A Post 2015 Menu of Development Indicators, With Fitted Goals?

I'm going to veer off the topic of governance for a short post this morning.

Last week saw a high level meeting in Monrovia to discuss the post 2015 Millennium Development Goals (if that is what they are called). Yesterday the ever-sharp Charles Kenny and some others were active on twitter discussing some of the ideas emerging from the meeting (and in other spaces where post 2015 indicators are being discussed). Charles was questioning the number of proposed goals that not only identify the specific indicator that will hold for all countries but will also note a wildly perfect set of goals--infant mortality to be reduce to zero, for instance.

My immediate response to this is to scratch my head and wonder what all the discussion of country ownership in development really means. Surely countries should be choosing the specific goals they care about themselves. This meas choosing the area and field they want to see particular impact in and choosing the goal in that field.

I understand the international community wants to have international and global goals, but the goals will be met by actions in individual countries and it is vital that these countries are the ones:

• identifying the problems
• accepting baseline measures of the problems
• defining goals
• counting the cost (direct and opportunity) of setting these goals
• looking for solutions
• owning the process of change
• ensuring feedback and learning throughout the process of change

I would propose that the high level meetings focused on post 2015 indicators develop menus of potential goals, with baseline data for as many countries as possible in all of these menu areas. Then let countries choose the areas they want to focus on and what they see as do-able targets, and let the countries drive the discussion about how they will get there.

If ownership matters in development and change, let's allow for ownership through choice.

Comments

[Natalia Adler]

Hi Matt,

These types of global goal-setting initiatives are rarely able to inspire or mobilize concerted action for change, particularly in everyday actions in public management at the country level (never heard government officials saying they have to change course because of the MDGs...). But the problem is not necessarily related to whether these indicators are globally or nationally agreed upon. I think the same logic applies to national goals as well... The problem is that it's just difficult to translate these outcome-level indicators into a series of operational interventions that will eventually contribute to their achievement.

As you know, Mozambique is/was developing a national planning system aimed at bringing synergies among all these plans/goals in hopes of making them more strategic, coherent and linked to the budgeting process. But making even well-designed plans and their goals operational is hard work. Plus, politics and power relations influence the extent to which these plans yield concrete results. In addition, the goal-setting agenda carries the assumption of a ‘clean slate’ often neglecting existing arrangements and commitments (to other goals), which cannot be easily brushed aside to give place to new plans/goals, whether they are agreed nationally or globally.

I personally don't have a problem with the post-2015 discussion identifying a set of 'global' indicators (e.g. child mortality being one of them). What should change are the targets, which, I agree, should be country specific/defined and focused on existing implementation issues and a realist understanding of the pace of development efforts.

I agree with you. The focus on solving problems can trigger change better than goal-setting exercises..