Asia Pacic Viewpoint, Vol. 49, No.

2, August 2008 ISSN 1360-7456, pp198212

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Asia-Pacic region: The role of international assistance1
Simon Feeny* and Matthew Clarke
*School of Economics, Finance and Marketing, RMIT University, Level 12, 239 Bourke Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. Email: simon.feeny@rmit.edu.au School of International and Political Studies, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia. Email: matthew.clarke@deakin.edu.au

Abstract: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are a set of international development targets agreed to by members of the United Nations in 2000. The goals aim to improve many of the dimensions of extreme poverty and are to be achieved by 2015. This paper provides an overview of the issues relevant to the achievement of the MDGs in the Asia-Pacic region. The paper begins by discussing the critiques of the MDGs before assessing whether countries in the region are on track to achieve them. Issues relating to data availability and accuracy are discussed and the need to tailor the MDG targets to the special circumstances of some Asia-Pacic countries is examined. The paper proceeds by discussing the role of international assistance via international foreign development aid and non-governmental organisations in the achievement of the MDGs. The paper concludes with some policy implications for the international donor community. Keywords: foreign aid, Millennium Development Goals, non-governmental organisations

Introduction At the United Nations (UN) Millennium Summit in September 2000, UN member states committed themselves to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs comprise a set of eight internationally agreed goals to improve the well-being of the poor in developing countries. They include: (i) eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; (ii) achieving universal primary education; (iii) promoting gender equality; (iv) reducing child mortality; (v) improving maternal health; (vi) combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; (vii) ensuring environmental sustainability; and (viii) developing a global partnership for development. The MDGs emanated from a number of development-related conferences during the 1990s. The eight goals will be assessed against the achievement of 18 targets and 48 indicators outlined in the appendix to this paper.
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

The Asia-Pacic region is often said to be making good progress towards the MDGs. However, the region is extremely diverse and analysis at the regional level masks signicant differences in the progress towards the MDGs made by individual countries. Indeed, Asia and the Pacic are largely incomparable as regions. They differ in terms of geography, history, population, natural resources, access to international markets and global integration. Asia includes the worlds largest countries: China and India, while the Pacic includes a large number of Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The performance of Asian countries has varied greatly but in general the region has experienced considerable reductions in poverty during recent decades. However, Pacic island countries have, in general, not performed as well. In particular, the Melanesian countries of Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu present considerable development challenges. Because of their small size, Pacic island
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8373.2008.00370.x

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Asia-Pacic region

countries have received far less international attention than Asia and other areas of the world. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the issues relevant to the achievement of the MDGs in the Asia-Pacic region. Critiques of the MDGs are discussed in the next section. Although the MDGs represent an important commitment to reducing poverty in developing countries, the support for them has not been universal. This section investigates why. The third section assesses the progress made by Asia-Pacic countries towards achieving the MDGs since 1990; the baseline on which the goals are to be assessed. Specically, it examines whether they are on track to achieve the goals given their current rate of progress, highlighting the MDGs that present the greatest challenges and the individual countries that are at greatest risk of missing the development targets. Issues of data accuracy and reliability are also discussed. The fourth section argues that some Asia-Pacic countries that will clearly be unable to achieve the MDGs by 2015 should adopt tailored MDG targets that are still ambitious but are also realistic. This should maintain or increase the support for their achievement. The paper proceeds by discussing the role of international assistance through international development aid and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the achievement of the MDGs in the fth section. Finally, the last section concludes with some important implications for the international donor community. Critiques of the MDGs Recent international pledges to increase foreign aid and lower barriers to trade provide some evidence that the developed world has embraced the achievement of the MDGs. However, the enthusiasm for their achievement is not universal. Criticisms include the goals being both too ambitious and not ambitious enough, being irrelevant to the Pacic region, masking reality by relying on averages, and prioritising quantitative indicators over qualitative indicators. These criticisms are discussed in turn. The MDGs are the starkest commitment yet to reducing poverty made by the international community. However, it is sometimes argued that targets such as halving world poverty by
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

2015 are simply too ambitious or unrealistic and could potentially lead to successes being labelled as failures. Some countries might make considerable progress towards the MDG targets but miss their achievement by 2015. This could undermine the future support for aid in donors and the stimulus for reform in recipients (Clemens et al., 2007). This paper recognises that this might be true for some countries in the Asia-Pacic. However, as argued in the fourth section, the MDGs should be tailored in these instances rather then rejected. Conversely, it is sometimes argued that the MDGs are not ambitious enough. Even if the MDGs are achieved by 2015 we will still be living in a world with millions of people living in income poverty and millions of children dying prematurely. Further, it is sometimes asserted that the MDGs are too narrow in focus and that there are a number of important aspects of wellbeing that are not included in the MDGs. Again, this should not be viewed as a reason to reject the achievement of the MDGs but rather use them as valuable yardsticks for further development progress. The MDGs should not be seen as an end in themselves but as a way for benchmarking progress towards the eventual eradication of global poverty (UNESCAP, 2003). The relevance of the MDGs (especially the primacy of poverty) is sometimes questioned for the Pacic. Many Pacic countries prefer the term hardship to poverty. Social networks often prevent hunger and outright destitution. Instead, the nature of poverty in the Pacic often relates to a lack of access to basic services and a lack of income-earning opportunities. It is also sometimes argued that other development indicators are more relevant for the Pacic countries. Although HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria all represent signicant health concerns in the Pacic region, there has also been a rise in non-communicable or lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and hypertension (ADB, 2003). Further, obesity rates and tobacco use are among the highest in the world (SPC, 2004). This provides further evidence of the need to tailor the MDGs to individual country circumstances. A more technical criticism is that some of the MDGs relate to averages that can mask inequality in development across and within countries. The goal of halving income poverty at a global level is likely to be achieved in the relatively 199

S. Feeny and M. Clarke

near future because of progress made by just two very large countries: China and India. However, there has been little change in income poverty for many living in these countries, particularly those living in some rural areas largely untouched by their recent economic booms. Moreover, many other countries are likely to miss the achievement of this goal by a wide margin. The poor do not necessarily gain from average progress (Vandemoortele, 2002). Progress towards the MDGs is likely to be very different for different social groups within a country. For example, a reduction in child mortality does not necessarily mean that child mortality has been reduced for certain disadvantaged groups. Reducing inequality between different groups within countries is likely to remain a signicant development challenge after 2015. A further criticism of the MDGs is that they relate to quantitative rather than qualitative targets. Some of the target indicators for the rst seven MDGs are measures focusing on the provision of activities without any analysis of the quality of outcomes or access to services. For example, higher enrolments in schools and greater access to health services might actually be matched by deterioration in the quality of education and health care. This issue is particularly relevant for Pacic countries where educational standards are often said to be declining. It is important that donors and developingcountry governments ensure, for example, that children receive a valuable education with access to textbooks, classrooms and skilled teachers once they are enrolled at school. Despite these criticisms, this paper argues that support for the MDGs should not be undermined. Rather than reject the MDGs, the criticisms outlined earlier relate to a number of issues that need to be considered when striving to achieve them. The existence of development goals is important. The MDGs have already been successful in raising awareness of development issues and mobilising resources. They have gained unprecedented support from government and non-government bodies around the world and virtually all aid donors have now pledged to increase their aid. Moreover, international donors and governments have become more accountable for their performance at reducing poverty. NGOs and civil society can 200

monitor progress towards the goals, highlighting their failures and identifying areas needing more resources. Tracking progress towards the MDGs in the Asia-Pacic region It is important to track the progress towards achieving the MDGs in order to highlight the countries and goals at greatest risk and to establish priorities for the allocation of resources. Tracking progress towards the achievement of the MDGs in the Asia-Pacic region is hampered by the availability and reliability of relevant data. This is particularly true for Pacic countries. Data in the Pacic are rarely collected and compiled in a timely and regular manner, and using different sources of data makes comparability difcult. Further, data for Pacic countries are often not made widely available.2 The data relating to many of the targets for the baseline year of 1990 do not exist for many Pacic countries. Questions then arise as to how the achievement of the MDGs will be assessed in 2015 for these countries. For example, given no data relating for the number of people in poverty in the baseline year 1990, it is impossible to assess whether such countries have achieved the headline goal of halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015. Moreover, Pacic countries are characterised by high levels of inequality. Ideally, data would be disaggregated within countries to identify large regional differences as well as differences across gender and ethnic groupings. Unfortunately, such data are not readily available and it is therefore very hard to identify trends and monitor the development progress that has been made in these countries over recent years. Tracking the progress towards the MDGs for Asia-Pacic countries is also complicated by some countries having already tailored the targets (while others are in the process of doing this). The tables in succeeding discussions only provide an indication of the progress made by countries towards some of the original MDG targets. However, the tables are useful in providing indications of which targets and countries are progressing well and which are faring poorly. Progress is tracked for all low- and
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Asia-Pacic region

middle-income countries in Eastern, Southern and South-East Asia and the low- and middleincome Pacic countries of Oceania.3 Results from the exercise are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Further details are provided in the notes to the tables. Table 1 summarises the progress of Asian countries towards the MDGs. It demonstrates that while four countries are on track to achieve the MDGs Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam there are ve countries at severe risk of not achieving them: India, North Korea, Laos, Mongolia and Pakistan. There are insufcient data to assess the progress made by Afghanistan, Bhutan and Timor-Leste. The other countries in Asia are classied as at risk of not achieving the MDGs. The MDG target most at risk of not being achieved is that of universal primary education. While many Asian countries have high primary school enrolment rates, insufcient progress is being made to full this target. Poor progress is also being made towards the targets of reducing hunger and child and maternal mortality rates. Table 2 highlights the poor availability of data for Pacic countries, which makes tracking progress towards the MDGs for this region very difcult. The Cook Islands, Kiribati, Micronesia and Tokelau are countries that do not have enough data to meaningfully evaluate their progress towards MDGs. Fiji, Niue, Tonga and Vanuatu are classied as being on track to achieve the MDGs. Table 2 also indicates that Nauru and the Solomon Islands are at severe risk of not achieving the MDGs by 2015, with ve other Pacic countries classied as being at risk of not achieving the MDGs. Far greater progress at reducing child and maternal mortality and improving access to safe water is required in the Pacic region. Overall, both tables indicate that unless there are good reasons to believe that a much faster progress will be made towards MDGs in coming years, the majority of countries in the Asia-Pacic will fail to achieve them by 2015. Tailoring the MDGs The previous section indicates that some AsiaPacic countries have little realistic hope of achieving the MDGs by 2015. Many of the countries that are at severe risk of not achieving the MDGs are referred to as fragile states. The
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

governments of fragile states either lack the commitment and/or the capacity to reach the MDGs. Therefore it is difcult (and not always sensible) to work towards achieving the MDGs as they are currently framed in these circumstances. In Asia, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Myanmar, North Korea, and Timor-Leste are often referred to as fragile and the same applies to Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu in the Pacic. Given the likelihood that these countries will fail to achieve the MDGs by 2015, it is very likely that the governments of these countries, together with international aid donors, will be heavily criticised for a lack of action even if good development progress has been made. This will further weaken the support for aid and any important reforms undertaken by developing countries could be undermined outcomes that must be avoided. Therefore, in countries where it is clear that the MDGs cannot be met, the MDG targets should be tailored. This will lead to greater action to achieve them. In tailoring the MDG targets, it is important that the revised targets are ambitious but realistic. If they are not ambitious, they are unlikely to lead to necessary reforms or mobilise additional resources. If they are overly ambitious, they are unlikely to gain support. Revised targets should be devised by developing countries and incorporated into their longterm development strategies. A few countries in the Asia-Pacic have taken this lead with UN backing. Papua New Guinea has tailored the goals, making some targets less ambitious but more realistic for the country to achieve by 2015. Conversely, Thailand has tailored the goals to be more ambitious. Thailands tailored goals include reducing poverty to less than 4% by 2009 and achieving universal secondary (as well as primary) education by 2015. Not only might the goals need to be tailored but additional goals might need to be added. Cambodia, for example, has included a goal for zero impact from landmines. The role of international assistance The achievement of the MDGs rests primarily with the governments of Asia-Pacic countries. It is the policies of developing-country 201

202
Table 1. Progress towards the MDGs Asian countries Goal 2 education Target 3 Goal 3 gender Targets 4, 5 and 6 Goal 4 child health Target 5 Goal 5 maternal health Target 6 Goal 7 environment Target 10 Overall progress S. Feeny and M. Clarke Insufcient data At risk Insufcient data At risk At risk Severe risk On track At risk Severe risk Severe risk On track At risk Severe risk At risk At risk Severe risk At risk At risk On track Insufcient data On track Off track

Goal 1 poverty and hunger Target 1 Target 2

Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan Cambodia China India Indonesia Iran Korea PDR Laos Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand Timor Leste Vietnam

On track Insufcient Data

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

Notes: Targets are dened in the appendix. Countries are classied as on track if their current rate of progress (calculated using available data) is sufcient to achieve the MDG target if maintained. The nal column provides an indication of countries overall progress towards the MDG targets. A country is classied as at risk of not achieving the MDGs if it is off track to achieve at least one-third of the MDG targets (for which data are available). A country is classied as at severe risk of not achieving the MDGs if it is off track to achieve at least two-thirds of the targets (for which data are available). A country is classied as having insufcient data if data are available for less than three MDG targets. Progress towards MDG 3 of promoting gender equality is assessed by examining the average progress towards three MDG targets of eliminating gender disparity at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of education. MDG, Millennium Development Goal.

Table 2. Progress towards the MDGs Pacic countries Goal 2 education Target 3 Goal 3 gender Targets 4, 5, 6 Goal 4 child health Target 5 Goal 5 maternal health Target 6 Goal 7 environment Target 10 Overall progress

Goal 1 poverty and hunger Target 1 Target 2

data data data

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington Off track Insufcient On track Insufcient At risk Insufcient Severe risk On track At risk At risk At risk Severe risk Insufcient On track At risk On track data

Cook Islands Fiji Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia Nauru Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu

On track Insufcient data

Notes: Targets are dened in the appendix. Countries are classied as on track if their current rate of progress (calculated using available data) is sufcient to achieve the MDG target if maintained. The nal column provides an indication of countries overall progress towards the MDG targets. A country is classied as at risk of not achieving the MDGs if it is off track to achieve at least one-third of the MDG targets (for which data are available). A country is classied as at severe risk of not achieving the MDGs if it is off track to achieve at least two-thirds of the targets (for which data are available). A country is classied as having insufcient data if data are available for less than three MDG targets. Progress towards MDG 3 of promoting gender equality is assessed by examining the average progress towards three MDG targets of eliminating gender disparity at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of education. MDG, Millennium Development Goal.

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Asia-Pacic region

203

S. Feeny and M. Clarke

governments that largely dictate development and how and which people in developing countries will benet from interventions designed to improve well-being. However, international aid donors and NGOs can also play important roles in the achievement of the MDGs. Making policy recommendations for international assistance that apply to the whole Asia-Pacic region is difcult. The role of the international community in assisting with the achievement of the MDGs will differ markedly in each country depending on its specic circumstances. The SIDS of the Pacic require very specic attention. They are constrained by small domestic markets, volatile economic growth rates, a heavy dependence on imports, a vulnerability to natural disasters and climate change, and often a lack of natural resources. Most are a long distance from major international markets. Indeed, the eighth MDG includes a target to address the special needs of SIDS. However, one common characteristic among many countries in the Asia-Pacic is a strong ruralurban divide. Often the very poor are located in rural areas dependent upon agriculture for their livelihoods. This is true of the regions largest countries like China and India as well as many of the Pacic islands. Therefore, to effectively assist with the achievement of the MDGs, rural areas should be the focus of the activities of international aid donors and NGOs. The role of foreign development aid For some Asian countries, foreign aid ows from international donors represent a minor source of development nance. Domestic revenues and private ows are far more important than foreign aid. This is particularly true for the regions largest countries: China, India and Indonesia. Foreign aid will play only a very minor role in progress towards the MDGs in these countries. However, foreign aid remains a very important source of nance for many lowincome developing countries.4 The governments of these countries do not have the domestic resources to fund the interventions necessary for MDG achievement and some are unable to attract signicant levels of private capital. As the UN Millennium Project asserts, The role of aid is therefore to push the elements of the capital stock infrastructure, 204

human capital, public administration and so forth. . . . above the threshold needed for self sustaining growth (UN, 2005: 50). In concordance with MDG 8, to develop a global partnership for development, international donors have started scaling up their foreign aid programmes in order to assist with the achievement of the MDGs. Ofcial Development Assistance (ODA) increased to a record high of over US$106 billion in 2005 (before declining slightly in 2006 to $103.9 billion).5 Further, given a number of recent pledges by countries to increase aid, ODA from Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members is estimated to increase to US$130 billion in 2010 (OECD, 2007). According to some estimates, this level of aid might be enough to achieve the MDGs, and it is close to the UN Millennium Project estimate of US$135 billion by 2015 required for the achievement of all the MDGs.6 However, not everyone believes that scaling up aid will assist in the achievement of the MDGs. Critics of foreign aid argue that foreign aid is wasted on unproductive activities, prevents necessary policy reform and lines the pockets of corrupt government ofcials. The aid effectiveness debate is almost entirely focused on its impact on economic growth. This is unfortunate. While economic growth will play a central role in achieving the rst MDG of halving income poverty, the empirical literature provides limited information regarding the impact of aid on other MDG targets. This section briey summarises the literature examining the impact of aid on economic growth before examining ways in which foreign aid can assist with progress towards the MDGs other than through its impact on economic growth. It also argues that donors must increase the quality as well as the quantity of their foreign aid to assist with the achievement of the MDGs. The impact of foreign aid on economic growth Foreign aid is expected to spur economic growth by funding investment or increasing productivity. Infrastructure such as roads, ports, and airports will increase the ow of goods and services and spur income-earning opportunities. Foreign aid in the form of appropriate policy advice can also help recipient governments create a domestic environment conducive to the private sector and foreign
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Asia-Pacic region

investment that will raise employment. While early studies often failed to uncover a relationship (either positive or negative) between aid and economic growth, the vast majority of numerous recently published studies have produced results consistent with the notion that on average, economic growth would be lower in the absence of foreign aid (see McGillivray et al., 2006 for an extensive review of the recent literature). So while foreign aid is likely to have failed to have its desired impacts in some circumstances and much can be done to improve its effectiveness there is a large and increasing body of work that suggests that on average, aid works. However, foreign aid is sometimes found to work better in some countries or environments than in others. Most notably, some studies have found that it works best in recipients with good macroeconomic policies (Burnside and Dollar, 2000; Collier and Hoefer, 2004). Other researchers nd that aid works best in politically stable countries (Chauvet and Guillaumont, 2002), more democratic countries (Svensson, 1999) and countries outside the tropics (Dalgaard et al., 2004). Aid is also found to be effective at mitigating the impacts of trade shocks and natural disasters (Collier and Dehn, 2001; Guillaumont and Chauvet, 2001).7 Although the empirical nding that aid works best in countries with better macroeconomic policies and levels of governance has been shown to be empirically weak (Dalgaard and Hansen, 2001; Hansen and Tarp, 2001), there is still a strong belief in the policy community that aid effectiveness is higher in such environments. Consequently, some donors have adopted policies of selectivity whereby more aid is provided to countries with perceived better policies and levels of governance.8 Unfortunately, countries with better governance are often those that need less aid. If strict policies of selectivity are pursued by the international community, far less will go to poorly governed countries, which are in far greater need of assistance. This is particularly important given that many Asia-Pacic countries are characterised by poor levels of governance. Aid donors need to nd appropriate levels in poorly governed countries and nd appropriate ways of providing aid in these settings.9 Donors can also seek to improve governance in recipient countries through capacity
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

building in recipient public sectors, improving nancial and economic management, strengthening the legal and judiciary system, improving human rights and democracy, and strengthening civil society. Another important nding from many aideffectiveness studies is that foreign aid is effective at spurring economic growth up to a certain threshold of aid. Past this threshold, its impact diminishes or becomes smaller. An explanation is that there are likely to be limits to the amounts of foreign-aid inows that an economy can efciently absorb. This has important implications for the scaling up of foreign aid. Estimates of the level of aid at which its incremental impact on recipient country growth diminishes vary, but it typically seems that this occurs at around 20% of recipient GDP or higher (Feeny and McGillivray, 2006). The impact of foreign aid on human wellbeing Importantly, foreign aid can help achieve other MDG targets in numerous ways other than through increasing the rate of economic growth in recipient countries. For example, assistance for rural development and raising agricultural productivity will increase food security and reduce hunger. To achieve universal primary education, donors should help fund the construction of schools and the infrastructure required for people to have access to schools. They can also assist with the provision of school materials, the development of school curriculum and the training of school teachers. By helping to fund the education sector, donors can assist with the elimination of school fees, which is likely to be very important in getting children to school in many AsiaPacic countries. Achieving universal primary education will assist with eliminating gender inequality in Asia-Pacic countries. In many countries there are large disparities between the sexes. Donors should also target projects that improve the economic participation of women and which are likely to improve their health and education status. Foreign aid has a proven track record in providing important improvements in health. Levine and the What Works Working Group (2004) demonstrate that foreign aid played an important role in the eradication of smallpox, controlling tuberculosis in China, eliminating 205

S. Feeny and M. Clarke

polio in the Americas, reducing maternal mortality rates in Sri Lanka, controlling river blindness in Africa, preventing infant deaths from diarrheal disease in Egypt through oral rehydration programmes, controlling trachoma in Morocco, reducing guinea worm disease in Africa and Asia, and eliminating measles in southern Africa. To achieve the health-related goals of reducing child and maternal mortality rates and combating HIV/AIDS and other major diseases, donors should assist with the construction of hospitals and medical centres, undertake vaccination and immunisation programmes, and promote health awareness and health education. Further foreign aid can contribute to the MDGs by funding HIV/AIDS prevention programmes. Donor-funded HIV/AIDS programmes have had notable success in Thailand and Cambodia. To assist with the goal of environmental sustainability, donors should assist recipient countries with the management and sustainable use of their natural resources. This is particularly important in the Asia-Pacic because a large proportion of the populations of these countries rely on agriculture, forestry and shing for their livelihoods. Interventions in certain sectors will assist in the achievement of more than one MDG. Improvements in education are likely to improve health, for example, and improvements in health are likely to lead to higher incomes. Furthermore, by assisting countries to provide clean water and improved sanitation donors will not only help achieve MDG targets associated with Goal 7, but will help lead to improvements in health. Aid delivery and the quality of aid In addition to increasing the quantity of foreign aid, increases in its quality will also be required. Many Asia-Pacic countries are host to a large number of international aid donors that work across a range of sectors implementing numerous different projects. This leads to high transaction costs of aid. Recipient governments have to deal with numerous donor meetings, participate in discussions of project proposals, implementation and project evaluations. Donors are increasingly using programmebased approaches to aid delivery to reduce the transaction costs of aid. Programme aid relates 206

to funding to support a particular sector such as education or health and is not tied to specic projects. However, the success of programme aid largely relies on strong leadership and governance in recipient countries. To improve the quality of their aid, international donors should also adhere to the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.10

The role of NGOs Over 85% of NGOs are involved in activities that are aimed at promoting or achieving the MDGs (Foster and Wells, 2004). To achieve the MDGs, development interventions must occur at different levels (see Fig. 1). Improvements in the lives of the poor can be effective at the community (micro) level, at the regional or province level (meso), at the national level (macro), or at the international level (supramacro). Interventions may include both programming and advocacy activities. NGOs have the greatest capacity to impact on achievement of MDGs through programming at the micro and meso levels and through advocacy at the macro and supramacro levels. Interventions at the community or grass roots levels are called micro-interventions and account for a signicant proportion of NGO activities. Such interventions would include a range of activities such as the provision of education services, care and support for those with HIV or malaria, supplementary feeding programmes, agricultural extension programmes, or micronance schemes. At the micro level, activities will be specically focused on particular target groups. Key stakeholders will include, for example, local leaders, youth representatives, religious leaders, and local government ofcials. These stakeholders are likely to be involved in decision making and programme management. Working closely with recipients, NGOs can assist in achieving many of the MDGs directly with those in greatest need. NGO interventions at the regional or provincial level are meso-interventions. At this point,

Micro
Figure 1.

Meso

Macro

Supramacro

Continuum of development interventions by NGOs

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Asia-Pacic region

NGOs are often given the responsibility to address state or market failure in order to deliver certain services to entire communities or certain cohorts within those communities. NGOs are seen to have a greater ability to access these communities and the exibility to deliver services to communities that are often excluded by mainstream delivery mechanisms. Such services may include the provision of health care, HIV/AIDS awareness, education, or agricultural extension services. As with micro-interventions, meso-interventions still directly address the needs of community members and may also include key stakeholders within the planning and management process. However, the breadth and scope of these projects requires a higher level of oversight and control. NGOs undertaking meso-interventions may subcontract some programming activities to a number of smaller community-based NGOs. Interventions at the national level are macrointerventions. At the macro-level NGOs are more likely to be focusing on inuencing government policy around certain development issues rather than actually delivering actual goods and services. NGOs, either working independently, but more commonly working together, will identify certain needs affecting the wider nation and seek to pressure the national government to address these needs in a more effective manner. An important role of NGOs operating at the macro level is to monitor progress against the MDGs and hold the national government accountable for their achievement. For example, NGOs may seek additional funds to support better education and training outcomes, or they might identify certain groups within a country lacking access to social services. They might also try and improve the level of governance by focusing on increasing participation in the political process by calling on national governments to allow greater freedoms in various public spheres. At this level, NGOs should also play an important role in consultations with government regarding any tailoring of the MDGs to specic country circumstances and lobby governments on the priorities to be addressed in national development strategies. Cross-border interventions also occur and are called supramacro interventions. Rarely do such interventions involve NGOs working
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

directly with communities. Rather, these are interventions aimed at changing policy or increasing nancial support for needs that affect more than a single nation. The most effective examples of NGOs undertaking supramacro interventions involve a number of NGOs acting in concert. Because of the coordination and sophisticated requirements of undertaking these transnational interventions, local communities are often used to illustrate need and less so as drivers of these campaigns. At the supramacro level, coalitions of NGOs will play an important role in raising global awareness of the MDGs and making sure they are on the agenda of high-level international conferences and summits. NGOs may nd themselves undertaking activities at different levels of interventions along this continuum simultaneously (see Korten, 1990; De Senillosa, 1998, typologies of NGOs). While they may be participating as one of a consortium of NGOs pressuring the international community to provide additional aid or debt relief, they may also be implementing supplementary feeding programmes at the village level. The roles undertaken by NGOs will depend on the values that underpin their existence and the expertise and experience they have. While some NGOs will prefer to focus on programming interventions, others may see greater impact through advocacy, while many will see programming and advocacy activities as complementary and equally necessary to achieve the MDGs. NGO programming and the MDGs Initiating development programmes has been the main activity undertaken by NGOs since their inception. NGOs predominately work at the grass roots level, focusing on community development interventions. NGOs have a reputation for delivering services more efciently than government providers. They are also effective at reaching the poor, which is vital for the achievement of the MDGs (Masud and Yontcheva, 2005). The focus of NGOs on improving health, education, economic security and gender equality are all very much in concordance with the MDGs (Hunt, 2004). Implementing development interventions is most effective when NGOs are able to work closely with the targeted community. The further an NGO (or any implementing 207

S. Feeny and M. Clarke

Micro
Figure 2.

Meso

Macro

Supramacro

Micro

Meso
Figure 3.

Macro

Supramacro

The effectiveness of NGO programming interventions

The effectiveness of NGO advocacy interventions

agency for that matter) moves away from those it is seeking to serve, the less effective the intervention will be. NGOs are therefore more effective in implementing programming interventions at the micro and meso levels (Fig. 2). Within the micro and meso levels, NGOs are working directly with targeted communities. Within this proximity they are best able to provide services to those in real need but also discern changing needs over time. As NGOs move away from direct beneciaries and begin to work at the macro-level (or beyond) they lose that intimacy with the communities and face the same difculties faced by government organisations around the blindness of bureaucracy and deceit of distance. Changing circumstances occur unseen and greater numbers of those in need fail to be reached. NGO advocacy and the MDGs NGOs can also play an important role through advocacy and placing constant pressure at both the national and international level to place more resources in the areas that will enhance the achievement of the MDGs (Micklewright and Wright, 2004; Prasad and Snell, 2004). NGOs have now begun to increase their advocacy interventions to achieve this end (see Hudson, 2000; Chapman and Wameyo, 2001; Clark, 2003). Advocacy is a particularly important intervention in terms of achieving the MDGs (Foster and Wells, 2004). Advocacy programmes are more effective when taken at the macro or supramacro levels as they are most effective when they directly address those responsible for the policy environment. For development issues, this is generally at the national level or international level. While it is necessary at times for local communities to lobby and seek support from local authorities to address more grass roots concerns, the impact in terms of direct beneciaries of these advocacy efforts will be quite limited (Fig. 3). Seeking to effect change requires certain skills and knowledge. It is more likely that NGOs will need to work cooperatively in order to advocate 208

at the macro and supramacro levels to achieve positive outcomes (Chapman and Fisher, 2000; Collins et al., 2001). Within developing countries, the major impediment in achieving positive change in favour of the poor is that it often challenges the status quo, and this inevitably (at least in the short term) threatens the position of the dominant elite. This elite wields signicant political power. Advocacy requires gaining access to those in decision-making positions but also raising public awareness and public support in order to shift the balance of power. In this regard, advocacy requires both internal (private) and external (public) pressure. Smaller NGOs are unlikely to be able to effectively achieve this. Nor is it likely that a single larger international NGO (INGO) will be able to achieve this either. Rather coalitions, such as seen recently advocating for debt relief through the Jubilee 2000 and Make Poverty History campaigns, are able to gain public support and gain private access to key stakeholders at the national and international levels (see Edwards and Gaventa, 2001; Grenier, 2003). The cost to NGOs of working together is the loss of direct connection with the communities for whom they are advocating. So while the Live 8 concerts were taking place as part of the Make Poverty History campaigns in 2006, there was very little evidence of participation and ownership of these campaign events by poor community members. This is not to say that local grass roots NGOs are not included, but the direct representation of community members is weakened as the advocacy campaign grows.

Conclusion and policy implications This paper has provided an overview of the issues regarding the achievement of the MDGs in the Asia-Pacic. It discussed the critiques of the MDGs but argues that none of these critiques provides sufcient reason not to embrace the MDGs. An examination into whether AsiaPacic countries are on track to achieve the MDGs indicates that at current rates of progress,
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Asia-Pacic region

most countries in the region will not achieve the goals by 2015. An important policy recommendation arising from the research is that for countries for which the MDGs are clearly unattainable, the targets should be tailored. Any revised targets must be ambitious but realistic. Tailoring the targets will ensure that any development successes are not turned into failures and should lead to far greater domestic and international action to achieve them. While recognising that the achievement of the MDGs rests largely with developing-country governments, the paper highlighted a number of important roles for international development aid and NGOs. To varying degrees, donors and NGOs need to change the focus of their activities and the way they operate to assist with the achievement of the goals. In particular, both international aid donors and NGOs need to focus their efforts on the poorest parts of AsiaPacic countries, often located in rural areas. There is a large and sometimes growing disparity between rural and urban areas in many countries in the region and people in isolated rural communities that are often difcult to reach. However, countries cannot achieve goals such as universal primary education until schools are accessible for everyone. The paper has also highlighted a serious lack of appropriate data with which to monitor progress towards the MDGs in the region, particularly for Pacic countries. Far greater assistance needs to be provided to some countries for the collection and analysis of accurate and reliable statistics. The need for regularly updated, publicly available, accurate data cannot be overstated. It will assist both international donors and NGOs with their activities. The absence of reliable and widely accessible data makes it very difcult for NGOs and civil society to hold governments accountable for their actions. It also makes it difcult to identify the geographic areas and groups of the population in most need. Further, better data and statistics will lead to evidence-based policy making and more effective aid. Notes
1 This paper is the result of work being undertaken as part of a research project entitled Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Aid, 2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

Trade and NGOs with a Focus on the Asia-Pacic (LP0562486). The project is generously supported by the Australian Research Council and World Vision of Australia. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding organisations. For the analysis of progress towards the achievement of the MDG is the Asia-Pacic region, this paper utilises the Millennium Development Goal Indicators Database from the UN (UNSTATS, 2006). Progress towards eight MDG targets relating to the rst ve MDGs and a further MDG target relating to goal seven is examined. Progress towards the MDG of combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases is not assessed as data are only available for recent years. Goal 8 calls for a global partnership for development and includes a further seven targets. However, progress towards this goal and is subjective and is not examined in this paper. These countries include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Laos, Mongolia, North Korea, Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam and Timor-Leste in Asia and Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands in the Pacic. ODA is the most commonly used measure of foreign aid. It is dened by the DAC of the OECD. To qualify as ODA, ows to developing countries must consist of grants or loans that are: (i) undertaken by the ofcial sector; (ii) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and (iii) loans must be provided at concessional nancial terms (with interest rates below market rates). In addition to nancial ows, technical cooperation is included in aid. Assistance for military purposes is excluded (OECD, 2007). The Zedillo et al. (2001) report estimated that an extra US$50 billion per year of foreign aid would be required to achieve the MDGs (in comparison to 2001 levels, which were US$54.3 billion in current dollars), while Devarajan et al. (2002) estimated that annual aid ows would need to increase by US$5462 billion in order to achieve the goals. However, these estimates depend upon policies improving in recipient countries and are likely to be underestimates. Moreover, these levels are below the ODA to Gross National Income target of 0.7% for international donor countries. This level of aid has been a long-standing development target, originally committed to back in 1970. Governments reasserted their commitment to this target at the International Conference on Financing for Development held in Monterrey, Mexico, 2002. The nding that aid spurs growth is conrmed by studies examining foreign aid effectiveness in Pacic countries. This implies that the poor growth records of many of these countries cannot be attributed to foreign aid (see Gounder, 2001 for the case of Fiji; Gounder, 2002 for the case of the Solomon Islands; Feeny, 2007 for Melanesian countries; and Sugden and Pavlov, 2005 for a number of Pacic countries). Such a policy is exemplied by the USAs Millennium Challenge Account development fund, created in 2004 whereby eligible low-income countries are rated according to a number of criteria relating to governing justly, investing in people and promoting economic

209

S. Feeny and M. Clarke freedom. The rationale for the policy is that these criteria are essential conditions for development. 9 Radelet (2004) argues that donors should provide most of their support in the form of long-term commitments for budget support or programme aid to central government in well-governed countries. However, smaller short-term projects delivered through NGOs are more appropriate in poorly governed countries. 10 The Paris Declaration is an international agreement to improve the quality of foreign aid. It was signed in March 2005 by over 100 government ministers and heads of agencies. The declaration commits countries and organisations to continue increasing efforts in improving key areas based around ve principles: (i) ownership; (ii) alignment; (iii) harmonisation; (iv) managing aid for results; and (v) mutual accountability (OECD, 2005). Devarajan, S., M. Miller and E. Swanson (2002) Goals for development: History, prospects and costs. World Bank Policy Research Paper No.2819. Washington: World Bank. Edwards, M. and J. Gaventa (eds.) (2001) Global citizen action. London: Earthscan. Feeny, S. (2007) Impacts of Foreign Aid to Melanesia, Journal of the Asia-Pacic Economy 12(1): 3460. Feeny, S. and M. McGillivray (2006) Scaling-up foreign aid: Absorptive capacity, growth and poverty reduction considerations. Paper Presented at the UN-WIDER Conference on Aid: Principles, Policies, and Performance, World Institute of Development Economics Research, Helsinki, June 2006. Foster, J. and P. Wells (2004) We the peoples: A call to action for the UN Millennium Project. Ottawa, Canada: North-South Institute and World Federation of United Nations Associations. Gounder, R. (2001) Aid-growth nexus: Empirical evidence from Fiji, Applied Economics 33(8): 10091019. Gounder, R. (2002) Empirical evidence of the relationship between foreign aid and economic growth: The case of the Solomon Islands, in B.M. Arvin (ed.), New perspectives on foreign aid and economic development, pp. 141169. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Grenier, P. (2003) Jubilee 2000: Laying the foundation for a social movement, in J. Clark (ed.), Globalizing civic engagement: Civil society and transnational action, pp. 86108. London, Earthscan. Guillaumont, P. and L. Chauvet (2001) Aid and performance: A reassessment, Journal of Development Studies 37(6): 6687. Hansen, H. and F. Tarp (2001) Aid and growth regressions, Journal of Development Economics 64(2): 547 570. Hudson, A. (2000) Linking the levels: The organisation of UK development NGOs advocacy, Research report for DfID. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Hunt, J. (2004) Aid and development, in D. Kingsbury, J. Remenyi, J. McKay and J. Hunt (eds.), Key issues in development, pp. 6790. New York: Palgrave. Korten, D. (1990) Getting to the 21st century: Voluntary action and the global agenda. Bloomeld, Connecticut: Kumarian Press. Levine, R. and the What Works Working Group (2004) Millions saved, proven successes in global health. Washington, District of Columbia: Center for Global Development. McGillivray, M., S. Feeny, N. Hermes and R. Lensink (2006) It works; no it doesnt; well, it can, but that depends . . . : 50 years of controversy over the macroeconomic impact of development aid, Journal of International Development 18: 10311050. Masud, N. and B. Yontcheva (2005) Does foreign aid reduce poverty? Empirical evidence from nongovernmental and bilateral aid, IMF Working Paper WP/05/100. Washington, District of Columbia: International Monetary Fund. Micklewright, J. and A. Wright (2004) Private donations for international development, in A. Atkinson (ed.), New sources of development nance, pp. 132155. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

References
Asia Development Bank (ADB) (2003) Millennium development goals in the Pacic: Relevance and progress. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Burnside, C. and D. Dollar (2000) Aid, policies and growth, American Economic Review 90(4): 847868. Chapman, J. and T. Fisher (2000) The effectiveness of NGO campaigning: Lessons from practice, Development in Practice 10(2): 151165. Chapman, J. and A. Wameyo (2001) Monitoring and evaluating advocacy. London: Action Aid. Chauvet, L. and P. Guillaumont (2002) Aid and growth revisited: Policy, economic vulnerability and political instability. Paper presented at the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, ABCDEEurope, Towards Pro-Poor Policies, Oslo, 2426 June 2002. Clark, J. (ed.) (2003) Globalizing civic engagement: Civil society and transnational action. London: Earthscan. Clemens, M., C. Kenny and T. Moss (2007) The trouble with the MDGs: Confronting expectations of aid and development success, World Development 35(5): 735751. Collier, P. and J. Dehn (2001) Aid, shocks, and growth, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 2688. Washington, District of Columbia: World Bank. Collier, P. and A. Hoefer (2004) Aid, policy, and growth in post-conict societies, European Economic Review 48(5): 11251145. Collins, C., Z. Garoyo and T. Burdon (2001) Jubilee 2000: Citizen action across the north south divide, in M. Edwards and J. Gaventa (eds.), Global citizen action, pp. 135148. London: Earthscan. Dalgaard, C-J. and H. Hansen (2001) On aid, growth and good policies, Journal of Development Studies 37(6): 1735. Dalgaard, C-J., H. Hansen and F. Tarp (2004) On the empirics of foreign aid and growth, Economic Journal 114(496): 191216. De Senillosa, I. (1998) A new age of social movements: A fth generation of non-governmental organisations in the making, Development in Practice 8(1): 4052.

210

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Asia-Pacic region OECD (2005) The Paris declaration on aid effectiveness. Paris: OECD. OECD (2007) DAC development cooperation report 2006. Paris: OECD. Prasad, S. and D. Snell (2004) The survival of justice: South Pacic trade unions and NGOs during a decade of lost development, Development in Practice 14(12): 267 279. Radelet, S. (2004) Aid effectiveness and the millennium development goals, Center for Global Development Working Paper Number 39. Washington, District of Columbia: Center for Global Development. Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC) (2004) Pacic Islands Regional Millennium Development Goals Report 2004. Prepared in cooperation with the United Nations and the UN/CROP MDG Working Group. Noumea, New Caledonia: SPC. Sugden, C. and V. Pavlov (2005) Foreign aid and growth in the Pacic Islands, Focus Economics Working Paper Number 9. Brisbane: Focus Economics. Svensson, J. (1999) Aid, growth and democracy, Economics and Politics 11(3): 275297. United Nations (UN) (2005) Investing in development: A practical plan to achieve the millennium development goals. London: Earthscan. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacic (UNESCAP) (2003) Promoting the Millennium Development Goals in Asia and the Pacic: Meeting the challenges of poverty reduction. New York: United Nations. UNSTATS (2006) United Nations Millennium Indicators Database. Retrieved 4 January 2006, from Website: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspx Vandemoortele, J. (2002) Are the MDGs feasible? New York: UNDP. Zedillo, E. et al. (2001) Recommendations of the high-level panel on nancing for development. UN General Assembly Document A/55/1000. New York: United Nations.

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Target 4: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005 and in all levels of education no later than 2015 Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Target 5: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-ve mortality rate Goal 5: Improve maternal health Target 6: Reduce by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases Target 7: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS Target 8: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Target 9: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and program and reverse the loss of environmental resources Target 10: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation Target 11: Have achieved, by 2020, a signicant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development Target 12: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and nancial system (includes a commitment to good governance, development, and poverty reductionboth nationally and internationally) Some of the indicators listed below will be monitored separately for the least developed countries, Africa, landlocked countries, and small island developing states. Target 13: Address the special needs of the least developed countries (includes tariff and quotafree access for exports enhanced program of debt relief for HIPC and cancellation of ofcial bilateral debt, and more generous ODA for countries committed to poverty reduction) 211

Appendix The Millennium Development Goals and Targets Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Target 1: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day Target 2: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Target 3: Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling
2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington

S. Feeny and M. Clarke

Target 14: Address the special needs of landlocked countries and small island developing states (through the Program of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States and 22nd General Assembly provisions) Target 15: Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term

Target 16: In cooperation with developing countries, develop and implement strategies for decent and productive work for youth Target 17: In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable, essential drugs in developing countries Target 18: In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benets of new technologies, especially information and communications
Source: UN (2005)

212

2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Victoria University of Wellington