The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – introduced at the Millennium Summit in 2000 – have received a large amount of criticism and praise since their conclusion in 2015. In “The MDGs after 2015: Some Reflections on the Possibilities,” Deepak Nayyar provides an overview of arguments for and against the MDGs. On one hand, champions argue the MDGs are simple, straightforward, and offer a global framework that all nationals can come together on and work towards enhancing human development (p. 11). On the other hand, critics argue that the MDGs were too ambitious, focused too much on quantitative targets while ignoring qualitative results, and excluded many important groups – like persons with disabilities – and indigenous groups in developing nations (p. 6). In addition, many argue that the way the MDGs were formulated specified a “destination” – the targets – but not the “journey” – how individual nationals were to reach the targets. .

Even though the MDGs provided a global framework that did help pull some individuals out of poverty and bring rights – like primary education and clean water – to some communities, their biggest downfall is the exclusion of PWDs. It’s estimated that about 15% of the world’s population lives with some sort of disability – 650,000 million people – and that 80% of PWDs live in developing nations (Kett. et al, p. 649). According to “Disability, Development, and the Dawning of a New Convention,” the relationship between disability and poverty is a “negative cycle” meaning that poor people are more likely to become disabled and come disabled are more likely to fall even lower on the economic ladder (Kett. et al, p. 651). The MGDs run on the assumption that the means of economic growth will lead to human development (Khoo, p. 47). Therefore, if the MGDs exclude such a large, poverty stricken portion of the world, they’ve failed before they’ve begun. However, as we’ve discussed in class, there has been a resurgence of policy that not only includes PWDs but also pushes the envelope making global development much more localized and inclusive.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – which came into effect May 2008 – marks a landslide victory for PWD groups (Kett et al, p. 652). This is shown in the inclusion of PWDs in the post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This inclusion shows that the international community is more than capable of becoming increasingly inclusive with each revision of the global development framework. It is extremely important moving forward with the SDGs that the international community is diligent and ensures all voices – from the local to the global – are heard and accounted for.

Global frameworks represent grand challenges. The areas of focus that global frameworks such as WSIS+ 10 Outcome Document and the SDGs attempt to tackle are multidimensional, complex and far reaching issues that do not necessarily have a clear solution. Such technically complex societal problems can be addressed through a process of trial and error. If we take the example of the MDGS, we see how some of the Goals greatest strengths, were also its biggest sources of critique. With the expiration of the MDGs, the 15+ years of trial and error allowed for a  series of improvements to be made. Deepak Nayyar reflects on many of these potential areas for improvement in “The MDGs after 2015: Some Reflections on the Possibilities.”

One of the most common critiques that Nayyar identifies of the MDGs is that the goals specify an outcome, but then they do not set out the process which would make it possible for countries to realize the objective.  The lack of specificity in regards to means for achieving the goals stems from two issues. The UNDP recognizes that development is ‘characterized by specificities in time and in space,’ so outlining action items and coordinating  due dates for 193 countries seems impractical. The lack of specifying processes for achieving the goals may also be linked to the acceptance that each country may have its own idea of what the appropriate strategy of development would most effectively achieve the objective. Had the UN consulted its 193 members in outlining processes for achieving the goals it is likely  that a ‘political consensus on means would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible.’

Another critique suggests that the MDGs take a one size fits all approach to development, While the argument is a valid one, it takes the MDGs out of their stated context. The MDGS were meant ti be global norms, collective targets for the world as a whole, and countries were meant to contextualize the MDGs in terms of initial conditions and national priorities.There is a misunderstanding because global MDG targets are often used as a scale for assessing the performance of different regions or specific countries. In this context of course one could argue that targets may be set too high for some developing countries and too low for developed countries.

Although there may not be a  consensus on how to carry out a global development agenda, the MDGs are important in that they have imparted a focus to concerns about poverty and deprivation, as well as ‘galvanized support for the idea that it is imperative to improve the living conditions of such people in a stipulated time horizon.’ These initial frameworks have laid the groundwork for addressing the grand challenge of international development.