Comments

Hi Ben, In theory countries could set their own targets for the MDGs too; although in practice I don't think many did. So the escape hatch may not be as readily used as you would imagine. And egregious use would be something campaigners could police. Terence

It isn't clear to me how much of a political process has been involved in creating the SDGs. Or at least, not much like other political processes. In standard politics, we operate under constraints. There is a fixed budget, and that has to be allocated among competing priorities. There are competing priorities, and we bargain to reach a final agreement. For the SDGs, it is just an ever growing wish list without any consideration to the feasibility of achieving the goals, or to structuring them in a way that usefully guides the allocation of resources.

Phil, are these goals really imposed? The G77 is a powerful negotiating bloc at the UN. Their votes matter. Do you really think it is as straight-forward as OECD donor countries imposing their will on everyone else? Further, if agreed, these goals will be universal, so this is about a collective agenda for everyone. Also, there is leeway in the goals for countries to chose their own priorities and focus on those. Given the comprehensiveness of the goals there is a lot of scope for choice in there. Finally, the process to create the goals has been consultative on an unprecedented, global scale, with voices from across the world involved - not only the perspective of governments (who wield their own power over their citizens) but also citizens. However, I do agree that in the implementation power differentials in the real world play out in ways that can undermine national government ownership. I just don't think it is as black and white as 'us' imposing on 'them'.

Hello Garth. I think you're exactly right about the likely next steps and that civil society groups will help determine the 'local shape' of the Goals. In fact, <a href="http://www.simonmaxwell.eu/blog/a-challenge-on-the-sdgs.html" rel="nofollow">Simon Maxwell has used this kind of language</a> to describe Paragraph 19 of the current draft of the SDGs. He calls this paragraph an 'escape hatch' which allows that the "SDGs will be global in scope, but that individual countries will shape their own programmes." But if this is the likely outcome, then for me it limits how powerful the SDGs can become. The MDGs were like a set menu; to sign up meant you ate everything. On the other hand, if countries are just going to be choosing digestible portions from the SDG smorgasbord, it's going to be difficult to change our collective eating habits.

Hi Phil. Yes.. I too have found myself on the PhD journey... Thanks for the best wishes. I tend to agree with you that there's a sense that MDGs are being / have been 'imposed' at times, especially by DAC donors. But on the other hand, all UN member states did explicitly sign up to the MDGs. What's obvious this time round is that there's more push back from the developing world. They certainly don't want to be imposed upon this time around.This was apparent in the recently convened Financing for Development Conference and follows on from similar examples at Busan and Mexico (First High Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation). These dynamics, even though desirable in many ways, are a big part of the reason this round of negotiations are tougher and the list of goals longer.

Ben, as you highlight there are arguments in both directions for the current 17 goal SDG framework. I suspect that whether these new goals are impactful or not will have more to do with the actions and efforts of civil society groups and other interested parties in each country and across the globe than the specific form of the framework. They offer us a tool - how we use that tool is up to us. I expect that civil society groups in different countries will simplify the goals and set their own priorities to meet their interests and country context.

I don't disagree with much of what has been said so far – but most of it has been said before – and I agree strongly with comments on the neglect of social, cultural and anthropological aspects, but I think Elie raises the critical point. Does it work? The fact that we’re still having the debate is testimony to the fact that it doesn’t, bearing in mind that capacity building in various guises has been around for at least 30 years. 'Capacity analyses, diagnoses and responses’ have dominated development thinking, ‘capacity building’ has been seen as a panacea, and in the process it has smothered alternative perspectives. I'm not sure why. As a broad generalization, if we asked whether country X or sector Y requires more capacity we’d probably acknowledge that it has some but ‘yes’ it needs more. If we asked the same with respect to ‘better governance’, in most cases we’d say ‘definitely’. This not only raises questions about whether X or Y need ‘more capacity’, ‘better governance’ or both, but whether it is possible to ‘build capacity’ in the absence of ‘good governance’ – and whether successful capacity building will produce better health outcomes etc. without better governance. It is nonsensical to argue that the provision of more capacity will improve service delivery etc. when through poor governance neither donors nor recipients make the best use of, misdirect and/or waste, the capacity that is already available. There are many situations where ‘capacity gaps’ need to be addressed, but equally, many where better governance would lead to a better use of existing capacity and better outcomes. I am also concerned about counterproductive aspects of the capacity narrative i.e., its starting premise of a ‘glass half-empty, not half full’, and emphasis on the ‘can’t do’ rather than ‘can do’ and the dismissal of ‘will do’ and ‘won’t do’. As a consequence, capacity building is often undertaken for its own sake and as an end in itself rather than as a means to an end. At the end of the day, I would like to see more focus on ‘people’ and ‘beneficiaries’ – in health, for example, what communities and patients want and need – and approaches that are grounded in the ‘actualities’ of development rather than the ‘institutional realities’ of institutions, structures and systems.

Hi Ben Glad you're doing your PhD. Good luck I don't regard myself as either an 'optimist' or 'pessimist' - perhaps 'realist'. I have fundamental problems with the imposition of MDGs and other global agendas on developing countries. I don't believe it should happen and I don't believe it works. I also have issues with aid being used principally as an instrument of donor foreign policy. I'd rather see it based on and driven by domestic development agendas i.e. owned locally

Hi Michael It is fantastic to read about the important job you are doing in PNG. I can see you are still the same caring, change driver and well informed individual I once met in my Uni days in Adelaide. I am sure you are inspiring many lives through your passion and deep knowledge whilst contributing to their capacity development. Perhaps you would like to circulate amongst your students this information about Awards Scholarships available for PNG citizens to study in Australia, in case this may assist those top economists in their academic formation: <a href="https://internationaleducation.gov.au/Endeavour%20program/Scholarships-and-Fellowships/Pages/default.aspx" rel="nofollow">Endeavour Scholarship and Fellowships</a> <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/australia-awards/Pages/australia-awards-scholarships.aspx" rel="nofollow">Australia Awards Pacific Scholarships (AAPS)</a> <a href="http://www.australiaawards.gov.au/Pages/awards.aspx" rel="nofollow">Other Australia Awards categories</a> These programs are funded by the Australian government with the aim of promoting cultural, educational and research linkages with those eligible countries. Keep on the great work Michael. Andreina

Hi Michael, I taught the 3rd-year macro course at UPNG between 2009 and 2011 and also assisted with 3rd-year micro. I could see the Economics Division deteriorating as successive heads of division were recruited to other positions and other lecturers also got jobs elsewhere. It was troubling to observe so it's great to hear that you and the other staff are reviving an important part of the university. If my experiences (or lecture notes) might be of any use, please get in touch. (The DevPolicy folks should be able to dig out my email address for you.) cheers, Harry

Very interesting blog and responses from Deborah and Elizabeth. As someone who works in the capacity development field in Rwanda, I would be interested to read from Jim if there is any country, somewhere on the entire African continent, that could be described as, somehow, a good example when it comes to Institutional Capacity Development.

Joel, Australia's health aid to PNG has definitely not been focused on vertical programming, but front and centre on health system strengthening. Here's a quote we draw in the <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/review-of-the-png-australia-development-cooperation-treaty.aspx" rel="nofollow">2010 PNG aid review</a> I worked on (see p. 24) from an ODE review: “TA has been extensive and wide-ranging, accounting for nearly half of AusAID expenditure [in the health sector]. Although it made positive contributions, some of which have had lasting impact, the team’s judgement is that the results are not commensurate with the level of spending. Expenditure of $150 to $200 million on TA has not produced a step improvement in performance or capacity. A better balance between TA and operating costs would arguably have achieved more.” (ODE, 2009, p.40)