Post 2015: Global Action for an Inclusive and Sustainable Future

CHApTER TEn
The key challenge
would be to
develop indicators
that give positive
incentives,
without being
too prescriptive
or limiting
policy space.
216
well-established indicators in order to ensure
their robustness. at the same time, this type of
framework also involves important trade-offs, as is
clear from experience with the mDGs.
First, while the mDGs contributed to greater
awareness and advocacy of development issues (and
to a considerable extent affected donor behaviour),
their impact on domestic policy-making is more
disputed. this is partly explained by the lack of
domestic ownership of the targets and their low
relevance to national planning. Hence, any post-
2015 framework should be the outcome of a more
participatory process, and be designed in a way that
is relevant to and compatible with different national
circumstances and priorities.
Second, the choice of targets and monitoring
indicators requires careful consideration in order to
avoid creating perverse incentives or unsatisfactory
results. 149 In other words, the targets should adequately
and directly reflect their intended purposes. In
addition, a post-2015 framework could include some
process-based targets and indicators alongside more
conventional indicators based on inputs and outcomes.
the key challenge would be to develop indicators that
give positive incentives, without being too prescriptive
or limiting policy space.
at the same time, setting global goals is likely
to appeal to the international development
community as the mDGs did. this is important
because of the need to continue monitoring the
application of the values and principles of the
millennium Declaration. the creation of a (fairly)
comprehensive and comparable global monitoring
framework is a key legacy of the mDGs.
EuropEan rEport on DEvElopmEnt 2013
of course, few targets and indicators will be
relevant to all countries, and none will be equally
relevant in every case. although poverty concerns,
broadly defined, resonate across the entire world,
measures of relative poverty are likely to be more
pertinent in an increasing number of countries.
moreover, the mDG experience shows that adopting
common targets is inappropriate for countries with
different starting points and challenges, since they
may entail very different levels of effort and indeed
responses.
any targets and indicators adopted must be
relevant for local circumstances, especially if they are
to incentivise and mobilise domestic action. In this
sense, national targets are more likely to increase
domestic ownership (and legitimacy) of a global
framework and improve accountability. 150 Such
targets could be set through national consultation
processes and embedded in national planning
strategies, which would support governments’
public accountability on their achievement. this
would also help ensure that targets are realistic
and based on domestic needs and priorities, and so
would be more likely to encourage relevant action.
national targets could be aggregated in order
to calculate a global target value. this last step
could be technically complex (especially because,
depending on how the targets are set, it may have
to take into account demographic projections) and
will take time, but this is a fair price to pay to avoid
the simpler but much criticised top-down approach
of the mDGs. Given that it is impossible for all
countries to conduct full consultation processes by
2015, national targets could be integrated as they
become available, in order to allow sufficient time
149 an example of a perverse incentive would be that the elimination of gender disparity in education could be achieved by reducing boys’ enrolment,
rather than the intended effect of increasing girls’ enrolment, while an excessive focus on quantitative measures may mean that quality
is neglected or even sacrificed. thus, it has been argued, in the of case of primary school enrolment, the mDG focus on the number of children
in school may have led to an increase in class sizes, which is detrimental to the quality of education provided.
150 With the mDGs some countries already agreed additional national targets, often dubbed mDG9 (e.g. both laos and cambodia had an mDG9
on demining and mongolia an mDG9 on human rights and democratic governance). Equally, a future framework could incorporate regional
targets (e.g. set by representative regional organisations such as the au and Eu), although this risks combining the worst of both worlds in
lacking the appeal of global targets, while not being particularly relevant to some national contexts.