Prioritizing 19 targets instead of the UN’s 169 targets is equivalent to doubling or quadrupling foreign aid
(For 26 March 2015) – In September, the world’s 193 governments will meet in New York to agree on a set of ambitious global targets for 2030, following the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) from 2000-2015. These targets will, from 2016-2030, direct an estimated $2.5 trillion in development assistance, as well as countless trillions in national budgets.
Unlike the effective MDGs, which just had 18 short targets, the UN’s current proposal contains a loquacious 169 targets. Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, says: “169 targets means the UN is promising everything to everyone. Having 169 priorities is like having none at all.”
Over the past 18 months, the Copenhagen Consensus Center has published 100+ peer-reviewed analyses from 82 of the world’s top economists and 44 sector experts along with many UN agencies and NGOs. These have established how effective 100+ targets would be in terms of value-for-money (click here for a graphical overview). These analyses take into account not just the economic, but also health, social and environmental benefits to the world.
An Expert Panel including two Nobel Laureates has reviewed this research and identified 19 targets that represent the best value-for-money in development over the period 2016 to 2030, offering more than $15 back on every aid dollar invested.
Reaching these global targets by 2030 will do more than $15 of good for every dollar spent:
People
Lower chronic child malnutrition by 40%
Halve malaria infection
Reduce tuberculosis deaths by 90%
Avoid 1.1 million HIV infections through circumcision
Cut early death from chronic diseases by 1/3
Reduce newborn mortality by 70%
Increase immunization to reduce child deaths by 25%
Make family planning available to everyone
Eliminate violence against women and girls
Planet
Phase out fossil fuel subsidies
Halve coral reef loss
Tax pollution damage from energy
Cut indoor air pollution by 20%
Prosperity
Reduce trade restrictions (full Doha)
Improve gender equality in ownership, business and politics
Boost agricultural yield increase by 40%
Increase girls’ education by 2 years
Achieve universal primary education in sub-Saharan Africa
Triple preschool in sub-Saharan Africa
“The expert analyses suggest that if the UN concentrates on 19 top targets, it can get $20 to $40 in social benefits per dollar spent, while allocating it evenly across all 169 targets would reduce the figure to less than $10. Being smart about spending could be better than doubling or quadrupling the aid budget,” comments Dr. Lomborg.
He says that the work of the economists “could be a game-changer for the UN’s negotiations over the coming months. While the 169 targets that are currently on the table are undoubtedly well-intentioned, some targets prove to generate much higher economic, social and environmental benefits than others. With limited resources, governments should forgo the instant gratification of promising everything to everyone, and instead prioritize the most effective development goals.”
Nobel Laureate economist Finn Kydland, Professor at University of California in Santa Barbara, says: “What made the MDGs so successful was their ability to galvanize international effort around a handful of smart, focused targets. It seems wise for us to continue this focus over the next 15 years, rather than spreading ourselves too thinly and slowing the remarkable progress we’ve already achieved.”
With regard to nutrition, one of the highest-ranked targets on the list, he continues: “Making sure young children are properly fed not only improves their wellbeing as they grow but has life-long implications for their health, intelligence and prosperity. Promising everything to everyone risks drawing attention away from clearly beneficial interventions such as this one.”
Nobel Laureate economist Tom Schelling, Professor at University of Maryland, comments: “Our list of targets will not solve all the world’s problems, but neither can any list under realistic budgets. Our list can help the UN make its choices like a savvy shopper with limited funds. Choosing great targets will vastly increase the benefits to people around the world, as well as generations to come.”
With regard to the recommendation to complete the Doha Round, he says: “If we’re serious about ending extreme poverty, there has to be genuine international commitment to lowering trade barriers. Much of the reason we reached the first MDG, halving extreme poverty, was because of China’s rapid income growth. And how did the Chinese achieve that remarkable feat? Most evidence suggests that international trade was a key ingredient.”
And Nancy Stokey, distinguished economist and Professor at University of Chicago, says: “Choosing the next set of global goals carefully, comparing the social benefits generated by spending resources various ways, can mean the difference between having a small effect and a large one.”
She continues, “It’s tempting to promise everything to everyone. But doing so means that we don’t focus on anything, and in the end we undertake a lot of mediocre projects.”
On gender goals, she argues: “There is not only a compelling moral argument, but also a strong economic one for boosting women’s involvement in politics, business and society. Allowing women greater control over their reproductive choices, reducing domestic violence and educating girls are clear first steps.”
A detailed version of the Expert Panel’s full conclusions can be accessed here.
All research papers can be accessed at www.copenhagenconsensus.com
