IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are the MDGs Priority in Development Strategies and Aid Programmes? Only few are!


  • Sakiko Fukuda-Parr

    () (The New School University, New York)


The gap between strong political commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and slow progress towards meeting them is often attributed to weak ?ownership? by developing country governments. This Working Paper addresses the issue of ownership by analysing the substance of 22 developing countries? Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and the policy frameworks of 21 bilateral programmes. Two major findings of the analysis are as follows. First, economic growth for income poverty reduction and social sector investments (education, health and water) are important priorities in most of the PRSPs; decent work, hunger and nutrition, the environment and access to technology tend to be neglected. PRSPs also emphasise governance as an important means of achieving the MDGs, but they focus mostly on economic governance rather than on democratic (participatory and equitable) processes. Since the key motivation for the MDGs as reflected in the Millennium Declaration was to promote a more inclusive globalisation through participatory processes, the PRSPs are undercutting their core policy purpose. Implementation could be refocused if greater attention were paid to the neglected objectives and dimensions in the MDGs? design, as major goals and with quantitative indicators. The single most effective revision could be to add a goal of reducing inequality in income and other dimensions of poverty within and between countries. Second, this Working Paper distinguishes between three functional uses of global goals: as consensus objectives, as monitoring benchmarks, and as planning targets. Most donor policy statements and PRSPs use MDGs as consensus objectives. Most PRSPs also use MDGs as planning targets, but without adapting them to local conditions and priorities. In most cases where MDG targets are set, they are in line with the MDG 2015 targets; this is not necessarily a sign of ?ownership? because these targets are not accompanied by coherent action plans. If the MDGs are to be used as planning targets for resource allocation purposes, the international community could develop a more consistent and effective approach to the local incorporation of MDGs into national planning and priority setting. (...)

Suggested Citation

  • Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, 2008. "Are the MDGs Priority in Development Strategies and Aid Programmes? Only few are!," Working Papers 48, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
  • Handle: RePEc:ipc:wpaper:48

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: First version, 2008
    Download Restriction: no


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Andrew Crabtree, 2013. "Questioning Psychosocial Resilience After Flooding and the Consequences for Disaster Risk Reduction," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 711-728, September.
    2. Leisa Perch & Rathin Roy, 2010. "Social Policy in the Post-crisis Context of Small Island Developing States: a Synthesis," Working Papers 67, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    3. Baliamoune-Lutz, Mina, 2013. "The Effectiveness of Foreign Aid to Women?s Equality Organizations in the MENA : Does Aid Promote Women's Political Participation?," WIDER Working Paper Series 074, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    4. Charles Kenny, Jonathan Karver, and Andy Sumner, 2012. "MDGs 2.0: What Goals, Targets, and Timeframe? - Working Paper 297," Working Papers 297, Center for Global Development.
    5. Oyvind Eggen, 2013. "Making and Shaping Poor Malawians: Citizenship Below the Poverty Line," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 31(6), pages 697-716, November.
    6. Ashma Vaidya & Audrey L. Mayer, 2016. "Critical Review of the Millennium Project in Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(10), pages 1-23, October.
    7. repec:taf:rjapxx:v:16:y:2011:i:4:p:562-578 is not listed on IDEAS


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ipc:wpaper:48. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Andre Lyra). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.