Results for Development Institute (R4D), under the leadership of Dr. Nicholas Burnett, Dr. Julian Schweitzer, and Dr. Marty Makinen, has released two complementary reports on health and education that add to the global debate about the post-2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) agenda.
“In order to ensure country ownership and relevance, the post-2015 development goals for health and education must be politically intelligible and seek substantive input from low- and middle- income countries,” says Dr. Nick Burnett from the Results for Development Institute (R4D) in Washington DC.
Dr. Julian Schweitzer notes that “it will be critical that this debate be seen as what countries can do – rather than being about aid flows.”
The reports compare and contrast stakeholders’ experience with MDGs to date, and explore what could be the aim of a post-2015 global agreement similar to the MDGs, how a global agreement might add value to national efforts, and the type of agreement that might be made, including targets and indicators.
The evidence base for the authors’ analyses includes reviews of current debates and policy developments, and interviews with international organizations and in selected low income, middle income and donor countries, and attendance at various meetings organized by those interested in MDGs in general.
Some highlights from the reports:
- The authors note that, due to the absence of counterfactual, it is difficult to empirically measure the impact of the original Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) beyond casual contribution. Indeed, progress has been mixed with some goals having been met before the 2015 deadline, others lagging behind, and the progress or lack thereof not always linked clearly to global development initiatives created in response to the MDG agenda.
- New goals will need to be rigorous enough to be challenging and sophisticated while simultaneously flexible enough to take into account contextual differences. The goals should be stated and measured in a way that indicates progress, rather than a simple pass or fail, and prioritize the creation of robust accountability mechanisms. Finally, there is now an emerging consensus that an equity dimension will be central to any post-2015 agenda.
- The health report proposes three options for consideration for the way forward. One attractive option is to use global goals and local targets, but this may be difficult to implement in practice. A second approach would be to use one goal focused on the most vulnerable that requires a multi-sectoral approach – for which the authors consider stunting as a possible indicator. A third suggestion is to use a health systems indicator, such as universal health coverage or financial protection, rather than using an approach that is focused on health outcomes. Reflecting on the proposals, Dr. Mr. Makinen observed that “now it is up to governments and those in their countries that influence them to decide whether they want to commit themselves to these or other concepts to guide the next generation of investment in human development.”
- The education report, which also reflects on how the Education for All goals (EFA) have and will complement future MDGs, offers five key conclusions and recommendations for shaping the education agenda. Additionally, the authors draw on work already carried out for The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, including particularly confidential interviews with 21 ministers of education, to emphasize the prominent role Learning will play in any eventual goal.
These reports were commissioned by Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and the research was funded by UK Aid from the Department for International Development. Its conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views of the UK Government.
