The world has generally become a much better place during the last half-century. Skeptics will scoff at the idea of overall improvement, but the numbers do not lie. The task we face now is to make the world even better.
In the year 1960, 20 million children under the age of five died. In 2011, far too many kids were still dying. But, though there were 40pc more children, the number of deaths had declined by two-thirds, to 6.9 million.
In 1970, only five percent of infants were vaccinated against measles, tetanus, whooping cough, diphtheria and polio. By 2000, the proportion was 85pc, saving about three million lives annually. Each year, these vaccines alone saved more people than world peace would have saved in the twentieth century.
Education has improved as well. In 1962, 41pc of the world’s children were not in school – today that number is pc. The literacy rate worldwide has risen from one-third to two-thirds.
Likewise, the share of those living in poverty worldwide has dropped from 43pc to less than 18pc since 1981. During that time period, more than three billion people have joined the ranks of the non-poor.
There are many reasons for this progress – not least rapid economic development, especially in China. But there has also been a concerted international effort, reflected in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The MDGs set 18 sharp and mostly achievable targets in eight areas, including poverty and hunger, gender equality, education and child and maternal health. In the period since 2000, development aid worldwide reached around 900 billion dollars. Perhaps, as much as 200 billion dollars of this was due to the MDGs.
The UN is now contemplating how to extend this target-setting process from 2015 to 2030. If the successor scheme – the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – has a similar impact, it could determine the allocation of upwards of 700 billion dollars. Obviously, this means that everyone wants their favorite issue on the agenda and more than a thousand targets have been proposed, which is tantamount to having no priorities at all.
It would be useful, therefore, to get a sense of what really works, not just what sounds good. Some targets, such as getting broad access to family planning, are phenomenally good. That is because contraception is mostly inexpensive and can help both individuals and society. The benefits can equate to as much as 150 dollars for every dollar spent.
Similarly, we should focus on at least halving malnutrition, because there is robust evidence that proper nutrition for young children leads to a lifetime of large benefits – better brain development, improved academic performance and ultimately higher productivity as adults. For every dollar spent, future generations will receive almost 60 dollars in benefits.
But the draft global agenda says that we should “end malnutrition”, and the economists warn that, while such an absolute goal sounds alluring, it is likely both implausibly optimistic and inefficient. We cannot achieve it and, even if we could, the resources to help the last hungry person would be much better spent elsewhere.
Likewise, the world would like to end HIV, malaria and tuberculosis. And, while reducing malaria and TB significantly is a very good deal, it is likely that the goal of eradication is both unrealistic and uneconomical.
Other poor targets simply cost more than the benefit they provide. Doubling the share of renewable energy by 2030 sounds good, but is an expensive way to cut just a little CO2. Instead, we should focus on getting more energy to poor people, which is a proven way of increasing growth and reducing poverty. And, to cut CO2 emissions, we should phase out the substantial fossil-fuel subsidies that riddle much of the developing world, leading to wasteful consumption and straining government budgets.
The ultimate decision about which targets to set for the coming 15 years is a complex and deeply political discussion and advice from experts will not magically resolve all complications. But, providing evidence of what works really well and what does not makes it more likely that good targets will be selected – and that poorer ones will be left out.
Realistically, this approach may help to exclude only a few poor targets, or even just one, and it might generate enough tailwind to put just one additional good goal onto the final list. But, because the world is likely to spend 700 billion dollars on the upcoming goals, even a small change can do tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of good. That is why helping to narrow the priorities to include the best targets could be the most important thing that any of us can do this decade.
Leave a Reply