Like all contributors to the debate so far, I am convinced that inequality should be an important theme on anyone’s development agenda. But the label ‘post-2015 development agenda’ has a very specific referent, and opinions differ if inequality should or should not be part of that particular agenda.
The debate about the post-MDG agenda focuses on many issues, but seems to assume that it is clear what the use of the agenda is, whatever its bullet points. Also, it is supposed that the usefulness of the post-2015 agenda is mainly determined by its content. Therefore, a particular content proposal for inclusion in the new agenda is being discussed. Like all contributors to the debate so far, I am convinced that inequality, of fairer outcomes that is (let me skip the important debate about the difficulties to set one or more specific targets) should be an important theme on anyone’s development agenda. But the label ‘post-2015 development agenda’ has a very specific referent, and opinions differ if inequality should or should not be part of that particular agenda.
What puzzles me is that, however important the inequality theme for the general development debate, it is very difficult to envision some of the most powerful UN member states, the US especially, signing up to the inclusion of more equal outcomes in this particular agenda. Nevertheless, whatever the arguments, only Stephan Klasen’s contribution directly refers to the political dimension underlying this reality.
And even his contribution describes the difficulty more as a technical than a political one. Maybe the lack of reference to the political dimension of the post-2015 agenda was triggered by the substantive core of the dossier which focuses on the evidence and debates regarding the various forms and definitions, and the impacts of inequality? Only Sara Murawski’s related feature entitled ‘How the World Bank, IMF and OECD changed their course. Or did they?’ mentions the central role of politics in this particular version of the inequality debate. I find that puzzling, because it seems obvious that for an agenda setting process it is important that proposals have at least a fighting chance of being feasible. And what is feasible is determined by what the agenda is meant to accomplish and what kind of political support it requires to do that.
What is specific about the current agenda is that it sets the most broadly supported poverty reduction targets ever, all UN member states and its organizations, other important international institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD, all are on board. Sure, one may argue what ‘on board’ actually means given the way some of the commitments are being lived up to. But that doesn’t change the fact that a distinguishing characteristic of the MDG agenda is its unanimous support. At least if one compares them to their only peer, the Kyoto protocol. Never mind the legal and other differences between the two, one is an agenda with no explicit drop outs, the other is an agenda with some very powerful ones, and with some others in the ‘important’ category, e.g. China, that would be drop outs if they would have to commit to binding commitments.
To cut a long argument short: arguing for inclusion of more outcome equality in the post-MDG agenda means arguing for a post-2015 agenda that is more like the Kyoto protocol than the current MDGs. I’m not knowledgeable enough to argue either for or against such a scenario. But I would hope that some who are, present their arguments in this debate. How important is having the broadest possible political support for the post-2015 agenda going to be for its impact?