Post 2015: Global Action for an Inclusive and Sustainable Future

CHApTER OnE
MDGs were of
some relevance in
shaping priorities.
At the same time,
MDGs were
clearly not the
only influence on
donors.
20
Table 1.3 MDG priorities in donor programme strategies (2003–2007)
Priority Area Frequency in Core Objectives
mDG 1 – Income poverty 13/21
mDG 2 – Education 15/21
mDG 3,4,5 – Health 14/21
mDG 6 – HIv/aIDS and global diseases 12/21
mDG 7 – Water and sanitation 10/21
mDG 7 – Environment 19/21
Other priority areas
Human rights 17/21
Governance 15/21
Source: Fukuda-parr, 2010
may have allowed some recipient governments to
apply their own resources to other purposes.
the share of government spending on education
in developing countries has also increased
significantly – from 2.9% to 3.8% of Gross Domestic
product (GDp) in lIcs since 1999. meanwhile, the
share of donor spending on education remained
static, although absolute amounts increased
considerably (unESco, 2011).
Similarly, it is difficult to draw general conclusions
regarding the impact of the mDGs on national
policy processes. However, there are some examples
illustrating how the mDGs may have influenced
domestic policies, particularly in the case of
poverty reduction Strategy papers (prSps). In a
review of 22 prSps, Fukuda-parr (2010) found a
high commitment to the mDGs, even though these
tended to focus on specific areas, such as income
poverty and social investments in education, health
and water. the study assessed the level of ambition
in setting targets, and found that many exceeded
the ambition of the mDGs as well as historical
trends – albeit with some exceptions. an earlier
review of 44 prSps (Harrison et al., 2005) reached
similar conclusions.
peace and Security 15/21
Democracy 14/21
EuropEan rEport on DEvElopmEnt 2013
Whether these commitments translate into
resource allocation, however, remains unclear.
at this point, it could possibly be concluded that
the mDGs have influenced the political discourse
rather than the actual allocation of domestic
resources (manning, 2010).
While some countries have tailored targets and
indicators to their needs and national contexts,
others set mDG-plus targets (e.g. botswana and
thailand) or completed mDG reports at the subnational
level (e.g. argentina, Ecuador and nigeria).
Some countries even included an additional goal
or target for issues of national priority, such as
enhancing security in afghanistan. transition
countries like albania, Iraq and mongolia adopted
a Goal 9 on good governance, and cambodia did
the same for de-mining, unexploded ordnance and
assistance for victims. this sense of ownership also
led to a change in some countries’ institutional
landscape. For instance, both bangladesh and
mongolia have a parliamentary mDG Standing
committee, while there is a coordination
committee overseeing the implementation of the
mDGs in Kyrgyzstan and Sierra leone (unDp,
2010). moreover, a comparison of recent prSps
with earlier ones reveals an increase in the number