Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: What’s wrong with existing analytical models?
This study critically evaluates analytical models presently used to estimate the cost of achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) from sources including the UN Millennium Project, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank and the Zedillo Commission. Effective strategic choices for achieving the MDGs must be based on sound assessments of the costs and benefits of alternative policies. However, the existing approaches are unreliable. They derive from implausible and restrictive assumptions, depend on poor quality data, and are undermined by the presence of large uncertainties concerning the future. An alternative and less technocratic approach to planning is required.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2006|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/working-papers.html|
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sanjay Reddy & Antoine Heuty, 2005. "Peer and Partner Review: A Practical Approach to Achieving the Millennium Development Goals," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 399-420.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:une:wpaper:30. 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: (Aimee Gao)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.