So, I'm still trying to figure out the story with the MDGs. What is is that they were meant to do? Did they achieve that? Is there really enough of a story to support ceating post 2015 MDGs?
Given yesterday's post I think there are serious questions about (i) whether the MDGs mobilized governments' financial commitments (as they were meant to) and (ii) whether the MDGs mobilized attention on the MDG targets (which won't be met in many countries).
In respect of the last point, I spent a bit of time today using Ben Leo's data showing how countries are performing against goals. Given his methodology, countries score '0' if they are totally off track on any target, '0.5' if they are partially on track, and '1' if they are on track to reach the target. When all of the scores are combined countries can scoe a maximum of 8 and a minimum of 0.
In 2013 25 countries scored 2 or below and 23 countries scored 6 or above. So these are your two extreme groups. Intrestingly, the top group had seen rapid economic growth since 2002 (that led per capita GDP to expand by 85% in the period). The bottom group saw an average growth of 51% in the same ten year period. The difference in economic growth between these two groups is statistially significant.
SO IS GROWTH THE DRIVER HERE?
I find similar result when comparing countries that score 3.5 or below with countries scoring above 3.5 (ten year growth at 59% versus 81%, with differences statistically significant at 1%).
NOW I KNOW THIS DOES NOT PROVE MUCH, but as groups meet to develop post-2015 MDGs I ask: What were the MDGs meant to acheve? Did they achieve this? What evidence is there?Does the evidence really support having pot 2015 global goals and targets?Or should we just focus on growth....
Comments