August 21, 2006	Monday	Rajab 25, 1427

AS on other fronts, Pakistan is sanguine about its progress towards the millennium development goals (MDGs). The UN member countries had adopted eight MDGs in September 2000.

These include, a) halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day and those who suffer from hunger by 2015,b) ensure that all boys and girls complete primary school by 2015, c) eliminate gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005 and eliminate all gender disparities by 2015,d) reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate among children under five by 2015,e) cut by three-quarters the ratio of women dying in childbirth by 2015, f) reduce by half the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water by 2015.

The other MDGs seek significant reduction in HIV/AIDS and other diseases, improvement in the lives of slum dwellers, sustainable development, and a global partnership for development.

This article explores whether or not Pakistan is approaching the MDGs. It also explores whether MDGs can possibly be attained through the prescription of global partnership for development.

As for poverty, population below $1 a day in Pakistan was 17 per cent in 2001 as well as in 2002 according to the latest Word Development Report and World Development Indicators of 2006. Pakistan shows per force reduction in poverty on the basis of calorie intake which gauge too is disputed. How poverty on the basis of population below $1 a day will be halved actually and not statistically by 2015 is unclear.

One can only hope that this figure is not massaged in calculations to show the results on paper and then breath, ink, and time are wasted on contending, proving, and disproving it.

The target of all boys and girls completing school by 2015 cannot be gauged as data on enrollments is available but not on graduation. The drop out rate is high which is not captured in the indicator used to measure progress in education. Stock is taken of enrollments and performance on education is assessed thus. Although primary completion rate is available for most countries, it is not available for Pakistan. Even if we assume that this rate will be available by 2015, will all boys and girls be completing school by 2015?

Net enrollment ratio of children of official school age was 66 per cent in 2004 up from 33 per cent in 1991. In 13 years, it increased by 33 percentage points. In the next 11 years, it might increase by another 33 percentage points on an optimistic note. Even if primary school enrollment reaches 99 or even 100 per cent, the target of 100 per cent primary completion rate for boys and girls will still not have been achieved if the dropout rate continues to remain high and gender disparities persist. The dropout rate is intricately linked to the score on poverty, amongst other factors.

Poor parents are not inclined to send their children to school due to high opportunity cost. Poor children are less likely to perform in school due to a lack of enabling home environment. So, if primary school enrollment and completion rates do not converge but poverty is made to take a nosedive, officially stated poverty reduction will lack credibility.

Further gender parity ratio was 71 per cent in 2002/03 in primary and secondary schools. That is female gross enrollment rate to male gross enrollment rate ratio was 0.71. This shows girls trailing behind boys in terms of enrollment not disaggregated for the primary school level and not available for the official school age girls and boys. Non-availability of data will inhibit measurement on this score. Girls’ secondary status on this count is well-known. Boys are given preferential treatment in both the areas of education and health.

However, the MDG to eliminate gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005 is missed as the ratio of 0.71 in 2002/03 could not have been increased to 1.0 in two years’ time only.

Secondary status of women is further evident from the adult literacy rate with women’s significantly behind men’s. In 2002, male adult literacy rate was 62 per cent whereas that for women was only 35 per cent——slightly better than half of what it was for the male population.

Against this backdrop, elimination of all gender disparities by 2015, as required under the MDGs, is a dream not likely to be realised by 2015 in our male-dominated society where women too lack awareness about their own status and cannot stand up for their rights in individual capacity also leave alone organizing for the purpose.

The under-five mortality rate was brought down in Pakistan from 130 per 1000 in 1990 to 101 per 1000 in 2004 (World Development Indicators, 2006). That is, in 14 years, it did not even reduce by one-third. Can it go down by two-thirds in ensuing 11 years when health expenditure was as low as 2.4 per cent of GDP in 2003 and there were 0.7 physicians per 1000 people, 0.7 hospital beds per 1000 people, and 1.1 health worker density index, that is, medics and paramedics per 1000 people which figures are not likely to take a quantum jump any time soon?

Can maternal mortality reduce by three-quarters by 2015 when births attended by skilled health staff increased by a mere one-fifth in 13 years until 2003? As for access to drinking water, a proxy is used to measure performance by gauging access to an improved water source. Progress on this indicator is impressive as access to a better water source improved from 83 in 1990 to 90 per cent population by 2002.

But improved water source is not the same as safe drinking water and the definition of “access” too is not clear. For, people should receive clean running water in their homes 24 hours a day which is a major problem even in the best of urban areas in Pakistan.

The MDGs are ambitious. They are difficult targets primarily because national governments are driven towards conventional economic indicators such as the GDP growth rate and per capita income. If these traditional economic indicators improve, governments have a reason to pat themselves on the back. However, they acknowledge the importance of MDGs. But, these are not integrated in national development goals and strategies which is why emphasis is on growth and per capita income but not on distribution.

Until such time that distributive aspects are woven into national economic strategies, MDGs will be viewed as add-ons rather than a logical outcome of the process of development. The approach will then be activity-centred seeking local-maximum rather than global-optimum. In the case of Pakistan, even the attainment of a local maximum appears like a distant possibility.

The UN attempts to help by advising governments to cooperate in the effort towards the attainment of MDGs. However, the advice is based on an “open trading and financial system” that the UN thinks will facilitate progress and commitment to the MDGs through good governance, development, and poverty reduction. The underlying premise is an opening up of the economies that will enable the attainment of the above goals. This may not necessarily be true if the international trading system already benefits the more developed more than the underdeveloped.

Further opening of trade has been working more in the interest of those who already are ahead in trade. Examples of East Asian countries are cited on the basis of their recent history alone and not fuller history which must be studied to know how these countries first achieved intra-country integration before aiming at integration with the global economy.

The MDG framework lays down the above paradigm that must be followed to achieve the MDGs. This paradigm is neo-liberal that focuses on growth and not on inclusive development. Other goals then fall on the wayside whose importance the MDG framework tries to restore but primarily through the same neo-liberal paradigm that does not place poverty, education, and health at the centre stage.

With national governments believing in the defunct “trickle-down” and the global partnership aiming towards the MDGs through the neo-liberal outlook, these goals appear elusive at this stage.