MDGs and the future of development

With over a billion people in the world starving and almost a third of the world's children malnourished, something simply must be done about poverty in poor nations. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were created and codified by the United Nations from 2000 to 2001 to set up a simultaneous assault on poverty in its many dimensions: income, hunger, disease, education, environment and exclusion. WE hear a lot today about how governments need to increase their aid to 0.7 percent of GNI so that the MDGs can be realised. But the goals that the MDGs hope to achieve are unlikely to occur simply through an influx of money. Sustained, diverse development assistance that takes into account local conditions is needed along with measurable targets and regular evaluations.

In 2001, the UN asked Columbia University economist, Jeffrey Sachs, to head up the Millennium Project and devise an implementation plan for the MDGs. The Millennium Project named 449 interventions that it believed the international community must advance simultaneously by 2015 if the MDGs are to be successful. Sachs' philosophy is commonly called the "big push." He advocates for substantial investment to be made in developing countries, over a short period of time, in order to propel poor countries into development. The problem is that this strategy runs the risk of assuming one grand plan and strategy can fix the problem of poverty when the conditions of poverty are actually unique in every place and context-specific answers are needed. As fellow economist William Easterly suggests, greater amounts of aid do not necessarily lead to higher investment and growth. Easterly actually suggests that higher aid can sometimes even negate both investment and growth, ultimately encouraging ongoing poverty.

In 2009 Rwanda's President asked for a new approach to development assistance. He wanted an approach that saw rich and poor countries working together, that used the potential of the globalised market and that embraced and harnessed diversity instead of trying to roll one solution out in every place. This is very different to the approach argued for by Sachs and the Millennium Project.

There is much to be hopeful about. Development assistance can make a very real difference, but we must not be naive about the challenges involved or the commitment required. The aspirations of the MDGs must be connected with thoughtful approaches to development if we are to see them turned from a dream into reality.

• Read a more detailed examination of the MDGs and the future of development assistance, by Maxim Institute Researcher, Jane Silloway Smith.

Rewarding teachers well

Once again there is a stand-off between teachers and the government over teacher pay and conditions. There is a talk of a strike next week from secondary school teachers with the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) unhappy that their requests for such things as capped class sizes, laptops and a four percent pay rise have not been met. One way to end these constant stalemates is to see standards introduced for teachers, that would create a career progression, enhance the status of teaching and would give teachers a chance to work towards the higher pay they are fighting for.

There is no doubt that good teachers deserve to be well rewarded. The trouble is, we can't afford to pay every teacher, good, bad and downright lousy, $100,000 to stay in the profession. And we wouldn't want to if we could. Some teachers should walk away from the classroom and pursue other careers that better suit them. At the moment, all teachers, regardless of their quality are paid at the same rate, making it very difficult to attract and retain excellent teachers.

Introducing teacher standards would provide a way to assess the quality of a teacher and reward them accordingly. The concern from some corners seems to be largely connected to how "performance" would be measured. If a teacher had a particularly difficult class, they may not get good results despite being an excellent teacher, and may therefore receive an unfairly low pay. The fear is more broadly that teachers would be assessed against crude criteria that cannot reflect all that they do. Teaching would become, some argue, about numerical results, without recognition of the multiple factors that go into good teaching.

These concerns are valid. But they don't mean we should throw out the entire idea of teacher standards. What it does mean is that any system would need to be very carefully calibrated to get the best possible impression about how teachers really are performing. Teacher standards would be a way of linking pay to quality, allowing excellent teachers to be identified and rewarded. The status quo, that we are living with at the moment, is far from ideal as we continue to wade through seemingly endless rounds of negotiations that leave all parties disappointed.

• Read Maxim Institute's Issues Snapshot on "Rewarding Teachers."

Welfare needs review

Over the past twelve months the Government has made tentative steps towards assessing and addressing deficiencies in the New Zealand benefit system by tweaking aspects of the system and establishing a Working Group to look into the area. According to the first report, recently released from that Group, the "phenomenon of many people entering the benefit system and remaining there for long periods has become increasingly prevalent in New Zealand." The report has received a lot of criticism and is limited in its scope, but the problems it presents warrant serious attention—and not only from the government.

The Group is suggesting that the current benefit system actually contains some disincentives to paid work and does not adequately support people to move from the benefit and into work. Consequently, they argue, people can become dependent on the benefit and therefore do not benefit from the social, mental, financial and physical benefits of work.

For some, such as those with permanent disabilities, lifelong benefits in some form will be appropriate. For many others, benefits should provide short-term assistance before they move into paid work. It is easy to collectively pat ourselves on the back for providing benefits that keep people afloat, without providing more holistic support that would assist people in not just surviving, but flourishing. For example, those who have been dependent on welfare long term may lack the habits, the knowledge or the inner resources to hunt work down and stick at it. Getting out of their rut requires more than a benefit cheque or paperwork. It requires significant personal support, to help people build the skills that will help them gain and retain work.

Government review is very important to make sure the most appropriate support is given where it is needed and to clear away the unintended drawbacks in the system, like high abatement rates. But the benefit system alone cannot ensure a person's well-being. No matter how tight, no matter how well incentivised, a benefit system can only provide a framework, resources and possibly a nudge in the right direction. What is crucial alongside it are human relationships; people doing what they can to help each other. A neighbour practising a job interview with the young man next door, or an employer being willing to give an inexperienced person a chance—these sorts of scenarios will be vital for the situation to improve.

• Read the Welfare Working Group's report