Global public goods and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)(MDGs)

In this perspective, the MDGs are an ambitious, international initiative. Their attainment calls for the focusing of our efforts and the using of available resources as efficiently as possible. This requires an adequate mix of national goods and global public goods as well as a fair structure of the public domain that offers human development opportunities to all (See Figure 3). However, as previously stated, some global public goods are either severely underprovided or badly provided, with distorted results on the global scene. The under-provision of global public goods is not an abstract problem. The security of states, the prosperity of economies, human development and the health of people and the planet all depend on the effective supply of global public goods. Enhancing the provision of these goods could be a decisive, cost-effective and politically attractive step towards meeting the MDGs.

Global public goods whose provision is critical to the realisation of the MDGs are: preventing the emergence and spread of infectious disease; tackling climate change; establishing international financial stability; developing a fair and just international trading system;

achieving peace and security; and the generation and dissemination of knowledge. Clearly, there is ample scope for reshaping and complementing the present international regimes in order to better align them with the intentions of the MDGs and avoiding a zero-sum game.

Various incentives to initiate corrective action have been proposed.

Global and international inequity has assumed increasingly explosive dimensions. The MDGs themselves are an expression of the fact that the world now realises that the current policy course is in many respects unsustainable and needs correction. This is not only because extreme poverty is perceived as unethical or immoral but because it generates direct externalities such as the risk of failing states, exacerbated political turmoil and conflict, the spread of communicable diseases, or the interruption of commerce and investment flows. Although all nations and many actors would benefit from achieving the MDGs, the problem of freeriding, or at least easyriding, in the needed collective action and their financing is very present. In fact, enhancing the provision of the global public goods could have important redistributive effects and significantly improve economic growth and human development prospects. It certainly would be an important step towards the realisation of the MDGs.

Against this background, the Office of Development Studies has proposed a number of specific policy options to enhance the current

provision status of some global public goods.¹⁹ Among the priority actions to be considered are the following: eliminating agricultural price and trade distortion in industrial countries; creating an independent Advisory Council for efficient knowledge management; streamlining and complementing the current international financial structure;

differentiating systematically between the various international cooperation agendas, devising an efficient and fair international system to address global environment challenges; creating a body within the context of the United Nations to reflect on global trends and to suggest a balancing of global priorities; and strengthening the voice and negotiating capacity of developing countries. Many of the suggested corrective steps are of a regulatory, non-financial type: they would not require high investments; in fact, they would be relatively low-cost. It is said that such a rechannelling of resources might be more politically feasible than a direct transferring of resources.

An examination of the MDGs through the lens of a public goods approach reflects the embeddedness of the goals in the Millennium Declaration. It shows the links between peace, the environment, trade and finance, governance and human development. Ultimately, it is only through policy coherence across these various issue areas, nationally and internationally, that the development aspirations of the international community can be realised: attainment of the MDGs within the context of participatory, sustainable development, as well as peace and security for all. Achieving human development and human security requires both building on and going beyond the MDGs, by undertaking efforts to address the full range of critical and pervasive threats facing people.

Conclusion

This chapter explored the possibilities of applying the widened concept of public goods to human development, human security and human rights. It takes into account the globalising reality and the inherent global challenges. Global policy challenges are growing in current international relations and many domestic policy issues cannot be solved by individual states. This has changed the traditional scope of national sovereignty and requires more international cooperation, multi-level governance mechanisms and new policy tools. We argued that a global public goods approach contributes to a better analysis of global policy challenges, including human development, and may recommend strategies for true global policy-making.

19 Office of Development Studies, Global Public Goods: A Key to Achieving the Millennium Development Goals, New York, October 2003, 19 p.

Global Public Goods and Human Development

153

The expanded definition of public goods (i.e. public goods have a special potential for being public if they have non-excludable benefits, rival benefits or both; goods are de facto public if they are non-exclusive and available for all to consume) recognises the changing context and the new realities caused by increasing globalisation. It was said that the novel nature of many of these goods implies different policy choices and approaches to make the goods private in the sense of being exclusive, or public in the sense of being non-exclusive. These conclusions are even more urgent with the expansion in scope and actors of the international public domain, requiring policy choice and international cooperation in support of global public goods provision. A decision-making and provision process for global public goods should therefore be more participatory and “bottom up” in nature. The typology of global public goods according to the nature of publicness (i.e. global natural commons, global human-made commons and global policy outcomes) illustrates the need for an increasing international cooperation as an integral part of their provision path.

The response of the international community to the rising importance of cross-border issues and activities has so far been rather limited, incomplete and biased. The expanded agenda of international cooperation faces new challenges, which require new policy approaches and additional resources for international cooperation. We distinguished three categories of global public goods provision (i.e. public goods can be overused, underused and undersupplied) and identified three major policy weaknesses in international cooperation that undermine the provision of the redefined concept of global public goods (i.e. a jurisdictional gap, a participation gap and an incentive gap). It was argued that the closing of these policy gaps requires a review of the fundamental principles of policy-making and an approach that recognises that the dividing line between internal and external affairs has become blurred with globalisation. In this perspective, the realisation of the MDGs is an ambitious embedded international initiative, illustrating the interconnection between peace, the environment, trade and finance, governance and human development.

Ultimately, it is only through policy coherence across these various issue areas, nationally and internationally, that human development and the human security of the international community can be efficiently realised.

155

C

8