Magdalena Kania

ZBN Analysis no. 14 (33) / 2018

26 October 2018

© 2018 Uniwersytet Jagielloński & Magdalena Kania

In September 2015 the United Nations announced the Agenda 2030, an international guideline for governments, international organizations and other stakeholders to stimulate coherent actions and monitor progress towards the implementation of 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Recognizing chronic poverty as one of the greatest challenges facing humanity, the parties committed themselves to eradicate poverty in all its forms everywhere. However, in practice, the increasing international mobilization does not result in effectiveness. The pace of poverty reduction is slower than expected. The analysis presents the current international efforts, as well as it discusses the challenges faced by the political actors.

Agenda 2030: Where are we to date and where are we heading to?

The first three-year period has passed by since the global leaders hammered out in September 2015 the ambitious project of the Agenda 2030. Since then, the agenda  has performed a role of international guideline for the governments, international organizations, private sector and many other stakeholders in their efforts to create an  inclusive environment for actors united in a desire to equalize the social, economic and environmental dimensions of development within and among the countries. The Agenda set out, as a frame document, 17 Sustainable Development Goals which replaced the unfinished agenda of their predecessors, Millennium Development Goals which expired in 2015. The first goal of the Agenda was summarized as End Poverty (SDG01). This commitment aims at eradicating poverty in all forms everywhere for all. Regarding the fact, that “poverty is, at the same time, stark and conceptually elusive” (World Bank Group 2017, p. vii) the World Bank set the threshold of $1.90 a day, below of which the population is estimated to live in extreme poverty (the threshold updated in October 2015 from $1.25 a day). The targets of the SDG01, along with eradicating poverty of people living on less than $1.25 a day, point out the necessity of implementation of the social protection system as well as urgent need to build resilient societies by reducing the exposition of the most vulnerable groups (women, children and youth, older people, people with disabilities) to social and economic disruptions. In relation to SDG01, the goal of ending hunger (SDG02) is complemented by an objective to achieve food security and  improve nutrition as well as promote agriculture. Given that the Agenda 2030 is based on the assumption that all 17 goals are indivisible, inseparable and intertwined, SDG01 and SDG02 include targets related to other goals, i.e. access to water (SDG06), gender equality (SDG05), or climate change-related disasters (SDG13).

The Agenda is not a binding document and therefore it lacks  an attribute of enforceability. However, governments committed themselves to deliver country-led follow-up and review processes. The follow-up shall be embedded in the principles of openness, transparency and participatory approach embracing all relevant stakeholders at the national, subnational and local levels (Cf. Agenda 2030 par. 72-77). However, the weak and under-resourced mechanisms of data gathering along with the lack of sound and reliable statistical offices and institutions in  the least developed countries in Africa hinder the process of monitoring and evaluation, turning measurement of progress and drafting of recommendations into a vague and sketchy estimation due to limited accessibility and quality of data (Cf. Africa Sustainable Development Report 2017, pp. 3-6).

Masking out the faces of underdevelopment: Feminization and juvenilization of poverty

With the number of those suffering from poverty exceeding 700 million people (estimated 10-11% of the world population), the goal of zero poverty is both a spur and reward for the international community. Limited access to resources and ownership of land and other properties, social exclusion, inequalities, vulnerability  to volatility of global economy or economic and environmental disasters restrict the access to education or decent work resulting in a low productivity.  Current trends captured by the World Bank (September 2018) show the decline of extreme poverty around the world, although the pace of reduction of the number of people living in a chronic poverty is slower than expected. With no significant change in that pace, the plausibility of meeting the commitment of SDG01 in 2030 is questioned.

For years the indicators of poverty have been based on the national averages. Since it provides a general overview of trends allowing to identify the increasing/decreasing tendencies in certain regions (World Bank data, updated in September 2018), it does not cover up the inequalities among particular social groups. As a consequence, the most vulnerable and deprived social groups are untraceable. As estimated by the UN, women and girls are among the most affected by poverty. Consequently, the trend of feminization of poverty, a term used by the UN in the resolution of 1996, underlines  the biases against women and girls in the structure of poverty. The concept, therefore, refers to the overlapping trends of overrepresentation of women in the world’s poor and the anticipated correlation between women’s increasing poverty and the increasing frequency of female household headship (cf. Chant 2006). Yet, despite being a catchy phrase, the term lacks specification, and due to sparse statistical data it also lacks substantial empirical evidence (cf. Chant 2008).

Only recently the World Bank refuted the well-known “zombie statistics” of 70% of the world’s poor to be women (in fact, the current estimation shows ca 50%). Yet, there are no credible global estimates of poverty rates disaggregated by the sex indicator[i]. Persistently, the majority of the world’s poor live in the Sub-Saharan Africa (41% headcount ratio). However, at the regional level, the rates of gender gaps in poverty are most tangible in Central and Southern Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean and Oceania[ii]. Globally, the estimation shows average 122 women for every 100 men aged 25-34 living in poor households, with the exception of Latin America, where the average number of women reaches the peak of 132 women per 100 men[iii]. To track the rising trends of gender disparities, the UN has launched in 1995 (Human Development Report of 1995) two gender-related indicators: Gender Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment Report (GEM). Despite ambitions to raise the sensitivity of gender-related issues, both measurements gathered more critics than positive voices (cf. Klasen 2006; Schüller 2006).

Not surprisingly, the number of women living in poverty is correlated with their respective degrees of education and the place of living. Regarding the former, constraints in the access to education for girls are narrowing, although gender gaps are still visible at the regional level. For instance, in the region of Sub-Saharan Africa 18.6 million primary out-of-schools were females in comparison with 15.6 million males; in developed regions, the number was estimated at 1.1 million primary out-of-school females and 1.3 million out-of-school males (see more: UNESCO 2016). Huge discrepancies are observable in the regions of Oceania and Western Africa. Regarding the localization of poverty, despite the fact that more poor women live in the rural areas, the trend of rural-urban migration becomes gendered, what remains specifically visible in the region of Latin America (see: UN Habitat Report of 2013). According to estimates in the UN Habitat Report of 2013 on the state of women in cities, women migrate to urban areas in search of decent work, to escape from poverty or gender-related discrimination. Yet, the cities pose new constraints and disadvantages. Beyond theory, the practice of equal access to employment, ownership or education is a far cry from reality. Moreover, in many developing countries over 50% of female urban dwellers live in slums with none or restricted access to clean water and basic sanitation (SDG06), or to decent housing what, consequently, affects their nutrition habits, food security (SDG02), health practices (SDG03) and education (SDG0[iv]. As a consequence, a vicious circle of underdevelopment endures. The urbanization of poverty alongside with its gender dimension is expected to be a growing trend both in quantitative and qualitative terms.

Beside feminization of poverty, a similarly disturbing trend to address is the juvenilization of poverty. The implementation of a life-cycle approach to the estimation of poverty points to the conclusion that poverty declines with age. Data on gender gaps in poverty are inextricably linked to both age as well as to life events (i.e. marriage, number of children and dependencies in a household)[v]. As shown by the World Bank, “the face of poverty is young” for children and youth under 18 constitute over half of the world’s poor. More than 19% of all children live in poverty, and the number of poor girls exceeds the number of poor boys (World Bank 20164). The goal of eradicating poverty is closely related to the goal of combating hunger. However, despite intensified international efforts to eliminate hunger, the current Global Hunger Index 2018 published in last October reveals a “distressing gap” between the rate of these efforts and the rates of efforts that are really needed. Accordingly, the Index points out the rise of suffering from hunger from 80 million to approximately 124 million over only two recent years. According to the index, children are among the most affected by these trends.

The vicious circle of poverty: A leap forward or a totter backward?

Embraced in the mutual relation of duty-bearers and rights-holder, the international community has begun its combat against feminization and juvenilization of poverty with the MDGs. However, the practice of siloed approaches proved to be insufficient already. In the framework of the SDGs, a great effort has been put to prioritize the age- and gender-sensitive policies and strategies across all remaining goals, besides gender equality which has been set as SDG05. The paramountcy is to equip the most vulnerable with the tools and mechanisms protecting them from the exposure to hazardous social, economic and environmental situations. In practice, in many developing countries those in need lack the access to essential services due to underfunded and/or underqualified services.

The international community is more mobilized towards eradicating poverty than ever before. The flows of official development assistance (ODA) are relatively stable and high across developed countries (Cf. OECD 2017). To overcome the duplication of tasks, the functions have been separated among particular stakeholders at the international level, separating the responsibilities (see: Agenda 2030, par. 78-91). As such, the national level is responsible for delivering planning strategies and the processes of reviews. Regional level plays the role of a platform for sharing good practices and peer-learning mechanisms. Finally, the high-level political forum oversees the follow-up and review processes. Yet, the commitment of SDG01 is still far from reaching. Here, the question of why raises. The following part gathers main arguments provided by literature and reports on the development assistance.

Multi-stakeholder partnership - more rhetoric than experienced

The debate over the proper and efficient channels of development assistance went far beyond the millennial mobilization. Previous decades have experienced a staggering shift in paradigm on how to capture, measure and interpret development. With the rejection of the modernization vision of development as economy-oriented[vi],the shift towards people-centered development occurred in the 1970s[vii]. This, along with ongoing liberalization processes, led to further decentralization trends in the 1980s and 1990s with the growing role and voice of non-state, private and public actors as the full-fledged donors. There is a significant asymmetry, however, between the incomparably largest share of assistance delivered by the states (bilateral or multilateral channels) and/or international organizations. Current agenda goes beyond traditional donors, encompassing a wide spectrum of stakeholders – governments, local authorities, civil society, academia and private sector (SDG17). However, it hardly means a turn towards participatory approach. Both at the international as well as regional levels, international organizations several times have evoked the role that decentralized actors played in development cooperation with a special position of civil societies and local authorities (Cf. The UN Agenda 21; The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; The World Summit Report on Sustainable Development of 2002). Since the announcement of the 2000 Millennial Declaration, local governments have played a crucial role in the implementation and localization of development goals. First, domestically, local authorities, being close to people, use political and economic resources to mobilize and sensitize local communities. The capacity of local governments to raise awareness of local communities has been noticed and recognized by international organizations and central governments (see: the interview with Commissioner Neven Mimica from October 2018). Ideas on how to raise awareness at home and enable inclusive environment are multiple. That is for instance the case of the German land of Baden-Württemberg, where authorities engaged local organizations, including migrant groups, to develop common guidelines for development assistance of Baden-Württemberg (see: Entwicklungspolitische Leitlinien für Baden-Württemberg 2013). Another case is the idea of a grant mechanism provided by the local government of Scotland, in which financial assistance is available in the form of grants for small-scale programmes to all prospective Scottish donors, including individuals, foundations or researchers.  Moreover, Scotland-Malawi Partnership, established in 2004, promotes people-to-people cooperation gathering over 1100 members actively involved in development projects, including universities, organizations and schools based in Scotland (see: Valuation Report of 2018). The horizontal dimension of development (local-to-local instead of central-to-local) brings about a real change since the small-scale actors are often more diligent in control and monitoring processes. Second, externally, local governments and civil societies are carriers of good practices. Simply, they are dealing with the same issues on the micro-scale, including access to water and sanitation for local communities, educational matters and healthcare. It is disappointing, then, that their role is still marginalized in the currently negotiated agreements; for instance, the post-Cotonou agreement between the EU and the ACP countries (see: the opinion of Frederic Vallier, CEMR from October 2018).

The lack of appropriate monitoring of assistance

As brought up in the previous sections, the lack of the evidence-based monitoring of currently ongoing activities is the main problem in the implementation of a particular development policies . The development assistance projects and programmes are in many cases time-bounded and limited in resources. Yet, the development is a process, not a permanent state. Consequently, it takes time to speak about the results. The time pressure associated with the timely projects affects their sustainability. An accurate evaluation of development assistance performance requires availability and a proper quality of data. From the side of assistance receivers, many African countries lack appropriate structures and systems for reporting. According to joint estimates by the African Development Bank,  African Union Commission, Economic Commission for Africa, and  UNDP, approximately $1 billion per year is required to establish statistical systems which would be capable of measuring progress in the 77 world’s lower-income countries (Africa Sustainable Development Report 2017, p. 3). Not a striking issue, many African statistical offices are deprived of political and institutional autonomy (Cf. Economic Commission of Africa 2006). Consequently, the data gaps are persistent in terms of crucial indicators, as well as there are tangible regional discrepancies in terms of reporting frequency (Cf. Cassidy 2014). The uneven coverage of indicators, lack of internationally agreed standards and principles for data collection accompanied by restricted accessibility and availability of statistics have already proved to deliver only limited monitoring and accountability[viii]. Even with certain milestones achieved in the development of statistics in Africa (for instance Africa Data Consensus of 2015; Busan Action Plan for Statistics od 2011; Strategy for the Harmonization of Statistics in Africa of 2010) the capacities of some governments are far from robust. To secure data ecosystem, financial and legal frameworks as well as institutional adjustments are needed.

The lack of resilience of societies

With no resilience capacity of societies, any development activity would persevere. Succinctly,  resilience is critical for development, however, it is often imperfect. There are connections between the low level of human development of societies (Human Development Report 2018) and fragility of political institutions (Fragile State Index 2018), however, they are not sufficient to speak about regularities. Thus, resilience is more about societies per se than robustness of institutions or soundness of legal frameworks. A widespread definition of resilience adopted in development assistance discourse points out the ability “to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth” (USAID 2016, p. 5). Such definition entails reducing the complex phenomena of resilience to societal response to shocks and stresses, regardless of how they are defined. Traditionally, it would imply prevention from man-made or natural disasters, or simply, risk management. However, it is far less than needed to address the challenges, and the meaning of shocks and stresses should also extend to economic and social volatilities (see: commentary of Daniel Runde and Conor Savoy from CSIS). Yet, the long-term aspirations do not count when short-term expectations of effectiveness are at stake and success stories are needed.