How to engineer a “data revolution”? The OECD’s view on post-2015 goals monitoring

This post, written by the OECD’s Charlotte Demuijnck, provides an overview of the OECD’s input on target measurements in the post-2015 development framework and agenda. The OECD paper Strengthening National Statistical Systems to Monitor Global Goals on post-2015 goals monitoring is the fifth thematic paper in a series which outlines the Organisation’s position on the global debate in the lead up to the UN 68th General Assembly which begins on Tuesday, 17 September 2013. This post is part of the Wikiprogress Post-2015 series.

The paper is the fifth in a series of OECD’s contributions to the post-2015 agenda. It proposes steps needed for efficient tracking of the post-2015 development goals. Despite the positive impact the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) process has had on the production and availability of data, as well as on the development of national statistical capacity, the paper highlights the need to agree on a better statistical strategy to overcome the remaining challenges for post-2015 monitoring.

As emphasised in the paper, the MDG process has significantly helped at improving national statistical capacities. Countries have risen to the challenge of delivering high quality, internationally comparable data, mainly using household surveys. As the paper states: “the average number of surveys produced each year in Ethiopia and Ghana almost doubled since 2000”. In addition to domestic funds, development co-operation was a significant driving force in this improvement. Ghana, for example, relies entirely on external support for data production.

However, some issues remain for proper tracking of the post-2015 agenda such as gaps in the data collection and analysis, as well as the exclusion and under-utilisation of national data in the MDG monitoring process. Apart from household surveys, other sources of MDG monitoring have not been sufficiently developed.As a matter of fact, only 6% of Sub-Saharan countries have complete civil registration systems and about 250 million people are missing from existing surveys. According to the authors, inadequate and under-investment in assistance for data production explains the gaps in MDG data. Another issue is that of the exclusion of national data from the global monitoring exercise leading to huge discrepancies between UN-reported data and national estimates. This has become more problematic as Murray*, among others, has questioned the validity of UN estimates and methodologies. The paper explains that the under-use of national data is due to non-compliance with international standards and poor co-ordination. To solve this issue, “better alignment of national and international efforts to strengthen statistical capacity” is recommended. In this regard, prior consultation and nationally-defined indicators should drive the post-2015 monitoring process.

 A quote from the PARIS21 webpage

Acknowledging the call for a “data revolution” by the High Level panel (HLP) of Eminent Persons onthe post-2015 development goals, the paper emphasises the OECD’s expertise and experience in creating a global statistical strategy and partnership. Indeed, the OECD, and more specifically, the Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century (PARIS21) offers a ready-made structure on  which to found this global statistical strategy. PARIS21 was mandated to act as the Secretariat for the implementation of the Busan Action Plan for Statistics (BAPS) in 2013, a global initiative to support National Strategies for the Development of Statistics (NSDSs). Several recommendations are given to support the “data revolution”. First, the post-2015 statistical strategy should include more data sources such as the use of mobile technology, social media etc. It should also aim at developing national statistical capacity for more reliable and relevant data in the monitoring process. In this regard, the BAPS represents “an explicit and high-level political commitment” to prioritise national statistics development. Finally, the HLP also recommends the creation of a Global Partnership on Development Data for which, according to the paper, “the logical starting point” would be PARIS21 - as the only international initiative for inclusive data co-operation.

For more information on the side event: http://www.paris21.org/node/1593

In conclusion, the post-2015 agenda needs to rely on existing initiatives and framework for an effective “data revolution” and global goals monitoring. To that end, the paper supports the OECD’s position as the Best Supporting Actor in the global development debate, with its highly valuable expertise and experience.  

- Charlotte Demuijnck

*Murray, C.J. (2007), “Towards good practice for health statistics: Lessons from the Millennium Development Goals health indicators,” The Lancet, 3/369, pp. 862-873.

The Power of Numbers

This blog by Charlotte Demuijnck, provides an overview of the presentation by Mrs. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr on the Power of Numbers Project at the OECD,  June 2013. This post is part of the Wikiprogress Post-2015 Series.

“Before defining a new development agenda, we should fully understand and assess the MDGs’ intended and unintended impact on international development,” explained Mrs. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr[1]. The professor’s intervention at the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD) centered on the Power of Numbers Project, which focuses on broad lessons from pre-2015 global goal-setting and its positive, but also perverse, consequences. The project  looks at 11 of the current MDG targets to explore the effects they had on policy and development thinking (the 11 case studies and the full synthesis paper are available online here.

Introducing the conceptual base of her argument, Mrs. Fukuda-Parr shows that “numbers have power”, due to their scientific concreteness,  Indeed, quantified targets impact governance and knowledge; they give incentives for policy makers to focus and move in a specific direction and self-regulate according to numbers and rankings. What’s more is that “quantified goals shape ideas.” They simplify and reduce complex and contextually-specific concepts, such as poverty and gender inequality, to abstract and universally applicable measurements. 

She described her research project as an “empirical study of consequences of MDG targets on policy and idea change.” More specifically, the 11 case studies look at the indicators’ normative effects on discourses, narratives and policy choices, as well as the alternative indicators that could have been used.  Her research findings include the intended and unintended consequences of MDGs and the global quest for quantified results.

The intended effect was to mobilise political support; however, not all goals brought about this result. Unintended consequences concern both policy and knowledge in international development. MDGs had the reductionist effect of “selling human development as a package of basic needs away from the fundamental objectives of transformative social change and empowerment.” 

The confusion around the purpose of these goals (campaign slogans versus global development strategies) is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed in the post-2015 debate, because it implies conceptual differences between the goals. In particular, the “SMART” goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound) of the High Level Panel report on the Post-2015 Development Agenda are not sufficient if future goals are aimed at “development programming.” Different criteria should apply to different goals, depending on the objective itself. As such, goals should not only be quantitative and outcomes-driven, but should also be qualitative and tackle institutional arrangements. 

Related to the perceived need for “measurable” targets, other challenges mentioned for future objectives were the bias of defining goals based on data availability. The professor argued that “statistical availability should be driven by policy, and not the other way around.” In this respect, she welcomes both the HLP’s call for a “data revolution” and PARIS21’s efforts to build national statistical capacity. 

Concluding her oral presentation, she stressed the necessity of fairness in measuring the achievements of countries. The future goals need to be global as well as local. The oversimplified “off-track/on-track” distinction between countries prevents the international community to see the strong progress sub-Saharan countries have made towards the realisation of the MDGs. 

All in all, her work closely links to that of the OECD. Since October 2012, the Organisation began openly communicating ways that it could become involved in the post-2015 debate (which can be followed here). Dr. Hildegard Lingnau, the OECD’s representative for post-2015 welcomes a two-level approach and stresses the need to take national poverty lines into account in the Post-2015 framework. The OECD’s contribution to the global debate on the future goals is being published in a series of papers. An Overview paper has already been published and can be read here. 

For more information on the Power of Numbers project, click here. 

---

[1] Mrs. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr is a professor of International Affairs (GPIA) at the New School University, New York. From 1995 to 2004, Mrs Fukuda-Parr  was the author and director of the UNDP Human Development Reports.  Previously, she worked at the World Bank and UNDP on agriculture, aid coordination in Africa and capacity development.