The world as a whole has made significant progress in achieving many of the MDGs. Worldwide, between 1990 and 2002, average income increased by approximately 21% and the number of people in extreme poverty declined by an estimated 130 million. Also during this time, child mortality rates fell from 103 deaths to 88 deaths per 1,000 live births a year; life expectancy rose from 63 years to nearly 65 years; an additional 8% of people in the developing world gained access to water; and an additional 15% of people in the developing world acquired access to improved sanitation services (Millennium Development Goals Report 2009). 

However, this progress has been far from uniform between regions and between the goals themselves.  Sub-Saharan Africa is the region at greatest risk of failing to achieve the goals, suffering from continued food insecurity, a rise in extreme poverty, high child and maternal mortality, and large populations of slum dwellers (Easterly, “How the Millennium Development Goals are Unfair to Africa.").
The MDGs were created to serve as a major motivation to increase development efforts in and on behalf of poor countries. The increases in publicity and aid that have been observed since the advent of the MDGs suggest that they are achieving this purpose. However, a less emphasized angle of the MDGs is that they are also measures of performance. In this way, the MDG campaign has emphasized the failure of sub-Saharan Africa compared to other regions. Many of those involved in MDG effort agree that sub-Saharan Africa stands out as being the only region that will fail to meet any of the goals at all (Easterly). 

Monitoring and evaluation data highlights Africa’s shortcomings. In terms of goal 2 (achieving universal primary education), sub-Saharan Africa still has 38 million children who are not enrolled in school and has one of the largest gender gaps in primary enrolment of any region.In terms of reducing child mortality (goal 4), sub-Saharan Africa continues to account for approximately half the deaths of children under five in the developing world. Between 1990 and 2006, 27 countries, the vast majority of which are in sub-Saharan Africa, failed to make any progress at all in terms of reducing childhood deaths.In terms of improving maternal health (goal 5), in sub-Saharan Africa, a woman’s risk of dying from complications of pregnancy and childbirth over the course of her lifetime is 1 in 22, compared to 1 in 7,300 in developed regions (UNDP, "Are we on track to meet the MDGs?").

Impact of the economic crisis. The repercussions of the economic crisis on the efforts towards achieving the MDGs are yet to be felt in their entirety, and these effects will throw African countries further off course than they already are.  Not only haseconomic hardship pushed tens of millions of people into vulnerable employment and increased the number who earn less than $1.25/day, but it has also created sluggish or even negative economic growth, diminished resources, fewer trade opportunities for the developing countries, and possibly reductions in aid flows from donor nations (Millennium Development Goals Report, 2009). 

Controversy over the MDGs
Controversy over the Millennium Development Goals centers on the issues of the interpretation of the purpose of the goals, the feasibility of achieving the goals, and the fairness of specific objectives, especially for developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa. 

Purpose. There is a debate concerning how the fundamental purpose of the MDGs should be interpreted. The main argument is between interpreting the goals and objectives as targets for development rather than tools for development. A literal interpretation of the MDGs accepts them as real targets, while a more figurative view looks at the goals as the kinds of outcomes towards which the world should strive. Regardless of one’s interpretation, it is clear that the MDGs have served generate discussion, focus attention, and help assign accountability in the fight to end poverty. 

Feasibility/Practicality. Many critics find fault with the extremely high bar set by the MDGs for some countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa. The goals are asking many countries to perform “at the top end of the historical experience”  (Clemens & Moss, “What’s Wrong with the Millennium Development Goals?”). For example, in order to meet goal 1 to halve poverty by 2015, countries in Africa would have to grow at a rate of 7%; only seven out of 153 countries for which we have data have achieved this in the past 15 years, and of those only two were in Africa (Botswana and Equatorial Guinea). For goal 2 (to achieve universal primary education), most African countries are starting from a level at which they must achieve in 15 years what it took some developed countries a century to complete. If at least 20 African countries have primary school enrollment of 70% or less, to reach 100% by 2015 would be enormously ambitious. If the goal for reducing child mortality by two-thirds (goal 4) had been set in 1975, only one country in the world, Indonesia, would have achieved it (Clemens & Moss). While the intentions behind the creation of such lofty goals were undoubtedly good, they are not realistic for all countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. Depending on one’s interpretations of the purpose of the MDGs, these high targets can actually serve to set a country up for failure from the very beginning.

Fairness. It is already widely agreed upon that the vast majority of developing countries will miss most of the MDG targets in 2015. Almost every African country will miss all of the goals (Easterly). However, this should not be interpreted as a sign that poor countries have failed or that aid has been insufficient or wasted. Neither African inaction nor a lack of aid will necessarily be the reason that the MDGs are not achieved, but rather the overly ambitious goals themselves. 

Consequences of Failure
Sub-Saharan Africa’s likely failure to meet the MDGs will undoubtedly have ramifications in the development community. One possible effect is that development stakeholders will become demoralized at sub-Saharan Africa’s failure and that this sentiment will weaken long-term commitment to and engagement with the developing world. Another possible outcome is that failures will be turned into a message that more development aid is needed to accomplish these goals. A llack of progress may be used to demand more aid and may shift attention away from the deep economic, structural and governmental problems that increases in aid have a poor record of “fixing” (Clemens & Moss). 

The Future: Setting Goals for Development in Africa
The MDGs have shown us that good intentions can create goals that may be unrealistic for all settings, especially sub-Saharan Africa. The actual gains achieved in sub-Saharan Africa risk being labeled as failures because they will be held to historically high expectations. After the MDGs, there will once again be an opportunity to form a new and improved framework that will guide the world for the next decade or more. At this critical moment we must ask ourselves whether these goals are really achievable and whether they place too much emphasis on development aid at the expense of more fundamental changes.  We should base this next set of goals on where countries really stand in the year 2015 and emphasize the creation of ambitious but achievable expectations. Most importantly, in evaluating the MDG process in 2015, we must not only focus on sub-Saharan Africa’s failures, but also on which interventions have shown success, what achievements have been made, and what we can do better in the future; we must do this without unfairly castigating a region that started this process with the greatest number of systematic and historical challenges and injustices.
104 Comments