The Millennium Development Goals: The
September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations
Marian Leonardo Lawson
Analyst in Foreign Assistance
September 23, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41410
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Summary
From September 20 to 22, 2010, heads of state and government convened at United Nations
(U.N.) Headquarters for a High-level Plenary Meeting to review progress toward the U.N.
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs are a group of measurable development
targets agreed to by 189 U.N. member states—including the United States—as part of the 2000
Millennium Declaration. The Goals, which governments aim to achieve by 2015, include (1)
eradicating extreme hunger and poverty; (2) achieving universal primary education; (3)
promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment; (4) reducing the under-five child
mortality rate; (5) reducing the maternal mortality rate; (6) combating HIV/AIDS and other
diseases; (7) ensuring environmental sustainability; and (8) developing a Global Partnership for
Development.
Since 2000, governments have worked to achieve the MDGs with mixed results. Experts
generally agree that while some MDGs are on track to be met, the majority of Goals are unlikely
to be achieved by 2015. Many have also found that progress toward the Goals is unevenly
distributed across regions and countries. India and China, for example, have made considerable
progress in achieving the MDGs, while many countries in Africa have failed to meet almost all of
the Goals.
President Barack Obama supports the MDGs and attended the September High-level meeting. In
July 2010, the Administration published The United States’ Strategy for Meeting the Millennium
Development Goals, which identifies four “imperatives†for achieving the Goals—innovation,
sustainability, measuring outcomes, and mutual accountability.
Members of the 111th Congress may be interested in the MDGs and the September High-level
meeting from three primary perspectives. First, Congress may wish to consider the MDGs in the
context of authorizing and funding broader U.S. development assistance efforts. Second,
Members may wish to be aware of the commitments made by the United States at the High-level
meeting. Additionally, Congress may consider conducting oversight of international progress
toward the MDGs, including U.S. efforts and the future of the Goals.
While evidence of MDG effectiveness in advancing global development is uneven a decade after
the Millennium Declaration, the international community—and many policymakers in the United
States—continue to use the Goals as a paradigm for development assistance. This raises a number
of overarching questions for Congress about the role and future of the MDGs, including
• In what areas, if any, have the MDGs been successful?
• Are the MDGs practical?
• What is the role of U.S. foreign aid in the MDGs?
• Who is accountable for MDG progress?
This report will be not be updated further.
Congressional Research Service
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Contents
Setting the Context...................................................................................................................... 1
The 2010 High-level Meeting: Overview and Outcomes.............................................................. 3
Trends in MDG Progress and Lessons Learned............................................................................ 4
Uneven Progress Among Goals ............................................................................................. 5
Uneven Progress Across Developing Regions and Countries ................................................. 6
Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................... 7
The United States and the MDGs ................................................................................................ 8
Role and Impact of the MDGs in the Bush Administration..................................................... 8
Obama Administration and the 2010 High-level Meeting..................................................... 10
Congressional Activities...................................................................................................... 11
Policy Issues ............................................................................................................................. 12
Are the MDGs Practical? .................................................................................................... 12
Aid Effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 13
Selective Use of Aid............................................................................................................ 13
Accountability .................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 14
Figures
Figure A-1. MDG Progress, 2009 .............................................................................................. 17
Tables
Table 1. The Millennium Development Goals.............................................................................. 1
Table A-1. MDGs and Targets ................................................................................................... 16
Appendixes
Appendix. The Millennium Development Goals ........................................................................ 16
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Setting the Context
In 2000, 189 U.N. member states, including the United States, adopted the U.N. Millennium
Declaration.1 In the Declaration, countries made commitments to achieve a series of measurable
development targets worldwide by 2015 known as the “Millennium Development Goals†(MDGs
or Goals).2 In all, there are eight MDGs comprised of 21 quantifiable targets measured by 60
indicators.3 Table 1 lists the Goals, and Table A-1 in the Appendix provides the corresponding
targets.
Table 1. The Millennium Development Goals
Goal 1
Eradicate extreme hunger
Goal 2
Achieve universal primary education
Goal 3
Promote gender equality and empowering women
Goal 4
Reduce child mortality
Goal 5
Improve maternal health
Goal 6
Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
Goal 7
Ensure environmental sustainability
Goal 8
Develop a global partnership for development
From September 20 to 22, 2010, world leaders gathered at U.N. Headquarters for a High-level
Plenary Meeting (the Meeting) to review progress toward achieving the MDGs over the past
decade.4 During the Meeting, participants discussed best practices and challenges to
implementing the Goals, and governments adopted a General Assembly resolution outlining a
“global action plan†to achieve the MDGs in the next five year. The resolution did not include any
financial commitments; rather, it called on governments to fulfill existing aid commitments made
at other international meetings and conferences.
A key area of discussion among Meeting participants was governments’ lack of success in
meeting the MDGs in the past 10 years. There is general consensus in the international
community that while there has been some progress in achieving the MDGs, the majority of
Goals will not be met by 2015. Many also acknowledge that MDG progress is unevenly
distributed across countries and regions. Moreover, no progress at all has been made toward some
of the Goals, and in a few cases the indicators show regression.
1 United Nations Millennium Declaration, U.N. document A/RES/55/2, adopted September 8, 2000.
2 Since 2000, the MDGs have been reaffirmed by U.N. member states in various international meetings, including the
2002 International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, the U.N. World Summit in New York in
September 2005, and the U.N. High-level Event on the MDGs in New York in September 2008.
3 See Table A-1 in the Appendix for an overview of the MDGs and targets. A complete list of the Goals, targets, and
indicators is available at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Host.aspx?Content=Indicators/OfficialList.htm.
4 The Meeting is officially called the “High-level Plenary Meeting of the 65th General Assembly.†For more
information, see http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
The Barack Obama Administration has generally supported the MDGs. President Obama
addressed meeting participants on September 22, emphasizing the need for greater sustainability,
accountability, and focus on economic growth in development assistance programs. His speech
was consistent with the U.S. Strategy for Meeting the MDGs, released by the Administration in
July 2010, which highlights four imperatives for achieving the Goals: (1) leveraging innovation,
(2) investing in sustainability, (3) tracking development outcomes (not just dollars), and (4)
ensuring mutual accountability among aid donors and recipients.
In general, the Obama Administration appears to invoke
The 2010 High-level Meeting:
the MDGs as a construct for U.S. development policy
Preparatory Process and
more frequently than do Members of Congress. Since the
Structure
Millennium Declaration was adopted in 2000, little
In July 2009, the U.N. General Assembly
legislation has been introduced that, either in whole or in
decided in resolution 63/302 to hold the
part, addresses the MDGs. Nevertheless, Members of the
High-level Plenary Meeting on the MDGs as
111th Congress may be interested in the Goals and the
part of the 65th session of the General
Assembly in 2010. The Meeting was
September High-level Meeting from several
comprised of six plenary meetings and six
perspectives:
interactive round table sessions held parallel
to the plenary meetings. Meeting
• Development assistance in a tight fiscal
participants include governments, non-
environment—Members of Congress authorize
governmental organizations (NGOs),
and appropriate U.S. official development
international intergovernmental
organizations, members of civil society, the
assistance. In light of growing concerns over the
private sector, and others.
federal budget deficit, Members may wish to
reassess foreign assistance priorities and
The preparatory process for the Meeting
was extensive. U.N. member states
strategies;
participated in ongoing formal and informal
• New international commitments—Congress
consultations to discuss and negotiate the
outcome document.
may consider commitments made on behalf of
the United States in the Meeting’s outcome
Representatives from NGOs, civil society
organizations, and the private sector
document, Keeping the Promise: United to
participated in informal interactive hearings
Achieve the Millennium Development Goals
in June 2010 to review MDG progress and
(General Assembly resolution 65/1); and
discuss how they can be accomplished
before 2015.
• Oversight—Members may wish to conduct
oversight on the overall effectiveness of the
MDGs and the previous and future role of the United States in helping to fulfill
the Goals.
More broadly, Congress may consider how, if at all, the MDGs should shape existing and future
U.S. and international development activities. Selected questions that policymakers may
consider follow.
• In what areas, if any, have the MDGs been successful? Many agree that some
MDGs have been met or are on track to be met by 2015. Some are hopeful that
the “lessons learned†from these experiences could be transferred to other Goals.
• Are the MDGs practical? Some experts contend that the Goals provide
unrealistic expectations for countries or regions, particularly those starting out at
a lower economic threshold than others. Moreover, some argue that the scope and
breadth of the MDGs, and a lack of prioritization among them, have affected
their progress.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
• What is the role of foreign aid in the MDGs? Some maintain that in order for
the MDGs to be fulfilled by 2015, donor countries must fulfill existing aid
commitments and make new ones. Others, however, argue that higher aid levels
do not necessarily lead to greater development impacts.
• Who or what is held accountable for MDG progress? Governments are
primarily responsible for fulfilling the MDGs. At the same time, it is unclear to
whom, if anyone, governments are accountable if they fail to achieve the Goals.
This report discusses overarching trends in MDG progress and lessons learned from previous and
ongoing efforts to achieve them. It examines U.S. policy toward the MDGs and how, if at all, the
Goals fit into U.S. development and foreign assistance policy. It also examines different schools
of thought regarding the effectiveness of the Goals, their role in international development, and
their long-term sustainability. This report addresses the MDGs as a whole; it does not assess or
analyze issues pertaining to the individual Goals.
The 2010 High-level Meeting: Overview
and Outcomes
On September 22, the High-level Meeting concluded with the adoption of General Assembly
resolution 65/1, a “global action plan†to achieve the MDGs by 2015.5 In the resolution, entitled
Keeping the Promise: United to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, governments
reaffirmed the MDGs and welcomed progress made toward their achievement—recognizing that
they can be met with “renewed commitments, effective implementation and intensified collective
action by all Member States.â€6 At the same time, governments recognized that progress toward
the Goals is uneven among regions and between and within countries, and expressed “deep
concern†that progress toward the Goals “falls short of what is needed.†No new financial
commitments were made by governments in the resolution. Instead, governments called for the
“expeditious delivery of [aid] commitments already made by developed countries†in the context
of the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Declaration.7
In the resolution, governments also committed to specific measures related to each of the eight
Goals in the next five years, and requested the General Assembly to review progress made toward
the Goals, and the implementation of the resolution, on an annual basis.8 To follow up on these
efforts, member states agreed to hold a General Assembly special event on the MDGs in 2013.
Countries also requested that the Secretary-General continue to report annually to the General
Assembly on progress toward the Goals, and to recommended steps for advancing the U.N.
development agenda beyond 2015.9
5 “U.N. Summit Concludes with Adoption of Global Action Plan to Achieve Development Goals by 2015,†U.N.
[MDG] Press Release, September 22, 2010.
6 U.N. document, A/RES/65/1, adopted September 22, 2010.
7 Ibid.
8 For instance, governments committed to “Strengthening international coordination and governance for food
security…†(MDG1); “Strengthening the sustainability and predictability of funding for national education systems by
ensuring adequate national education budgets…†(MDG 2); and “Building new strategic partnerships to strengthen and
leverage the linkages between HIV and other health- and development-related initiatives ... †(MDG 6).
9 U.N. document, A/RES/65/1. Also see U.N. press release GA/10993, “Confident that Despite Uneven Progress,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
During the Meeting, the United Nations, governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
and private sector entities also announced individual development commitments. Several
organizations and governments, for example, pledged a combined $40 billion over the next five
years to accelerate progress on women’s and children’s health through the Secretary-General’s
Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health.10 Other examples of such commitments
follow:
• South Korea pledged $100 million to support food security and agriculture in
developing countries (MDG 1);
• Dell committed $10 million toward education technology initiatives in 2010
(MDG 2);
• the World Bank announced it would increase the scope of its results-based health
programs by more than $600 million until 2015 (MDG 6);
• the United States committed $50.82 million for the Global Alliance for Clean
Cookstoves, a public-private partnership led by the U.N. Foundation to install
clean-burning stoves in kitchens around the world (MDG 7); and11
• the European Union offered €1 billion to the most committed and needy
countries to make progress on the Goals they are furthest from achieving
(MDG 8).
Some of these commitments seem to be specifically created to accelerate progress on the MDGs.
Others, however, appear to be part of broader development efforts and initiatives already being
undertaken by governments, international organizations, NGOs, and the private sector.
Trends in MDG Progress and Lessons Learned
In advance of the September 2010 High-level Meeting on the MDGs, governments, NGOs, and
others scrutinized MDG indicators to determine progress made toward the Goals. Generally,
experts monitoring the MDG indicators have identified two overarching trends. First, while some
MDGs are on track to be achieved, others have made no progress at all or, in some cases, have
deteriorated. Second, progress toward the Goals is unevenly distributed among regions and
countries. The following sections discuss and provide examples of these trends in further detail.
(...continued)
Setbacks, Millennium Development Goals Can Still Be Achieved by 2015, Leaders Adopt ‘Action Agenda’ on Way
Forward,†September 22, 2010.
10 For more information on this initiative, see http://www.un.org/sg/globalstrategy.
11 For more information on U.S. policy at the High-level Meeting, see “Obama Administration and the 2010 High-level
Meeting.â€
Congressional Research Service
4
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Uneven Progress Among Goals
While significant progress has been made toward a few MDGs, there is general agreement in the
international community that many of the Goals will likely be missed both on a global level and
by most countries. No progress at all has been made toward some Goals, and indicators show
regression on others. For example, many predict
that MDG 1, target 3, halving the number of people
Measuring and Tracking
who suffer from hunger, will not be achieved.
MDG Progress
Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s there was
To help track progress on the commitments made
some progress in combating hunger worldwide, but
in the U.N. Millennium Declaration, international
any advancements have recently stalled due in part
and national statistical experts selected relevant
indicators to assess progress toward the MDGs.
to global food crises and the global economic crisis.
Examples include the poverty gap (MDG 1),
In the period from 2005 through 2007, for instance,
literacy rate of 15-to-24-year olds (MDG 2),
830 million people were undernourished, an
incidence and death rates associated with malaria
increase of 13 million from the 1990 level of 817
(MDG 6), and proportion of urban population
million.13
living in slums (MDG 7).
Each year, the U.N. Secretary-General presents a
In addition, many observers agree that MDG 2,
report to the General Assembly on progress
which aims to ensure that all children complete a
achieved toward implementing the Declaration
based on these indicators. The most recent
full course of primary schooling, will likely remain
report, Mil ennium Development Goals Progress,
unfulfilled at the global level. The United Nations
2010, was published in June 2010.
and other organizations maintain that there has been
The primary entity responsible for tracking global,
progress in this area—for example, enrollment in
regional, and country progress in meeting the
primary education recently reached 89% in the
MDGs is the U.N. Inter-agency and Expert Group
developing world—but that the pace of this
on MDG Indicators (IAEG). The Group, which is
progress is insufficient.14 For the Goal to be
led by the Department of Economic and Social
Affairs in the U.N. Secretariat, is comprised of
achieved, all children at the official age for primary
representatives of international organizations
school in their respective countries would have to
involved in preparing statistical indicators identified
have been attending classes by 2009. In over half of
as appropriate for monitoring MDG progress.
Sub-Saharan Africa, however, at least 25% of
IAEG members include the International Labor
school-aged children were not enrolled in 2008.15
Organization, World Bank, International Monetary
Fund, World Health Organization, and U.N.
Development Program, among others.
Moreover, MDG 4, which addresses child mortality,
sets a target of reducing the under-five mortality
In addition to tracking MDG progress, the IAEG
reviews and defines MDG indicator methodologies
rate by two-thirds by 2015 that will likely not be
and technical issues and supports countries in data
met. According to the United Nations, child deaths
collection, analysis, and reporting.12
are falling, but they are not doing so quickly
enough to achieve MDG 4. Of the 67 countries with high child mortality rates (described as 40 or
more deaths per 1,000 live births), only 10 countries are on track to meet the two-thirds reduction
target.16
12 For more information on MDG tracking and the IAEG, see http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspx.
13 Millennium Development Goals Report, 2010 (hereafter referred to as U.N. MDG Report, 2010), United Nations,
New York, June 15, 2010. pp. 10-11.
14 Ibid., 16.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid., 26-27.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Additionally, MDG 5, which seeks to reduce the maternal mortality ratio by 75% by 2015, will
likely remain unfulfilled. According to the U.N. Secretary-General, of the health-related MDGs
the least progress has been made toward attaining this Goal. In many developing countries, access
to safe reproductive health services remains poor, with preventable conditions such as
hemorrhage and hypertension accounting for half of all deaths in expectant or new mothers.17
Uneven Progress Across Developing Regions and Countries
A wide range of data and research indicates that global progress toward the MDGs is uneven
across developing regions and countries. For MDG 1, for example, the percentage of people
living in poverty on the global level has decreased; however, most of this decline has been driven
by robust economic growth in countries such as China and India. Meanwhile, progress in
reducing poverty and hunger in other regions—particularly Sub-Saharan Africa—has stalled or
even regressed.18 For example, the United Nations reports that the world is on track to meet target
1 of MDG 1, halving the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day.19 Many
emphasize, however, that progress is driven primarily by the economic success of certain
countries. Specifically, strong economic growth in China appears to account for most of the
decrease in the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day, while poverty and hunger in
other parts of Asia and in Sub-Saharan Africa remain high.20 Excluding data from China, the
United Nations estimates that the absolute number of people living in extreme poverty rose by 36
million between 1990 and 2005.21
Regional disparities are also apparent in progress toward MDG 3, which seeks to promote gender
equality and empower women by eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary
education by 2015.22 Research indicates that developing regions as a whole are approaching
gender parity in educational enrollment. In 2008, for example, there were 96 girls for every 100
boys in primary school and 95 girls for every 100 boys in secondary school. This is an
improvement from 1999, when the ratios were 91 to 100 and 88 to 100 in primary and secondary
schools, respectively.23 At the same time, however, gender parity in education remains “out of
reach†for many developing countries and regions and in some cases has decreased. In Sub-
Saharan Africa, for instance, the percentage of primary school enrollment for girls as compared to
boys fell from 82% in 1999 to 79% in 2007. Similarly, in Oceania, progress toward achieving
girls’ enrollment in primary school has deteriorated or not progressed.24
17 Drawn from (1) U.N. MDG Report, 2010, p. 59, and (2) Keeping the promise: a forward-looking review to promote
an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, U.N. document, A/64/665, February
12, 2010, p. 8.
18U.N. MDG Report, 2010, pp. 6-10.
19 The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than $1.25 a day in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms.
In 2008, the extreme poverty line was revised from $1 a day to $1.25 a day to reflect 2005 prices. (U.N. MDG Report,
2010, pp. 6-7.)
20 Drawn from (1) U.N. document, A/64/665, February 12, 2010, pp. 6-7, and (2) UNDP Key Messages for the 2010
MDG Summit, U.N. Development Program (UNDP).
21 U.N. MDG Report, 2010, pp. 6-7.
22 U.N. Secretary-General Ban called MDG 3, “one of the most difficult [Goals] to achieve†because it cuts across
many other development issues and its root causes lie in societal attitudes, norms, and power structures. (U.N.
document, A/64/665, p. 6.)
23 Ibid., 20-21.
24 See U.N. document, A/64/665, p. 6, and U.N. MDG Report, 2010, pp. 20-21.
Congressional Research Service
6
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Moreover, the United Nations reports that while the world is on track to meet target 3 of MDG 7,
halving the proportion of the population without safe drinking water or sanitation, progress is
uneven across regions and countries. Four regions have already met the safe drinking water
target: Northern Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Eastern Asia, and Southeastern Asia.
Nevertheless, safe water supply remains a challenge in many developing countries, particularly in
rural areas, and across Oceania and Sub-Saharan Africa.25 (For additional examples of MDG
progress by region, see Figure A-1.)
Lessons Learned
In an effort to determine the most effective ways to achieve the goals in the next five years,
participants at the September Meeting discussed common factors or lessons learned that
contributed to MDG progress, as well as correlating obstacles that have impeded progress. While
many experts assert that there is no “one size fits all†approach to advancing development, and
that the most effective policies and interventions will differ by country and by Goal, in the past
decade, governments, NGOs, and others have identified certain factors that contribute to the
fulfillment of the MDGs. When examining U.S. development policy and efforts to address the
MDGs, Members of Congress may take these issues into account. They include the need for
• effective government leadership and ownership of development strategies;
• effective policies to support implementation, including laws, regulations,
standards, and guidelines, general or specific to the MDGs, that impact private
behavior, the conduct of service providers and others with whom governments
must interact;
• improved quality, quantity, and focus of investments from both domestic
resources and international development assistance based on a holistic approach,
including health, education, infrastructure, and business development;
• appropriate institutional capacity to deliver quality services equally on a
national scale, including adequate facilities, competent staff, supplies and
equipment, and tools for monitoring;
• involvement of civil society and communities in achieving the Goals;
• effective global partnerships involving all relevant stakeholders such as donor
and recipient governments, communities, NGOs, and the private sector; and
• good governance by donors and recipients, including the timely and
predictable delivery of aid.26
At the same time, the existence of these factors in a country or region does not ensure that the
MDGs will be achieved. External, and often unpredictable, events can be a significant
impediment to MDG progress. For example, many contend that the global financial crisis
negatively impacted progress toward the MDGs.27 There is also broad consensus that armed
conflict and violence remain significant threats to any gains made toward the Goals.
25 Drawn from U.N. MDG Report, 2010, p. 59, and A/64/665, pp. 8-9.
26 Drawn from U.N. document, A/64/665, pp. 16-17.
27 Drawn from Global Monitoring Report 2010—The MDGs After the Crisis, Overview, Joint Ministerial Committee
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
The United States and the MDGs
The United States voted in favor of the U.N. Millennium Declaration in 2000, and some recent
U.S. development policy statements allude to the MDGs as a U.S. development policy
consideration, if not a guiding framework. In speeches before the United Nations and other
international fora over the years, both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama
have emphasized the U.S. commitment to the Millennium Development Goals.28 However, the
two Administrations have used different rhetoric in regard to the MDGs, and many observers
believed that this shift anticipated a significant policy change between Administrations.
Nevertheless, a review of U.S. development activities and policy statements since the
establishment of the MDGs illustrates some of the challenges in drawing conclusions about the
role of the MDGs in U.S. foreign assistance policy.
Role and Impact of the MDGs in the Bush Administration
While the Millennium Declaration was agreed to during the Clinton Administration, the MDGs
themselves were published in a report by the U.N. Secretary-General on September 6, 2001—
about nine months after President Bush took office and only days before the September 11th
terrorist attacks dramatically altered U.S. foreign policy priorities.29 The U.S. commitment to the
MDGs during the Bush Administration was nuanced. As explained by a 2005 State Department
cable to all U.S. embassies and USAID missions, the United States agreed to the development
goals included in the Millennium Declaration adopted at the 2000 UN Millennium Summit. It did
not, however, commit to the goals, targets, and indicators issued by the U.N. Secretariat in 2001.30
These are the eight goals and related indicators that are generally referred to today as the MDGs,
but were described by the State Department as “solely a Secretariat product, never having been
formally adopted by member states.â€31
The Bush Administration did not fully accept the Secretariat’s formulation of the MDGs for two
primary reasons. First, it argued that the Secretariat took the MDGs out of the context of the
Millennium Declaration, which included commitments to good governance, democracy, human
rights, and other U.S. foreign policy priorities. Second, one of the indicators established by the
Secretariat for MDG 8 (developing global partnerships for development) is efforts by developed
countries to provide 0.7% of their gross national income (GNI) as official development assistance
(ODA). The United States, which is the leading bilateral ODA donor in dollar terms, but not when
ODA is measured as a percent of GNI,32 has generally opposed numeric aid targets, arguing that
(...continued)
of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries,
DC2010-0008, April 21, 2010. Many acknowledge, however, that the actual impact will not be immediately known
because the development indicators needed to evaluate the effects of the crisis will not be available for several years.
28 For example, see President Barack Obama, speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, September 23,
2009; President George W. Bush, speaking at a United Nations High-level Plenary Session, 2007.
29 Road map towards the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, Report of the Secretary-
General, U.N. document, A/56/326, September 6, 2001.
30 “The Millennium Development Goals—What Are They?†State Department internal memo to all diplomatic and
consular posts, April 26, 2005, available at http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB560.pdf.
31 Ibid.
32 According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
they do not reflect developing country needs or capacity to absorb aid. These elements together,
U.S. diplomats assert, turned the “development discussion into an ODA discussion.â€33
As a result of this ambiguity, many Bush Administration documents and texts negotiated at
international fora replaced blanket endorsements of Millennium Development Goals with phrases
such as “internationally agreed to development goals, including those in the Millennium
Declaration,†to connote agreement with the idea of the MDGs, but also to reserve room for
debate on how they were to be achieved. Administration officials also emphasized that while the
Millennium Declaration established important goals, the Monterrey Consensus (the product of the
U.N.-sponsored International Conference on Finance for Development in 2002) provided the
strategy to meet global development priorities.34 The Monterrey Consensus, unlike the MDGs,
focused on economic growth as the foundation for sustainable development, and emphasized
good governance, country ownership of development strategies, trade, and private investment. It
was in the context of the Monterrey Consensus, not the MDGs, that the Bush Administration
pledged significant increases in U.S. ODA. The Monterrey Conference was also the backdrop for
President Bush’s announcement of a new U.S. global development funding mechanism, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which seeks to fund the development needs of
countries that have demonstrated relatively good governance, a commitment to economic
freedom, and investment in their citizens.35
A 2008 policy statement on the U.S. commitment to the MDGs highlighting the Bush
Administration’s strategy focused on (1) country ownership and good governance, (2) pro-growth
economic policy, (3) investing in people, and (4) addressing failing and fragile states. It did not
specifically mention any of the MDGs, and identified the Monterrey Consensus as the basis of the
U.S. strategy.36 Given that the MDGs closely relate to long-standing U.S. development assistance
priorities such as improving access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunity, it is hard
to identify any specific impact the Millennium Declaration had on U.S. policy during the Bush
Administration. On the other hand, U.S. ODA trends in these years were largely consistent with
MDG commitments, with total U.S. ODA almost tripling between 2000 and 2008, from $9.95
billion to $26.84 billion. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) accounts
for a large part of the funding growth and has unquestionably advanced MDG 6, combating
HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. At the same time, a good portion of the growth in foreign
assistance during the same period was directed toward the Middle East and South and Central
Asia, likely reflecting strategic interests related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more than
commitment to the MDGs.
(...continued)
(OECD/DAC), U.S. ODA for 2008 was $26.8 billion, representing 0.19% of GNI.
33 “The Millennium Development Goals—What Are They?†State Department internal memo to all diplomatic and
consular posts, April 26, 2005, available at http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB560.pdf.
34 “Addressing the Millennium Challenge Goals,†Remarks to the U.N. General Assembly by USAID Administrator
Andrew Natsios, September 15, 2005.
35 For more information on the MCC, see CRS Report RL32427, Millennium Challenge Corporation, by Curt Tarnoff.
36 “The United States Commitment to the Millennium Development Goals,†USAID, April 2008, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
9
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Obama Administration and the 2010 High-level Meeting
President Obama, who stated during the 2008 presidential campaign that under his leadership the
MDGs would be America’s goals,37 appears to have elevated the significance of the MDGs
relative to his predecessor. Administration officials no longer carefully distinguish the goals of the
Millennium Declaration from the MDGs. President Obama’s National Security Strategy states
that “the United States has embraced the United Nations Millennium Development Goals,â€38 and
Congressional Budget Justifications for Foreign Operations submitted under the Obama
Administration frequently discuss attainment of MDGs in conjunction with U.S. development
policy goals.
The Obama Administration’s four major foreign assistance initiatives appear to reflect
consideration of the MDGs. The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative is aimed at
ending hunger (MDG 1). The Global Health Initiative (GHI) focuses not only on HIV/AIDS,
malaria, and other diseases (MDG 6), but also on child mortality (MDG 4) and maternal health
(MDG 5). The Global Climate Change Initiative targets environmental sustainability (MDG 7)
and the Global Engagement Initiative, designed to create economic opportunities and security in
Muslim communities abroad, is intended to support entrepreneurship and create jobs through
collaborative partnerships (MDG 8) and involve women in the social and economic development
of their communities (MDG 3).
The Obama Administration’s published strategy for meeting the MDGs, like the Bush
Administration strategy, does not focus on specific MDGs, explaining that “we do not treat the
MDGs as if they were separate baskets†and “the purpose is to emphasize that the MDGs are all
connected.â€39 Rather, it identifies four “imperativesâ€â€”(1) innovation, (2) sustainability, (3)
measuring outcomes rather than inputs, and (4) mutual accountability among donor and recipient
countries—and discusses ways that U.S. agencies apply them. The strategy appears intended to
demonstrate to the international community a greater U.S. interest in the MDG discussion, while
maintaining the U.S. position that the MDGs can best be achieved by focusing on cross-cutting
aid effectiveness issues rather than funding targets. Like his predecessor, President Obama has
not embraced the target associated with Goal 8, which calls for donor nations to reserve 0.7% of
their GNI for development aid.
At the September High-level Meeting, President Obama announced a new U.S. global
development strategy, which the Administration is referring to as the Presidential Policy Directive
on Global development (PPD). The pillars of the PPD reflect the imperatives detailed in the U.S.
Strategy for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals.40 They emphasize the need for
37 See the Obama/Biden campaign Strategy for International Development, at http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/
Fact_Sheet_Foreign_Policy_Democratization_and_Development_FINAL.pdf.
38 National Security Strategy, The White House, May 2010, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf. This is the first time the MDGs have been mentioned in an Administration’s
National Security Strategy.
39 “Celebrate, Innovate and Sustain: Toward 2015 and Beyond, The United States’ Strategy for Meeting the
Millennium Development Goals,†July 2010, p.16.
40 The PPD is derived from the Presidential Study Directive on Global Development, which was issued in September
2009. The White House released a summary of the new policy, concurrent with the U.N. speech, which contained
additional details of great interest to many development advocates but of less interest to the international community,
such as the role of USAID on the National Security Council and the creation of an Interagency Policy Committee on
Global Development.
Congressional Research Service
10
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
development assistance to be judged by its impact rather than volume, and to promote sustainable
improvement rather than dependency. The President highlighted the role of diplomacy, trade, and
investment in development, arguing that aid alone is not effective. Like his predecessor, he also
emphasized the importance of broad-based economic growth and mutual accountability. In regard
to the latter, he reassured developing countries that the United States would meet its commitments
and encouraged other donors to do the same, but stated that ultimately developing countries must
take the lead in their own development.41 The PPD, like the U.S. Strategy for Meeting the
Millennium Development Goals, does not appear to be a significant departure from the Bush
Administration approach. Experts noted, however, that the decision to announce the new policy in
the context of the MDG High-level Meeting indicates a desire to improve the working
relationship between with United States and the U.N. on development issues.42
The President made no new financial commitments in his speech. Over the course of the Meeting,
however, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a $50.82 million U.S. commitment for the
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves,43 and a partnership with the United Kingdom, Australia,
and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to improve access to family planning services in South
Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.44 Both announcements were made in the context of promoting the
U.N. Secretary-General’s Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, but are consistent
with U.S. efforts already underway as part of the Administration’s Global Health Initiative. By
signing the outcome document, the Administration also renewed the U.S. commitment to
supporting dozens of broadly stated “best practices†related to each MDG.45 Of particular interest
to Congress in the wake of the Meeting may be the President’s statement on the need for greater
selectivity and division of labor among aid donors, and his pledge to work with Congress to
ensure that U.S development assistance more closely reflects recipient country priorities.46
Congressional Activities
The legislative record indicates little congressional action on the MDGs since 2000. The MDGs
have scarcely been mentioned in appropriations legislation and accompanying reports over the
last decade, which have largely shaped foreign assistance policy in the absence of regular foreign
assistance re-authorization legislation.47 Two pieces of legislation have been introduced that
addresses the MDGs as a whole. Introduced in the 109th Congress, the International Cooperation
to Meet the Millennium Development Goals Act of 2005 (S. 1315) called for U.S. leadership on
the MDGs, and required the Department of State to submit a report to Congress detailing global
progress toward the MDGs and how U.S. policy and actions had contributed to such progress.
41 Remarks by President Barack Obama at the Millennium Development Goals Summit, New York, NY, September 22,
2010, available at http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/147593.htm.
42 See “Obama is ‘changing the way we do business’ on development,†in The Cable, 9/23/10, available at
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/.
43 See the State Department press release at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/09/147500.htm.
44 See Secretary Clinton’s statement at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/09/147592.htm. The announcement
does not specify how much the United States and other partners will contribute to the effort.
45 U.N. document, A/RES/65/1, adopted September 22, 2010, pp.14-32.
46 Remarks by President Barack Obama at the Millennium Development Goals Summit, New York, NY, September 22,
2010, available at http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/147593.htm.
47 One bill introduced to authorize the Millennium Challenge Corporation (H.R. 1950 in the 108th Congress) mentions
the MDGs, but the authorization became law through inclusion in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L.
108-199), which does not mention the MDGs.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but was held at the desk. On September 16,
2010, Representative Barbara Lee introduced H.Con.Res. 318, expressing support of the “ideals
and objectives†of the MDGs and urging the President to “ensure the United States contributes
meaningfully to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015.â€
Introduced just days before the September High-level Meeting, the resolution never received
committee or floor consideration. However, a hearing on “Achieving the United Nations’
Millennium Development Goals: Progress Through Partnership,†held by the House
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight on July 27, 2010,
indicated congressional interest in the MDGs in the lead-up to the High-level Meeting.
Furthermore, a handful of bills have been introduced that refer to specific Goals. The Global
Poverty Act, for example, introduced in the House and Senate in both the 110th and 111th
Congresses, calls for a strategy to meet MDG 1. Then-Senator Obama was the Senate sponsor of
that legislation in the 110th Congress.
In the 111th Congress, the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) and the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee (SFRC) have focused on reforming U.S. foreign assistance and re-writing
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), which is the legislative basis for most foreign aid
programs. To date, these efforts do not reflect any specific MDG influence, though many of the
stated goals could be interpreted to align with MDGs. Neither of the major reform bills pending
before the 111th Congress, H.R. 2139 and S. 1524, specifically mention the MDGs, nor do any of
the discussion papers made public by HFAC as part of the effort to re-write the FAA.
Policy Issues
Ten years after the Millennium Declaration, government officials and development advocates are
reviewing a decade of implementation efforts to determine how lessons from the past can help
shape policies that promote more effective development in the future, whether through
achievement of the MDGs or revision of the MDG approach. As President Obama said at the
High-level Meeting, “if the international community just keeps doing the same things the same
way, we may make some modest progress here and there, but we will miss many development
goals.â€48 These efforts raise issues that are central to Congress’s role in funding and overseeing
U.S foreign assistance. Key policy issues include the practicality of the Goals, the role of foreign
assistance in achieving the Goals, selectivity in the provision of aid, and accountability.
Are the MDGs Practical?
Given the uneven progress in achieving the MDGs to date, some in the policy community have
questioned the role of the Goals in global development efforts and their overall effectiveness. One
of the primary issues raised in this context is the practicality of the Goals. Many argue that the
MDGs provide unrealistic expectations for regions or countries, particularly those starting out at a
lower economic threshold than others (such as Sub-Saharan Africa).49 For example, many
contend that MDG 2, which calls for all countries to achieve universal primary education by
48 Remarks by President Barack Obama at the Millennium Development Goals Summit, New York, NY, September 22,
2010, available at http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/147593.htm.
49 For further information, see William Easterly, How the Millennium Development Goals are Unfair to Africa,
Brookings Institution, Global Economy & Development Working Paper 14, November 2007.
Congressional Research Service
12
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
2015, is unrealistic for many poor countries because it asks them to achieve in 15 years what
other countries have taken over a century to attain. Such unrealistic expectations, critics argue, set
countries up for failure. In the same vein, some are concerned that the idealistic or utopian aspects
of the MDGs may detract from actual development successes. For example, a country may
achieve historic (but not universal) increases in primary school enrollment or access to
reproductive health, but technically “fail†to achieve MDGs 2 and 5. Critics argue that rather than
being branded as failures for not achieving the MDGs, countries should be applauded for their
achievements.50
Aid Effectiveness
As expected, debate over appropriate aid levels was at the heart of the discussions held at the
High-level Meeting in September. Many aid advocates, particularly representatives of aid-
recipient countries, assert that lack of progress on the MDGs can, in many instances, be attributed
to insufficient levels of aid and they encouraged donor
countries at the Meeting to commit to higher aid levels.
MDG Perspectives in the
Others contend that there is little evidence indicating that
International Community
higher aid levels lead to greater development impacts, and
There is disagreement among some in the
that many developing countries have demonstrated an
international community regarding the role
of the MDGs in global development
inability to use aid effectively. Some even argue that aid
efforts. Many argue that the Goals should
can be counterproductive to development, as it can distort
be viewed as aspirational targets that serve
economic incentives, flood capacity, and create
as a tool to galvanize activists, raise public
dependency. The lack of consistent and reliable
awareness of global poverty, and
monitoring and evaluation of development assistance
encourage larger aid budgets. Others
contend that they should be taken literally,
programs results in inconclusive data, leaving the debate
and argue that countries should meet the
unresolved.
commitments made in the Millennium
Declaration and strive to achieve all eight
This issue of aid volume versus aid effectiveness is central
goals by 2015. Still others are skeptical of
not only to discussions related to the MDGs but also to
the MDG concept, viewing it as part of a
historical pattern of world leaders making
U.S. foreign aid policy. The U.S. delegation at the High-
commitments to reduce poverty in the
level Meeting downplayed calls for more aid, focusing
United Nations or other fora that rarely, if
instead on aid effectiveness and on the role of non-aid
ever, result in successful outcomes. These
tools of development, such as trade and investment.51 The
disparate views on the role of the MDGs
underlie almost al aspects of the debate
MDG global action plan from the High-level Meeting
regarding their progress and effectiveness.
called on governments to fulfill their aid commitments,
but did not include new commitments. Nevertheless,
stakeholders may pressure Congress to increase foreign aid appropriations to reflect the needs
highlighted in the action plan produced by the summit.
Selective Use of Aid
A common criticism of the MDGs is that they try to accomplish everything at once, and are
therefore so impractical as to be useless. Given the lingering effects of the global financial crisis,
and accompanying fiscal constraints, Members of Congress may feel a greater need than ever to
50 Michael Clemens and Todd Moss, What’s Wrong with the Millennium Development Goals? Center for Global
Development, September 2005, at http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/3940.
51 Keeping the Promise: United to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, p. 29.
Congressional Research Service
13
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
prioritize U.S. development assistance. Efforts have been made by NGOs at the international
level, most notably through the Copenhagen Consensus project, to help policymakers prioritize
various development challenges based on estimated costs and benefits.52
The Obama Administration has stated that selectivity and division of labor among donors are an
important emphasis of the new development strategy it announced at the High-level Meeting.
Prioritizing programs, however, can be challenging in many respects. Virtually all development
activities have strong supporters both in the United States and globally who can make selectivity
politically difficult. Furthermore, as the U.S. MDG strategy statement emphasizes, many
development activities are interrelated. For example, the Bush Administration focused foreign
assistance resources heavily on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, making tremendous gains in
the number of people who had access to antiretroviral drugs and in preventing the transmission of
HIV/AIDS to many newborns. Many global health experts contend, however, that this progress
on HIV/AIDS has come at the expense of basic healthcare, education, and nutrition, all of which
are essential to ongoing efforts to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and extend the survival of those
infected with HIV.
Accountability
Some experts attribute limited advancement toward the MDGs to the absence of accountability
stipulations. If a government or aid program does not deliver on its promises, whether due to poor
design, corruption, or other factors, the intended recipients generally have no recourse. Attempts
have been made at the international level to address this problem. The Paris Declaration on Aid
Effectiveness, for example, has goals and indicators against which individual donor and recipient
country progress is monitored and reported on a regular basis. The MDGs, however, are silent on
the issue of donor and recipient country responsibilities in achieving the Goals. Congress has
repeatedly emphasized accountability and the need for greater monitoring and evaluation as part
of foreign aid reform, and the Bush and Obama Administrations have been consistent in asserting
that mutual accountability and evidence of impact are central to U.S. development policy. The
global action plan on the MDGs agreed to at the September High-level Meeting addresses
accountability in broad terms, but breaks no new ground on the issue.53
Conclusions
While evidence of MDG effectiveness in advancing global development is uneven a decade after
the adoption of the Millennium Declaration, the international community, including the United
States, continues to use the Goals as a paradigm for development assistance. The September
High-level Meeting, and the negotiations that preceded it, were an opportunity for the United
States to both demonstrate commitment to the Goals and lead the global development assistance
discussion toward a greater emphasis on accountability, good governance, sustainability of
52 The Copenhagen Consensus project has convened some of the world’s leading economists to use cost-benefit
analysis to measure the extent to which development gains would result from additional investments in various sectors.
For more information, see http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com.
53 The document, Keeping the Promise: United to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, states on page 3 that
“each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development … †but “development efforts at
the national level need to be supported by an enabling national and international environment that compliments national
actions and strategies.â€
Congressional Research Service
14
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
development programs and other priorities consistent with both U.S. foreign policy and lessons
learned over the first 10 years of efforts to achieve the MDGs. The new U.S. development policy
laid out at the Meeting by President Obama not only clarifies the Administration’s priorities, but
may provide a foundation for foreign aid reform legislation in the 112th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
15
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Appendix. The Millennium Development Goals
Table A-1. MDGs and Targets
GOAL TARGETS
(1) Halving, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income
is less than one dollar a day.
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme
(2) Achieving full and productive employment and decent work for all,
hunger
including women and young people.
(3) Halving, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer
from hunger.
Goal 2: Achieve universal
(1) Ensuring that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be
primary education
able to complete a full course of primary schooling.
Goal 3: Promote gender
equality and empowering
(1) Eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably
women
by 2005, and in al levels of education no later than 2015.
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality (1) Reducing by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality
rate.
Goal 5: Improve maternal
(1) Reducing by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal
health
mortality ratio.
(2) Achieving, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health.
(1) Halting, by 2015, and beginning to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS,
(2) Achieving, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all
malaria, and other diseases
those who need it.
(3) Halting, by 2015, and beginning to reverse the incidence of malaria and
other major diseases.
(1) Integrating the principles of sustainable development into country policies
and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources.
(2) Reducing biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the
Goal 7: Ensure environmental
rate of loss.
sustainability
(3) Halving, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to
safe drinking water and basic sanitation.
(4) Achieving, by 2020, a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100
million slum dwellers.
(1) Addressing the special needs of the least developed countries, landlocked
countries, and small island developing states.
(2) Developing further an open rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory
trading and financial system.
Goal 8: Develop a global
(3) Deal comprehensively with countries’ debt.
partnership for development
(4) In coordination with the private sector, make available the benefit of new
technologies, especially information and communications.
(5) In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to
affordable, essential drugs in developing countries.
(6) In cooperation with the private sector, make available benefits of new
technologies, especially information and communications.
Sources: U.N. Millennium Development Goals website, and United Nations Millennium Declaration (U.N.
document, A/RES/55/2, September 8, 2000).
Congressional Research Service
16
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Figure A-1. MDG Progress, 2009
Congressional Research Service
17
The Millennium Development Goals: The September 2010 U.N. High-level Meeting
Source: Compiled by the Statistics Division, U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, from data and
estimates provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization; Inter-Parliamentary Union; International Labor
Organization; International Telecommunications Union; UNAIDS; UNESCO; U.N. HABITAT; U.N. Population
Division; World Bank, World Health Organization, based on statistics available as of June 2009.
Notes: For regional groupings and country data, see http://mdgs.un.org. Country experiences in each region may
differ from the regional average.
Author Contact Information
Luisa Blanchfield
Marian Leonardo Lawson
Specialist in International Relations
Analyst in Foreign Assistance
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856
mlawson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4475
Congressional Research Service
18