Are we giving up on poverty?
Home » Magazine » Good, issue 5 » Are we giving up on poverty?The Millennium Development Goals were a promise to end poverty in a developing world. Paul Brown, the national director of ChildFund New Zealand, asks why New Zealand is falling behind on its commitment
Back in 2000, New Zealand was one of 189 countries that made a commitment to help end poverty by signing up to the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Among other things, the MDGs asked these countries to increase their international aid commitment to 0.7 percent of gross domestic product.
Doesn’t sound like much, right? It’s peanuts compared to the trillions that central banks around the world tipped in to shore up flailing financial institutions in 2008, in decisions that seemed to be made almost overnight.
So how are we doing? The answer might surprise you. Internationally, official development assistance continues to fall, dropping 8.4 percent in the past two years alone.
Why should we care? Frankly, it’s in our interest to help developing nations achieve. The MDGs are ends in themselves, but reaching the goals will have benefits beyond the borders of developing countries. Countries with improved infrastructure and an educated, healthy workforce will encourage economic growth, which is good for global trade.
There’s also a clear causal relationship between poverty and conflict: negative income growth of five percent increases the risk of civil war by 50 percent.
The current financial crisis means that global trade is likely to contract for the first time since 1982. Developing countries—already struggling with increased food and fuel prices—will bear the brunt of a financial crisis they had no role in creating.
Will industrialised nations now point to their weakening economies as an excuse not to fulfill their commitments to the MDGs? The trillions of dollars used to bail out financial institutions worldwide prove that money is available. What’s really needed is political will. A fraction of the bailout money could ensure a happier future for every child on the planet.
But would it really make any difference? We’ve heard decades of lofty promises; we’ve had Live Aid and Live 8; people are still signing online petitions and buying the bracelets. Why is there still a problem?
Many well-governed countries are frankly just too poor to help themselves. They need investment in long-term sustainability and capacity building (the training and up-skilling of local people).
The amount of development aid reaching impoverished communities is only a fraction of the overall aid required, when emergency food aid and interest for servicing debts are taken into account.
Economist Jeffery Sachs (who helped develop the MDGs as special advisor to the UN) estimated the average amount of real development aid given to each citizen in sub-Saharan Africa was just US$12 in 2002.
Global food price rises also hurt developing countries. Rice—a basic staple—more than doubled in price, from US$425 to US$1080 a tonne, between January and April 2008. Agricultural trade barriers from the US and the EU, the major proponents of free trade for the developed world, prevent developing countries expanding production and further contribute to the current food crisis.
Ironically, these developed countries got where they are partly thanks to the resources, mineral wealth and slave labour of the places we now call developing countries. Despite this, it’s not uncommon for donor countries to insist that any aid or assistance be tagged with reciprocal trade (or similar) arrangements—although New Zealand offers ‘no-strings attached’ aid.
The Millennium Development Goals matter. Their focus on health and education are important, especially to children in developing nations. Children are the most vulnerable group in any community. Their voices—and therefore their needs—are seldom heard. Children are the future: they are the leaders, innovators, teachers and workers who will bring growth and change for the better.
As access to the internet and mobile phones spreads in developing countries, communities are exposed to a previously unimaginable world of information. Children now have access to this knowledge, and two-way instant communication by email, text or voice. This is immensely empowering. Will these children demand action from countries such as New Zealand, for failing to meet their commitments to the MDGs?
Our own children and grandchildren will soon be exchanging information, knowledge and ideas with children in developing countries. If we fail to achieve the MDGs, how do we explain to our children that we knew about the problem, and we knew the solution, but that our obstinacy and apathy meant we did not create the much-needed change?
