interconnected relationship of health, poverty and education. Duflo also makes an excellent point when she states, "Children miss a quarter of school days due to illness."
Which raises the question, what good is investments in education (teachers, classrooms, etc.) when it seems childrens' health is a significantly larger factor in overall human capital development?
I think that the MGDs need to be revisited to account for the significant weight of health investments in overall development.
In the OECD countries we have seen and felt the impact of the current economic crisis; however, the consequences of the downturn on the less developed countries has been even more severe. During difficult economic times politics make it easier to justify domestic spending than foreign assistance, and as we can see with the U.S., many OECD countries are falling short on their monetary promises to the developing world (although since the US falls short every year, the economic crisis can’t be there excuse.) Sachs says “this is our last chance to get things right,” and therefore the OECD countries must continue aiding the accomplishment of the MDGs even in tough times. When you look at the MDG goals, they strive for things in developing countries that we take for granted—education, health, food. It is a matter of life or death for many.
ReplyDeleteI thought Duflo’s suggestion to distribute food to every person that gets vaccinated for diseases in parts of the developing world, served as another example of how creative strategies are often necessary to provide incentives for families to make choices we in the developing world would deem positive for them. For instance, in the pilot program in rural India they provided bags of lentils to the people in exchange for getting vaccinated. It would initially seem everyone would get vaccinated to save themselves from being sick in the future; however if they must take a day off from work to go the location to get the vaccination, they may choose not to get it when they weigh the current cost and benefits.
The article noted that the lack of political representation of women is undermining the MDG of gender empowerment. We have learned and reiterated time and time again in class the important role women play in the development process. If more women held positions of political power, more decisions would be made in favor of women and it would serve as a symbol to other women that they have more opportunity.
If we intend to achieve the MDGs on schedule, we better get on it. (5 years and counting...)
ReplyDeleteAlthough, like most people, I would love to see all of the MDGs met on or ahead of schedule, at this point that seems like an impossibility. I would like to see the US cough up more than that embarrassing $50 billion we are short. I would like to see the eradication of malaria and the empowerment of women. Like Sachs says, it is common decency to try to prevent the death of 2 million children if we can do it.
Sachs is correct in claiming that this is not rocket science. It is a lot more complicated than rocket science. There are only a few ways that you can make tons of metal fly. The laws of physics are pretty rigid. The laws of humanity, however, are anything but. Esther Duflo's suggestion of incentives for vaccinations is a good one, as it improves the health care of children and pertains to several of the development goals. And as James's says, that is great for private citizens with a clear vision. But as Jarrett says or rather alludes to, are investments in health the most important because of their capacity to help improve other areas of development or should we focus on education? Or should we focus on empowering women because that will improve both healthcare and education of children?
I think evaluating the goals to determine where the most progress can be made in the most feasible time limit (like Catherine said: half of the MDGs all the way or all of the MDGs halfway) is the most effective strategy at this point. After that, using creative solutions and strategies, like Duflo's incentives for vaccinating children, that are relatively low-cost and pertain to several of the MDGs should be implemented. These will provide as much progress as possible in as many areas as possible, helping to achieve the goals in the swiftest way possible. And finally, although I am hesitant to suggest sending money down the rabbit hole, we need to increase funding as much as we can.
(Also, as a side note: According to an Oxford study in 2008, "It's not rocket science" is one of the top 10 most irritating phrases. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/3394545/Oxford-compiles-list-of-top-ten-irritating-phrases.html)
I completely agree with Jeffrey Sachs' point that this isnt rocket science, it is simply common decency. The MDG's were not something pledged upon the presentation of theory and research, they were pledged upon because most of them involve equality and morality. There is no theory involved there other than to do the right thing. Moreover, the article points out, which I agree with, that there needs to be updated studies to judge the progress that some of these developing countries are making. This way we can see who truly needs the most help so that we can assist them in accelerating their progress towards meeting the MDGs as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the budget targeted for MDGs should be placed prior than many other concerns, such as the economic crisis persisting throughout the nation. This must be stressed despite the fact that there is a shortage of 50 billion dollars a year. MDGs are considered to be long-term objectives and rather complicated, however, as Sachs concluded in the last sentence, each step for these goals are not long-term. For example, providing food to every person who get vaccinated can be regarded as a short-term goal, if we really concentrate on this particular objective. Also, I have a feeling that we are misled by economic theories, which make our process more complicated. In this sense, the articulation made by Sachs has a strong impact on our image of development.
ReplyDeleteTalking about gender empowerment, focusing on women's potential is a good approach, however, I am worried about reverse discriminations. Simultaneously, people in LDC (both male and female) should go through sufficient education to understand why women must be empowered. Therefore, lacking in sustainable education system (long-term effects) will be a great impediment in gender empowerment for next generations.