Why the MDGs are both too ambitious and not ambitious enough

    Research output: Contribution to specialist publicationArticle

    Abstract

    The Millennium Development Goals have the unenviable distinction of being both shamefully under ambitious and wildly over ambitious. This sounds impossible but its not, for reasons that Ill explain in a moment. First, though, I want to make one thing clear: Im not an MDG-hater. Since their inception the Goals have been on the receiving end of fierce (and sometimes justified) critique. Yet my own take is that while the MDGs are flawed theres no evidence that theyve proven harmful or that the world would have been a better place without them. And it makes sense to have some sort of targets that allow our nascent global community to track progress in improving human welfare while at the same time galvanising efforts to make the world a better place. Come 2015 (the nominal end of the MDG time line and also the point when any replacement framework would become active) we should not abandon the aspirations encapsulated in the MDGs or the idea of global goals. But we do need to think about how the Goals are constructed.
    Original languageEnglish
    PagesOnline
    No.Online
    Specialist publicationDevpolicy Blog
    Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Why the MDGs are both too ambitious and not ambitious enough'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this