Halving the world's hunger and poverty Since the second half of the twentieth century the economic differences between rich and poor states have been increasing. In fact, consequences of economic globalization produce several benefits for the wealthiest states; this is, however, not the case for developing countries (Weiss, Forsythe, Coate & Pease 2007, 323). Not only do poverty and hunger remain widespread in the Third World, but with the encouragement of neo-liberal economic policies in the 1980s and 1990s, inequalities in states like China and India have been growing (Baylis, Smith & Owens 2008, 470). Former United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who reflected on this problem at the Millennium Assembly in 2000, stated that "the benefits of globalization are plain to see: faster economic growth, higher living standard, accelerated innovation and diffusion of technology and management skills, new economic opportunities for individuals and countries alike1." These benefits and opportunities, however, remain "highly concentrated among a relatively small number of countries and are spread unevenly within them2," causing in some regions of the world rapid economic growth, whereas in other regions an increase in poverty, inequality and human insecurity. It is with the acceptance of the UN Millennium Declaration in 20003 that a largely consensual strategy was formulated, dealing with the negative effects of globalization. In this declaration several Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were officially established, focusing on eight areas to achieve gender equality and universal primary education, to ensure environmental sustainability, to eradicate poverty and hunger, to reduce child mortality and to improve health conditions. These MDGs were divided into eighteen measurable objectives with a specific time limit to monitor progress for every individual state. Although the UN has been incorporating the MDGs within their policy on state level (Weiss et al. 2007, 327-329), the progress on accomplishing the goals has been spread very unequally between states. What is most striking is the reason why some parts of the world cannot achieve their targets. One of the targets of the first MDG, the elimination of extreme poverty and hunger, is to halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who are suffering from hunger in all member states. Despite the fact that several states have already met their targets before 2015, the overall number of people who suffer from hunger increased to 852 million in 2002 after a strong reduction in the 1990s (FAO 2007, 130-131). Furthermore, some regions like East Asia and Central Africa experienced an increase in the number of undernourished people between 1990 and 2003 (FAO 2007, 130-134). These regions also fail to achieve the other target of the fist MDG, halving, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1.25 a day (Weiss et al. 2007, 330). It is with strong economic growth in states like China and India, which are states with a large proportion of malnourished and poor people, that the target will statistically be met. Although extreme poverty and hunger is in decline, its reduction is not distributed evenly. According to Easterly (2009) the MDGs have treated Africa unjustly. When targets are formulated in specific ways some regions are given an advantage over other regions, by choosing, for example, relative change over absolute change (Easterly 2009, 27). The poverty MDG is defined by reducing the proportion of people instead of reducing the absolute number of people. If Latin America reduced the poverty rate from 12% to 6%, this would be preferred above a change from 58% to 40% in sub-Saharan Africa, although the absolute change is much more significant (Easterly 2009, 28). It is for this reason that it seems that Africa is not improving while some governments have accomplished a lot over the years. By defining success and failures as numerical achievements, it is less likely that Africa will meet their targets in 2015. Another reason for Africa being disadvantaged in comparison with other regions is that extreme poverty is measured by determining the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day. By using an absolute poverty line, improvements will only be measured if an individual from below the line moves above the absolute poverty line. This method of measurement disregards improvements of those who still remain below the line, meaning that the improvement of a person whose income increases from 5 cents a day to a dollar a day will not be taken into consideration, even though this is a major improvement (Easterly 2009, 27). Moreover, proportional reduction does not acknowledge that growth elasticity of poverty4 is very low for states with a low initial per capita income. Put more simply, more growth of income will be necessary for an undeveloped state to reduce the proportion of people in poverty than it would be for a more developed state (Easterly 2009, 28). According to figure 1, when the income distribution of a lower income state shifted to the right after economic growth, the part below the absolute poverty line does not decline very much in comparison with the proportional reduction of a middle income state. It is sub-Saharan Africa that has a disadvantage in accomplishing the reduction of the proportion of people in poverty, having the lowest per capita income (Clemens, Kenny & Moss 2007, 739). Therefore Africa requires higher economic growth than other parts of the world to compensate for its lower growth elasticity of poverty (Clemens et al. 2007, 739; Easterly 2009, 28-29). Not only disadvantages caused by measurement methods have made it almost impossible to achieve the first MDG, but the required economic growth to achieve the poverty MDG is extremely high. Achieving economic growth is a way to rapidly increase personal income (Clemens et al. 2007, 739). The World Bank (2004) estimated that the economy of African states will need to grow at least 7% for the next fifteen years to reach their MDGs. However, only two states, Botswana and Equatorial Guinea, have reached an economic growth of 7% for the past fifteen years and, in fact, most of the African states have seen negative economic growth (Clemens et al. 2007, 739). Furthermore, only five states worldwide have managed to sustain a 7% growth average (Clemens et al. 2007, 739). Considering the above notions, it is very unlikely that most of the states in sub-Saharan Africa, will reach their MDGs. The specific character of the MDGs has set up most states of Africa for unavoidable failures. Although some governments have accomplished a lot over the years, the notion of failure will probably discourage those governments to pursue their policies. Although it is very likely that the poverty target will be reached on a global scale due to states with fast-growing economies like China and India, most of the states, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, probably will not reach their targets, although much has improved. Literature Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2008). The Globalization of World Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Easterly, W. (2009). How the Millennium Development Goals are Unfair to Africa. World Development, 37(1), 26-35. FAO (2007). The State of Food and Agriculture 2007. Rome. Weiss, T.G., Forsythe, D.P., Coate, R.A., & Pease K. (2007). The United Nations and Changing World Politics. Boulder: The Perseus Books Group. World Bank, (2004). Strategic framework for assistance to Africa: IDA and the emerging partnership model. Washington DC: World Bank. Clemens, M.A., Kenny, C.J., & Moss, T.J. (2007). The Trouble with the MDGs: Confronting Expectations of Aid and Development Success. World Development, 35, 5, 735-751. Figure 1. Nonlinear effects of growth on poverty (Easterly 2009, 28). 1 UN Document A/54/2000, March 27, 2000, 5. 2 UN Document A/54/2000, March 27, 2000, 5. 3 UN Document A/RES/55/2, September 18, 2000. 4 The proportional reduction in poverty related to a proportional change in mean per capita income.