Tweet
PRESS RELEASE
UN Department of Public Information, Yerevan Office
2 Petros Adamyan str., First Floor
Yerevan 375010, Armenia
Contact: Armine Halajyan, UN DPI Information Assistant
Tel.: (374 1) 560 212
Fax/Tel.: (374 1) 561 406
http://www.undpi.am
Millennium Development Goals-an Agenda for Human Development
Interview with Professor Jerzy Osiatynski, MDGs Advocate for
East and Central Europe and CIS Countries
UN DPI's Information Assistant, Armine Halajyan, met Professor Osiatynski on
his second visit to Armenia, during which he was calling for a better
understanding of MDGs and how they mesh with the Poverty Reduction Strategy
Paper (PRSP) and other Government policies. An economist by profession and
a professor of economics at the Institute of Economics in the Polish Academy
of Sciences, he has also enjoyed something of a political career as Minister
of Finance (1991-1992) and a member of Polish Parliament (1989-2001).
* Could you define the MDGs? What are they? Are they merely theoretical
guidelines or can they be employed in everyday life?
When the Millennium Declaration was signed by 190 nations in 2000, it was
billed at first as a concept or framework to help create national strategies
to deal with the basic challenges facing humanity in the UN member
countries. The 8 goals address the most critical issues: poverty, education,
health, gender, environment. Goal 8 differs slightly in that it recommends
public and private partnership, and global partnership towards achieving
those goals. Partnership at the global level calls for the rich to assist
the poor to meet those MDGs, while at the national level it challenges the
corporate sector to find ways to feel and be responsible in guiding public
goals, private business, private sector partners, and local and central
government towards achieving the other MDGs.
This means that the MDGs had to be formulated in broad terms so that all 190
countries could sign the declaration. However, it was and still is believed
that the goals need to be localized or domesticated by every country in
order to address specific issues; there is an effort in the Regional Bureau
for European Countries to take the broad theory of MDGs and work it into
more specific targets for each local area, taking into account the most
pressing needs of each.
Moreover, MDGs touch everyday life since the various strategies of social
development that are driven by them require the participation of all kinds
of stakeholders.
* Since this is your second visit to Armenia, you have some idea of how the
MDGs are being approached here. Armenia committed itself to these Goals when
it signed the declaration but parallel to this there is the PRSP process and
the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) in which Armenia is included. How do
these various strategies and activities currently underway relate to each
other?
I think there has been great progress in Armenia towards developing a
poverty reduction strategy that goes far beyond a mere emphasis on economic
growth. Of course, it is true that as an economy grows, the average wage
increases and thus, as a rule, poverty is reduced. However, there is no
guarantee that this will occur-we have seen many cases in countries
transitioning from communism to democracy and market economy where national
economic growth has not led to a reduction in poverty. When the difference
between household incomes rapidly increases, you may have economic growth
but an increase in poverty. Moreover, we know that poverty is often a rural
phenomenon, especially where land is infertile and in mountainous regions;
economic growth is mainly concentrated in large urban areas. So, economic
growth alone cannot produce holistic development. That is why we have
recently seen a shift in thinking about development from emphasizing
economic growth towards stressing the need for human development and access
to education, health and other public services. Indeed, in many countries in
the region we see that respective poverty reduction strategies are
increasingly MDG-driven because the MDGs form an agenda for human
development-they include economic development but are not confined to it. So
in a sense you may say that there is huge overlap between the PRSP and MDGs
in Armenia. With time we will see more and more of this overlap.
* What is the current connection between these two? And what about the link
with the MCA, which is addressed to only 16 countries?
Estimates carried out under the Millennium project showed that poor
countries could only meet their respective localized Millennium Goals if
they received an annual transfer of around 50 billion dollars.
* Does that mean there are only 16 'poor' countries?
No-there are many more. And, of course, there is poverty in rich states
too-in the US or EU countries, for example. Nevertheless, some months ago
the US Government decided to donate 2 billion dollars to help countries that
would otherwise struggle to meet the MDGs. We could say that we are now only
48 billion short! The US Government named 16 countries that would benefit
from this 2 billion. Quotas granted will not be uniform, but approximately
140-150 million dollars will be donated each year-a large sum, especially
for relatively small countries. The MCA exists to allocate the money to
projects that are mainly ensuring sustainable growth-you could say that
money will be given to eligible poor countries in order to promote economic
development. The money can be spent on projects proposed by Government,
local government or NGOs-the only condition is that the stakeholder must be
able to show that the money will be used to advance the MDGs. This is the
link. The MCA is not an alternative to the MDGs. In fact, those involved
need to show progress towards achieving MDGs if financial assistance is to
continue.
When the money was offered as a grant, all the governments of the 16
eligible countries immediately turned towards proposing projects that would
be oriented towards economic growth-not always MDG-oriented. This was a
mistake. And I suspect that this is one of the reasons why there are some
difficulties with grant allocations to Armenia. I believe that the projects
that will be accepted and approved will be those alleviating poverty in poor
localities and serving the wider achievement of all MDGs.
* Since you are the advocate for Eastern Europe and CIS countries, I wonder
what you can tell us about how our immediate neighbours, Georgia and
Azerbaijan, are doing in achieving the MDGs?
That is a difficult question to answer. I haven't been to either of those
two countries and all I know about their progress is second-hand from
reading their documents. Obviously, I wouldn't like to make any judgments
based on that sort of information. However, I would like to make a different
point in this context: the whole philosophy of the MDGs requires that the
political commitment of countries that signed the Millennium Declaration is
clearly visible. It is vital that there is evidence of progress in achieving
MDGs. In a sense, whether all targets and goals are reached is of secondary
importance. I am not saying reaching goals does not matter, but perhaps more
important is political commitment that brings progress significant enough to
be felt by the general public. We certainly do not want to put any emphasis
on cross-country comparisons. It is a national agenda for every country's
government. It is an agenda for the whole nation or local government, or
NGOs. This is not a beauty contest! We want to see every country progressing
towards the goals according to their own specific needs with their own
specific agenda and their own policy instruments to address all these
issues. That is the essence of localizing the MDGs.
* How are MDGs prioritized? For Armenia, Goal 1 is the priority, as we had
mentioned earlier. But which goal comes next in your opinion?
Prioritization means that many countries have several strategies but there
are limited resources. All Government projects are subject to hard budget
constraints and thus they need to fit into the medium term budget
expenditure. In this context you need to decide how much you are willing to
spend on specific concerns. This is how I understand prioritization.
* Is there any advice you'd like to add-for the government or general
public?
I think Armenia still has a fair way to go before genuine participation is
ensured-and the same could be said for government and financial
decentralization. Responsibilities for delivering some public goods should
not be delegated without first decentralizing finances. It is absolutely
vital to do that.
Also, we are in a process that clearly takes a long time to bear
fruit-change is required within a whole generation. It is crucial that the
corporate culture of governance is revised. Good governance and elimination
of corruption might become a separate and a rather important additional goal
in Armenia, just as Albania decided to make it. This agenda as a separate
goal has its own policy instruments, own targets and own indicators. I think
it could make sense if the Albanian experience is carefully studied here and
taken into consideration.
The interview is published in issue #22 of the UN Armenia Office Bulletin to
be posted soon at http://www.undpi.am/period.asp
* * *
UN Department of Public Information, Yerevan Office
2 Petros Adamyan str., First Floor
Yerevan 375010, Armenia
Contact: Armine Halajyan, UN DPI Information Assistant
Tel.: (374 1) 560 212
Fax/Tel.: (374 1) 561 406
http://www.undpi.am
Millennium Development Goals-an Agenda for Human Development
Interview with Professor Jerzy Osiatynski, MDGs Advocate for
East and Central Europe and CIS Countries
UN DPI's Information Assistant, Armine Halajyan, met Professor Osiatynski on
his second visit to Armenia, during which he was calling for a better
understanding of MDGs and how they mesh with the Poverty Reduction Strategy
Paper (PRSP) and other Government policies. An economist by profession and
a professor of economics at the Institute of Economics in the Polish Academy
of Sciences, he has also enjoyed something of a political career as Minister
of Finance (1991-1992) and a member of Polish Parliament (1989-2001).
* Could you define the MDGs? What are they? Are they merely theoretical
guidelines or can they be employed in everyday life?
When the Millennium Declaration was signed by 190 nations in 2000, it was
billed at first as a concept or framework to help create national strategies
to deal with the basic challenges facing humanity in the UN member
countries. The 8 goals address the most critical issues: poverty, education,
health, gender, environment. Goal 8 differs slightly in that it recommends
public and private partnership, and global partnership towards achieving
those goals. Partnership at the global level calls for the rich to assist
the poor to meet those MDGs, while at the national level it challenges the
corporate sector to find ways to feel and be responsible in guiding public
goals, private business, private sector partners, and local and central
government towards achieving the other MDGs.
This means that the MDGs had to be formulated in broad terms so that all 190
countries could sign the declaration. However, it was and still is believed
that the goals need to be localized or domesticated by every country in
order to address specific issues; there is an effort in the Regional Bureau
for European Countries to take the broad theory of MDGs and work it into
more specific targets for each local area, taking into account the most
pressing needs of each.
Moreover, MDGs touch everyday life since the various strategies of social
development that are driven by them require the participation of all kinds
of stakeholders.
* Since this is your second visit to Armenia, you have some idea of how the
MDGs are being approached here. Armenia committed itself to these Goals when
it signed the declaration but parallel to this there is the PRSP process and
the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) in which Armenia is included. How do
these various strategies and activities currently underway relate to each
other?
I think there has been great progress in Armenia towards developing a
poverty reduction strategy that goes far beyond a mere emphasis on economic
growth. Of course, it is true that as an economy grows, the average wage
increases and thus, as a rule, poverty is reduced. However, there is no
guarantee that this will occur-we have seen many cases in countries
transitioning from communism to democracy and market economy where national
economic growth has not led to a reduction in poverty. When the difference
between household incomes rapidly increases, you may have economic growth
but an increase in poverty. Moreover, we know that poverty is often a rural
phenomenon, especially where land is infertile and in mountainous regions;
economic growth is mainly concentrated in large urban areas. So, economic
growth alone cannot produce holistic development. That is why we have
recently seen a shift in thinking about development from emphasizing
economic growth towards stressing the need for human development and access
to education, health and other public services. Indeed, in many countries in
the region we see that respective poverty reduction strategies are
increasingly MDG-driven because the MDGs form an agenda for human
development-they include economic development but are not confined to it. So
in a sense you may say that there is huge overlap between the PRSP and MDGs
in Armenia. With time we will see more and more of this overlap.
* What is the current connection between these two? And what about the link
with the MCA, which is addressed to only 16 countries?
Estimates carried out under the Millennium project showed that poor
countries could only meet their respective localized Millennium Goals if
they received an annual transfer of around 50 billion dollars.
* Does that mean there are only 16 'poor' countries?
No-there are many more. And, of course, there is poverty in rich states
too-in the US or EU countries, for example. Nevertheless, some months ago
the US Government decided to donate 2 billion dollars to help countries that
would otherwise struggle to meet the MDGs. We could say that we are now only
48 billion short! The US Government named 16 countries that would benefit
from this 2 billion. Quotas granted will not be uniform, but approximately
140-150 million dollars will be donated each year-a large sum, especially
for relatively small countries. The MCA exists to allocate the money to
projects that are mainly ensuring sustainable growth-you could say that
money will be given to eligible poor countries in order to promote economic
development. The money can be spent on projects proposed by Government,
local government or NGOs-the only condition is that the stakeholder must be
able to show that the money will be used to advance the MDGs. This is the
link. The MCA is not an alternative to the MDGs. In fact, those involved
need to show progress towards achieving MDGs if financial assistance is to
continue.
When the money was offered as a grant, all the governments of the 16
eligible countries immediately turned towards proposing projects that would
be oriented towards economic growth-not always MDG-oriented. This was a
mistake. And I suspect that this is one of the reasons why there are some
difficulties with grant allocations to Armenia. I believe that the projects
that will be accepted and approved will be those alleviating poverty in poor
localities and serving the wider achievement of all MDGs.
* Since you are the advocate for Eastern Europe and CIS countries, I wonder
what you can tell us about how our immediate neighbours, Georgia and
Azerbaijan, are doing in achieving the MDGs?
That is a difficult question to answer. I haven't been to either of those
two countries and all I know about their progress is second-hand from
reading their documents. Obviously, I wouldn't like to make any judgments
based on that sort of information. However, I would like to make a different
point in this context: the whole philosophy of the MDGs requires that the
political commitment of countries that signed the Millennium Declaration is
clearly visible. It is vital that there is evidence of progress in achieving
MDGs. In a sense, whether all targets and goals are reached is of secondary
importance. I am not saying reaching goals does not matter, but perhaps more
important is political commitment that brings progress significant enough to
be felt by the general public. We certainly do not want to put any emphasis
on cross-country comparisons. It is a national agenda for every country's
government. It is an agenda for the whole nation or local government, or
NGOs. This is not a beauty contest! We want to see every country progressing
towards the goals according to their own specific needs with their own
specific agenda and their own policy instruments to address all these
issues. That is the essence of localizing the MDGs.
* How are MDGs prioritized? For Armenia, Goal 1 is the priority, as we had
mentioned earlier. But which goal comes next in your opinion?
Prioritization means that many countries have several strategies but there
are limited resources. All Government projects are subject to hard budget
constraints and thus they need to fit into the medium term budget
expenditure. In this context you need to decide how much you are willing to
spend on specific concerns. This is how I understand prioritization.
* Is there any advice you'd like to add-for the government or general
public?
I think Armenia still has a fair way to go before genuine participation is
ensured-and the same could be said for government and financial
decentralization. Responsibilities for delivering some public goods should
not be delegated without first decentralizing finances. It is absolutely
vital to do that.
Also, we are in a process that clearly takes a long time to bear
fruit-change is required within a whole generation. It is crucial that the
corporate culture of governance is revised. Good governance and elimination
of corruption might become a separate and a rather important additional goal
in Armenia, just as Albania decided to make it. This agenda as a separate
goal has its own policy instruments, own targets and own indicators. I think
it could make sense if the Albanian experience is carefully studied here and
taken into consideration.
The interview is published in issue #22 of the UN Armenia Office Bulletin to
be posted soon at http://www.undpi.am/period.asp
* * *