MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICS & PHILOSOPHY

Eliminating Poverty,
2001-2010
Successes and Failures of the UN Approach
James Porter Campbell
October 2010

Abstract: This report examines the approach of the UN in its ambition of eliminating poverty
as set out in the 2001 “Road map towards the implementation of the United Nations
Millennium Declaration” and 2002 “Monterray Consensus on Financing for Development”
with a specific analysis of the effectiveness of the market approach. It highlights the
contradictions, tensions and fallacies encountered with the application of this approach to the
problem of poverty.
 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

Contents

Executive Summary 3

The United Nations Approach, Defined 5

The United Nations Approach, Evaluated 7

Admirable aims, Inadequate means 9

Doomed to Fail – Conclusion 11

Bibliography 13

James Porter Campbell 2

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

Executive Summary

In 2001 the United Nations stated that it aimed, in partnership with a myriad of

governmental, non-governmental, private and not for profit organizations, to halve by

2015 extreme poverty and hunger as part of its Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs). The approach taken, as laid out in the monterray consensus, is to compel

developing nations to compete in the global market. The approach assumes that global

corporations will be attracted to pro-capitalist domestic policy and invest in the

developing nations that adopt them, unlocking abundant labour capital and raising

living standards.

The indicators that have emerged over the past decade of MDG pursuit reveal an

alarming inequality in the gains made in poverty reduction. Though total global

poverty levels are steadily declining, and are well on track for the 2015 target, this

indicator is heavily distorted by Rapid and anomalous growth in China and other

Asian regions. Much of the developing world has seen little consequence of the

concerted efforts, and even where gains have been demonstrated, they cannot

positively be attributed to the MDGs.

The market approach to eliminating poverty is deeply and fundamentally flawed, as it

is based upon the fallacious premise that abundant un-skilled, low cost mass labour is

a valuable and sustainable resource in a technologically advancing, globalized world.

On the contrary, it is the high tech industries that require small, highly trained labour

forces to manage them that are regarded in the global market. Furthermore, the UN as

a state-centric, bureaucratised and centralised organization is incapable of

James Porter Campbell 3

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

administering and managing an anarchic, decentralized market approach. The

organization itself is inconsistent with the capitalist logic it propagates.

The market model is doomed to fail the majority of developing nations. Because it

disproportionally benefits nations already suited to capitalist activities due to

circumstances beyond any conceivable control, it only serves to exacerbate the

already divided and grossly un-equal global order resulted from the market model as

practiced by the developed world.

James Porter Campbell 4

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

The United Nations Approach, Defined

The UN sets clear goals for eradicating poverty by 2015 in its September 2001 report

of the Secretary General, “Road map towards the implementation of the United

Nations Millennium Declaration”.

Goal 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Target 1. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose

income is less than one dollar a day

Target 2. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who

sssssss suffer from hunger

Millennium Development Goals, reproduced in “Investing in Development, a practical plan to achieve the MDGs”, UN 2005

This goal binds all “member states, task forces, Secretariat and broad array of

participants from academia, government, UN agencies, international financial

institutions, nongovernmental organizations, donor agencies and the private sector

[to create] a worldwide network of development practitioners and experts across an

enormous range of countries, disciplines and organizations”.1

1
United Nations Development Project, Report to the UN Secretary-General, “Investing in
Development, A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals”, Earthscan, London,
2005, preface, para. 1, p. x

James Porter Campbell 5

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

The apparatus through which this “headline commitment” was to be executed were

made clear in the 2002, “monterray consensus on Financing for Development”, which

at its very outset binds the UN goal of poverty eradication with “an all out

commitment to capitalism on a global scale”.2

“Our goal is to eradicate poverty, achieve sustained economic growth and

promote sustainable development as we advance to a fully inclusive and

equitable global economic system”.3

This goal was to be achieved through implementation of “new partnerships between

developed and developing countries, sound policies, good governance at all levels

and the rule of law”.4 The report defines these “sound policies” as “An enabling

domestic environment […] vital for mobilizing domestic resources, increasing

productivity […] encouraging the private sector and attracting and making effective

use of international investment and assistance […] to foster a dynamic and well

functioning business sector while improving income growth and distribution, raising

productivity, empowering women and protecting labour rights and the environment”.5

The UN approach is one of hegemonic regime change, a prescriptive, paternalist set

of demands outlining the conditions through which nations can enable global market

participation – the panacea it sees as curing the affliction of poverty.

2
Cammack, P., “UN Imperialism”, Papers in the Politics of Global Competitiveness, No. 2, December
2006, para. 3, p. 17
3
United Nations, International Conference on Financing for Development, “Monterrey Consensus of
the International Conference on Financing for Development, 2003, para. 1, p. 5
4
Ibid, para. 4, p. 5
5
Ibid, para. 3, p. 7

James Porter Campbell 6

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

The United Nations Approach, Evaluated

Despite an enduring downward trend in global levels of poverty,6 the UN by its own

admission is falling “far short of what is needed” to eradicate poverty by 2015.7

“Unmet commitments, inadequate resources, lack of focus and accountability, and

insufficient dedication to sustainable development have created shortfalls in many

areas”.8

Although total global poverty levels are on

track to meet the 2015 target, there is an

alarming discrepancy demonstrated in the

analysis opposite which reveals a severe

failure in meeting the targets for much of

the developing world. The exponential and

anomalous growth of Asian economies,

particularly China, has heavily distorted the

overall data for “developing regions” –

apparent at the bottom of the graphic.

© United Nations 2010

6
World Bank, “World Development Indicators 2010”, Washington, 2010, p. 5
7
United Nations General Assembly, Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit, “Keeping
the Promise: united to achieve the Millennium Development Goals”, September 2010, para. 1, p. 1
8
United Nations, “The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2010”, New York, 2010, para. 3, p. 4

James Porter Campbell 7

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

In ten years of pursuing the MDGs, gains have been vastly unequal. In spite of

concerted strategies to prioritise the needs of the least developed countries, for much

of the African Continent, Latin America and the Caribbean, the efforts of the UN

have failed to make an impact. Poverty levels have seen a net increase in Western

Asia. Furthermore the World Bank estimates an additional 64 million people plunged

into poverty by the end of 2010 as a result of the global financial crisis, most of whom

will reside in the already destitute areas of Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern and

South-Eastern Asia.9

Moreover, there is doubt that the poverty reduction, in areas it is observed, can be

attributed to the MDGs.10 Much of the reduction in global poverty between 1990 and

2005 has occurred in China and India in the 90’s, before the MDGs came into

existence.11

9
World Bank, “Fiscal Headwinds and Recovery”, Economic Prospects, Vol. 1, Summer 2010
10
Hulme, David and Scott, James, “The Political Economy of the MDGs; Retrospect and Prospect for
the World’s Biggest Promise”, New Political Economy, July 2010, 15: 2, 293-306
11
Ibid, para. 5, p. 298

James Porter Campbell 8

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

Admirable Aims, Inadequate Means

There is no doubt that the concept of eliminating poverty is necessary in any ambition

to realise a fairer, safer and more productive global community as pursued by the UN

and agreed upon by all of its constituent members. In this sense it is a success that

such a universally admirable goal has been set, and that it has become a priority for all

to aspire to it.12 Furthermore, the commitment of affluent nations to the tenet of

poverty eradication has given rise to some grass-roots efforts in these nations that are

pooling an amount of resources and manpower towards the problem of poverty.

However, the very limited and specific apparatus of realizing the UN approach cause

a multiplicity of contradictions, tensions and fallacies.

• Contradiction: The approach of the UN is to encourage and enable global

market participation.

The UN is a state-centric organization, it is comprised of states. The UN

approach, therefore, has to confront the vast differences between and within

countries, their resources, culture and governance. The global market operates in

an inherently state-less system. Thus the ability to do so is compromised by the

global market system that cannot make special dispensation for individual states

or regions, for to do so would undermine Capitalist Logic.

12
Hulme and Scott assert that “the MDGs can potentially be seen as having played an important role
in changing international values through contributing to the emergence of an international norm that
sees global poverty in an affluent world as morally unacceptable”, Ibid, para. 1, p. 1

James Porter Campbell 9

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

• Fallacy: The UN approach is based on the highly simplistic assumption that

populations currently labour-less can by input from the global market become

earners and can profit from those earnings.

It is not fallacious to assume there is abundant un-trained, unemployed labour in

developing countries. It is however fallacious to assume that global corporations

regard un-trained unemployed labour as a major economic resource. What is regarded

is high-tech industry managed by a small number of well trained operatives. There is

no longer a demand for the mass labour, traditional industries.

• Fallacy: The UN approach assumes private business and enterprise is the

engine that can drive growth and eliminate poverty.

This approach takes empirical evidence from the growth of liberal market economies

in Europe during the late 19th and 20th centuries that saw vast increases in life

expectancy, education participation and those in paid employment. What is not

considered in the approach is that throughout the last century it is such a system that

has caused much of the poverty the UN now seeks to eradicate. Capitalism is not a

fair, balanced and ordered system; it is one of exploitation, resource depletion and

social inequality.

James Porter Campbell 10

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

Doomed to fail – conclusion

The UN approach to the ambition to eliminate poverty is bound to fail as its main

thrust is dependent upon the global market. The application of current economic

theory to the problem of poverty is deeply flawed. The capitalist system has “failed to

provide an adequate model for the developed world”, its implementation in the

developing results in devastating social, political and environmental consequences.13

In pursuit of a pure market economy over the last century, the effects of capitalist

policy have led to the problems the world is faced with today; an ever-increasing gap

between the worlds’ richest and poorest, and a global value system based upon this

inequality and division. The pure market economic model disproportionally benefits

market ripe economies, those whose cultural, political and topographical situations

lend themselves favourably to market inclusion. The model cannot help nations with

the most severe limitations on market development – it cannot address debilitating

environmental factors such as desertification and chronic water shortages, or

incorporate cultural customs and traditions such as nomadic lifestyles in which capital

accumulation is impossible. Indeed in such a model these latter nations are entirely

excluded and fall deeper into the poverty cycle, while the former enjoy rapid growth –

increasing the poverty gap and further entrenching the divisions that impede third

world inclusion.

This model can explain, rather simplistically, why China – a nation that has

longstanding traditions of trade with the west, and an ancient history of strong,

13
Porter, J. F., Reschooling and the Global Future, Ch. 2, p. 27, Symposium, Oxford, 1999

James Porter Campbell 11

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

imperialist governance - has grown exponentially, and why Africa - a region

historically invaded, pillaged and exploited – remains in a state of abject poverty.

Furthermore the differences of living standards and opportunity within nations are

vast and increasing. The growth of the globalized market model has resulted in the

surrendering of the responsibilities of regional or national ruling elites.14 However the

centralized bureaucracy of the UN is unable to address this critical complexity. The

increasingly anarchic globalized market distributes capital in an unorganized,

decentralized and inconsistent fashion, the UN is too far removed from national

intricacies to ensure an even distribution of wealth – thus the wealth inequalities

remain.

The UN approach relies on the future employment of currently un-employed labour to

distribute wealth within developing economies. The Third Industrial Revolution,

while creating growth, has led to a “downsizing” of the economic modes.

Technological advancements are increasing productivity whilst reducing the number

of workers required. A system wholly reliant on mass employment funded by the

global market will never succeed in a future of automated, mechanised and networked

means of production in which the function of human labour as a profitable economic

resource will become increasingly obsolete.15

14
Ibid, p. 33
15
Ibid, p. 56

James Porter Campbell 12

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

Bibliography

Primary UN Documents:

United Nations, “The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2010”, New

York, 2010

United Nations Development Project, Report to the UN Secretary-General,

“Investing in Development, A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium

Development Goals”, Earthscan, London, 2005

United Nations, International Conference on Financing for Development,

“Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for

Development, 2003

United Nations General Assembly, Follow-up to the outcome of the

Millennium Summit, “Keeping the Promise: united to achieve the Millennium

Development Goals”, September 2010

James Porter Campbell 13

 Eliminating Poverty, 2001-2010 – Successes and Failures of the U.N Approach

Secondary documents, reports, articles and books:

Cammack, P., “UN Imperialism”, Papers in the Politics of Global

Competitiveness, No. 2, December 2006

Hulme, David and Scott, James, “The Political Economy of the MDGs;

Retrospect and Prospect for the World’s Biggest Promise”, New Political

Economy, July 2010, 15: 2, 293-306

Porter, J. F., Reschooling and the Global Future, Symposium, Oxford, 1999

World Bank, “Fiscal Headwinds and Recovery”, Economic Prospects, Vol. 1,

Summer 2010

World Bank, “World Development Indicators 2010”, Washington, 2010

James Porter Campbell 14