1

Africa International University

School of Business and Economics

Second Semester

PLG 816: Global Perspectives of Leadership and Governance

A Term paper:

Title: Explain what you attribute the failure of MDGs to, and discuss how SDGs have been crafted
to ensure that their implementation will not meet the same pitfall as the MDGs

Submitted

To

Doctor Edward Kobuthii

By

Nfor Eugene: 1230628plg

 2

Assignment PLG 816 Term Paper

Explain what you attribute the failure of MDGs to, and discuss how SDGs have been
crafted to ensure that their implementation will not meet the same pitfall as the MDGs

Introduction

At the dawn of a new millennium the United Nations brought in the Millennium Declaration. In

line with this declaration the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) were crafted. These goals

were a set of common goals that would be achieved by 2015. This was an eight point agenda

with the aim of making life better for the common man especially those in the third world. These

were in effect a set of internationally accepted, time base, and quantifiable goals with targets

aimed at fighting the negative effects of poverty, hunger and its effects, diseases most especially

HIV and AIDS, Tuberculosis, malaria which were prevalent in global south, promote education,

fight environmental dilapidation and gender biases against women. These were put as a working

document during the Millennium summit in 2000. The table that follows carries the set

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and their targets.

GOAL TARGET

1)Eradicate poverty in all its forms a)Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people
living on less than $1.25 a day

b)Achieve Decent Employment for Women, Men, and Young

People

c)Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of

people who suffer from hunger

2)Achieve universal primary education a)By 2015, all children can complete a full course of Primary
education/primary schooling, girls and boys

3) Promote gender equality and empower women
a) Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary
education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015:
This meant increase of the Ratios of girls to boys in
primary, secondary and tertiary education. Increase in
the share of women in wage employment in the non-
agricultural sector and increase the Proportion of seats
 3

held by women in national parliament

4)Reduce child mortality rates
5) Improve maternal health
6) combat HIV and AIDS and other diseases
a) Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, this
meant the reduction of under-five and the increase of the
proportion of 1-year-old children immunized
a) Reduce by 2/3 the rate maternal mortality
between 1990-2015 and increase universal access
to reproductive health.
Halting and reversal of its spread by 2015, and guarantee
universal access to its

treatment and reversal of other diseases

7) Ensure Environmental sustainability a)Integrate the principles of sustainable
development into country policies and programs; reverse
loss of environmental resources

b)Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a

significant reduction in the rate of loss

c)Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population

without sustainable access to safe drinking water and
basic sanitation

d) By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement

in the lives of at least 100 million slum-dwellers

8) Develop Global Partnership a)Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-

discriminatory trading and financial system
b)Address the Special Needs of the Least Developed
Countries
c)Address the special needs of landlocked developing
countries and small island developing States

d)Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of

developing countries through national and international
measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long
term

e) In co-operation with pharmaceutical companies,

provide access to affordable, essential drugs in
developing countries

Source: Taking stock of the Global Partnership for development MDG Gap. 2015 Report

Fundamental Difficulties

Achieving these said millennium agenda was not going to be an easy task for the United Nations,

since it was conceived and promoted for the least develop and developing countries by the
 4

“Bigger Nations”. These goals met hitches in its different ramifications. One of the most

important difficulties in succeeding with the MDGs was accessibility to investment funds. The

global north would promote the agenda postulated by MDGs but the funds in that direction were

diverted to other pressing needs of the countries concerned. The other difficulties were natural

disasters, violent tendencies, which would not further the ideals of the MDGs. Strategic

challenges, were posed; the MDGs to be prioritized were not clearly stated since they were

intertwined with each other. The time frame at which the MDGs were to be achieved was a bit

short. Nations needed to garner resources to fight and eradicate poverty which was the basement

of MDG 1 then other MDGs would be achieved since much of the weight of the MDGs laid on

MDG1. Equally issues pertaining to the environment never took a prominent stage as the MDGs

were being drafted. Environmental based issues were prominent at the advent of the new

millennium with the devastating effects of climate change yet the global north in drafting the

MDGs gave a scanty MDG 7 with few quantifiable targets putting aside the connection that

existed between the environment and socio-economic sustainability. This made MDG 7 weak

and far from being attainable, though some few actions were taken no major actions were taken

to compensate the forest based countries that absorb the high level of pollutants emitted from the

global north. Apart from the trumpeted failures of the MDGs it can be affirmed from findings

that many lives changed after the MDGs were stated than the period before. John and Krista

(2017) suggest that between 21million to 29 million lives were improved because of the

placement of the MDGs. 471 million people have been lifted out of poverty as reported by 2015..

Reasons for the failures of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

The reasons for its failures will be explained based on its construct, content, workability

(Implementation and Enforcement) and its development process.

 5

Construct failures

Contacted literature calls the construct “overzealous” or “overambitious”. Mishra (2004) and

Oya (2011) posit that the millennium development framework ignored the limited local

capacities most especially those that pertain to government and governance. Another point of

view is that the MDGs were considered as a construct that puts forth unmet human needs. Its

look at the global south countries was unsatisfactory due to the fact that they were more

ambitious for some state framework and least challenging for other countries Langford (2010).

The drafting of the list of goals seemed more like a shopping list with a strong probability of

putting aside many pressing issues and low scope of investment in the other spheres of human

society. Most of the efforts in the MDGs were concentrated on the third world and that

notwithstanding the utilization of those goals and her targets in national development policies

lacked consideration to national contextual realities and capacities to implement. This therefore

made the MDGs to be a low ghetto project as posited AbouZahr and Boerma (2010.) Separating

some interconnected goals as major goals made its workability problematic. Putting maternal and

child health in different points on the goals was a problem. In this line Waage and co. (2010)

posit that a common cross sector vision of development was not included in the drafting of the

MDGs and therefore has brought imbalance and gaps in its existing framework. The lack of

answerability for all the goals apart from goal 8 brings in another content based weakness.

Pushing MDGs to become national working tools was going to be very challenging at the level

of the global south countries due to the fact that they were not so involved in the formulation of

the goals. This therefore made “buy in” into the goals difficult Fukuda (2010).
 6

Content based failures

The omission of goals that could check the reduction of inequality between and within countries

was a problem as well. The goals in addressing poverty lose focus of the very poor people since

focus was based on national averages. This therefore led to over generalization and poor notes on

specifics. Authors in looking at MGD 4 stipulate that the reduction of under-five mortality rate

was going to be accessible to areas that are easily travelled while the inaccessible areas was not

going to have their needs met. Gwatkin (2005) and Reidpath, Morel, Mecaskey, and Allotey

(2009). Looking at goal 3 Kabeer (2005) and Mohindra (2010) say that targeting the reduction

of gender gaps is not on the same platform as ending gender inequalities since the focus was on

numbers. Mohindra goes further to attribute the failure of MDG 3 on the fact that it exempted

gender based violence and economic based discrimination completely thereby making its

workability difficult. MDG 1 failed according to Maxwell (2003) based on the fact that it

focused more on material deprivation above non material deprivation this in effect narrowed

down the conceptual framework of poverty. Targeting half of poor people between 1990 and

2015 made the visionary perspective of poverty limited.

Workability (implementation and enforcement) failures

Contacted literature suggests that there was a lack of open guidance on political action on the

goals, and clear stance on how the goals were going to be achieved. Oya (2010) on his part came

to terms with the truth that there was not enough means and method of accountability to measure

outcomes and successes as the years went along. This in effect was going to create pessimistic

and cynicism at the level of the global south countries. Bond (2006) with who I agree states that

the “MDG was a framework for promoting ‘quick-fix’ solutions and short-term planning instead
 7

of sustainable global management goals and structural changes” It is equally argued that the

MDGs promote a top down approach in planning, funding, procurement, delivery, supervision

and reporting, with no clear look at national realities or a bigger aspects of national systems most

especially health.

Failures bases on the development process of the MDGs

The political basement of the agenda of the MDGs seemed to suit the interest of the rich states.

According Saith (2007) it can be described as a neo-liberal globalization concept. Though the

MDGs were a product of numerous global conferences in the 1990s most scholars suggest it was

bias based on the fact that some important points were not put since the “Bigger Powers” never

had something to gain from it. In line with MDG 1, focus was given to the proportion of those

suffering from poverty rather than checking the absolute number of those who were suffering

from poverty in effect. In regard to education, Robinson (2005) states that only two out of the

three goals discussed at the Dakar World Education Forum in 2000 were included in the MDGs;

the target of adult literacy, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing

education for all adults were not integrated into the MDGs. This therefore played on the

workability thereby leading to failure because countries that were present at the Dakar

conference and discussed the agenda would not be intentional work on the MDG, since it never

focused on their realities that were discussed.

Sustainable Development Goals

Due to failures mentioned above the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were crafted in a

bit to solve the pitfalls of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). This was at the United

Nations Summit of 2012 in Rio de Janeiro. The aim of these goals were so that the world should
 8

have driving forces that would answer the emergency needs posed by the environment, politics

and economics, poverty, hunger, deadly diseases and education. A table below focuses on the

goals and their targets.

  Goals   Objective   Description

 Goal -1  No Poverty  By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people
everywhere.
 Goal -2  Zero Hunger  End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition
by 2030.
 Goal -3  Good Health and Well-being  Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all
ages by 2030.
 Goal -4  Quality Education  Ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and
quality primary and secondary education by 2030.
 Goal -5  Gender Equality  To achieve gender equality and empower all women and
girls.
 Goal -6  Clean Water and Sanitation  Ensure availability and sustainable management of water
and sanitation for all by 2030.
 Goal -7  Affordable and Clean Energy  Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and
modern energy for all by 2030.
 Goal -8  Decent Work and Economic  Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic
Growth growth.
 Goal -9  Industry, Innovation and   Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and
Infrastructure sustainable industrialization and foster innovation by 2030.
 Goal -10  Reduced Inequality  Reduce inequality within and among countries by 2030.
 Goal -11  Sustainable Cities and  Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe,
Communities resilient and sustainable.
 Goal -12  Responsible Consumption  Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
and Production
 Goal -13  Climate Action  Take urgent action to combat climate change and its
impacts.
 Goal -14  Life Below Water  Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine
resources for sustainable development.
 Goal -15  Life on Land  Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial
ecosystems, combat desertification and halt biodiversity
loss.
 Goal -16  Peace and Justice Strong  Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable
Institutions development; provide access to justice for all.
 9

 Goal -17  Partnerships to achieve the  Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the
Goal global partnership for sustainable development.

Source: Taking stock of the Global Partnership for development MDG Gap. 2015 Report

Comparison of the Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals

The SDGs were crafted in a more collaborative manner than the MDGs. While the MDGs were

animated by the “Organization for Economic Co-operation Development” countries and the

Britton wood organizations most of who were donor agencies the SDGs were prompted and

drafted in an inclusive manner. All the economic ramifications of the world were included: the

low income nations, the middle income as well as the high income nations. This therefore made

the SDGs applicable universally not just in the global south. The framework is equally holistic

instead of just tackling poverty as MDG 1 could postulate SDGs cover the subject matter in all

its forms and ramifications.

The SDGs were crafted considering other sectors and not just targeting national initiatives.

The private sector has a great role to play through frameworks such as the UN Global

Compact and Impact 2030. There are equally opportunities given to the civil society to be

engaged in the working framework of the SDGs. There is a strong garnering of

supplementary support from the private and civil society sector within the development

framework of the SDGs.

The MDGs did not have strong depth in human rights but the SDGs have a strong impetus

on human right issues. The SDGs were crafted with the notion of the whole person taking

into consideration human rights so that non in the globe is left behind. This was not the

case with the MDGs to which much of its failures can be attributed to lack of ample action
 10

in areas of systematic discrimination patterns and rights violation which keeps many in

poverty.

The SDGs were crafted with more understanding in its scope. At the heart of both the

MDGs and the SDGs lay the concept of poverty eradication that notwithstanding SDGs

gives more impetus and looks at poverty eradication beyond the social sphere. In essence

the MDGs were drafted in isolation from one another yet in the conception and drafting of

the SDGs there was ample time given to the interconnectedness between the 17 point

agenda this in a bit to present a united and incorporated agenda.

The MDGs focused so much on how the global north would support the global south, but in

drafting the SDGs the proponents made it more universal in its framework. All the goals

set out in the agenda considers all other nations and not just the developing world as was

the case with the MDGs. A case in point will be SDG 1 which talks about ending poverty in

all its forms, it is eluded that in eradicating poverty there should be a global approach that

addresses all the nations at all levels of development in a bit to see that no one is left

behind.

The indicators instilled in the SDGs gave it a strong monitoring system than the MDGs.

These monitoring frameworks were going to work at the universal, regional, national and

local levels. This means there was going to be accountability of all stakeholders involved in

checking the success of the SDGs. The monitoring framework is being enjoyed by all who

are involved in the various spheres of the SDGs.

Challenges Facing the Sustainable Development Goals

Monitoring apparatus suggest that intertwined crisis are endangering SDGs. Reports

suggests that the gravity of the crisis postulated and worsened by the COVID 19 quark
 11

mire are posing grave challenges to the accomplishment of the goals centered on health.

Equally issues centered on climate change, intra-state and inter-nations conflicts are posing

threats on food security, health environment, education and peace: worthy of note is the

fact that the COVID challenge wiped off more than four years of work done in the

direction of poverty. In line with poverty alleviation many developing countries are still

battling with issues are inflation, economic crisis and the play of the war in Ukraine and

Russia and their implications. Economies of the third world countries are in effect still

trying to surge out from the pandemic.

The symbols of the Sustainable Development Goals

 12

Recommendations and Conclusion

For the SDGs to better function, the UN need to give more time evaluations of the gaps created

by the COVID 19 pandemic, such that the four retardation as an effect will be bridged. This

therefore means in the meeting of its development meetings time should be accorded to regional

partners to articulate what they think can better function as a solution to the created gaps.
 13

A strong monitoring system should continue to check the framework of the SDGs in order to

avoid regional and national challenges. This to me means that monitoring and evaluation should

not be an issue a few, but an intentional decentralized action that will bring in other stakeholders

in evaluation and monitoring. This will mean the UN agents at country levels should be on the

field and monitor whether national actions are in step with what the SDGs stand for. This means

equally those nations that are not intentional following up and setting national goals in line with

the SDGs should be deprived of UN funding and other punitive action from the Britton wood

organizations especially those in the third world.

Conclusion

The paper sought to understand the difficulties encountered in the crafting and workability of the

Millennium Development Goals and the fact that the Sustainable Development Goals were

crafted in a bit to abstain from the pitfalls encountered by the former. To achieve the aim of this

paper literature was contacted, and from it we deciphered that they were truly fundamental

problems with the MDGs and some working and acceptability issue despite its success. The

SDGs on their part were crafted to solve the problems posed at the crafting of the MDGs.
 14

References

Mishra (2004) US Millennium development goals: Whose goals and for whom? British Medical Journal. 329 (742).

DOI10.1136./bmj.329.7468.742.

Langford, M. (2010). A poverty of rights: Six ways to fix the MDGs. Ids Bulletin-Institute of Development

Studies, 41(1), 83–91. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2010.00108.

AbouZahr, C., & Boerma, T. (2010). Five years to go and counting: Progress towards the millennium development

goals. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88, 324. 1–14. 

Fukuda-Parr, S. (2010). Reducing inequality – The missing MDG: A content review of PRSPs and bilateral donor

policy statements. Ids Bulletin-Institute of Development Studies, 41(1), 26–35. doi:10.1111/j.1759-

5436.2010.00100.

Gwatkin, D. R. (2005). How much would poor people gain from faster progress towards the millennium

development goals for health? Lancet, 365, 813–817.doi:10.1016/s01406736(05)71008-

Reidpath, D. D., Morel, C. M., Mecaskey, J. W., & Allotey, P. (2009). The millennium development goals fail poor

children: The case for equity-adjusted measures. PLoS Medicine, 6(4). doi:10.13711000062 

Kabeer, N. (2005). The Beijing platform for action and the millennium development goals: Different processes,

different outcomes. Baku: United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. Retrieved

from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/bpfamd2005/experts-papers/EGM-BPFA-MD-MDG-2005-

Mohindra, K. S., & Nikiema, B. (2010). Women's health in developing countries: Beyond an

investment? International Journal of Health Services, 40, 443–467. doi:10.2190/HS.40.3.

Maxwell, S. (2003). Heaven or hubris: Reflections on the new ‘new poverty agenda’. Development Policy

Review, 21(1), 5–25. doi:10.1111/1467-7679.00196 

Oya, C. (2011). Africa and the millennium development goals (MDGs): What's right, what's wrong and what's

missing. Revista De Economia Mundial, 27, 19–33.

 15

Bond, P. (2006). Global governance campaigning and MDGs: From top-down to bottom-up anti-poverty

work. Third World Quarterly, 27, 339–354. doi:10.1080/01436590500432622

Saith, A. (2006). From universal values to millennium development goals: Lost in translation. Development and

Change, 37, 1167–1199. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2006.0

Robinson, C. (2005). Promoting literacy: What is the record of education for all? International Journal of

Educational Development, 25, 436–444. doi:10.1016.

John M. and Krista R. (2017 January 11) How Successful were the Millennium Development Goals. Global working

Papers of the United Nations.