Measuring progress on MDGs and other concerns
Monday, 29 November 2010
Proponents of 'human-scale' development point out that much of the record keeping process that is employed for the measurement of progress in general, and in meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in particular, is essentially flawed. It needs to be rectified so that the picture is closer to the reality on the ground. A way out of it, according to critics, is to put an equity indicator into the goals, translating all progress into how far the gap between the richest and the poorest is being narrowed. Needless to say, progress on this can be made or marred depending on the quality of politics and governance in target countries, and the willingness or otherwise of wealthy industrialized countries and global financial institutions to keep their part of the pledges as well. The same holds true for progress on the climate change front also, given the fact that the most vulnerable countries are the least equipped to cope with the challenges on their own.
Under the circumstances, it is a relief to learn that key leaders of the European Union (EU) have expressed their sincerity with regard to helping Bangladesh access sufficient funds to help tide over the difficulties generated by global climate change.This predominantly agricultural and riverine country of some 140 million people is believed to be one of the most vulnerable and certainly needs all the support it can muster. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has reportedly been given the assurance during separate meetings with the President of the Council of the European Union and the President of the European Commission in Brussels, on her way back from Russia recently. Hopefully, the support will be realized sooner rather than later, and put to use judiciously.
Optimists are sanguine that Bangladesh is poised to become a middle income country if the present rate of growth can be sustained. But there is a need to tread with caution in pursuit of this ambition. According to pro-people development activists, Bangladesh's decision-makers ought to have a long-term vision of national development rather than the usual five to ten years of politically expedient planning. They point out that it is imperative that the utmost discretion is exercised, such as when facing 'choices' like destroying natural resources and privatising people's common property, in the bid to make immediate monetary profits. The environment and people at large are bound to be shortchanged if the inextricable links between such unwise exploitations and long-term ecological health of the habitat are missed or trivialised.
A deep ecological perspective on development and progress is indeed vital for decision makers ---- that is, a multidisciplinary view of the people and their problems is indispensable ---- in order to deliver at least some of the economic and social equities that the MDGs promise. Without it, it is difficult to envisage a truly meaningful 'human-scale' progress in Bangladesh. If the purpose of MDGs has anything to do with putting people at the centre, policy makers must also guard against including essential food items on the export list and creating extreme scarcity and outrageous price hikes of foods that rich and poor alike at home are entitled to enjoy in the first place.
Under the circumstances, it is a relief to learn that key leaders of the European Union (EU) have expressed their sincerity with regard to helping Bangladesh access sufficient funds to help tide over the difficulties generated by global climate change.This predominantly agricultural and riverine country of some 140 million people is believed to be one of the most vulnerable and certainly needs all the support it can muster. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has reportedly been given the assurance during separate meetings with the President of the Council of the European Union and the President of the European Commission in Brussels, on her way back from Russia recently. Hopefully, the support will be realized sooner rather than later, and put to use judiciously.
Optimists are sanguine that Bangladesh is poised to become a middle income country if the present rate of growth can be sustained. But there is a need to tread with caution in pursuit of this ambition. According to pro-people development activists, Bangladesh's decision-makers ought to have a long-term vision of national development rather than the usual five to ten years of politically expedient planning. They point out that it is imperative that the utmost discretion is exercised, such as when facing 'choices' like destroying natural resources and privatising people's common property, in the bid to make immediate monetary profits. The environment and people at large are bound to be shortchanged if the inextricable links between such unwise exploitations and long-term ecological health of the habitat are missed or trivialised.
A deep ecological perspective on development and progress is indeed vital for decision makers ---- that is, a multidisciplinary view of the people and their problems is indispensable ---- in order to deliver at least some of the economic and social equities that the MDGs promise. Without it, it is difficult to envisage a truly meaningful 'human-scale' progress in Bangladesh. If the purpose of MDGs has anything to do with putting people at the centre, policy makers must also guard against including essential food items on the export list and creating extreme scarcity and outrageous price hikes of foods that rich and poor alike at home are entitled to enjoy in the first place.