Global and Regional Frameworks

For multiple reasons, we understand how the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) remain an important topic of discussion. Many are concerned with it because of the importance in learning from the mistakes implemented. The Post2015 UN Development Agenda explains how others concentrate on the present in order to “consider the implications of the financial crisis and the Great Recession in the world economy” (3). There were three different dimensions to the significance of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which included:

  1. “Recognition of the reality that a large proportion of people in the world were deprived and poor” (5).
  2. “It was a statement of good intentions that sought a time-bound reduction in poverty to improve the living conditions of those deprived and excluded” (5).
  3. It was an attempt to place this persistent problem, until then a largely national concern, on the development agenda for international cooperation” (5).

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were important in creating a sense of imagination by the international community. Ideally it was also a way in which governments could become accountable to people “just as the international community could be held accountable by national governments” (5). That being said, in actual real life, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) did not help alter the international approach to development because real life practice was unable to fully maintain that relationship of accountability between governments and civil society.

In terms of the overall limitations of global strategies and frameworks, looking at its large-scale structure is pivotal to understanding its strengths and weaknesses. Often, the large-scale structure of global frameworks such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) means that they are operating with a top-down approach. This poses the risk of development not being assessed from the grassroots level that it needs to be. It also means that the framework is weak in implementation ability. We learn of how “the limitations of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as a construct, in conception and in design, provide some basis for an evaluation of the (MDGs) as a framework” (8). The document makes two interesting statements in which it describes the weakness of the (MDGs) as their strength, but also how their strength serves as their weakness. Its simplicity was its strength in that it was easy for the international community to comprehend and thus in theory implement. However, its simplicity led to the assumption that “one-size-fits-all” which fails to take into account the intersectionality and diversity of the development spectrum.